Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery 

Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem 

Plans 

Prepared by: 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Pacific Islands Region

September 24, 2009 

WESTERN 

PACIFIC 

REGIONAL 

FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT 

COUNCIL 
 

Cover: All photos by Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

(WPRFMC), unless otherwise noted. 

Center: Guam Net Fisherman. 

Top Left: Umatac Bay, Guam. 

Top Right: Start of the 2003 Hawaii International Billfish Tournament. 

Center Right: American Samoa. 

Bottom Right: Hana, Maui community fish sharing. 

Bottom Left: School of yellowfin tuna. (Photo: OAR/National Undersea Research 

Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.) 

Center Left: Map of Western Pacific Region - highlight shows areas managed by the 

WPFMC. 
Dear Reviewer: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic end Atmoapherlc Admlnletratlon 

P R OGRAM PLANNING AND INTEGRATION 

Sliver Spr ing, M a ryland 208 1 0 

OCT 2 2009 

In accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we 

enclose for your review, a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) 

entitled, "Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From SpeciesBased Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans," dated 

September 24, 2009. 

This FPEIS was prepared by the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

(Council) in coordination with NMFS in accordance with NEPA. It describes and 

evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a proposal and alternatives for the 

establishment of an institutional framework that would facilitate a shift of fisheries 

management in the Western Pacific Region from species-based management toward 

ecosystem-based management. The Council has recommended that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement the following proposed federal actions: Alternative 

lD, approve and implement four place-based demersal and one pelagic Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans (FEPs); and Alternative 2B, approve and implement modifications to 

the management unit species (MUS) for the FEPs. 

Implementing these alternatives would authorize the Council to shift the fisheries 

management framework in the Western Pacific Region to a place-based ecosystem 

approach. The approval and implementation of the five place-based FEPs including a 

Pelagic FEP for the Western Pacific Region would initially be made without substantive 

changes to current fishing regulations, other than a reorganization. Under the preferred 

Alternative 2B, fishery MUS to be managed within the FEPs would be defined as "those 

current management unit species that are known to be present within each FEP 

boundary." This would not result in a substantial change to the FEP MUS. 

This revised fishery management framework was developed to enable fishermen, natural 

resource managers, scientists, and other interested parties to gain a greater understanding 

of ecosystem structures and functions, and provide for more effective and efficient 

protection and management of the nation's fishery resources and marine ecosystems. 

The ecosystem framework is intended to simplify the development and implementation 

of future conservation and management measures for marine ecosystems and fisheries. 

There are a number of fisheries that are currently operating under the species-based 

fishery management plans, and this shift would be done in a manner that is 

understandable to fishery participants and with minimal regulatory burden to the 

participants. 

The impact analysis showed that the proposed reorganization is largely an administrative 

action as there would be no new fishery management measures implemented under the 

proposed action or the alternatives. The move to reorganize fishery management plans 

into fishery ecosystem plans is not expected to result in adverse impacts on the human 

@ Printed on Recycled Paper 
environment or on the fisheries of the Western Pacific Region under any of the 

alternatives. Over the long-term, it is expected that ecosystem management of fisheries 

would result in an enhanced understanding of multiple factors that affect fisheries, 

provide an enhanced means of coordination among and within interested agencies and 

participants, and therefore, is expected to have positive effects by providing for long term 

sustainability of the fishery resources of the Western Pacific Region. 

Additional copies of the FPEIS may be obtained from the Responsible Program Official 

identified below. A digital copy of the FPEIS document is available electronically 

through the websites of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council at 

www.wpcouncil.org and NOAA's NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office at 

www.fpir.noaa.gov . 

NOAA is not required to respond to comments received during the agency's 30 day 

comment period as a result of the issuance of the FPEIS. However, comments received 

by November 30, 2009, will be reviewed and considered for their impact on the issuance 

of a record of decision (ROD). Please send comments to the responsible official 

identified below. 

Responsible Program Official: 

Enclosure 

William L. Robinson 

Regional Administrator 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814-4700 

Telephone: (808) 944-2200 Fax: (808) 973-2941 

~ aul N. Doremu , Ph.D. 

0 - NOAA NEPA Coordinator 
 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From SpeciesBased Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

September 24, 2009 

Responsible Agency: 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Pacific Islands Region 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814-4700 

Responsible Council: 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

 Council 

1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Contact: 

William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator

Contact: 

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Plans: Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Coral 

Reef Ecosystems, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Pelagics. Proposed replacement Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) are separate documents attached as Appendix G.

Abstract: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are proposing to replace the existing species-based 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) with geographic, or place-based, Fishery Ecosystem 

Plans (FEPs) for fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. The FEPs would encompass 

demersal fishery management for four archipelagic areas: American Samoa, the Mariana 

Archipelago (including Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), 

Hawaii, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas. A fifth FEP would encompass pelagic 

fisheries of all areas. Alternatives to the proposed action and potential environmental 

impacts are disclosed in this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(FPEIS). Alternatives considering which species will be included as Management Unit 

Species (MUS) in the FEPs are also evaluated. The FPEIS discusses impacts on target 

and non-target stocks including bottomfish, precious corals, coral reef ecosystem species, 

and crustaceans; Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern; 

protected species; fishery participants and communities; and administration and 

enforcement. None of the alternatives or the actions considered, as part of the 

alternatives, would change existing fisheries, or impact continuing activities under the 

respective FEPs. All of the current fisheries in the Western Pacific Region that are 

covered by the management measures of the FEPs have been reviewed for compliance 

with applicable laws. None of the actions considered would result in irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources and none would result in significant or 

unavoidable adverse impacts. 
 v 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From 

Species-Based Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On December 20, 2005, at its 130th meeting, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council (Council or WPRFMC) recommended the final action of a shift in 

fishery management for the Western Pacific Region from a species-based approach to an 

ecosystem-focused, place-based approach. This recommendation stemmed from an 

increasing awareness that fisheries should be managed within a geographic, or placebased1

, structure rather than one that regulates fisheries by species. However, ecosystem 

approaches to fisheries management are in their developmental stages and the proposed 

shift in management structure would accordingly be an incremental first step towards the 

long-term goal of place-based marine ecosystem conservation and management. It is 

anticipated that future management actions would utilize and build on information 

acquired as a result of shifting to a place-based approach. 

The proposed action in this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(FPEIS) is the approval and implementation of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) by the 

Secretary of Commerce for federally managed fisheries that operate in the Western 

Pacific Region. The action considered here replaces the existing Fishery Management 

Plans (FMPs) with FEPs and establishes the institutional framework for future 

ecosystem-based fishery management actions. These FEPs are ecosystem-based fishery 

management plans subject to review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce 

pursuant to Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA). 

This FPEIS analyzes the impacts on the human environment of replacing the existing 

FMPs with FEPs for the Western Pacific Region (American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, 

Hawaii, the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas or PRIA2

, and Pelagics). A previous Draft 

PEIS (DPEIS) dated October 27, 2005, was circulated for public review from November 

10, 2005 to December 26, 2005 (70 FR 68443; November 10, 2005). After considering 

comments on the 2005 draft, WPRFMC and NMFS decided to expand the scope of the 

Programmatic EIS to include analyses of impacts related specifically to the approval and 

implementation of fishery ecosystems plans in the Western Pacific Region. A second 

 

1

 The terms “geographic” and “place-based” are used interchangeably throughout this document. 2

In its usual usage, the term “U.S. PRIA” refers to the U.S. insular possessions including Howland, Baker, 

and Jarvis Islands; Johnston Atoll; Kingman Reef; Wake Island; Palmyra Atoll; and Midway Island. 

However, because Midway is located in the Hawaiian Archipelago, it would not be part of the PRIA 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan. 
 vi 

Draft PEIS dated March 30, 2007, together with draft FEPs, was distributed for public 

review from April 13 to May 29, 2007 (72 FR 18644; April 13, 2007). 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to establish an institutional framework that would 

facilitate a shift to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Western Pacific 

Region. This would be accomplished through the approval and implementation of placebased FEPs, without any substantive changes to current fishing regulations. This shift 

would enable increased understanding and protection of ecosystem structures and 

functions and is needed to provide the management framework that would simplify the 

development and implementation of future conservation and management measures for 

marine ecosystems and their fishery resources. Because there are currently a number of 

fisheries operating under the existing species-based fishery management plans, this shift 

should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery participants and with 

minimal regulatory burden. 

The proposed Federal action consists of the following components: 

Component 1: The implementation of one or more place-based fishery ecosystem 

plans that delineate specific boundaries and support a shift to an ecosystem approach 

to fisheries management in the Western Pacific Region. The new fishery ecosystem 

plan or plans would replace existing species-based fishery management plans. 

Included in Component 1 is the associated reorganization of existing species-based 

FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations. 

Component 2: The designation of appropriate management unit species (MUS) to be 

managed under each FEP. 

Three additional administrative components related to the Council’s advisory structure 

role in regional coordination and international management and research are discussed in 

this document in order to assist the Council in determining its optimal organizational 

structure and procedures commensurate with a shift to ecosystem management. These 

components are not considered Federal actions. 

Alternatives 

Components 1 and 2 are regulatory in nature and are considered the Federal action in this 

document. Components 3, 4, and 5 are nonregulatory (i.e., they have no regulatory 

effect), and their consideration is included to assist the Council in identifying an 

appropriate advisory structure and coordination activities under an ecosystem-based 

fishery management structure. Component 2 is contingent upon selecting one of the 

action alternatives under Component 1. The following table provides a brief description 

of the alternatives considered in detail for each component. 
 vii 

Table ES-1: Alternatives considered in detail. 

Alternative Description 

Component 1: (Federal 

Regulatory Action) 

Replace FMPs with FEPs. Included in Component 1 for 

Alternatives 1B through 1E is the associated reorganization of 

existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP 

regulations.

Alternative 1A – No Action Do not approve or implement FEPs; Do not replace FMPs with 

FEPs 

Alternative 1B For one area only, approve and implement an FEP, which will 

replace existing FMPs 

Alternative 1C Approve and implement FEPs that include EEZ waters around 

each archipelagic area (American Samoa, Hawaii, Mariana 

Islands, PRIA), these FEPs will replace existing FMPs; Retain 

the Pelagics FMP for the domestic pelagic fisheries operating 

on the surrounding high seas 

Alternative 1D - Preferred Approve and implement four demersal FEPs and one Pelagic 

FEP, which will replace existing FMPs 

Alternative 1E Approve and implement FEPs for each biogeographic and 

pelagic zones, which will replace existing FMPs 

Component 2: (Federal 

Regulatory Action) 

List of Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Alternative 2A – No Action Do not change the current MUS lists 

Alternative 2B - Preferred Define FEP MUS as those current MUS that are known3 to be 

present within each FEP boundary 

Alternative 2C Define FEP MUS as those current MUS known to occur within 

the boundaries of the FEP, plus incidentally caught and 

associated species that are known to occur within each FEP 

boundary 

Alternative 2D Define FEP MUS as those current MUS believed4 to 

potentially occur, plus incidentally caught and associated 

species believed to potentially occur within each FEP boundary

 

3

 For the purpose of this EIS, known is used as a species generally recognized as being established within a 

particular ecosystem. 4

 For the purpose of this EIS, believed is used as an opinion that a species exists within a particular 

ecosystem or a similar ecosystem of the western Pacific region, especially when there is no absolute 

proof of its existence or reality. 
 viii 

Table ES-1 (continued) 

Alternative: Description 

Component 3: (Council 

Action) 

Council Advisory Structure 

Alternative 3A - No Action Do not change the current advisory structure 

Alternative 3B Add a single FEP Plan Team to the current advisory structure 

Alternative 3C Replace the current FMP advisory panels, plan teams, and five 

standing committees with FEP advisory panels, FEP plan 

teams, and FEP standing committees 

Alternative 3D - Preferred Replace the current FMP advisory panels, plan teams, and 

five standing committees with FEP advisory panels, FEP 

standing committees, and two FEP plan teams 

Component 4: (Council 

Action) 

Regional Coordination 

Alternative 4A - No Action Do not establish Ocean Council type groups 

Alternative 4B - Preferred Establish Regional Ecosystem Advisory Council Committees 

Alternative 4C Participate in and support existing Ocean Council type groups 

Alternative 4D Establish independent Regional Ecosystem Councils 

Component 5: (Council 

Action) 

International Coordination 

Alternative 5A - No Action Continue to participate in international fisheries management 

fora and international workshops 

Alternative 5B - Preferred Increase participation in international fisheries management 

fora and establish meetings/workshops with neighboring 

nations of island areas of the Western Pacific Region 

Alternative 5C Do not participate in international management fora 

In general, each component's alternatives range from no action or status quo to the 

implementation of a detailed and specific approach to the component at hand. 

Alternatives selected as “preferred” by the Council are identified for each component. 

Several alternatives were also considered but regarded as unreasonable and were 

therefore eliminated from detailed study. 
 ix 

Reasons the Council Recommends the Preferred Alternatives 

The U.S. Pacific island-based pelagic fisheries and the four demersal fisheries 

(bottomfish, crustaceans, precious corals and coral reef resources) are currently managed 

under FMPs. Whereas the 1996 Sustainable Fishery Act amendments to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) require considerations of 

fishery impacts on other species not managed under FMPs (e.g., bycatch reduction), there 

are several limitations of the current management framework (i.e., species-based FMPs) 

that appear to constrain the Council in recommending conservation for a wider range of 

marine resources as well as protecting marine ecosystems. 

Current stock assessments generally do not explicitly recognize the significant natural 

variability in marine resources and habitats, although some models do incorporate spatial 

and temporal environmental effects. Under place-based FEPs, stock assessments will 

increasingly and explicitly separate environmentally-driven resource variability (e.g., 

inter-annual, decadal, long-term ocean regime shifts) from fishery-driven and habitatdriven effects on target stocks and other components of ecosystems, thus improving 

fishery science and management. 

In addition, the majority of current monitoring under FMPs accounts for major resource 

removals by fishing, but not by other sources such as coastal development, which has 

destroyed or severely degraded inshore fish habitat and associated stocks around the more 

heavily populated islands of the U.S. Pacific. Through regional coordination efforts under 

place-based FEPs, all sources of resource removal or degradation would be considered, 

including those related to shoreline modification, waste discharge, watershed erosion, 

storm runoff, and other terrestrial activities. FEP-based monitoring would ultimately 

include ecosystem indicators and models that take into account non-fishing uses, their 

impacts on resources, and tradeoffs among different user groups who depend on the same 

resource. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose of the proposed Federal Action in this PEIS is to 

establish an institutional framework that would allow a shift to an ecosystem approach 

for fisheries management in the Western Pacific Region. This would be accomplished, in 

part, through the approval and implementation of place-based FEPs (Component 1 of the 

proposed Federal Action). Component 1 also includes the reorganization of existing 

species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations without significant 

modification to the rules that apply to managing each respective fishery. The FEPs are 

currently being finalized and are available from the Council or NMFS. The draft FEPs 

are attached as Appendix G to the FPEIS. 

For Component 1, among the action Alternatives (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E), 

Alternatives 1C and 1D are most similar in their expected impacts. Both of these 

alternatives would facilitate a practical ecosystem approach to fisheries management in 

the Western Pacific Region so that the full range of fisheries’ and other activities’ 

impacts on marine ecosystems could be addressed in a manner that coherently considers 

each archipelago’s biological resources, physical conditions, socioeconomic needs, and 
 x 

cultural traditions. However, Alternative 1D recognizes the highly mobile and often 

migratory nature of pelagic stocks and fisheries, whereas Alternative 1C does not. 

Alternative 1D would establish a single Pelagic FEP that would span the entire region 

managed. Alternatives 1B and 1E were not selected as the Preferred Alternative because 

of their negative impacts on management, administration and enforcement, and impacts 

on fishery participants and communities. 

Component 2 (selection of Management Unit Species or MUS) is also regulatory in 

nature and considered part of the Federal action in this document. Component 2 is 

contingent upon selecting one of the action alternatives under Component 1. All 

alternatives under Component 2 (Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D) consider changes to 

the MUS list. Alternative 2A was not selected as the Preferred Alternative because of its 

negative impacts on management, administration and enforcement, and impacts on 

fishery participants and communities. In particular, under Alternative 2A, there would be 

some demersal species identified as MUS in an FEP for which they were not actually 

present. Under Alternative 2B, the Preferred Alternative, the MUS list for each 

archipelagic FEP would consist of any MUS currently on any of the four existing 

demersal FMP MUS lists that are known to occur within the range of that particular FEP. 

The MUS list for the Pelagic FEP will be identical to the Pelagics FMP MUS list. 

Alternative 2B is similar to Alternative 2A but would eliminate the confusion that could 

result from the inclusion on the MUS list of species not physically present in a given FEP 

area. Alternatives 2C and 2D were rejected primarily because of their impacts on 

management, administration and enforcement, and because these alternatives would add 

species to the MUS lists that would require monitoring and annual evaluation. 

The Preferred Alternative for both Federal action components would promote a holistic 

view of marine resources through increased examination of metapopulation resource 

dynamics (interactions among spatially separated populations of the same species) and 

linkages between upland watershed activities, coastal habitats, and nearshore waters. This 

in turn would lead to enhanced understanding and improved management of the 

relationships between different fish stocks and users of those stocks. In general, speciesbased FMPs focus on individual stocks of fish or related species and the people who 

harvest them. However, fish and fishermen do not act in isolation, and fishermen may be 

active in several fisheries targeting different resources over years or even seasonally. 

Furthermore, the harvests of one species often influence the dynamics of fish markets 

(and subsequent fishing effort) for others. Place-based FEPs would provide fishery 

managers with comprehensive information on all fishery impacts within a given area and 

allow improved decision making with fewer unintended consequences due to poorly 

understood connections. By operating within an ecosystem context, fishery managers 

would also be better positioned to anticipate likely physical and biological responses to 

changing environmental conditions. Rather than reacting to changes after they occur, they 

would be able to determine appropriate management actions to prevent adverse impacts 

on marine ecosystems. In addition, greater stability and predictability of fishery resources 

are more likely to be the outcomes of fishery management decisions when resources are 

considered in the aggregate rather than as independent units. 
 xi 

The ecosystem approach under the Preferred Alternative may improve the management 

of coastal resources at both Federal and local levels through changes in the structure of 

resource management plans and the process by which these plans are developed and 

implemented. There is potential for jurisdictional disputes; however, it is the Council’s 

role to provide guidance and clarification on mandated responsibilities and management 

authorities to preclude governance issues from occurring. Because the organizational 

structure for developing and implementing a FEP is broader than for an FMP, and will 

incorporate more local community input, it is more likely to make better use of local 

knowledge and experience in management strategies and tactics. This will strengthen 

cooperation and voluntary compliance with management measures, which is especially 

important in the Western Pacific Region where, due to the vast areas that need to be 

covered, enforcement capabilities are sometimes limited. 

The southern and western Pacific Ocean is dotted with thousands of islands governed by 

several nations. American Samoa, for example, is surrounded by the EEZs of five 

independent nations, and the PRIA (Wake, Howland, Baker, Jarvis, Palmyra, and 

Kingman Reef) are geologically part of larger archipelagic island chains. Several targeted 

pelagic species are considered highly migratory and management of these resources is 

increasingly becoming an international issue. As marine ecosystems are generally 

considered “open” systems and large scale changes can be observed within smaller units, 

international coordination as well as cooperation among the Council, regional fishery 

management organizations (RFMOs), U.S. Department of State, NMFS, and neighboring 

nations of island areas in the Western Pacific Region will be a necessary component of 

the successful implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. 
 xii 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From 

Species-Based Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED, BACKGROUND INFORMATION.... 1

1.1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1. The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils ............................................................................................................. 6

1.3.1.1. Fishery Management Plans of the Western Pacific Region.......................................................... 8

1.3.1.1.1. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP........................................................................... 8

1.3.1.1.2. Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP ................................................................................................ 10

1.3.1.1.3. Crustaceans FMP.................................................................................................................. 10

1.3.1.1.4. Precious Corals FMP ............................................................................................................ 12

1.3.1.1.5. Pelagics FMP........................................................................................................................ 13

1.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT................................................................................. 16

1.4.1. Action Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service.............................................................. 17

1.4.2. Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government, Council, State, Territories, and 

Commonwealth in Fisheries Management in the Western Pacific Region ......................................... 17

1.4.3. International Regional Fishery Management Organizations ............................................... 18

1.4.3.1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission................................................................... 18

1.4.3.2. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission .............................................................................. 18

1.4.4. Public Participation in Development of the FEPs................................................................ 19

1.4.4.1. Notice of Intent and Public Scoping........................................................................................... 20

1.5. TOPICS IN ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT........................................... 21

1.5.1. Ecosystem Boundaries.......................................................................................................... 21

1.5.2. Precautionary Approach, Burden of Proof, and Adaptive Management.............................. 22

1.5.3. Ecological Effects of Fishing and Nonfishing Activities....................................................... 23

1.5.4. Data and Information Needs ................................................................................................ 24

1.5.5. Use of Indicators and Models............................................................................................... 26

1.5.5.1. Indicators ................................................................................................................................... 26

1.5.5.2. Models ....................................................................................................................................... 27

1.5.6. Single-Species Management vs. Multi-species Management................................................ 27

1.5.7. Ocean Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 28

1.5.8. Interagency Cooperation...................................................................................................... 29

1.5.9. Community-Based Management........................................................................................... 29

1.5.10. An Incremental Approach................................................................................................ 30

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................... 31

2.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 31

2.2. COMPONENT 1: REPLACE THE EXISTING FMPS WITH FEPS ....................................................... 33

2.2.1. Component 1: Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................. 36

2.2.1.1. Alternative 1A (No Action): Do not approve or implement FEPs; do not replace FMPs with 

FEPs ................................................................................................................................................... 36
 xiii 

2.2.1.2. Alternative 1B: For one area only, approve and implement an FEP, which would replace 

existing FMPs ................................................................................................................................................. 37

2.2.1.3. Alternative 1C: Approve and implement FEPs that include EEZ waters around each archipelagic 

area (American Samoa, Hawaii, Mariana, and PRIA); these FEPs would replace existing FMPs. Retain the 

Pelagics FMP for the domestic pelagic fisheries operating on the surrounding high seas............................... 38

2.2.1.4. Alternative 1D - Preferred Alternative: Approve and implement four demersal FEPs and one 

pelagic FEP, which would replace existing FMPs .......................................................................................... 40

2.2.1.5. Alternative 1E: Approve and implement FEPs for each biogeographic and pelagic zone which 

would replace existing FMPs .......................................................................................................................... 44

2.2.2. Component 1: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Detailed Study........ 45

2.2.2.1. FEP for Entire Pacific Ocean Ecosystem ................................................................................... 45

2.2.2.2. FEP for Insular Pacific- Hawaii Large Marine Ecosystem......................................................... 46

2.2.2.3. FEPs for Each Island, Atoll, Seamount, or Other Major Benthic Feature.................................. 47

2.2.2.4. Umbrella FEP for the Western Pacific Region........................................................................... 47

2.2.2.5. Amending the Existing FMPs to Adopt an Ecosystem Approach and Implement FEPs............ 48

2.3. COMPONENT 2: MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES (MUS)................................................................ 48

2.3.1. Component 2: Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................. 49

2.3.1.1. Alternative 2A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current MUS Lists ....................................... 49

2.3.1.2. Alternative 2B: Preferred Alternative—Define FEP MUS as Those Current MUS That Are 

Known to be Present Within Each FEP Boundary .......................................................................................... 49

2.3.1.3. Alternative 2C: Define FEP MUS as Those Current MUS Known To Occur Within the 

Boundaries of the FEP, Plus Incidentally Caught and Associated Species That Are Known to Occur Within 

Each FEP Boundary ........................................................................................................................................ 49

2.3.1.4. Alternative 2D: Define FEP MUS as Those Current MUS Believed to Potentially Occur, Plus 

Incidentally Caught and Associated Species Believed to Potentially Occur Within Each FEP Boundary ...... 49

2.3.2. Component 2: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Detailed Study........ 50

2.3.2.1. Define FEP MUS as All Species Believed to Occur Within the FEP Boundary ........................ 50

2.3.2.2. Define FEP MUS as All Species Known to Occur Within the FEP Boundary .......................... 50

2.4. COMPONENT 3: COUNCIL ADVISORY STRUCTURE...................................................................... 50

2.4.1. Component 3: Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................. 51

2.4.1.1. Alternative 3A: No Action - Do Not Change the Current Council Advisory Structure ............. 51

2.4.1.2. Alternative 3B: Add a Single FEP Plan Team to the Current Advisory Structure ..................... 52

2.4.1.3. Alternative 3C: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, and Five Standing 

Committees with FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Plan Teams, and FEP Standing Committees............................ 53

2.4.1.4. Alternative 3D - Preferred Alternative: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, 

and Five Standing Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Standing Committees, and Two FEP Plan 

Teams 53

2.4.2. Component 3: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Detailed Study........ 53

2.5. COMPONENT 4: REGIONAL COORDINATION ............................................................................... 54

2.5.1. Component 4: Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................. 55

2.5.1.1. Alternative 4A: No Action - Do Not Establish Ocean Council Type Groups ............................ 55

2.5.1.2. Alternative 4B - Preferred Alternative: Establish Regional Ecosystem Council Committees.... 55

2.5.1.3. Alternative 4C: Participate in and Support Ocean Council Type Groups .................................. 55

2.5.1.4. Alternative 4D: Establish Independent Regional Ecosystem Councils ...................................... 56

2.6. COMPONENT 5: INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION ...................................................................... 56

2.6.1. Component 5: Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................. 57

2.6.1.1. Alternative 5A: No Action - Continue to Participate in International Fisheries Management Fora 

and International Workshops .......................................................................................................................... 57

2.6.1.2. Alternative 5B - Preferred Alternative: Increase Participation in International Fisheries 

Management Fora and Establish Meetings/Workshops with Neighboring Nations of Island Areas of the 

Western Pacific Region................................................................................................................................... 57

2.6.1.3. Alternative 5C: Do Not Participate in International Management Fora ..................................... 57

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 58

3.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 58

3.2. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 58

3.2.1. The Pacific Ocean ................................................................................................................ 58

3.2.2. Geology and Topography ..................................................................................................... 58

3.2.3. Ocean Water Characteristics ............................................................................................... 60

3.2.4. Ocean Layers........................................................................................................................ 61
 xiv 

3.2.5. Ocean Depth Zones .............................................................................................................. 62

3.2.6. Ocean Water Circulation...................................................................................................... 63

3.2.7. Surface Currents................................................................................................................... 63

3.2.8. Transition Zones................................................................................................................... 65

3.2.9. Eddies ................................................................................................................................... 66

3.2.10. Deep-Ocean Currents ...................................................................................................... 66

3.2.11. Prominent Pacific Ocean Meteorological Features ........................................................ 67

3.2.12. Pacific Island Geography ................................................................................................ 69

3.2.12.1. Micronesia ................................................................................................................................. 69

3.2.12.2. Melanesia................................................................................................................................... 70

3.2.12.3. Polynesia.................................................................................................................................... 71

3.3. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 74

3.3.1. Marine Food Chains, Trophic Levels, and Food Webs ........................................................ 74

3.3.2. Benthic Environment ............................................................................................................ 75

3.3.2.1. Intertidal Zone............................................................................................................................ 76

3.3.2.2. Seagrass Beds............................................................................................................................. 77

3.3.2.3. Mangrove Forests....................................................................................................................... 77

3.3.2.4. Coral Reefs ................................................................................................................................ 78

3.3.2.4.1. Coral Reef Productivity ........................................................................................................ 79

3.3.2.4.2. Coral Reef Communities ...................................................................................................... 80

3.3.2.4.3. Reproduction and Recruitment ............................................................................................. 81

3.3.2.4.4. Growth and Mortality Rates.................................................................................................. 81

3.3.2.4.5. Community Variability......................................................................................................... 81

3.3.2.5. Deep Reef Slopes....................................................................................................................... 82

3.3.2.6. Banks and Seamounts ................................................................................................................ 82

3.3.2.7. Deep-Ocean Floor...................................................................................................................... 83

3.3.2.8. Benthic Species of Economic Importance.................................................................................. 83

3.3.2.8.1. Coral Reef Associated Species ............................................................................................. 84

3.3.2.8.2. Crustaceans........................................................................................................................... 85

3.3.2.8.3. Reef Slope, Bank, and Seamount Species............................................................................. 87

3.3.2.8.3.1. Bottomfish..................................................................................................................... 87

3.3.2.8.3.2. Precious Corals.............................................................................................................. 88

3.3.3. Pelagic Environment ............................................................................................................ 89

3.3.3.1. Pelagic Species of Economic Importance .................................................................................. 90

3.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN............................. 91

3.4. PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................................................................. 93

3.4.1. Sea Turtles............................................................................................................................ 93

3.4.1.1. Leatherback Sea Turtles............................................................................................................. 94

3.4.1.2. Loggerhead Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................. 95

3.4.1.3. Green Sea Turtles....................................................................................................................... 97

3.4.1.4. Hawksbill Sea Turtles ................................................................................................................ 99

3.4.1.5. Olive Ridley Sea Turtles .......................................................................................................... 100

3.4.2. Marine Mammals Listed under ESA................................................................................... 101

3.4.2.1. Humpback Whale..................................................................................................................... 102

3.4.2.2. Sperm Whale............................................................................................................................ 102

3.4.2.3. Blue Whale .............................................................................................................................. 103

3.4.2.4. Fin Whale................................................................................................................................. 103

3.4.2.5. Sei Whale................................................................................................................................. 103

3.4.2.6. Hawaiian Monk Seal................................................................................................................ 104

3.4.2.7. Other Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 104

3.4.3. Seabirds .............................................................................................................................. 105

3.4.3.1. Short-Tailed Albatross ............................................................................................................. 106

3.4.3.2. Newell’s Shearwater ................................................................................................................ 107

3.4.3.3. Other Seabirds.......................................................................................................................... 108

3.5. THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION............................................................................................... 108

3.5.1. American Samoa................................................................................................................. 109

3.5.1.1. Marine Environment – American Samoa................................................................................. 110

3.5.1.1.1. Coral Reefs ......................................................................................................................... 110

3.5.1.1.2. Benthic Habitat ................................................................................................................... 111

3.5.1.1.3. Pelagic Habitat.................................................................................................................... 111
 xv 

3.5.1.1.4. Surface Currents ................................................................................................................. 112

3.5.1.1.5. Water Temperatures............................................................................................................ 113

3.5.1.2. Protected Species – American Samoa ...................................................................................... 114

3.5.1.2.1. Sea Turtles .......................................................................................................................... 114

3.5.1.2.2. Green Sea Turtle................................................................................................................. 115

3.5.1.2.3. Hawksbill Sea Turtle .......................................................................................................... 115

3.5.1.2.4. Leatherback Sea Turtle ....................................................................................................... 115

3.5.1.2.5. Olive Ridley Sea Turtle ...................................................................................................... 116

3.5.1.2.6. Loggerhead Sea Turtle........................................................................................................ 116

3.5.1.2.7. Marine Mammals and Seabirds........................................................................................... 116

3.5.1.2.8. Seabirds .............................................................................................................................. 116

3.5.1.3. Fisheries of American Samoa .................................................................................................. 117

3.5.1.3.1. Demersal Fisheries – American Samoa .............................................................................. 117

3.5.1.3.1.1. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries – American Samoa................................................... 117

3.5.1.3.1.2. Crustaceans Fisheries – American Samoa ................................................................... 118

3.5.1.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fisheries – American Samoa .................................................................... 119

3.5.1.3.2. Precious Corals Fisheries – American Samoa..................................................................... 121

3.5.1.3.3. Pelagic Fisheries – American Samoa.................................................................................. 121

3.5.1.3.3.1. Small-Scale Longline Fishery – American Samoa ...................................................... 122

3.5.1.3.3.2. Large-Scale Longline Fishery – American Samoa ...................................................... 122

3.5.1.3.3.3. Distant-Water Purse Seine Fishery – American Samoa............................................... 123

3.5.1.3.3.4. Distant-Water Jig Albacore Fishery – American Samoa ............................................. 123

3.5.1.3.3.5. Troll and Handline Fishery – American Samoa........................................................... 124

3.5.1.4. Communities – American Samoa............................................................................................. 125

3.5.2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .............................................................. 128

3.5.2.1. Marine Environment - CNMI................................................................................................... 129

3.5.2.1.1. Coral Reefs - CNMI........................................................................................................... 129

3.5.2.1.2. Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and Seamount Habitat- CNMI.................................................... 131

3.5.2.1.3. Pelagic Habitat - CNMI ...................................................................................................... 131

3.5.2.2. Protected Species - CNMI........................................................................................................ 131

3.5.2.2.1. Sea Turtles - CNMI ............................................................................................................ 131

3.5.2.2.2. Green Sea Turtle................................................................................................................. 132

3.5.2.2.3. Hawksbill Sea Turtle .......................................................................................................... 132

3.5.2.2.4. Marine Mammals and Seabirds – CNMI ............................................................................ 132

3.5.2.2.4.1. Cetaceans..................................................................................................................... 132

3.5.2.2.4.2. Pinnipeds and Sirenians............................................................................................... 132

3.5.2.2.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 133

3.5.2.3. Fisheries of CNMI ................................................................................................................... 133

3.5.2.3.1. Demersal Fisheries - CNMI................................................................................................ 133

3.5.2.3.1.1. Coral Reef Fisheries - CNMI....................................................................................... 133

3.5.2.3.1.2. Crustacean Fisheries - CNMI ...................................................................................... 134

3.5.2.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fishery - CNMI......................................................................................... 137

Review of Bycatch ........................................................................................................................ 143

CNMI Bottomfish MSY................................................................................................................ 144

3.5.2.3.2. Precious Corals Fisheries – CNMI...................................................................................... 144

3.5.2.3.3. Pelagic Fisheries - CNMI ................................................................................................... 145

3.5.2.4. Communities- CNMI ............................................................................................................... 146

3.5.3. Guam .................................................................................................................................. 148

3.5.3.1. Marine Environment - Guam ................................................................................................... 148

3.5.3.1.1. Coral Reefs - Guam ............................................................................................................ 148

3.5.3.1.2. Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and Seamount Habitat - Guam ................................................... 150

3.5.3.1.3. Pelagic Habitat - Guam....................................................................................................... 150

3.5.3.2. Protected Species Guam........................................................................................................... 150

3.5.3.2.1. Sea Turtles - Guam ............................................................................................................. 150

3.5.3.2.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds - Guam.............................................................................. 150

3.5.3.2.2.1. Cetaceans..................................................................................................................... 150

3.5.3.2.2.2. Pinnipeds and Sirenians............................................................................................... 150

3.5.3.2.2.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 151

3.5.3.3. Fisheries of Guam .................................................................................................................... 151

3.5.3.3.1. Demersal Fisheries – Guam................................................................................................ 151

3.5.3.3.1.1. Bottomfish Fisheries – Guam ...................................................................................... 151

3.5.3.3.1.2. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries - Guam ..................................................................... 156
 xvi 

3.5.3.3.1.3. Crustacean Fisheries - Guam....................................................................................... 158

3.5.3.3.1.4. Precious Corals Fishery - Guam .................................................................................. 158

3.5.3.3.1.5. Pelagic Fisheries - Guam............................................................................................. 158

3.5.3.4. Fishing Communities – Guam ................................................................................................. 160

3.5.4. Hawaii ................................................................................................................................ 162

3.5.4.1. Marine Environment - Hawaii.................................................................................................. 163

3.5.4.1.1. Coral Reefs - Hawaii........................................................................................................... 163

3.5.4.1.1.1. Oahu Coral Reefs ........................................................................................................ 164

3.5.4.1.1.2. Maui Coral Reefs......................................................................................................... 164

3.5.4.1.1.3. Lanai Coral Reefs........................................................................................................ 165

3.5.4.1.1.4. Molokai Coral Reefs.................................................................................................... 165

3.5.4.1.1.5. Kahoolawe Coral Reefs............................................................................................... 165

3.5.4.1.1.6. Hawaii Coral Reefs...................................................................................................... 165

3.5.4.1.1.7. Kauai Coral Reefs........................................................................................................ 166

3.5.4.1.1.8. Niihau Coral Reefs ...................................................................................................... 166

3.5.4.1.1.9. Penguin Bank Coral Reefs........................................................................................... 166

3.5.4.1.1.10. NWHI Coral Reefs .................................................................................................... 167

3.5.4.1.2. Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and Seamount Habitat - Hawaii.................................................. 167

3.5.4.1.3. Pelagic Habitat - Hawaii..................................................................................................... 167

3.5.4.2. Protected Species - Hawaii....................................................................................................... 168

3.5.4.2.1. Sea Turtles - Hawaii ........................................................................................................... 168

3.5.4.2.1.1. Leatherback Sea Turtles .............................................................................................. 168

3.5.4.2.1.2. Loggerhead Sea Turtles............................................................................................... 169

3.5.4.2.1.3. Green Sea Turtles ........................................................................................................ 169

3.5.4.2.1.4. Hawksbill Sea Turtles.................................................................................................. 169

3.5.4.2.1.5. Olive Ridley Sea Turtles.............................................................................................. 169

3.5.4.2.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds - Hawaii............................................................................ 169

3.5.4.2.2.1. Humpback Whales....................................................................................................... 169

3.5.4.2.2.2. Hawaiian Monk Seals.................................................................................................. 169

3.5.4.2.2.3. Other Marine Mammals............................................................................................... 169

3.5.4.2.2.4. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 170

3.5.4.3. Fisheries of Hawaii .................................................................................................................. 170

3.5.4.3.1. Demersal Fisheries - Hawaii............................................................................................... 170

3.5.4.3.1.1. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries - Hawaii ................................................................... 170

3.5.4.3.1.2. Crustacean Fisheries - Hawaii ..................................................................................... 171

3.5.4.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fisheries - Hawaii..................................................................................... 175

3.5.4.3.1.4. Precious Corals Fisheries - Hawaii.............................................................................. 183

3.5.4.3.2. Pelagic Fisheries- Hawaii ................................................................................................... 185

3.5.4.4. Fishing Communities - Hawaii ................................................................................................ 188

3.5.5. Pacific Remote Island Areas............................................................................................... 191

3.5.5.1. Baker Island ............................................................................................................................. 191

3.5.5.1.1. Coral Reefs – Baker Island ................................................................................................. 191

3.5.5.1.2. Deep Reef Slope – Baker Island ........................................................................................ 191

3.5.5.1.3. Pelagic Habitat – Baker Island........................................................................................... 191

3.5.5.1.4. Protected Resources – Baker Island.................................................................................... 191

3.5.5.1.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 191

3.5.5.1.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 192

3.5.5.1.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 192

3.5.5.1.5. Social Environment – Baker Island .................................................................................... 192

3.5.5.2. Howland Island ........................................................................................................................ 192

3.5.5.2.1. Coral Reefs – Howland Island ............................................................................................ 193

3.5.5.2.2. Deep Reef Slope – Howland Island .................................................................................... 193

3.5.5.2.3. Pelagic Habitat – Howland Island....................................................................................... 193

3.5.5.2.4. Protected Resources – Howland Island............................................................................... 193

3.5.5.2.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 193

3.5.5.2.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 193

3.5.5.2.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 194

3.5.5.2.5. Social Environment – Howland Island ............................................................................... 194

3.5.5.3. Jarvis Island ............................................................................................................................. 194

3.5.5.3.1. Coral Reefs – Jarvis Island ................................................................................................. 194

3.5.5.3.2. Deep Reef Slope – Jarvis Island ......................................................................................... 195

3.5.5.3.3. Pelagic Habitat – Jarvis Island............................................................................................ 195
 xvii 

3.5.5.3.4. Protected Resources – Jarvis Island .................................................................................... 195

3.5.5.3.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 195

3.5.5.3.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 195

3.5.5.3.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 195

3.5.5.3.5. Social Environment – Jarvis Island..................................................................................... 196

3.5.5.4. Palmyra Atoll........................................................................................................................... 196

3.5.5.4.1. Coral Reefs – Palmyra Atoll............................................................................................... 196

3.5.5.4.2. Deep Reef Slope – Palmyra Atoll....................................................................................... 196

3.5.5.4.3. Pelagic Habitat – Palmyra Atoll.......................................................................................... 196

3.5.5.4.4. Protected Resources – Palmyra Atoll.................................................................................. 197

3.5.5.4.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 197

3.5.5.4.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 197

3.5.5.4.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 197

3.5.5.4.5. Social Environment ............................................................................................................ 197

3.5.5.5. Kingman Reef .......................................................................................................................... 198

3.5.5.5.1. Coral Reefs – Kingman Reef .............................................................................................. 198

3.5.5.5.2. Deep Reef Slope – Kingman Reef ...................................................................................... 198

3.5.5.5.3. Pelagic Habitat – Kingman Reef......................................................................................... 198

3.5.5.5.4. Protected Resources – Kingman Reef................................................................................. 198

3.5.5.5.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 198

3.5.5.5.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 199

3.5.5.5.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 199

3.5.5.5.5. Social Environment ............................................................................................................ 199

3.5.5.6. Johnston Atoll .......................................................................................................................... 199

3.5.5.6.1. Coral Reefs – Johnston Atoll .............................................................................................. 199

3.5.5.6.2. Deep Reef Slope – Johnston Atoll ...................................................................................... 200

3.5.5.6.3. Pelagic Habitat – Johnston Atoll......................................................................................... 200

3.5.5.6.4. Protected Resources – Johnston Atoll................................................................................. 200

3.5.5.6.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 200

3.5.5.6.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 200

3.5.5.6.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 200

3.5.5.6.5. Social Environment – Johnston Atoll ................................................................................. 201

3.5.5.7. Wake Island ............................................................................................................................. 202

3.5.5.7.1. Coral Reefs – Wake Island ................................................................................................. 202

3.5.5.7.2. Deep Reef Slope – Wake Island ......................................................................................... 202

3.5.5.7.3. Pelagic Habitat – Wake Island............................................................................................ 202

3.5.5.7.4. Protected Resources – Wake Island .................................................................................... 202

3.5.5.7.4.1. Sea Turtles................................................................................................................... 202

3.5.5.7.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds ................................................................................... 202

3.5.5.7.4.3. Seabirds ....................................................................................................................... 203

3.5.5.7.5. Social Environment – Wake Island..................................................................................... 203

3.5.5.8. PRIA Fisheries......................................................................................................................... 203

3.5.5.8.1. Bottomfish Fisheries - PRIA............................................................................................... 203

3.5.5.8.2. Crustacean Fisheries - PRIA............................................................................................... 204

3.5.5.8.3. Precious Corals Fisheries - PRIA........................................................................................ 204

3.5.5.8.4. Pelagic Fisheries - PRIA..................................................................................................... 204

3.6. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................... 205

3.6.1. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council ................................................... 205

3.6.2. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office............................................................................... 205

3.6.3. NMFS Pacific Islands Science Center ................................................................................ 206

3.6.4. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division............................................... 206

3.6.5. U.S. Coast Guard................................................................................................................ 206

3.7. FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS ............................................................................................... 206

3.7.1. Bottomfish FMP.................................................................................................................. 207

3.7.2. Precious Corals FMP......................................................................................................... 213

3.7.3. Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP................................................................................................ 216

3.7.4. Crustaceans FMP............................................................................................................... 218

3.7.5. Pelagics FMP ..................................................................................................................... 223
 xviii 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................. 232

4.1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 232

4.2. COMPONENT 1: REPLACE FMPS WITH FEPS ............................................................................ 232

4.2.1. Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative........................................................................... 233

4.2.1.1. American Samoa...................................................................................................................... 233

4.2.1.1.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 233

4.2.1.1.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 234

4.2.1.1.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish ............................................................................... 234

4.2.1.1.2.2. Biological Impacts on Precious Corals........................................................................ 235

4.2.1.1.2.3. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystems............................................................ 236

4.2.1.1.2.4. Biological Impacts on Crustaceans.............................................................................. 237

4.2.1.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 237

4.2.1.1.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 238

4.2.1.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 239

4.2.1.2. Mariana Archipelago................................................................................................................ 240

4.2.1.2.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 240

4.2.1.2.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 241

4.2.1.2.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish ............................................................................... 242

4.2.1.2.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem.............................................................. 245

4.2.1.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 247

4.2.1.2.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 248

4.2.1.3. Hawaiian Archipelago.............................................................................................................. 250

4.2.1.3.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 250

4.2.1.3.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 251

4.2.1.3.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish ............................................................................... 251

4.2.1.3.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystems............................................................ 253

4.2.1.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 255

4.2.1.3.4. Protected Species - Hawaii ................................................................................................. 256

4.2.1.4. PRIA ........................................................................................................................................ 258

4.2.1.4.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 259

4.2.1.4.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 259

4.2.1.4.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish ............................................................................... 259

4.2.1.4.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem.............................................................. 261

4.2.1.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 262

4.2.1.4.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 263

4.2.1.4.5. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 264

4.2.1.5. Pelagic Fisheries ...................................................................................................................... 265

4.2.1.5.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 265

4.2.1.5.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 266

4.2.1.6. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 272

4.2.1.6.1. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 273

4.2.1.6.2. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 274

4.2.1.6.3. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 274

4.2.2. Alternative 1B, Implement One FEP (Mariana Archipelago FEP).................................... 275

4.2.2.1. American Samoa Archipelago ................................................................................................. 275

4.2.2.1.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 275

4.2.2.1.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 276

4.2.2.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 276

4.2.2.1.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 276

4.2.2.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 276

4.2.2.2. Mariana Archipelago................................................................................................................ 277

4.2.2.2.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 277

4.2.2.2.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 278

4.2.2.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 278

4.2.2.2.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 279

4.2.2.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 279

4.2.2.2.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 280

4.2.2.3. Hawaiian Archipelago.............................................................................................................. 280

4.2.2.3.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 280
 xix 

4.2.2.3.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 280

4.2.2.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 281

4.2.2.3.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 281

4.2.2.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 281

4.2.2.4. PRIA ........................................................................................................................................ 282

4.2.2.4.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 282

4.2.2.4.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 282

4.2.2.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 282

4.2.2.4.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 283

4.2.2.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 283

4.2.2.4.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 283

4.2.2.5. Pelagics .................................................................................................................................... 283

4.2.2.5.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 284

4.2.2.5.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 284

4.2.2.5.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 284

4.2.2.5.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 285

4.2.2.5.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 285

4.2.2.5.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 286

4.2.3. Alternative 1C, Implement Four FEPs ............................................................................... 286

4.2.3.1. American Samoa Archipelago ................................................................................................. 286

4.2.3.1.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 286

4.2.3.1.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 287

4.2.3.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 287

4.2.3.1.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 288

4.2.3.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 288

4.2.3.1.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 289

4.2.3.2. Mariana Archipelago................................................................................................................ 289

4.2.3.2.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 289

4.2.3.2.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 290

4.2.3.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 290

4.2.3.2.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 291

4.2.3.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 291

4.2.3.2.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 292

4.2.3.3. Hawaiian Archipelago.............................................................................................................. 292

4.2.3.3.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 292

4.2.3.3.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 293

4.2.3.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 293

4.2.3.3.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 294

4.2.3.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 294

4.2.3.3.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 295

4.2.3.4. PRIA ........................................................................................................................................ 295

4.2.3.4.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 295

4.2.3.4.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 296

4.2.3.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 296

4.2.3.4.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 297

4.2.3.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 297

4.2.3.4.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 298

4.2.3.5. Pelagics .................................................................................................................................... 298

4.2.3.5.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 298

4.2.3.5.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 299

4.2.3.5.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 299

4.2.3.5.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 299

4.2.3.5.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 300

4.2.3.5.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 300

4.2.4. Alternative 1D - Implement Five FEPs (Preferred)............................................................ 301

4.2.4.1. American Samoa Archipelago ................................................................................................. 301

4.2.4.1.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 302

4.2.4.1.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 302

4.2.4.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 303

4.2.4.1.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 303

4.2.4.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 303

4.2.4.1.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 304
 xx 

4.2.4.2. Mariana Archipelago................................................................................................................ 304

4.2.4.2.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 304

4.2.4.2.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 305

4.2.4.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 305

4.2.4.2.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 306

4.2.4.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 306

4.2.4.2.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 307

4.2.4.3. Hawaiian Archipelago.............................................................................................................. 307

4.2.4.3.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 307

4.2.4.3.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 308

4.2.4.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 308

4.2.4.3.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 309

4.2.4.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 309

4.2.4.3.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 310

4.2.4.4. PRIA ........................................................................................................................................ 310

4.2.4.4.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 310

4.2.4.4.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 311

4.2.4.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 311

4.2.4.4.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 312

4.2.4.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 312

4.2.4.4.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 312

4.2.4.5. Pelagic...................................................................................................................................... 313

4.2.4.5.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 313

4.2.4.5.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 313

4.2.4.5.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 314

4.2.4.5.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 314

4.2.4.5.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 314

4.2.4.5.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 315

4.2.5. Alternative 1E - Approve and Implement FEPs for Each Biogeographic and Pelagic Zone 

Which Would Replace Existing FMPs .............................................................................................. 315

4.2.5.1. American Samoa Archipelago ................................................................................................. 316

4.2.5.1.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 316

4.2.5.1.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 316

4.2.5.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 317

4.2.5.1.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 317

4.2.5.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 318

4.2.5.1.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 319

4.2.5.2. Mariana Archipelago................................................................................................................ 319

4.2.5.2.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 319

4.2.5.2.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 320

4.2.5.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 320

4.2.5.2.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 321

4.2.5.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 321

4.2.5.2.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 322

4.2.5.3. Hawaiian Archipelago.............................................................................................................. 323

4.2.5.3.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 323

4.2.5.3.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 323

4.2.5.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 324

4.2.5.3.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 324

4.2.5.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 325

4.2.5.3.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 325

4.2.5.4. PRIA ........................................................................................................................................ 326

4.2.5.4.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 326

4.2.5.4.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 327

4.2.5.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 327

4.2.5.4.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 328

4.2.5.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 328

4.2.5.4.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 329

4.2.5.5. Pelagic...................................................................................................................................... 329

4.2.5.5.1. Physical Environment......................................................................................................... 330

4.2.5.5.2. Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 330

4.2.5.5.3. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 331
 xxi 

4.2.5.5.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 331

4.2.5.5.5. Fishery Participants and Communities................................................................................ 331

4.2.5.5.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 332

4.3. COMPONENT 2: SPECIES TO BE MANAGED UNDER FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLANS..................... 332

4.3.1. Alternative 2A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current MUS Lists ................................. 333

4.3.1.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 333

4.3.1.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 333

4.3.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 333

4.3.1.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 333

4.3.1.5. Impacts on Fishery Participants and Communities .................................................................. 334

4.3.1.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 334

4.3.2. Alternative 2B: Define FEP MUS as Those Existing MUS That Are Known to Occur Within 

Each FEP Boundary (Preferred) ...................................................................................................... 334

4.3.2.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 334

4.3.2.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 334

4.3.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 335

4.3.2.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 335

4.3.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 335

4.3.2.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 335

4.3.3. Alternative 2C: Define FEP MUS as the Existing MUS Plus Incidentally Caught and 

Associated Species That Are Known to Occur Within Each FEP Boundary .................................... 335

4.3.3.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 335

4.3.3.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 336

4.3.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 336

4.3.3.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 336

4.3.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 337

4.3.3.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 337

4.3.4. Alternative 2D: Define FEP MUS as the Existing MUS Plus Incidentally Caught and 

Associated Species That Are Believed to Potentially Occur Within Each FEP Boundary................ 337

4.3.4.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 337

4.3.4.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 337

4.3.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 338

4.3.4.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 338

4.3.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 338

4.3.4.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 338

4.4. COMPONENT 3: COUNCIL ADVISORY PROCESS ........................................................................ 338

4.4.1. Alternative 3A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current Advisory Structure.................... 339

4.4.1.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 339

4.4.1.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 339

4.4.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 339

4.4.1.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 339

4.4.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 340

4.4.1.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 340

4.4.2. Alternative 3B: Add a Single FEP Plan Team to the Current Advisory Structure ............. 340

4.4.2.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 340

4.4.2.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 340

4.4.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 341

4.4.2.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 341

4.4.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 341

4.4.2.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 341

4.4.3. Alternative 3C: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, and Five Standing 

Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Plan Teams, and FEP Standing Committees............ 342

4.4.3.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 342

4.4.3.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 342

4.4.3.3. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 342

4.4.3.4. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 343

4.4.3.5. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 343

4.4.4. Alternative 3D: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, and Five Standing 

Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Standing Committees, and Two FEP Plan Teams 

(Preferred) ........................................................................................................................................ 343
 xxii 

4.4.4.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 343

4.4.4.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 344

4.4.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 344

4.4.4.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 344

4.4.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 344

4.4.4.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 345

4.5. COMPONENT 4: REGIONAL COORDINATION ............................................................................. 345

4.5.1. Alternative 4A: No Action—Do Not Establish Ocean Council Type Groups ..................... 345

4.5.1.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 345

4.5.1.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 346

4.5.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 346

4.5.1.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 346

4.5.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 346

4.5.1.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 346

4.5.2. Alternative 4B: Establish Regional Ecosystem Council Committees (Preferred) .............. 347

4.5.2.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 347

4.5.2.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 347

4.5.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 347

4.5.2.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 347

4.5.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 348

4.5.2.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 348

4.5.3. Alternative 4C: Participate in and Support Ocean Council Type Groups ......................... 348

4.5.3.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 348

4.5.3.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 349

4.5.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 349

4.5.3.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 349

4.5.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 349

4.5.3.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 350

4.5.4. Alternative 4D: Establish Independent Regional Ecosystem Councils............................... 350

4.5.4.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 350

4.5.4.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 351

4.5.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 351

4.5.4.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 351

4.5.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 351

4.5.4.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 352

4.6. COMPONENT 5: INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION .................................................................... 352

4.6.1. Alternative 5A—No Action ................................................................................................. 352

4.6.1.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 352

4.6.1.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 353

4.6.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 353

4.6.1.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 353

4.6.1.5. Fisheries Participants and Communities .................................................................................. 353

4.6.1.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 354

4.6.2. Alternative 5B—Increase Level of Participation in International Management Fora and 

Establish Meetings/Workshops With Neighboring Nations of Western Pacific Region Island Areas 

(Preferred) ........................................................................................................................................ 354

4.6.2.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 354

4.6.2.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 354

4.6.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 355

4.6.2.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 355

4.6.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities..................................................................................... 355

4.6.2.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 355

4.6.3. Alternative 5C—Do Not Participate in International Management Fora and Establish 

Meetings/Workshops with Neighboring Nations of Western Pacific Region Island Areas ............... 356

4.6.3.1. Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 356

4.6.3.2. Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 356

4.6.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 356

4.6.3.4. Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 356

4.6.3.5. Fisheries Participants and Communities .................................................................................. 357

4.6.3.6. Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 357
 xxiii 

4.7. ECONOMIC EFFECTS................................................................................................................. 357

4.7.1. Baseline to Determine Economic Effects............................................................................ 357

4.7.2. Direct Economic Impacts to the Fishing Sector ................................................................. 357

4.7.3. Indirect Economic Effects................................................................................................... 358

4.7.4. Economic Impacts of Required Institutional Changes........................................................ 358

4.7.5. Overall Economic Effects ................................................................................................... 359

4.7.6. Future Economic Considerations ....................................................................................... 359

4.7.7. Summary............................................................................................................................. 360

4.8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................................... 360

4.9. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS............................................................................................................. 362

4.9.1. Physical Environment – Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 363

4.9.1.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions .................................................................................................... 363

4.9.1.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Council/NMFS Actions .................................................................... 363

4.9.1.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting the Physical Environment............................. 363

4.9.1.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Physical Environment................................................ 363

4.9.1.4.1. Alternatives for FEP Boundaries ........................................................................................ 363

4.9.1.4.2. Alternatives for Species Managed Under FEPs .................................................................. 364

4.9.1.4.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory Structure ...................................................................... 364

4.9.1.4.4. Alternatives for Regional Coordination.............................................................................. 364

4.9.1.4.5. Alternatives for International Coordination ........................................................................ 364

4.9.1.5. Potential Cumulative Effects on the Physical Environment..................................................... 365

4.9.2. Biological Environment – Potential Cumulative Effects .................................................... 365

4.9.2.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions .................................................................................................... 365

4.9.2.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions ......................................................... 365

4.9.2.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting the Biological Environment.......................... 365

4.9.2.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on the Biological Environment....................................... 366

4.9.2.4.1. Alternatives for Approving and Implementing FEPs.......................................................... 366

4.9.2.4.2. Alternatives for Species Managed Under FEPs .................................................................. 366

4.9.2.4.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory Structure ...................................................................... 367

4.9.2.4.4. Alternatives for Regional Coordination.............................................................................. 367

4.9.2.4.5. Alternatives for International Coordination ........................................................................ 367

4.9.2.4.6. Potential Cumulative Effects on the Biological Environment............................................. 367

4.9.3. Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................ 368

4.9.3.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions .................................................................................................... 368

4.9.3.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions ......................................................... 368

4.9.3.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting EFH .............................................................. 368

4.9.3.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on EFH ........................................................................... 368

4.9.3.4.1. Alternatives for Approving and Implementing FEPs.......................................................... 368

4.9.3.4.2. Alternatives for Species Managed Under FEPs .................................................................. 369

4.9.3.4.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory Process......................................................................... 369

4.9.3.4.4. Alternatives for Regional Coordination.............................................................................. 369

4.9.3.4.5. Alternatives for International Coordination ........................................................................ 369

4.9.3.5. Potential Cumulative Effects on EFH and HAPC .................................................................... 369

4.9.4. Protected Species................................................................................................................ 370

4.9.4.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Sea Turtles ................................................................ 370

4.9.4.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Sea Turtles ..................... 370

4.9.4.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting Sea Turtles.................................................... 371

4.9.4.4. Past Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Marine Mammals...................................................... 371

4.9.4.5. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Marine Mammals........... 372

4.9.4.6. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting Marine Mammals.......................................... 372

4.9.4.7. Potential Marine Mammal Interactions with Fisheries............................................................. 373

4.9.4.8. Ship Traffic, Disturbance, and Anthropogenic Noise Potentially Impacting Marine Mammals .... 

 ................................................................................................................................................. 373

4.9.4.9. Marine Debris and Waste Disposal Potentially Impacting Marine Mammals.......................... 373

4.9.4.10. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Council/NMFS Actions Affecting Seabirds......... 373

4.9.4.11. External Actions Potentially Impacting Seabirds..................................................................... 374

4.9.4.12. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Protected Species....................................................... 374

4.9.4.12.1. Alternatives for Approving and Implementing FEP .......................................................... 374

4.9.4.12.2. Alternatives for Management Unit Species ....................................................................... 374

4.9.4.12.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory Structure ..................................................................... 375

4.9.4.12.4. Alternatives for Regional Coordination............................................................................. 375
 xxiv 

4.9.4.12.5. Alternatives for International Coordination ....................................................................... 375

4.9.4.13. Potential Cumulative Effects on Protected Species.................................................................. 375

4.9.5. Fishery Participants and Communities .............................................................................. 376

4.9.5.1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Fishery 

Participants and Communities....................................................................................................................... 376

4.9.5.2. External Factors Affecting Fishery Participants and Communities.......................................... 377

4.9.5.3. The Effects of the Alternatives on Fishery Participants and Communities .............................. 377

4.9.5.3.1. Alternatives for Approving and Implementing FEPs.......................................................... 377

4.9.5.3.2. Alternatives for Managed Species ...................................................................................... 378

4.9.5.3.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory Structure ...................................................................... 378

4.9.5.3.4. Alternatives for Regional Coordination.............................................................................. 378

4.9.5.3.5. Alternatives for International Coordination ........................................................................ 379

4.9.5.4. Potential Cumulative Effects on Fishery Participants and Communities ................................. 379

4.9.6. Administration and Enforcement........................................................................................ 379

4.10. REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 380

CHAPTER 5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES ..................................................... 388

5.1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 388

5.2. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY........................................................ 388

5.3. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES......................................... 388

5.4. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................ 388

5.5. URBAN QUALITY, HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND DESIGN OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING 

REUSE AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF THE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 389

5.6. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF THE ALTERNATIVES .................. 389

5.7. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER PLANS................................ 390

5.8. ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED...................................................................... 390

5.9. POSSIBLE MITIGATION METHODS FOR UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .............................. 390

5.10. CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.................................................................................... 390

5.10.1. Overview of climate change concerns ........................................................................... 390

5.10.2. Potential climate change impacts on coral reef ecosystems .......................................... 391

5.10.3. Potential climate change impacts on pelagic fish species ............................................. 392

5.10.4. Potential climate change impacts on bottomfish and precious coral fisheries .............. 393

5.10.5. Potential climate change impacts on crustacean fisheries ............................................ 393

5.10.6. Potential impacts of climate change on sea turtles........................................................ 393

5.10.7. Potential impacts of climate change on seabirds........................................................... 393

5.10.8. Climate change and fisheries ecosystem management .................................................. 394

CHAPTER 6. PREPARERS, DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS, AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC 

COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 395

6.1. PREPARERS OF THE EIS............................................................................................................ 395

6.2. DISTRIBUTION OF EIS .............................................................................................................. 396

6.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, RESPONSES AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS........................... 399

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 423

CHAPTER 8. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 456

Appendices 

Appendix A: List of Current and Preferred Management Unit Species under Alternative 

2D. 

Appendix B: Summary Conclusions and Recommendations from the Ecosystem Science 

and Management Planning Workshop. 
 xxv 

Appendix C: Summary Discussion of the Ecosystem Social Science Workshop. 

Appendix D: Relevant Laws and Executive Orders. 

Appendix E: Public Comments on the Revised Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement, “Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western 

Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Placebased Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” March 30, 2007. 

Appendix F: Public Comments on the Initial Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement, “Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific 

Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Place-based 

Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” October 27, 2005. 

Appendix G: Draft Fishery Ecosystem Plans (enclosed on compact disc). 

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Western Pacific Region and Proposed FEP Areas........................................... 3 

Figure 1-2. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Convention Area......... 19 

Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of Earth’s Lithospheric Plates. ...................................... 59 

Figure 3-2. Temperature and Salinity Profiles of the Ocean. ........................................... 62 

Figure 3-3. Depth Profile of Ocean Zones....................................................................... 63 

Figure 3-4. Major Surface Currents of the Pacific Ocean. ............................................... 64 

Figure 3-5. North Pacific Transition Zone........................................................................ 65 

Figure 3-6. Example of an Eddy West of the Hawaiian Islands....................................... 66 

Figure 3-7. Deep-Ocean Water Movement....................................................................... 67 

Figure 3-8. Central Pacific Pelagic Food Web. ................................................................ 75 

Figure 3-9. Benthic Environment and Associated Ocean Zones. ..................................... 76 

Figure 3-10. The Western Pacific Region....................................................................... 108 

Figure 3-11. Bottomfish Landings and Value in American Samoa 1982 to 2005.......... 121 

Figure 3-12. Tuna and Non-tuna PMUS Landings in American Samoa 1982 to 2004.. 122 

Figure 3-13. Trolling and Longlining in American Samoa. ........................................... 124 

Figure 3-14. Bottomfish Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2003. ........................................... 140 

Figure 3-15. Pelagic Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2004. ................................................. 146 

Figure 3-16. Guam Bottomfish Landings. ...................................................................... 154 

Figure 3-17. Estimated Annual Total Domestic Pelagics Catch in Guam 1982 to 2004.

......................................................................................................................................... 160 

Figure 3-18. NWHI Lobster Fishery Landings 1983 to 1999......................................... 173 

Figure 3-19. MHI and NWHI Bottomfish Landings 1986 to 2003. ............................... 180 

Figure 3-20. Hawaii Bottomfish Revenue (Inflation Adjusted) by Area 1970 to 2003. 180 

Figure 3-21. Average Prices for NWHI and MHI BMUS Landings 1970 to 2003........ 181 

Figure 3-22. Hawaii Commercial Pelagic Catch by Gear Type, 1987 to 2004. ............. 186 

Figure 3-23. Hawaii Pelagic Revenue by Gear Type, 1987 to 2004. ............................. 186 
 xxvi 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Amendments to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP..................... 9 

Table 1-2. Amendments to the Crustaceans FMP ....................................................... 11 

Table 1-3. Amendments to the Precious Corals FMP....................................................... 12 

Table 1-4. Amendments to the Pelagics FMP. ................................................................. 13 

Table 1-5. EIS Public Scoping Meeting Schedule............................................................ 20 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered in Detail. .................................................................. 31 

Table 2-2. Current and Proposed Management Structure Under Alternative 1B............. 37 

Table 2-3. Delineated Ecosystems for FEPs Under Alternative 1C. ................................ 39 

Table 2-4. Current and Proposed Management Structure Under Alternative 1C............. 39 

Table 2-5. Delineated Ecosystems and FEPs Under Alternative 1D, the Preferred 

Alternative......................................................................................................................... 42 

Table 2-6. Current and Proposed Management Structure under Alternative 1D - the 

Preferred Alternative......................................................................................................... 43 

Table 2-7. Current and Proposed Management Structure under Alternative 1E. ............. 45 

Table 2-8. Current Council Advisory Panel Structure...................................................... 51 

Table 3-1. EFH and HAPC for Western Pacific Region MUS......................................... 92 

Table 3-2. Non-ESA Listed Marine Mammals of the Western Pacific Region.............. 104 

Table 3-3. Seabirds Known to Be Present Around American Samoa. ........................... 116 

Table 3-4. Bottomfish Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2003.............................................. 139 

Table 3-5. CNMI Commercial Landings of Bottomfishes in Pounds. ........................... 142 

Table 3-6. Bycatch in the CNMI Bottomfish Fishery..................................................... 143 

Table 3-7. Annual MSY estimates for CNMI deep-slope bottomfish............................ 144 

Table 3-8. Guam Bottomfish Fishery Statistics.............................................................. 153 

Table 3-9. Expanded Boat-Based Creel Survey Composition of Bottomfish Management 

Unit Species (BMUS) for 2005....................................................................................... 154 

Table 3-10. Guam Bottomfish Fishery Bycatch (2005): Non-charter and Charter. ....... 155 

Table 3-11. Estimated Harvest of Top 10 Families for Inshore and Offshore Guam 

FisheriesDuring 2002 and 2003...................................................................................... 157 

Table 3-12. Bottomfish Vessel Registration by Island and by Commercial Status........ 177 

Table 3-13. Volume and Value of Black Coral Landings in Hawaii 1990 to 1997........ 184 

Table 3-14. Statistical Summary of Hawaii’s Economy: 1995 to 1999, 2002. .............. 189 

Table 3-15. Seabirds of Johnston Atoll........................................................................... 201 

Table 3-16. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Bottomfish Fishery Management Plan in 

the Western Pacific Region............................................................................................. 210 

Table 3-17. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan 

in the Western Pacific Region......................................................................................... 215 

Table 3-18. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery 

Management Plan in the Western Pacific Region........................................................... 218 
 xxvii 

Table 3-19. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments, and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Western Pacific Region Crustaceans 

Fishery Management Plan............................................................................................... 219 

Table 3-20. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Pelagics Fishery Management Plan in the 

Western Pacific Region................................................................................................... 226 

Table 4-1. Descriptions of the Components and List of Alternatives Considered in Detail.

......................................................................................................................................... 232 

Table 4-2. Comparison of the Potential Impacts of the Action Alternatives to Alternative 

1A, the No Action Alternative........................................................................................ 383 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses to Comments on the 

2007 Draft Programmatic EIS. ....................................................................................... 400 
 xxviii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACHPPM Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 

APA Administrative Procedures Act 

BMUS Bottomfish Management Unit Species 

CCL Curved Carapace Length 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHCRT Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa 

CMUS Crustaceans Management Unit Species 

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CRE Coral Reef Ecosystem 

CRM Coastal Resources Management (Division in the CNMI) 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWB Continental Water Boundary 

CZCS Coastal Zone Color Scanner 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DAWR Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (Government of Guam) 

DFW 

Division of Fish and Wildlife (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands 

DMWR 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (Government of American 

Samoa) 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAP Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAD Fish Aggregation Device 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

FBNMS Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FSM Federated States of Micronesia 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

HE Halmahera Eddy 

HMRFS Hawaii Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey 

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

IQA Information Quality Act 

ITCZ Intertropical Convergence Zone 
 xxix 

lb Pounds 

LME Large Marine Ecosystem 

ME Mindanao Eddy 

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MPA Marine Protected Areas 

MRFSS Marine Recreation Fisheries Statistical Survey 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield 

MUS Management Unit Species 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGCC New Guinea Coastal Current 

NHRC North Hawaiian Ridge Current 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

nm Nautical Miles 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPC North Pacific Current 

NPTZ North Pacific Transition Zone 

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OI Optimal Interpolation 

OLE PID Office of Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division 

OY Optimum Yield 

PBEC Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants 

PF Polar Front 

PHCRT Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa 

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

PIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office 

PMP Preliminary Management Plan 

PMUS Pelagic Management Unit Species 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PRIA U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas 

RAIOMA Resource Assessment Investigation of the Mariana Archipelago 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFMC Regional Fishery Management Council 

SAF Sub Antarctic Front 

SAFZ Subarctic Frontal Zone 

SCL Straight Carapace Length 

SECN South Equatorial Current (southern branch) 

SECS South Equatorial Current (northern branch) 
 xxx 

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act 

SPCZ South Pacific Convergence Zone 

SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee 

STCC South Tropical Countercurrent 

STF Subtropical Front 

STFZ Subtropical Frontal Zone 

mt Metric Tons 

UH SOEST Univ. of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USFWS or FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VMS Vessel Monitoring Systems 

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

WGB Weddell Gyre Boundary 

WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

XBT Expendable Bathythermograph 

 
This page left blank intentionally. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

1

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED, BACKGROUND 

INFORMATION 

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) provides decision-makers 

and the public with an evaluation of the environmental, social, and economic effects of replacing 

the five existing Western Pacific Fishery Management Plans (FMPs for Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish, Coral Reef Ecosystems, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Pelagics) with 

geographic-based (hereafter referred to as place-based) Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs). The 

FPEIS also provides the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) with information relevant for his 

review and potential approval of the FEPs in accordance with the provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 

1.1. Introduction 

On December 20, 2005, at its 130th meeting, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) took final action to recommend a shift in management for fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region from a species-based approach to an ecosystem-focused, place-based approach. 

This change stems from an increasing awareness that fisheries should be managed within a 

place-based (geographically delineated ecosystems) structure rather than one that regulates 

fisheries by species. As discussed here, ecosystem approaches to fisheries management are in 

their developmental stages and the proposed shift in management structure would accordingly be 

an incremental first step towards this long-term goal of place-based marine ecosystem 

conservation and management. It is anticipated that future management actions would utilize and 

build on information acquired as a result of shifting to such an approach. 

The proposed action is the approval and implementation of FEPs by the Secretary of Commerce 

for federally managed fisheries that operate in the Western Pacific Region. The action considered 

here replaces the existing FMPs with FEPs and establishes the institutional framework for future 

fishery management actions within the context of a geographic ecosystem. These FEPs are 

ecosystem-based fishery management plans subject to review and approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce pursuant to Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA). 

The analysis presented here is compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), its corresponding regulations (40 CFR §§1500–1508), and National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental 

Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act). 

This FPEIS examines alternative approaches to fishery ecosystem plans and presents a 

discussion of the environmental impacts of implementing the alternatives. Chapter 1 presents an 

overview, describes the purpose and need, and provides background information. Alternatives 

are described in detail in Chapter 2. The environmental consequences of these alternatives are 

described in Chapter 4. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

2

Chapter 3 contains a description of the affected environment that is intended to help the reader 

understand the environmental consequences evaluation presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 

summarizes the analysis of various environmental management issues. Chapter 6 documents the 

preparers of the FPEIS and public review components of this NEPA process. Chapter 7 contains 

the references cited in this analysis. Chapter 8 contains a glossary of terms used in this FPEIS 

and generally pertaining to fisheries management in the Western Pacific Region. 

The appendices include the list of the current management unit species (MUS) for the Preferred 

Alternative under Component 2 (introduced in Section 1-1), summaries of workshops the 

Council convened to explore ecosystem science and management, relevant laws and executive 

orders, and copies of public comment letters and responses to these letters received during two 

public reviews of draft PEIS documents. 

The proposed Western Pacific Region place-based FEPs (see Figure 1-1) would replace existing 

FMPs. Draft FEPs were distributed to the public for their information with the draft 

Programmatic EIS in 2007, in order to demonstrate the reorganization of FMPs into FEPs. No 

new management actions are being proposed as part of this proposal to reorganize the fishery 

management regime. The final draft FEPs are available at the Council's website at 

www.wpcouncil.org or by mail from the Council5

. Copies of the final draft FEPs are attached as 

Appendix G to the FPEIS. 

In the future, as changes to fishery management are required, proposed fishery management 

actions would undergo separate public review, environmental impact analysis, and NEPA 

compliance, as appropriate, before amending FEPs. 

1.2. Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to establish an institutional framework that facilitates a 

shift to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Western Pacific Region. This 

would be accomplished through the approval and implementation of place-based FEPs, without 

any substantive changes to current fishing regulations. This shift would enable increased 

understanding and protection of ecosystem structures and functions and is needed to provide the 

management framework that would simplify the development and implementation of future 

conservation and management measures for marine ecosystems and their fishery resources. 

Because there are currently a number of fisheries operating under the existing species-based 

fishery management plans, this shift should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and which has minimal regulatory burden. The proposed Federal action consists of 

the following two components: 

Component 1: The implementation of one or more geographic, or place-based, fishery 

ecosystem plans that delineate specific boundaries and support a shift to an ecosystem 

approach to fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. The new fishery ecosystem plan or plans 

would replace existing species-based fishery management plans. Included in Component 1 is 

 

5

 WPFMC, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

3

the associated reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into geographicbased FEP regulations. 

Component 2: The designation of appropriate management unit species to be managed under 

each FEP. 

Three additional non-federal fishery management administrative components are discussed in 

this document to assist the Council in determining its optimal organizational structure and 

procedures commensurate with a shift to ecosystem management. These include the Council’s 

advisory structure and role in regional coordination, international management, and research. 

These components are not considered Federal actions. 

 

Proposed Mariana Archipelago FEP Area 

Proposed Hawaii Archipelago FEP Area 

Proposed Pacific Remote Island Areas FEP Area 

 

Proposed American Samoa Archipelago FEP Area 

Proposed Pacific Pelagic FEP (applies within all EEZ waters and high seas) 

Figure 1-1. Western Pacific Region and Proposed FEP Areas.

□ 

■ 

□ 

□ 

.. 

.. 

1&l"E 

Nortl'iern 

Mlriana 

Islands 

& - - .,..~~ -.. .. --- . - ' , .;, · . --·_,, ·-~ ~":--.\ 

', ~ ~ ... ..._ . 

(~Wake I 

,, 

HD" 

I , 

1€{)'\(IJ 

America n Sarma 

HOW 

HaJ>Jaiian 

Islands 

-' ... ~ .. ~. +·-

:JJ"N 

o· 

-
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

4

1.3. Background Information 

This FPEIS analyzes the impacts on the human environment of replacing the existing FMPs with 

FEPs for the Western Pacific Region. FEPs would cover American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, 

Hawaii, the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA6), and the pelagic environment within the 

U.S. EEZ and on the high seas. The proposal was coordinated with the public through a number 

of public meetings and opportunities for review. The initial “Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS” 

was published on October 18, 2004 (69 FR 61351), together with a notice of public scoping 

meetings. An initial Draft PEIS, dated October 27, 2005, was available for a 45-day public 

comment period from November 10 to December 26, 2005 (70 FR 68443; November 10, 2005). 

A revised analysis of the impacts related specifically to the approval and implementation of 

fishery ecosystems plans in the Western Pacific Region was published in a second Draft PEIS 

dated March 30, 2007, which was available for a 45-day public comment period from April 13 to 

May 29, 2007 (72 FR 18644; April 13, 2007). To assist the public during the review of the 

second Draft PEIS, draft Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) representing the preferred alternatives 

were made available with the Draft PEIS. The final draft FEPs are included in this FPEIS in 

Appendix G and are also on the Council’s website at http://www.wpcouncil.org or are available 

by mail from the Council7

. If the decision is made to move toward the ecosystem approach for 

fishery management in the Western Pacific Region, the FEPs will be implemented subject to 

Secretarial review and approval. 

The Western Pacific Region includes several geographic areas with distinct cultures, 

communities, and marine resources. For thousands of years, the indigenous people of these 

Pacific islands relied on healthy marine ecosystems to sustain themselves and their island 

communities. This remains true today as Pacific island communities continue to depend on the 

ecological, economic, and social benefits of healthy marine ecosystems. 

On international, national, and local levels, institutions and agencies that manage marine 

resources are moving toward an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. As stated in 

Pikitch et al. (2004), increased concern regarding the potential impacts of fishing and nonfishing 

activities on the marine environment, and a greater understanding of the relationships between 

ecosystem changes and population dynamics, have fostered support for a holistic approach to 

fisheries management that is science-based and forward thinking. 

NOAA defines an ecosystem approach as “management that is adaptive, specified 

geographically, takes account of ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple 

external influences, and strives to balance diverse social objectives” (NOAA 2004). The Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states that the purpose of an ecosystem 

approach to fisheries management is “to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that 

 

6 In its usual usage, the PRIA of the United States includes Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands; Johnston Atoll; 

Kingman Reef; Wake Island; Palmyra Atoll; and Midway Island. However, because Midway is located in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago, it would not be part of the PRIA Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

7

 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96814. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

5

addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future 

generations to benefit from a full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems” 

(Garcia et al. 2003). 

In 1998, the U.S. Congress charged NMFS with establishing the Ecosystem Principles Advisory 

Panel (Panel; EPAP), which was responsible for assessing the extent to which ecosystem 

principles were being used in fisheries management and recommending how to further 

ecosystem principle use to improve the status and management of marine resources. The Panel 

was composed of members of academia, fishery and conservation organizations, and fishery 

management agencies. 

The EPAP identified the following principles as important when considering and identifying 

marine ecosystems and adopting an ecosystem approach to management: 

• The ability to predict ecosystem behavior is limited. 

• An ecosystem has real thresholds and limits that, when exceeded, can affect major system 

restructuring. 

• Once thresholds and limits have been exceeded, changes can be irreversible. 

• Diversity is important to ecosystem functioning. 

• Multiple scales interact within and among ecosystems. 

• Components of ecosystems are linked. 

• Ecosystem boundaries are open. 

• Ecosystems change with time. 

The EPAP reached consensus that FEPs should be developed and implemented to manage U.S. 

fisheries and marine resources (EPAP 1999). According to the EPAP, an FEP should contain and 

implement a management framework to control harvests of marine resources on the basis of 

available information regarding the structure and function of the ecosystem in which such 

harvests occur. The Panel recommended, for consideration by the regional fishery management 

councils (RFMCs), the following eight management and policy measures to further develop 

FEPs: 

• Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s) that occur(s) within RFMC authority, 

including characterization of the biological, chemical, and physical dynamics of those 

ecosystems, and then “zone” the area for alternative uses. 

• Develop a conceptual model of the food web. 

• Describe the habitat needs of different life history stages for all plants and animals that 

represent the “significant food web” and how they are considered in conservation and 

management measures. 

• Calculate total removals—including incidental mortality—and show how they relate to 

standing biomass, production, optimum yields, natural mortality, and trophic structure. 

• Assess how uncertainty is characterized and what kinds of buffers against uncertainty are 

included in conservation and management actions. 

• Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management. 

• Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

6

• Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the ecosystem that most 

significantly affect fisheries and that are outside Council/Department of Commerce 

authority. 

In recognition of the Panel’s findings, the Council recommended the initiation of an incremental 

shift toward an ecosystem approach for fisheries of the entire Western Pacific Region8. The first 

phase of this incremental shift (replacing the five FMPs with FEPs) would establish the 

appropriate institutional framework and foundation (place-based FEPs) for future fisheries 

management under an ecosystem approach. Although the proposed Federal action does not 

purport to adopt the EPAP’s ecosystem principles, management measures, or polices, this action 

is necessary to create the infrastructure for future place-based management. This shift in focus to 

place will also facilitate ecosystem science and research that will enhance the understanding of 

and impacts on marine ecosystems. Subsequent phases of fishery management actions will 

expand on the FEP foundation using the best available information and adaptive management. 

Such phases may include, but are not limited to: the establishment of ecosystem indicators linked 

to various management responses, the development of ecosystem models, the establishment of 

community-based management and monitoring measures, the implementation of explicit upper 

limits on total removals, and other similar phased actions. 

1.3.1. The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils 

The 1976 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (also known as the Magnuson 

Act and later renamed the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

[MSA]) established exclusive U.S. jurisdiction from the seaward boundary of the territorial sea 

out to 200 nautical miles from shore for the purposes of managing U.S. fishery resources. 

Subsequently, Presidential Proclamation 5030 (March 10, 1983), established this area as the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and declared “to the extent permitted by international law . . . 

sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural 

resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters.” This 

increased jurisdiction over the EEZ provided a basis for expanded exploration, exploitation, 

scientific research, and protection of the marine environment and was recognized in the 1996 

amendments to the MSA. 

The MSA is the principal federal statute regarding the management of U.S. domestic marine 

fisheries. The purposes of the MSA include the following: the conservation and management of 

the fishery resources of the United States; the protection of essential fish habitat (EFH); the 

establishment of regional fishery management councils; the preparation and implementation of 

fishery management plans; the promotion of domestic, commercial, and recreational fishing; the 

support and encouragement of international fishery agreements; and the development of fisheries 

that are underutilized or not utilized. With respect to FEPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

 

8

 At its 130th meeting held December 20, 2005, the Council took final action to recommend implementation of 

place-based FEPs for the Western Pacific Region. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

7

Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 recognizes the importance of 

integrating ecosystem approaches in fisheries management. 

The MSA established both required and discretionary provisions of an FMP and created ten 

National Standards to ensure that any FMP or FMP amendment is consistent with the MSA. 

Each FMP contains a suite of management measures that together characterize the fishery 

management regime. These measures are either a framework type measure that allows for annual 

or periodic adjustments using a streamlined implementation process, or are conventional 

measures that are fixed in the FMP and its implementing regulations and require a formal plan or 

regulatory amendment to change. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (SFA; Public Law 104-297) reauthorized and made 

significant amendments to the MSA. The SFA included provisions aimed at the development of 

sustainable fishing practices in order to guarantee a continued abundance of fish and continued 

opportunities for the U.S. fishing industry. The SFA included requirements that fishery 

management measures prevent overfishing, ensure the rebuilding of overfished stocks, achieve 

optimum yields from U.S. fisheries, minimize bycatch, take into account the importance of 

fishery resources to fishing communities, identify and conserve essential fish habitat, address 

impacts on fish habitat, and promote the safety of human life at sea. 

The SFA emphasized the need to protect fish habitat. Under the law, regional Councils prepared 

amendments identifying EFH as areas necessary to manage fish species for their basic life 

functions. The EFH provisions of the MSA require NMFS to provide recommendations to 

Federal and State agencies for conserving and enhancing EFH for any actions that may adversely 

impact EFH. 

The MSA created eight regional fishery management councils to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary through the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, and 

NMFS. The fishery management councils are responsible for the preparation and transmittal to 

the Secretary of appropriate, science-based FMPs (and amendments to those plans) for fisheries 

under their jurisdiction. The Secretary may approve, disapprove, or partially approve each FMP 

or amendment and, if approved, implement them through federal regulations and enforcement. 

Under the MSA, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has management 

responsibility for U.S. fisheries in the Pacific Ocean seaward of American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, 

Hawaii, and the PRIA (16 U.S.C. §302(a)(H)). The Council has 13 voting members, eight of 

which are appointed by the Secretary, and five of which are the principal Federal, and State, 

Territory or Commonwealth officials with fishery management responsibility. The Council also 

includes non-voting representatives from the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Fisheries that operate within the EEZ waters and high seas in the Western Pacific Region are 

currently managed under five FMPs: Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Coral Reef 

Ecosystems, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Pelagics. Under the preferred alternatives in this 

proposed action, these existing FMPs would be replaced with FEPs applicable to fisheries in the 

American Samoa Archipelago, Mariana Archipelago, Hawaiian Archipelago, PRIA and the 

Pacific Pelagics. The Secretary would consider the existing criteria used to evaluate new FMPs 

and amendments to FMPs to evaluate the FEP’s consistency with the MSA. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

8

Under the MSA, the Secretary reviews FMPs or amendments transmitted by the regional fishery 

management councils for consistency with the National Standards and other provisions of the 

MSA, and with other applicable laws (16 U.S.C. §304(a)(1)) including the following: 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

• Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

• Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

• Information Quality Act (IQA) 

• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

• Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

• Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

• Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

• Executive Order 12630: Taking 

• Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas 

A description of each of the laws and Executive Orders listed above is provided in Appendix D. 

1.3.1.1. Fishery Management Plans of the Western Pacific Region 

1.3.1.1.1.Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

FMP 

The Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP was implemented in 1986 with the following 

management measures: 

1. Prohibition of certain destructive fishing techniques, including explosives, poisons, trawl 

nets, and bottom-set gillnets; 

2. establishment of a moratorium on the commercial harvest of seamount groundfish stocks 

at the Hancock Seamounts (which has been extended until August, 31, 2010 [69 FR 

51400]); 

3. implementation of a permit system for fishing for bottomfish in the EEZ around the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI); and 

4. establishment of a management framework that includes adjustments such as catch limits, 

size limits, area or seasonal closures, fishing effort limitation, fishing gear restrictions, 

access limitation, permit and/or catch reporting requirements, and a rules-related notice 

system. 

Table 1-1 reflects the amendments to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP since 1986. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

9

Table 1-1. Amendments to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP.

Amendments 

No. Effective 

Date 

Action 

1 1987 Establishes potential limited access systems for bottomfish fisheries 

in the EEZ surrounding American Samoa and Guam within the 

framework measures of the FMP. 

2 1988 Divides the EEZ around the NWHI into two management zones: 

the Hoomalu Zone to the northwest and the Mau Zone to the 

southeast. The amendment also establishes a limited access system 

for the Hoomalu Zone. 

3 1991 Supplanted by Amendment 6, Amendment 3 defines recruitment 

overfishing as a condition in which the ratio of the spawning stock 

biomass per recruit at the current level of fishing to the spawning 

stock biomass per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishing 

is equal to or less than 20 percent. 

4 1991 Requires vessel owners or operators to notify NMFS at least 72 

hours before leaving port if they intend to fish in a 50 nautical mile 

“protected species study zone” around the NWHI. This notification 

allows federal observers to be placed on board bottomfish vessels. 

5 1999 Establishes a limited access system for the Mau Zone and a 

framework for a Community Development Program. 

6 1999 Identifies and describes EFH for managed species of bottomfish, 

discusses measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in 

the bottomfish fishery, provides new criteria for identifying when 

overfishing has occurred, and describes fishing communities in the 

region. 

7 2004 Brings the Bottomfish FMP into conformity with the Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP by prohibiting fishing for Bottomfish MUS 

(BMUS) in the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP’s no-take areas. 

Amends the BMUS list to exclude species now managed under the 

Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP. 

8 2006 Includes CNMI and the PRIA in the FMP (i.e., bottomfish fisheries 

in these areas are now subject to applicable FMP regulations). 

9 2006 Prohibits vessels 50ft and larger from harvesting BMUS within 50 

nm of Guam and requires federal permits and reporting for Guambased bottomfish vessels 50ft or larger. 

14 2008 Establishes management measures to end overfishing of the Deep 7 

bottomfish species in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). 

Establishes Federal permit and reporting requirements for noncommercial bottomfish fishermen in the MHI, non-commercial bag 

limits, an annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC), and a seasonal 

closure for Deep 7 bottomfish species. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

10

1.3.1.1.2.Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP 

A final rule implementing the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP was published on February 24, 2004 

(69 FR 8336). The management measures of the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP include the 

following: 

 

1. Designation of Howland, Baker, Jarvis Islands, Rose Atoll, and Kingman Reef as no-take 

marine protected areas (MPAs). Palmyra and Johnston Atolls and Wake Island are 

designated as low-use MPAs where fishing is allowed only under special fishing permits; 

2. implementation of a federal permit and reporting system for controlling and monitoring 

the harvest of certain Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS for which there is little or no 

information. The FMP also uses data collected under existing local reporting systems to 

monitor the harvest of currently fished Coral Reef Ecosystems MUS; 

3. prohibitions on the use of destructive and nonselective fishing gears; 

4. prohibitions on the harvest of coral and live rock, but limited take is allowed under the 

permit system for collection of seed stock by aquaculture operations and 

religious/cultural use by indigenous peoples; 

5. adaptive management approach using a framework process for rapid regulatory 

modifications in the event of major changes within coral reef ecosystems or coral reef 

fisheries; 

6. consideration of the historical and cultural dependence on coral reef resources by 

indigenous people; and 

7. identification of coral reef related research needs for each island area, including 

socioeconomic and cultural research for future potential allocation of resources. 

To date, the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP has not been amended. 

1.3.1.1.3.Crustaceans FMP 

The Crustaceans FMP was implemented in 1983 (48 FR 5560; February 7). Initial management 

measures of the FMP include the following: 

1. Prohibitions on fishing for spiny lobster within 20 nautical miles of Laysan Island and 

within the EEZ landward of the 10-fathom curve as depicted on National Ocean Survey 

Charts Numbers 19022, 19019, and 19016; 

2. implementation of minimum size limits; 

3. requirements for gear design; 

4. prohibition on retention of ovigerous females; and 

5. requirements for federal catch reporting. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

11

The following table reflects the amendments to the Crustaceans FMP since 1983. 

Table 1-2. Amendments to the Crustaceans FMP 

Amendments 

No. Effective 

Date 

Action 

1 1983 Adopts State of Hawaii regulations for the EEZ around the main 

Hawaiian Islands (MHI). 

2 1984 Specifies gear requirements such as trap opening dimensions. 

3 1986 Clarifies size restrictions such as definitions for minimum size and 

tail length. 

4 1987 Prohibits all lobster fishing in certain closed areas in the NWHI. 

5 1987 Establishes a minimum size for retained slipper lobsters and 

requires escape panels in traps in the NWHI. 

6 1991 Defines recruitment overfishing. 

7 1992 Establishes a closed season, limited access system, and adjustable 

annual harvest quota for the NWHI. 

8 1994 Eliminates the use-it-or-lose-it landing requirement for NWHI 

permit holders. 

9 1996 Revises the NWHI annual harvest guideline to represent 13 percent 

of the exploitable population, which represents a 10 percent chance 

of overfishing the lobster stock at a particular permit area. Removes 

minimum size and condition restrictions in the NWHI fishery, and 

establishes a retain-all fishery in which every lobster brought 

aboard is counted against the annual harvest guideline. 

10 1999 Identifies and describes EFH for Crustacean MUS, discusses 

measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, provides 

criteria for determining when overfishing has occurred, and 

describes fishing communities in the region. 

11 2004 Brings the Crustaceans FMP into conformity with the Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP by prohibiting fishing for Crustaceans MUS 

(CMUS) in the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP no-take areas. Amends 

the CMUS list to exclude species now managed under the Coral 

Reef Ecosystems FMP. 

12 2006 Includes CNMI and the PRIA in the FMP and establishes federal 

permitting and reporting requirements for crustacean fisheries 

operating in those areas. 

13 2008 Establishes permit and reporting requirements for deepwater shrimp 

fishing and adds deepwater shrimp to the Crustaceans MUS. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

12

1.3.1.1.4.Precious Corals FMP 

The Precious Corals FMP was implemented in 1983 (48 FR 39229; September 29). The FMP 

management measures include the following: 

1. Establishment of harvest quotas for known precious coral beds; 

2. implementation of minimum size limits for pink coral; 

3. gear restrictions; 

4. closed areas; and 

5. fishing seasons. 

Since 1983, the Precious Corals FMP has been amended several times (Table 1-3). 

 

Table 1-3. Amendments to the Precious Corals FMP. 

Amendments to the Precious Corals FMP 

No. Effective 

Date 

Action 

1 1988 Applies the management measures of the FMP to U.S. Pacific Insular 

Areas other than Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 

Islands by incorporating them into a single exploratory permit area; 

expands the Precious Corals MUS list to include any coral of the genus 

Corallium; and outlines provisions for experimental fishing permits. 

2 1991 Defines a bed as overfished with respect to recruitment when the total 

spawning biomass (all species combined) has been reduced to 20 

percent of its unfished condition. 

3 1998 Establishes a framework procedure for adjustment of management 

measures. 

4 1999 Identifies and describes EFH for managed species of precious corals, 

discusses measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the 

precious corals fishery, provides criteria for identifying when 

overfishing has occurred, and describes fishing communities in the 

region. 

5 2004 Prohibits the harvest of Precious Corals MUS in the no-take marine 

protected areas designated under the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

(waters shallower than 50 fathoms around Jarvis Island, Howland 

Island, Baker Island, Kingman Reef, and Rose Atoll). 

6 2006 Includes CNMI in the FMP and establishes federal permitting and 

reporting requirements for precious corals fisheries operating around 

the CNMI. 

7 2008 Designates the Au’au Channel black coral bed as an established bed 

with a harvest quota. Implements a 5-year gold coral moratorium for 

the western Pacific. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

13

1.3.1.1.5.Pelagics FMP 

The Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region FMP (Pelagics FMP) was implemented on 

February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5983). At the time the Pelagics FMP was drafted, the U.S. government 

was in the process of attempting to limit foreign longline fishing effort within the EEZ, and 

encouraging more domestic harvesting and utilization of fishery resources. The Pelagics FMP 

replaced a previous preliminary management plan (PMP), which governed foreign longline 

fishing in the EEZ of the Western Pacific Region. Management measures originally put in place 

under the Pelagics FMP included the following: 

1. Establishment of a triggering mechanism to institute new area closures for foreign 

longline vessels in the EEZ; 

2. elimination of existing quotas on foreign longline catches in the EEZ; 

3. requires federal longline catch reports, including interactions with protected species in the 

EEZ; 

4. prohibition on the use of drift gill nets in the EEZ (except by domestic vessels fishing 

under an experimental permit); and 

5. in cooperation with the U.S. State Department, establishment of a process to obtain data 

on the incidental catch of pelagic fishes in the EEZ by tuna pole-and-line and purse 

seine9

 vessels. 

A subsequent rule, effective November 26, 1990 (55 FR 42967), requires that catch-and-effort 

data for species managed under the FMP (Pelagic MUS) be reported to the State of Hawaii, the 

Territory of American Samoa, and the Territory of Guam in compliance with the respective laws 

and regulations of each area.10 

Over the years, the FMP has been amended several times. Table 1-4 summarizes these 

amendments to the Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

Table 1-4. Amendments to the Pelagics FMP.

Amendments to the Pelagics FMP 

No. Effective 

Date

Action

1 1991 Provides: (a) a measurable definition of recruitment overfishing 

for billfishes, mahimahi, wahoo, and oceanic sharks; (b) a 

revised definition of optimum yield (OY); and (c) a revised set 

of objectives to conform to the MSA. 

 

9 The original Pelagics FMP contained no restrictions on foreign or domestic purse seine or pole-and-line tuna 

vessels, as tuna were not yet included as fish under the MSA or as MUS under the FMP. Amendment 6 to the FMP 

added tuna and related species to the FMP and closed the U.S. EEZ to foreign purse seine and pole-and-line tuna 

vessels. The U.S. tuna purse seine fleet in the Western Pacific is generally managed under the South Pacific Tuna 

Treaty, although provisions of the Pelagics FMP apply to U.S. purse seine vessels fishing within the U.S. EEZ. 

10 At that time, the CNMI was not yet included in the management area of the Pelagics FMP. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

14

Amendments to the Pelagics FMP 

No. Effective 

Date

Action

2 1991 (Proceeded by an emergency rule.) Requires longline and 

transshipping vessel owners to obtain permits for their vessels, 

and requires vessel operators to maintain and submit to NMFS 

logbook data on their fishing and transshipping activities. 

Extends the jurisdiction of the FMP to include the CNMI. Adds 

tuna to Pelagic MUS (PMUS) list. Establishes a protected 

species zone in the NWHI such that vessel operators intending to 

fish in this zone must notify NMFS in advance and carry an 

observer if requested. Requires notification of NMFS within 12 

hours of return to port after any transshipment activity or 

landing. 

3 1991 (Proceeded by an emergency rule.) Prohibits longline fishing 

within 50 nm of the NWHI as well as within corridors between 

those islands. Abrogates the requirement for observers 

established in Amendment 2. Requires notification of NMFS 

when transiting the protected species zone. 

4 1991 (Proceeded by an emergency moratorium and establishment of a 

control date for possible use in a limited entry program.) Extends 

until April 1994 a moratorium on the issuance of new permits to 

participate in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Provides a 

framework under which vessel monitoring systems (VMS) may 

be required. 

5 1992 (Proceeded by an emergency rule.) Prohibits longline fishing 

within 75 nm of the islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, and Kaula, 

and within 50 nm of the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, 

Lanai, and Molokai. A longline closure of approximately 50 

nautical miles is also implemented around Guam and its offshore 

banks. Establishes framework procedures to adjust the size of the 

closed areas and modify criteria for exemptions. 

6 1992 Adds tuna and related species to the FMP. Extends closed areas 

and requirements applicable to foreign longline vessels to 

foreign bait boats and purse seine vessels. 

7 1994 Establishes a limited entry program for the Hawaii longline 

fishery for pelagic species. Includes broad framework measures 

for more efficient management of the fishery. 

8 1999 Establishes a permit and reporting requirement for the pelagic 

troll and handline fishery in the PRIA. 

9 Abandoned (Draft amendment 9 considered establishing limits on shark 

landings and was rendered moot by the Shark Finning 

Prohibition Act.) 

10 2004 Prohibits fishing for PMUS in the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP 

no-take MPA. Amends the list of PMUS. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

15

Amendments to the Pelagics FMP 

No. Effective 

Date

Action

11 2005 Establishes a limited entry program for the American Samoa 

longline fishery. 

15 2008 Designates three species of pelagic squid as management unit 

species, and establishes permitting and reporting requirements 

for squid jig fishing vessels over 50 ft (15.4 m) in length. 

18 2009 Removes the effort (set) limit, eliminates set-certificates, while 

continuing sea turtle hard caps, circle hooks, mackerel bait, and 

100% observer coverage in the Hawaii-based shallow set 

longline fishery targeting swordfish. 

FRAMEWORK AMENDMENTS

No. Effective 

Date

Action

1 2002 Prohibits vessels greater than 50 feet in length overall from 

fishing for PMUS between 3 and 50 nautical miles around the 

islands of American Samoa.

2 2002 (Proceeded by an emergency rule.) Requires Hawaii longline 

limited access vessels operating north of 23° N to employ a linesetting machine with weighted branch lines (45g minimum) or 

use basket style gear, and to use blue-dyed bait and strategic 

offal discards during setting and hauling longlines. Also requires 

certain seabird handling techniques and attendance by owners 

and operators at an annual protected species workshop conducted 

by NMFS. 

REGULATORY AMENDMENTS

1 2002 Prohibits targeting of swordfish north of the equator by Hawaii 

longline vessels, closes all fishing to longline vessels during 

April and May in waters south of the Hawaiian Islands (from 15° 

N to the equator and from 145° W to 180°), and prohibits the 

landing or possessing of more than 10 swordfish per trip by 

longline (limited entry or general) vessels and possession of light 

sticks. Vessels with a freeboard more than 3 feet must carry line 

clippers, dip nets, and wire or bolt cutters. Float lines must be 

longer than 20 meters. If monofilament longline is used, must 

have at least 15 branch lines between floats. If basket-style gear 

is used, must have at least 10 branch lines between floats. 

Deepest point of main longline between any 2 floats must be 100 

meters. Vessel operators must attend and be certified at a 

protected species workshop. 

2 2002 Establishes permit and reporting requirements for any U.S. 

fishing vessel that uses troll or handline gear to harvest PMUS in 

the EEZ around the PRIA. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

16

Amendments to the Pelagics FMP 

No. Effective 

Date

Action

3 2004 Reopens the swordfish-directed component of the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery and eliminates the seasonal closure for longline 

fishing in an area south of the Hawaiian Islands. For swordfish 

fishing, requires circle hooks and mackerel-type bait, annual 

fleet-wide limits on interactions with leatherback and loggerhead 

sea turtles, an annual fleet-wide limit on fishing effort, and other 

mitigation measures including the requirements for setting at 

night when fishing above 23° N. 

For the complete list of regulations pertaining to each FMP as well as other fisheries regulations 

that apply to the Western Pacific Region, see 50 CFR Part 665. 

1.4. National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331, et seq.) establishes a national environmental policy, provides an 

interdisciplinary framework for environmental planning by Federal agencies, provides 

opportunities for public involvement in agency decision-making, and contains procedures to 

ensure that Federal decision-makers take environmental factors into account. NEPA does not 

require that the most environmentally desirable alternative be chosen, but does require that the 

environmental effects of the alternatives be analyzed for the benefit of decision-makers and the 

public. 

NEPA has two principal purposes: 

1. To require Federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of 

any major planned Federal action to ensure that public officials make wellinformed decisions about the potential impacts. 

2. To promote public awareness of potential impacts at the earliest planning 

stages of major Federal actions by requiring Federal agencies to prepare a detailed 

environmental evaluation for any major Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 

NEPA requires an assessment of the biological, social and economic consequences of major 

Federal actions and provides members of the public with an opportunity to be involved in and to 

influence decision-making on Federal actions. In short, NEPA ensures that environmental 

information is available to government officials and the public before decisions are made and 

actions taken. 

Federal fishery management actions subject to NEPA requirements include the approval (under 

the MSA) of FMPs, FMP amendments, and regulations implementing FMPs. Such approval 

requires preparation of the appropriate level of NEPA analysis (Categorical Exclusion, 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

17

Environmental Assessment, or Environmental Impact Statement). On the basis of a review of 

NEPA and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS and the Council have determined that a 

Programmatic EIS level analysis is the appropriate level of analysis to inform the agency 

decisions considered here: replacement of the Western Pacific FMPs with one or more FEPs, and 

adjustment of the MUS lists as appropriate. The actions are administrative and the scope of the 

analysis is broad and at the program-level. This document describes the proposed action and 

alternatives and evaluates the impacts on the human environment. Future proposals to amend 

fishery management measures would undergo separate NEPA analysis as appropriate and at such 

time as the proposals are developed. 

1.4.1. Action Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service 

The action agency for this action is NMFS (also known as NOAA Fisheries Service). NMFS is a 

line office of the U.S. Commerce Department’s NOAA, and is the primary federal agency 

responsible for stewardship of the nation’s living marine resources and their habitats. NMFS is 

represented in the Western Pacific Region by its Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) and 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), both located in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

1.4.2. Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government, Council, State, 

Territories, and Commonwealth in Fisheries Management in the Western 

Pacific Region 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) specifically 

established the boundaries of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) within which the U.S. 

Congress granted primary jurisdiction to NOAA over management of fisheries resources. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administers the nation’s fishery management 

programs in accordance with the MSA and other applicable laws. The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council is the advisory group that develops and oversees fishery management in 

the Western Pacific Region through recommendations to NMFS. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for reviewing major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, including FMPs and FMP 

amendments (Amendments) as developed under the MSA where those plans and amendments 

are subject to the EIS requirement of the NEPA. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) manages the planning, designing, building and 

operating of water resources and other civil works projects (e.g., navigation, flood control, 

environmental protection, disaster response, etc.). The ACOE is also in charge of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits for authorized discharge of sediment into waters of the 

U.S., including wetlands. With regard to commercial fishing, the ACOE is most often involved 

in near shore projects such as wharf construction and harbor improvements. 

NOAA’s Ocean Service (NOS) co-manages the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary, manages the Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in American Samoa, 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

18

and co-administers the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). 

The Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or FWS) 

manages ten National Wildlife Refuges throughout the Western Pacific Region. The FWS is a 

co-trustee with the State and NOAA of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in 

the NWHI, which was established in 2006. 

The Department of Defense, through the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, controls 

access and use of various marine waters throughout the region (e.g., Pearl Harbor, certain areas 

off of Guam). 

The Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, and the State of Hawaii manage 

marine resources and fisheries within waters 0 to 3 miles from their shorelines, except where 

Federal jurisdiction preempts. In the CNMI, the submerged lands and marine resources from the 

shoreline to 200 miles have all been determined to be under the jurisdiction of the Federal 

government. 

1.4.3. International Regional Fishery Management Organizations 

1.4.3.1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

The International Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean was opened for signature on September 5, 

2000. The objective of the Convention is to assure the long-term conservation and sustainable 

use of highly migratory fish stocks in the region. The Convention was effective as of April 19, 

2004, and most signatories—including the U.S.—have either ratified it or consented to its 

provisions. The Convention also provides for the participation of fishing entities and Territories 

situated within the Convention area. The Convention established a Commission for the 

Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean, now more commonly referred to as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (WCPFC). See Figure 1-2 for a schematic of the WCPFC convention area. 

1.4.3.2. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) was established by international 

convention in 1949 and is responsible for the conservation and management of tuna fisheries and 

other species taken by tuna fishing activity in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The convention area of 

the IATTC is bounded by the coasts of the Americas to longitude 150° W, and to the 50° N and 

50° S lines of latitude. These boundaries were established in the Antigua Convention in 2003, 

which modified the original area of the IATTC established in 1949. 

The organization consists of a Commission in which each member country may be represented 

by up to four commissioners and a Director of Investigations. The Director is responsible for 

drafting research programs, overseeing budgets, managing administrative support, directing 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

19

technical staff, coordinating with other organizations and preparing reports to the Commission. 

The IATTC maintains a core staff of fishery scientists that coordinate and conduct research, 

manage observer programs, and collect, compile, analyze, and disseminate fishery data and 

scientific findings. 

The Council and NMFS also work closely with other international organizations across the 

Pacific such as the Forum Fisheries Agency, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 

and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community. 

 

Figure 1-2. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Convention Area. 

1.4.4. Public Participation in Development of the FEPs 

A major function of NEPA is to ensure that Federal agencies provide for public involvement and 

disclosure process when making decisions that may affect the human environment. The NEPA 

process fosters public participation by requiring that Federal agencies conduct public scoping 

meetings prior to the development of a draft EIS, as well as make all draft and final EISs 

available for public review and comment. Public involvement occurs at a number of stages 

during development of FEPs and public comments are also welcome and encouraged throughout 

the Council and MSA process. Below are summaries of public involvement opportunities 

provided at various stages in the FEP and NEPA document development process. 

~ '\. ,. ("' I .----._ RU SSUI ~ \,~ - .. - - r ~~ L. 

I'\.... k-1~ £~~ ,.g::.; !v 

\ UN I TED ST ATES 

CH I N A ;;, 1)~; JAPAN V 'Cl= •F~ •~-,: FG \""ls-- I ~ •MIi 

-~ l ;~ \ I , 

f\ 

~ ~ 1 ., -- " ., .. _,,.,. ·- r------,.c 1.,-~ ~r- ~-· ...,, .. " "°'"f"'ft¥ollJ;rlil ,, I • 111,,Ul'SI 

""i I 

, , -:J<-a ~ J.... .... -·-r;-·· ·~ - ~!!:,,~ . --:-~ ~J!..c, ~ I~ I . .,._ ..... . = ,_ I 

~ Joo.{,~ ~-~ =- ~:-;.- -· I CION I 

- · - lF""~~- ., ... • ri~,o 

IJ'r{-~J\ - L: ....... , .~ Pl«•• 1115 

I -~ ~ F--~'~- n...a, ,.., 

:( ~ ..... . ..,,; AUS T RA L IA 11 _..,..,. 

,. 

~~ V ZEALA~O -r: Co1~11ibo.1Nc;o..-,..,,.U•• I ~.......- ...... .,..._.,.,.,..11,•1,.tory _,_ 1'9n!Jt«k:I i.1i.."'"1,,. • .,. 

I 

'Cl c,: V C:.-1,.ll"•cll'tc OC••• 

I -- ic.ot....-tiotll IIIIIIS 1---- I 

~le .. lJ 

I ~ Alrlilpel19~ -t n 

··~- ~ ! i I ! i I j I ~ I I -· ~--- ~- ...... _ 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

20

1.4.4.1. Notice of Intent and Public Scoping 

The Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 

2004 (69 FR 61351). Between October and December 2004, eight public scoping meetings were 

advertised in local newspapers and held across the Western Pacific Region. The dates, locations 

and attendance of the meetings are listed in Table 1-5. 

Table 1-5. EIS Public Scoping Meeting Schedule. 

Date Location Number of Attendees 

October 27, 2004 Hilo, Hawaii, HI 24 

October 28, 2004 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, HI 6 

November 1, 2004 Honolulu, Oahu, HI 11 

November 2, 2004 Kahului, Maui, HI 0 

November 3, 2004 Lihue, Kauai, HI 1 

November 16, 2004 Susupe, Saipan, CNMI 22 

November 17, 2004 Hagatna, GU 23 

December 8, 2004 Pago Pago, AS 19 

The Council’s proposed plan for an incremental, stepwise approach to ecosystem-based fisheries 

management was presented at each of the public scoping meetings, and similar comments were 

received at all the meetings. Generally, the members of the public who attended the scoping 

meetings were supportive of the Council’s shift from species-based FMPs to place-based FEPs. 

Although much of the discussion at the scoping meetings was broad-based and conceptual, 

several comments focused on “mountain to sea” management, jurisdictional issues, indigenous 

rights, community-based management, education, and enforcement. 

In 2005, the Council held a series of public informational meetings on its shift towards 

ecosystem fisheries management and the establishment of place-based FEPs as follows: 

• October 22, 2005 – Pago Pago, AS 

• October 25, 2005 – Susepe, Saipan, CNMI 

• October 26, 2005 – Tinian, CMNI 

• October 27, 2005 – Rota, CNMI 

• November 1, 2005 – Honolulu, HI 

Other public meetings where the Council’s proposed shift toward a fisheries ecosystem approach 

and the establishment of FEPs was discussed include the following: 

• October 13, 2005 – Joint Plan Team Meeting, Honolulu, HI 

• October 18, 2005 – 90th SSC Meeting, Honolulu, HI 

• November 11, 2005 – 129th Council Meeting, Tumon, GU 

• December 20, 2005 – 130th Council Meeting, Honolulu, HI 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

21

In addition to opportunities to participate in Council meetings, interested and affected parties had 

two opportunities to provide input on the draft proposals. An initial draft PEIS dated October 27, 

2005, was made available for public comment on November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68443). After 

considering public comments on the 2005 draft PEIS (see Appendix F for a summary of 

comments received on that draft), a second draft PEIS was released for public review and 

comment on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 18644; April 13, 2007). Comment letters regarding the 

2007 draft PEIS are provided in Appendix E and a summary of comments and agency responses 

is provided in Chapter 6. 

1.5. Topics in Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management 

An overarching goal of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is to maintain and 

conserve the structure and function of marine ecosystems by managing fisheries in a holistic 

manner that considers the ecological linkages and relationships between a species and its 

environment, including its human uses and societal values (Garcia et al. 2003, Laffoley et al.

2004, Pikitch et al. 2004). Although the literature on the objectives and principles of ecosystem 

approaches to management is extensive, there remains a lack of consensus and much uncertainty 

among scientists and policy makers on how to best apply these often theoretical objectives and 

principles in a real-world regulatory environment (Garcia et al. 2003; Hilborn 2004). In many 

cases, it is a lack of scientific information that hinders implementation (e.g., ecosystem 

indicators); in others cases, there are jurisdictional and institutional barriers that must be 

overcome before the necessary changes can be accomplished to ensure healthy marine fisheries 

and ecosystems (e.g., ocean zoning). These and other topics are briefly discussed below to 

provide a context for the proposed actions analyzed in this document. 

1.5.1. Ecosystem Boundaries 

It widely recognized that ecosystems are not static, but that the structure and functions vary over 

time because of various dynamic processes (Christensen et al. 1996; Kay and Schneider 1994; 

Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel 1999). The term “ecosystem” was coined in 1935 by A. 

G. Tansley, who defined ecosystems as “an ecological community together with its environment, 

considered as a unit” (Tansley 1935). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has defined an 

ecosystem as “a system containing complex interactions among organisms and their non-living, 

physical environment” (USFWS 1994), while NOAA defines an ecosystem as “a geographically 

specified system of organisms (including humans), the environment, and the processes that 

control its dynamics” (NOAA 2004). 

Although these definitions are more or less consistent (although only NOAA explicitly includes 

humans as part of ecosystems), the identification of ecosystems is often difficult and dependent 

on the scale of observation or application. For example, ecosystems can be reasonably identified 

for an intertidal zone on Maui, Hawaii, as well as for the entire North Pacific Ocean. For this 

reason, hierarchical classification systems are often used in mapping ecosystem linkages between 

habitat types (Allen and Hoekstra 1992, Holthus and Maragos 1995). NOAA’s Ecosystem 

Advisory Panel found that although marine ecosystems are generally open systems, bathymetric 

and oceanographic features allow their identification on a variety of bases. In order to be used as 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

22

functional management units, however, ecosystem boundaries need to be geographically based 

and aligned with ecologically meaningful boundaries (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 

2002). Furthermore, if used as a basis for management measures, an ecosystem must be defined 

in a manner that is both scientifically and administratively defensible (Gonsalez 1996). Similarly, 

Sissenwine and Murawski (2004) found that delineating ecosystem boundaries is necessary to an 

ecosystem approach, but that the scale of delineation must be based on the spatial extent of the 

system that is to be studied or influenced by management. Thus, the identification of ecosystem 

boundaries for management purposes may differ from those identified from purely scientific 

assessments, but in all cases ecosystems are geographically defined, or in other words, placebased. 

1.5.2. Precautionary Approach, Burden of Proof, and Adaptive Management 

There is general consensus that a key component of ecosystem approaches to resource 

management is the use of precautionary approaches and adaptive management (EPAP 1999). 

The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 

states that under a precautionary approach: 

“[In] the absence of adequate scientific information, cautious conservation 

management measures [such as] catch limits and effort limits should [be 

implemented and] remain in force until there is sufficient data to allow assessment 

of the impacts of an activity on the long-term sustainability of the stocks, whereupon 

conservation and management measures based on that assessment should be 

implemented.” (FAO 1995) 

This approach allows appropriate levels of resource utilization through increased buffers and 

other precautions where necessary to account for environmental fluctuations and uncertain 

impacts of fishing and other activities on the ecology of the marine environment (Pikitch et al.

2004). 

A notion often linked with the precautionary approach is shifting the “burden of proof” from 

resource scientists and managers to those who are proposing to utilize those resources. Under 

this approach, individuals would be required to prove that their proposed activity would not 

adversely affect the marine environment, as compared to the current situation that in general 

allows uses unless managers can demonstrate such impacts (Hildreth et al. 2005). Proponents of 

this approach believe it would appropriately shift the responsibility for the projection and 

analysis of environmental impacts to potential resource users and fill information gaps, thus 

shortening the time period between management decisions (Hildreth et al. 2005). Others believe 

that it is unrealistic to expect fishery participants and other resource users to have access to the 

necessary information and analytical skills to make such assessments. 

The precautionary approach is linked to adaptive management through continued research and 

monitoring of approved activities (Hildreth et al. 2005). As increased information and an 

improved understanding of the managed ecosystem become available, adaptive management 

requires resource managers to operate within a flexible and timely decision structure that allows 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

23

for quick management responses to new information or to changes in ecosystem conditions, 

fishing operations, or community structures. 

1.5.3. Ecological Effects of Fishing and Nonfishing Activities 

Fisheries may affect marine ecosystems in numerous ways, and vice versa. Populations of fish 

and other ecosystem components can be affected by the selectivity, magnitude, timing, location, 

and methods of fish removals. Fisheries can also affect marine ecosystems through vessel 

disturbance, bycatch or discards, impacts on nutrient cycling, introduction of exotic species, 

pollution, and habitat disturbance, as well as shifts in trophic levels, species composition, or 

ecosystem function. Historically, federal fishery management focused primarily on ensuring 

long-term sustainability by preventing overfishing and by rebuilding overfished stocks. 

However, the reauthorization of the MSA in 1996 placed additional priority on reducing 

nontarget or incidental catches, minimizing fishing impacts to habitat, and eliminating 

interactions with protected species. As a result fisheries management has significantly improved 

in these areas in recent years; however, there is now an increasing emphasis on the need to 

account for and minimize the unintended and indirect consequences of fishing activities on other 

components of the marine environment such as predator–prey relationships, trophic guilds, and 

biodiversity (Dayton et al. 2002; Browman and Stergiou 2004a, 2004b). 

For example, fishing for a particular species at a level which is below its maximum sustainable 

yield can nevertheless limit its availability to predators, which, in turn, may impact the 

abundance of the predator species. Similarly, removal of top-level predators can potentially 

increase populations of lower trophic level species, thus causing an imbalance or change in the 

community structure of an ecosystem (Pauly et al. 1998). Successful ecosystem management will 

require significant improvement in our understanding of the impacts of these changes and the 

formulation of appropriate responses to adverse changes. 

Marine resources are also affected by nonfishing aquatic and land-based activities. For example, 

according to NOAA’s State of Coral Reefs Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 

Associated States: 2005 (NOAA 2005a), anthropogenic11 stressors that are potentially 

detrimental to coral reef resources include the following: 

• Coastal development and runoff 

• Coastal pollution 

• Tourism and recreation 

• Ships, boats, and groundings 

• Anchoring 

• Marine debris 

• Aquatic invasive species 

• Security training activities 

 

11 Anthropogenic stressors or impacts are those that originate from human activities. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

24

Non-anthropogenic impacts such as weather cycles, hurricanes, and environmental regime 

changes also have an effect on the ecosystem. Although managers cannot regulate or otherwise 

control such events, their occurrence can often be predicted and management responses can 

lessen their adverse impacts. 

Understanding the complex interrelationships between marine organisms and their physical 

environment is a fundamental component of successful ecosystem approaches to management. 

Obtaining the necessary information to comprehensively assess, interpret, and manage these 

interrelationships will require in-depth and long-term research on specific ecosystems. 

1.5.4. Data and Information Needs 

Numerous research and data collection projects and programs have been undertaken in the 

Western Pacific Region and have resulted in the collection of huge volumes of potentially 

valuable detailed bathymetric, biological and other data. Some of this information has been 

processed and analyzed by fishery scientists and managers; however, much has proven difficult 

to handle because of differences in collection methodologies coupled with a lack of metadata12

or documentation of how the data were collected and coded. This has resulted in incompatible 

datasets as well as data that are virtually inaccessible to anyone except the primary researchers. 

The rehabilitation and integration of existing datasets, as well as the establishment of shared 

standards for the collection and documentation of new data, will be an essential part of 

successful and efficient ecosystem management in the Western Pacific Region. 

To this end, the Council convened three workshops. The first was the Ecosystem Science and 

Management Planning Workshop held April 18–22, 2005 in Honolulu, Hawaii, which was 

attended by world-renowned ecosystem scientists as well as high-level government agency 

officials. The objective of this workshop was to determine the (biophysical) science and data 

needs to support the application of ecosystem principles in planning and management. The 

summary of the workshop proceedings is provided in Appendix C and the full proceedings can 

be obtained online from www.wpcouncil.org or by mail13 from the Council. Key points from the 

workshop include the following: 

• Management and policy objectives need to be clearly and precisely stated prior to data 

collection or modeling/analyses being initiated; 

• model or analysis choice must be driven firstly by management and policy objectives, 

and secondly by available or obtainable data; 

• adaptive management experiments, involving deliberate spatial comparisons of 

management measures (e.g., marine protected areas) are of crucial importance for 

developing and implementing ecosystem-based management approaches; 

• models cannot and should not determine the management decision, which, by its very 

nature, is choice driven and influenced by tradeoffs; 

 

12 Metadata (Greek meta "about" and Latin data "information") are data that describe other data. Generally, a set of 

metadata describes a single data point or a set of data. 

13 WPFMC, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

25

• some data collection efforts, while labeled as ecosystem-based, may not be appropriately 

scaled (in terms of spatial-temporal sampling) or may not target useful variables or 

parameters for ecosystem-based fisheries management; 

• new or different data may need to be collected, depending on clearly identified 

management/policy issues, and the associated analysis/modeling needs. Such data 

activities should include data ‘mining’ and data recovery from old and/or unusual sources 

(e.g., research theses, unpublished grey literature, old print and electronic media etc.); 

and 

• concerted efforts are required to reduce or overcome agency specific disagreements (e.g., 

jurisdictional boundaries) and miscommunication in an integrative approach to move 

towards system management as a centralized objective. 

The following recommendations were produced from the ecosystem science workshop: 

1. Clearly define and articulate management and policy issues and objectives along lines of 

urgency and identified needs; 

2. assign a centralized resource entity with sufficient seniority and appropriate financial and 

human resources to establish and maintain a centralized data reference and contact point 

(the “who, what, where, when, and how” of data); 

3. review and evaluate all currently available data and data collection schemes (biological, 

social, economic etc.), and initiate and maintain data ‘mining’ and recovery activities; 

4. undertake initial assessments and analyses of available data, based on key 

management/policy issues identified by management and stakeholders. This is primarily 

aimed at identifying strengths and weaknesses of current data and data collection 

programs, and pointing out obvious data gaps; 

5. identify and initiate adaptive management experiments at ecosystem scale; 

6. ensure that data collection and models/analyses for ecosystem-based management are 

coordinated with and driven by clearly identified management needs and issues; 

7. encourage keeping all models/analyses at the simplest level possible, and avoid the 

temptation to build large, exceedingly complex models; 

8. ensure adequate support and resources for clearly identified ecosystem-scale monitoring, 

research and modeling/analytical investigations; and 

9. evaluate a suite of indicators (both existing fishery-based, as well as new and emerging 

ecosystem-based) in an evolving and adaptive process. 

The second workshop the Council convened was the Ecosystem Social and Policy Science 

Workshop (January 2006). This workshop addressed human dimensions of ecosystems and 

facilitated informed discussion of social science requirements for effectively supporting an 

ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Western Pacific Region. Participants 

included social science experts with experience in marine resources management issues as well 

as fishery managers and scientists. Based on presentations made at the workshop, the preparers 

of the proceedings recommended the following steps to incorporate social science methods, 

models, and principles in the development and implementation of an appropriate ecosystem 

approach. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

26

1. Establish a venue for choosing priorities and specific management measures. 

Establishment of a venue for Council, NMFS, and regional social scientists to work 

toward (a) prioritization of FEP objectives vis-à-vis social science applications, and (b) 

identification of specific management measures and related information needs to meet 

those objectives, may serve to resolve complexity. 

2. Design research to meet prioritized objectives and information needs. Once prospective 

management measures are identified in association with the prioritized objectives, 

expertise should ideally be applied to formulate specific plans for conducting social 

research in the region as needed to assess the possible effects of implementing those 

measures. Given that extant data may contribute both to the design of the research and to 

the necessary analyses, the first and indispensable step in the process would be 

compilation and organization of relevant data. 

3. Implement a research and monitoring strategy. In cases where existing data are 

insufficient for assessing the prospective management measures, a strategy for 

sponsoring and conducting the necessary research and analyses should be implemented. 

4. Develop and implement liaison and performance evaluation programs. There is utility in 

establishing means by which resource user groups may readily interact and communicate 

on a regular, non-contentious, and interactive basis with management entities in the 

region. 

A summary of the social science workshop proceedings is provided in Appendix C and the full 

proceedings can be obtained online at www.wpcouncil.org or by mail14 from the Council. A 

third workshop on data needs for FEPs was convened in October 2006 and attended by Federal 

and Western Pacific Region State, Territory and Commonwealth fisheries scientists and 

managers. The objective of the workshop was to review data needs for FEPs. A fourth workshop 

was held in January 2007 to build off of the recommendations and discussions generated in the 

April 2005 and January 2006 ecosystem workshops.15 The ecosystem management models in 

this FPEIS and embodied in the FEPs incorporate the output from those workshops and other 

reviews during public comment periods. 

1.5.5. Use of Indicators and Models 

Ecosystem-based management is enhanced by the ability to understand and predict 

environmental changes, as well as the development of measurable characteristics (e.g., indices or 

indicators) related to the structure, composition, or function of an ecological system (de Young et 

al. 2004, EPAP 1999, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Ecosystem Approach Task Force 

2003). 

1.5.5.1. Indicators 

The development and use of indicators are integral parts of an ecosystem approach to 

management as they provide a relatively simple mechanism to track complex trends in 

ecosystems or ecosystem components. Indicators can be used to help define what is changing 

 

14 WPRFMC, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. 

15 Workshop report can be found on the Council’s website: www.wpcouncil.org 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

27

and to what extent (state variables; e.g., coral reef biomass); why is it changing (pressure 

variables; e.g., bleaching); and why it is important and what should be done (response variables; 

e.g., management measures). This pressure–state–response framework provides a mechanism for 

causal change analyses of complex phenomena in the marine environment, and can clarify the 

presentation and communication of such analyses to a wide variety of stakeholders (R.Wakeford, 

MRAG, personal communication). 

While much has been written on potential marine ecosystem indicators (FAO 1999; ICES 2000, 

2005), to date there are no established reference points for optimal ecosystem structures, 

composition, or functions. Because of the subjective nature of describing or defining the 

desirable ecosystems that would be associated with such reference points (e.g., a return to some 

set of prehistoric conditions vs. an ecosystem capable of sustainable harvests); this remains a 

topic of much discussion. 

1.5.5.2. Models 

The ecosystem approach is regarded by some as endlessly complicated as it is assumed that 

managers need to completely understand the detailed structure and function of an entire 

ecosystem in order to implement effective ecosystem-based management measures (Browman 

and Stergiou 2004a, 2004b). Although true in the ideal, interim approaches to ecosystem 

management need not be overly complex to achieve meaningful improvements. 

Increasing interest in ecosystem approaches to management has led to significant increases in the 

modeling of marine ecosystems, using various degrees of parameter and spatial resolution. 

Ecosystem modeling of the Western Pacific Region has progressed from simple mathematical 

models to dynamically parameterized simulation models16 (Polovina 1984; Polovina et al. 1994; 

Polovina et al. 2004). 

While physical oceanographic models are well developed, modeling of trophic ecosystem 

components has lagged primarily because of the lack of reliable, detailed, long-term data. 

Consequently, there is no single, fully integrated model that can simulate all of the ecological 

linkages between species and the environment (de Young et al. 2004). 

De Young et al. (2004) also examined the challenges of ecosystem modeling and presented 

several approaches to incorporating uncertainty into such models. However, Walters (2005) 

cautioned against becoming overly reliant on models to assess the relative risks of various 

management alternatives and suggests that modeling exercises should be used as aids in 

experimental design rather than as precise prescriptive tools. 

1.5.6. Single-Species Management vs. Multi-species Management 

A major theme in ecosystem approaches to fisheries management is the movement from 

conventional, single-species management to multi-species management (Mace 2004; Sherman 

and Alexander 1986). Multi-species management is generally defined as management based on 

 

16 A computer simulation or a computer model that attempts to simulate an abstract model of a particular system. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

28

the consideration of all fishery impacts on all marine species rather than focusing on the 

maximum sustainable yield for any one species. The fact that many of the ocean’s fish stocks are 

believed to be overexploited (FAO 2002) has been used by some as evidence that single-species 

models and single-species management have failed (Hilborn 2004, Mace 2004). However, 

Hilborn (2004) noted that some of the species that were historically overexploited (e.g., whales, 

bluefin tuna) were not subject to any management measures, single-species or otherwise. In other 

cases (e.g., northern cod), it was not the models that failed but the political process surrounding 

them (Hilborn 2004). Thus, a distinction must be made between the use of single-species or 

multi-species models and the application of their resultant management recommendations. 

Ecosystem management requires that a full range of fishery impacts be considered when 

formulating management measures, and both single-species and multi-species models are 

valuable tools in this analysis. 

Although successful ecosystem management will require the holistic analysis and consideration 

of marine organisms and their environment, the use of single-species models and management 

measures will remain an important part of fishery management (Mace 2004). If applied to all 

significant fisheries within an ecosystem, conservative single-species management has the 

potential to address many ecosystem management issues (ICES 2000, Witherell et al. 2000, 

Murawski 2005). Recognizing the lack of a concise blueprint to implement ecosystem indicators 

and models, there is growing support for building upon traditional single-species management to 

incrementally integrate and operationalize ecosystem principles through the use of 

geographically parameterized indicators and models (Browman and Stergiou 2004a, 2004b; 

Sissenwine and Murawski 2004). At this time the agency is reporting the status of stocks based 

on single species and multi-species stock complexes as it moves towards ecosystem-based 

fishery management. 

1.5.7. Ocean Zoning 

The use of ocean zoning to regulate fishing and nonfishing activities has been a second major 

theme in the development of marine ecosystem management theory (Browman and Stergiou 

2004a, 2004b). In general, these zones are termed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and are 

implemented for a wide variety of objectives ranging from establishing wilderness areas to 

protecting economically important spawning stocks (Lubchenco et al. 2003). On May 26, 2000, 

Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas) was issued for the purpose of strengthening 

and expanding the nation’s existing system of MPAs to “enhance the conservation of our 

Nation’s natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable 

use of the marine environment for future generations.” The Executive Order also established an 

MPA Federal Advisory Committee charged with providing expert advice and recommendations 

on the development of a national system of MPAs. In June 2005, this Committee released its first 

report, which includes a range of objectives and findings including the need for measurable 

goals, objectives, and assessments for all MPAs (NOAA 2005b). Today, MPAs can be found 

throughout the Western Pacific Region and are considered an important tool for marine resource 

management. Ongoing research and outreach are anticipated to result in the implementation of 

additional MPAs as ecosystem research provides additional insights regarding appropriate MPA 

locations and structures to achieve specific objectives. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

29

1.5.8. Interagency Cooperation 

To be successful, ecosystem approaches to management must be designed to foster intra-agency 

and interagency cooperation and communication (Schrope 2002). As discussed in Section 1.2.3, 

the Western Pacific Region includes various federal, state, commonwealth, territory, and local 

government agencies, as well as international management bodies with marine management 

authority. Given that these many agencies (or groups) either share or each have jurisdiction over 

certain areas or activities, reaching consensus on how best to balance resource use with resource 

protection is essential to resolving currently fragmented policies and conflicting objectives. The 

U.S. Ocean Action Plan (issued in response to the report of the U.S. Ocean Commission on 

Policy) recognized this need and established a new cabinet level Committee on Ocean Policy 

(U.S. Ocean Action Plan 2004) to examine and resolve issues regarding coordination among 

federal and local government agencies. In the Western Pacific Region, coordination between 

federal, state and local governments will be especially important to the successful 

implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. 

1.5.9. Community-Based Management 

Communities are created when people live or work together for a long enough time to generate 

local societies. Community members associate to meet common needs and express common 

interests, and relationships built over many generations lead to common cultural values and 

understandings through which people relate to each other and to their environment. At this point, 

collective action may be taken to protect local resources if they appear threatened, scarce, or 

subject to overexploitation. This is known as community-based resource management. 

As ecosystem principles shift the focus of fishery management from species to places, increased 

participation from the primary stakeholders (i.e., community members) can enhance marine 

management by (a) incorporating local knowledge regarding specific locations and ecosystem 

conditions; (b) encouraging the participation of stakeholders in the management process, which 

has been shown to lead to improved data collection and compliance; and (c) improving 

relationships between communities and often centralized government agencies (Dyer and 

McGoodwin 1994). 

Top-down management tends to center on policy positions that polarize different interest groups 

and prevent consensus (Yaffee 1999). In contrast, “place”—a distinct locality imbued with 

meaning—has value and identity for all partners and can serve to organize collaborative 

partnerships. Despite often diverse backgrounds and frequently opposing perspectives, partners 

are inspired to take collective on-the-ground actions organized around their connections and 

affiliations with a particular place (Cheng et al. 2003). 

In August 2004, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13352 to promote 

partnerships between federal agencies and states, local governments, tribes, and individuals that 

will facilitate cooperative conservation and appropriate inclusion of local participation in Federal 

decision making regarding the nation’s natural resources. Similarly the U.S. Ocean Action Plan 

(2004) found that “local involvement by those closest to the resource and their communities is 

critical to ensuring successful, effective, and long-lasting conservation results.” 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

 

30

1.5.10. An Incremental Approach 

Fishery scientists and managers have recognized that a comprehensive ecosystem approach to 

fisheries management must be implemented through an incremental and collaborative process 

(Jennings 2004, NOAA 2004, Sissenwine and Murawski 2004). As described previously, 

successful ecosystem management will require an increased understanding of a range of social 

and scientific issues such as biological and trophic relationships, ecosystem indicators and 

models, and socioeconomic factors. While work on some of these issues has been conducted, 

there is a need for increased efforts in ecosystem research as well as for understanding of how 

information derived from such research should be incorporated into fishery management 

decisions. 

It is clear from the EPAP’s recommendations, as well as the outcomes of the Council’s 

workshops, there is much work to be done to fully implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management in the Western Pacific Region. Therefore, an incremental approach toward full 

implementation is realistic at this time, and future fishery management actions will use new 

information as it becomes available. Linked to the new information will be the development of 

management tools that advance the implementation of ecosystem approaches to fisheries 

management in the Western Pacific Region. Examples of such tools may include the use of food 

webs in predictive models and the use of indicators to monitor ecosystem conditions. 

Although the administrative and operational costs to advance the implementation of ecosystem 

science and management in the Western Pacific Region are unknown at this time, adequate 

funding support will be needed to enable the Council and NMFS to effectively shift from a 

species-based resources management approach to an ecosystem approach. It will also take 

increased coordination among the Council, NMFS, and state and local government agencies to 

fully implement effective ecosystem management. As new information becomes available, and 

adaptive management through the Council process occurs, future actions will be analyzed and 

implemented in compliance with all applicable laws (including NEPA) as required under the 

MSA.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 31 

Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES

2.1. Introduction 

This chapter presents the alternatives considered in this analysis. These alternatives represent a 

reasonable range of actions for the first phase of incremental steps towards the implementation of 

an ecosystem approach to fishery management. Alternatives under the following five 

components were identified: (1) moving toward ecosystem management by replacing existing 

FMPs with FEPs and (2) considering which species would be managed under each FEP; (3) 

Council advisory structure; (4) regional coordination; and, (5) international coordination. 

Components 1 and 2 are regulatory in nature and considered the Federal action in this document. 

Components 3, 4, and 5 are non-regulatory (i.e., they have no regulatory effect), and their 

consideration is included to assist the Council in identifying an appropriate advisory structure 

and coordination activities under an ecosystem-based fishery management structure. Component 

2 is contingent upon selecting one of the action alternatives under Component 1. Table 2-1 

provides a brief description of the alternatives considered in detail for each component. 

The EEZ around the CNMI, the PRIA, Hawaii, Guam, and American Samoa is established by 

international law to be from 0 to 200 miles from the shoreline. The MSA authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce to manage and regulate the fisheries resources of the states, territories 

and possessions of the United States within the Federal waters of the EEZ. This is generally 3-

200 nm except in the CNMI and PRIA where the Federal waters begin at the shoreline and 

extend from 0-200 nm. 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered in Detail. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternatives Description 

Component 1: 

Consideration of ecosystem 

management in place of 

species-based management 

Replace FMPs with FEPs. Included in Component 1 for 

Alternatives 1B through 1E is the associated reorganization of 

existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP 

regulations. 

Alternative 1A - No Action Continue species-based FMP fishery management. Do not 

approve or implement FEPs; Do not replace FMPs with FEPs. 

Alternative 1B For one area only, approve and implement an FEP, which 

would replace existing FMPs. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 32 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternatives Description 

Alternative 1C Approve and implement FEPs that include EEZ waters around 

each archipelagic area (American Samoa, Hawaii, Marianas, 

and PRIA); these FEPs would replace existing FMPs; Retain 

the Pelagics FMP for the domestic pelagic fisheries operating 

on the surrounding high seas. 

Alternative 1D – Preferred 

Alternative 

Approve and implement four demersal FEPs and one pelagic 

FEP, which would replace existing FMPs. 

Alternative 1E Approve and implement FEPs for each biogeographic and 

pelagic zone, which would replace existing FMPs. 

Component 2: List of Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Alternative 2A - No Action Do not change the current MUS lists. 

Alternative 2B – Preferred 

Alternative 

Define FEP MUS as those current MUS that are known17 to be 

present within each FEP boundary. 

Alternative 2C Define FEP MUS as those current MUS known to occur within 

the boundaries of the FEP, plus incidentally caught and 

associated species that are known to occur within each FEP 

boundary. 

Alternative 2D Define FEP MUS as those current MUS believed18 to 

potentially occur, plus incidentally caught and associated 

species believed to potentially occur within each FEP 

boundary. 

Component 3: Council Advisory Structure 

Alternative 3A - No Action Do not change the current advisory structure. 

Alternative 3B Add a single FEP Plan Team to the current advisory structure. 

 

17 For the purpose of this FPEIS, “known” is used to refer to a species generally recognized as being established 

within a particular ecosystem. 18 For the purpose of this FPEIS, “believed” is used to refer to an opinion that a species exists within a particular 

ecosystem or a similar ecosystem of the Western Pacific Region, especially when there is no absolute proof of its 

existence or reality. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 33 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternatives Description 

Alternative 3C Replace the current FMP advisory panels, plan teams, and five 

standing committees with FEP advisory panels, FEP plan 

teams, and FEP standing committees. 

Alternative 3D – Preferred 

Council Action 

Replace the current FMP advisory panels, plan teams, and 

five standing committees with FEP advisory panels, FEP 

standing committees, and two FEP plan teams. 

Component 4: Regional Coordination 

Alternative 4A - No Action Do not establish Ocean Council type groups. 

Alternative 4B – Preferred 

Council Action 

Establish Regional Ecosystem Council Committees. 

Alternative 4C Participate in and support existing Ocean Council type groups. 

Alternative 4D Establish independent Regional Ecosystem Councils. 

Component 5: International Coordination 

Alternative 5A - No Action Continue to participate in international fisheries management 

fora and international workshops. 

Alternative 5B – Preferred 

Council Action 

Increase participation in international fisheries management 

fora and establish meetings/workshops with neighboring 

nations of island areas of the Western Pacific Region. 

Alternative 5C Do not participate in international management fora. 

The alternatives considered in detail are described below. In general, each component's 

alternatives range from no action or status quo to the implementation of a detailed and specific 

approach to the component at hand. Alternatives selected as “preferred” by the Council are 

identified for each component. Several alternatives were also considered but regarded as not 

reasonable and were therefore eliminated from detailed study. These alternatives and the reasons 

that they were not considered in detail are also summarized below. 

2.2. Component 1: Replace the Existing FMPs with FEPs 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose of the proposed Federal action is to establish an 

institutional framework that would allow a shift to an ecosystem approach to fisheries 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 34 

management in the Western Pacific Region. This would be accomplished, in part, through the 

Secretarial approval and implementation of place-based FEPs (Component 1 of the Federal 

action). Although Component 1 of the proposed Federal action also includes the reorganization 

of existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations, no substantive 

changes to current fishing regulations would occur in any of the alternatives as part of the 

Federal action. Under Alternative 1D, the Preferred Alternative, once the Secretary has approved 

the FEPs, the FEPs would replace the existing FMPs as the operating management plans for the 

existing fisheries and would be subject to the MSA, as well as other applicable laws. 

As described in Chapter 1, an ecosystem can be defined as a geographically specified system of 

organisms (including humans), the environment, and the processes that control its dynamics. 

Ecosystems can be considered at various geographic scales, from a coral reef ecosystem with its 

diverse species and benthic habitats to a large marine ecosystem such as the Pacific Ocean. From 

a marine ecosystem management perspective, defining the boundary of an ecosystem is 

challenging as it depends on many factors such as, but not limited to: oceanographic conditions 

(e.g., water circulation, salinity, temperature, and substrate); in addition to biological 

considerations of various marine species including life history characteristics, habitat 

requirements, geographic ranges, and genetic connectivity. Additionally, processes that affect 

and influence abundance and distribution of natural resources such as climate cycles, extreme 

natural events, and acute or chronic anthropogenic impacts must be considered. Substantial 

consideration must also be given to social, economic, and political constraints. 

Description of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) 

The proposed FEPs would not substantively change existing regulations or management; rather 

at this stage they would just reorganize the existing fishery management measures into 

geographically defined management plans. The geographically-based FEPs would replace the 

FMPs and provide the underlying management plan for fisheries in the Western Pacific Region, 

pursuant to the MSA. The proposed FEPs would establish a framework under which the Council 

and NMFS would improve their abilities to incorporate ecosystem science and principles in 

management decisions, consistent with the MSA. To achieve this outcome, the Council has 

adopted the following objectives for the FEPs. 

Objective 1: To maintain biologically diverse and productive marine ecosystems and 

foster the long-term sustainable use of marine resources in an ecologically and culturally 

sensitive manner through the use of a science-based ecosystem approach to resource 

management. 

Objective 2: To provide flexible and adaptive management systems that can rapidly 

address new scientific information and changes in environmental conditions or human 

use patterns. 

Objective 3: To improve public and government awareness and understanding of the 

marine environment in order to reduce unsustainable human impacts and foster support 

for responsible stewardship. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 35 

Objective 4: To encourage and provide for the sustained and substantive participation of 

local communities in the exploration, development, conservation, and management of 

marine resources. 

Objective 5: To minimize fishery bycatch and waste to the extent practicable. 

Objective 6: To manage and co-manage protected species, protected habitats, and 

protected areas. 

Objective 7: To promote the safety of human life at sea. 

Objective 8: To encourage and support appropriate compliance and enforcement with all 

applicable local and federal fishery regulations. 

Objective 9: To increase collaboration with domestic and foreign regional fishery 

management and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations, communities, 

and the public at large to successfully manage marine ecosystems. 

Objective 10: To improve the quantity and quality of available information to support 

marine ecosystem management. 

Description of the procedures that would be used to approve the Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

(FEPs): 

The procedures the Secretary would use to review and approve the FEPs are outlined in the 

MSA. As provided for under the MSA, Section 302 (h)(1), for each fishery under the Council's 

authority that requires conservation and management, the Council shall prepare and submit to the 

Secretary a fishery management plan (for the purpose of MSA, FEPs are considered fishery 

management plans). Section 303 of the MSA provides the required provisions of a fishery 

management plan. Section 304 of the MSA outlines the actions of the Secretary for reviewing 

fishery management plans as submitted by the Council. 

In particular, Section 304 (a) REVIEW OF PLANS reads, in part, as follows: 

(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of a fishery management plan or 

plan amendment, the Secretary shall– 

(A) immediately commence a review of the plan or amendment to determine 

whether it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this 

Act, and any other applicable law; and 

(B) immediately publish in the Federal Register a notice stating that the plan or 

amendment is available and that written information, views, or comments of 

interested persons on the plan or amendment may be submitted to the Secretary 

during the 60-day period beginning on the date the notice is published. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 36 

(2) In undertaking the review required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall– 

(A) take into account the information, views, and comments received from 

interested persons; 

(B) consult with the Secretary of State with respect to foreign fishing; and 

(C) consult with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating with respect to enforcement at sea and to fishery access adjustments 

referred to in section 303(a)(6). 

(3) The Secretary shall approve, disapprove, or partially approve a plan or amendment 

within 30 days of the end of the comment period under paragraph (1) by written notice to 

the Council. A notice of disapproval or partial approval shall specify– 

(A) the applicable law with which the plan or amendment is inconsistent; 

(B) the nature of such inconsistencies; and 

(C) recommendations concerning the actions that could be taken by the Council to 

conform such plan or amendment to the requirements of applicable law. 

If the Secretary does not notify a Council within 30 days of the end of the comment 

period of the approval, disapproval, or partial approval of a plan or amendment, then such 

plan or amendment shall take effect as if approved. 

Under all alternatives for Component 1 that are being considered in detail, continuing adaptive 

management actions may occur to refine the fishery management plan boundaries if and when 

supported by scientific data, management requirements, or management authority. Any such 

future actions, if proposed as part of the regulatory or management structure under the MSA, 

would be considered in accordance with all applicable laws, including NEPA. 

2.2.1. Component 1: Alternatives Considered in Detail 

2.2.1.1. Alternative 1A (No Action): Do not approve or implement FEPs; do not 

replace FMPs with FEPs 

This alternative represents the status quo under which FEPs would not be approved or 

implemented, and the existing five FMPs and their corresponding regulatory structures would 

not be changed. As promulgated under the MSA, the councils are responsible for the preparation 

of FMPs or amendments to those FMPs for each fishery under their authority that requires 

conservation and management. The councils transmit these FMPs to NMFS, acting on behalf of 

the Secretary, for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. Once approved, NMFS 

implements the FMP or FMP amendment through regulations and enforcement. Federal fisheries 

in the Western Pacific Region are currently managed under five species-based FMPs: Pelagics, 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Coral Reef Ecosystems, Crustaceans, and Precious 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 37 

Corals. Under this alternative, fishery operations would continue to be adaptively managed under 

each FMP in accordance with the MSA and other applicable laws and statutes. 

2.2.1.2. Alternative 1B: For one area only, approve and implement an FEP, which 

would replace existing FMPs 

A demersal19 FEP for the Mariana Archipelago was selected as an example under this 

alternative, and the other archipelagos of the Western Pacific Region could be substituted for the 

Mariana FEP for the purposes of this analysis. Under this alternative, for the Federal waters of 

the Mariana Archipelago (i.e., the EEZ waters of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands combined), all demersal marine resources and the associated habitats would be 

delineated as a distinct ecosystem. The fisheries associated with that demersal ecosystem would 

be managed under a Mariana Archipelago FEP. The management of the pelagic marine resources 

and habitats within the Federal waters of the Mariana Archipelago, along with the remaining 

areas within the Western Pacific Region would continue to be managed under the existing five 

species-based FMPs (Table 2-2). Under Alternative 1B, existing regulations relevant to the 

Mariana Archipelago would be reorganized as ecosystem-based regulations specific to that area. 

Although the regulations would be reorganized under Alternative 1B, no substantive changes 

would be made to current fishing regulations as part of Alternative 1B. 

Table 2-2. Current and Proposed Management Structure Under Alternative 1B. 

Current Management Structure 

Proposed Management Structure under 

Alternative 1B 

Bottomfish FMP 

Bottomfish FMP

No Change - Except for the elimination of relevant 

portions of the Bottomfish FMP that would be 

included in the Mariana Archipelago FEP.

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

No Change - Except for the elimination of relevant 

portions of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP that would 

be included in the Mariana Archipelago FEP.

Crustaceans FMP 

Crustaceans FMP 

No Change - Except for the elimination of relevant 

portions of the Crustaceans FMP that would be 

included in the Mariana Archipelago FEP.

Precious Corals FMP 

Precious Corals FMP 

No Change - Except for the elimination of relevant 

portions of the Precious Corals FMP that would be 

included in the Mariana Archipelago FEP.

 

19 “Demersal” applies to species living on or near the bottom of the sea. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 38 

Current Management Structure 

Proposed Management Structure under 

Alternative 1B 

Pelagics FMP 

Pelagics FMP 

No Change. Mariana Archipelago pelagic species 

would not be included in the Mariana Archipelago 

FEP and would continue to be managed under the 

Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

 

Portions of various FMPs 

Mariana Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions from the current 

Bottomfish FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, 

Crustaceans FMP, and Precious Corals FMP.

2.2.1.3. Alternative 1C: Approve and implement FEPs that include EEZ waters 

around each archipelagic area (American Samoa, Hawaii, Mariana, and PRIA); 

these FEPs would replace existing FMPs. Retain the Pelagics FMP for the domestic 

pelagic fisheries operating on the surrounding high seas. 

Under Alternative 1C, the fisheries currently managed under the species-based FMPs would be 

replaced by FEPs covering all Federal waters surrounding each of the Western Pacific Region’s 

geographic areas (Table 2-3). Because of their close proximity, ecological links, and social 

connections, Federal waters and the associated marine resources surrounding Guam and the 

Northern Mariana Islands would be delineated as an ecosystem and the fisheries associated with 

this area would be managed under a Mariana Archipelago FEP. For the same reasons, Federal 

waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands would be delineated as an ecosystem and managed 

under a Hawaiian Archipelago FEP. Federal waters surrounding the islands of American Samoa 

would be delineated as an ecosystem and managed under an American Samoa Archipelago FEP. 

Federal waters around the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands, some of which are part of the Line and 

Phoenix Islands, would be managed under the PRIA FEP. 

The Secretary of Commerce has the authority to manage the nation’s fishery resources 

throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). With the exception of the waters around 

CNMI and the PRIA, the boundaries of the FEPs would encompass all Federal waters from 3 to 

200 miles from shore for each of the Western Pacific Region’s archipelagic areas. The Federal 

waters of the EEZ around CNMI and the PRIA are recognized from 0 to 200 miles from the 

shore. In practice, although CNMI has no jurisdiction over the management (including 

conservation) of fishery resources, the Federal government coordinates with the local 

government in its management programs. 

Because state and territorial waters do not exist in the PRIA, jurisdiction over nearshore fishery 

resources and habitat is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) has the authority to regulate activities within the PRIA National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). NOAA has exclusive jurisdiction to manage the nation’s fishery 

resources throughout the PRIA EEZs. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 39 

Within the EEZ boundaries, both the demersal and pelagic fisheries would be managed under the 

proposed FEPs (Table 2-4). Under Alternative 1C, the management of the domestic Pacific 

pelagic fisheries operating within areas outside of the Western Pacific Region’s archipelagic 

EEZ areas, as defined in Table 2-3, would remain under the Pelagics FMP. In addition, existing 

regulations relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the boundaries under 

each FEP. Although the regulations would be reorganized under Alternative 1C, no substantive 

changes would be made to current fishing regulations as part of Alternative 1C. 

Table 2-3. Delineated Ecosystems for FEPs Under Alternative 1C. 

Note: See Figure 1-1 for a map of the Western Pacific Region and the boundaries of the 

ecosystems under each proposed FEP. 

Table 2-4. Current and Proposed Management Structure Under Alternative 1C.

Current Management Structure: Proposed Management Structure under 

Alternative 1C: 

Bottomfish FMP 

American Samoa Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions from the 

Bottomfish FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem 

FMP, Crustaceans FMP, the Precious 

Corals FMP, and the Pelagics FMP. 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

Mariana Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions from the 

Bottomfish FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem 

FMP, Crustaceans FMP, the Precious 

Corals FMP, and the Pelagics FMP. 

 

20 Because of the ecological and cultural connections between independent Samoa and America Samoa, an advisory 

relationship with independent Samoa would be sought to facilitate the development of collaborative management 

activities. 

FEP Delineated Ecosystem//Management Area 

American Samoa Archipelago All Federal waters surrounding American Samoa.20

Mariana Archipelago All Federal waters surrounding Guam and CNMI. 

Hawaii Archipelago All Federal waters surrounding Hawaii. 

Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) All Federal waters surrounding Howland Island, Baker 

Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Island, Kingman Reef, 

Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 40 

Current Management Structure: Proposed Management Structure under 

Alternative 1C: 

Crustaceans FMP 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions from the 

Bottomfish FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, 

Crustaceans FMP, the Precious Corals FMP, 

and the Pelagics FMP. 

Precious Corals FMP 

Pacific Remote Island Areas FEP 

Would include relevant portions from the 

Bottomfish FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, 

Crustaceans FMP, the Precious Corals FMP, 

and the Pelagics FMP. 

Pelagics FMP 

Pacific Pelagics FMP 

No change to existing Pelagics FMP 

management measures. Relevant portions of the 

Pelagics FMP would be included under the 

American Samoa FEP, Mariana FEP, Hawaii 

FEP, and Pacific Remote Island Areas FEP. 

2.2.1.4. Alternative 1D - Preferred Alternative: Approve and implement four 

demersal FEPs and one pelagic FEP, which would replace existing FMPs 

Under Alternative 1D, the Preferred Alternative, the four geographic ecosystems would be as 

described in Alternative 1C. The fisheries currently managed under the species-based FMPs 

would be replaced by FEPs covering all Federal waters surrounding each of the Western Pacific 

Region’s geographic areas (Table 2-5). Because of their close proximity, ecological links, and 

social connections, Federal waters and the associated marine resources surrounding Guam and 

the Northern Mariana Islands would be delineated as a single ecosystem and the fisheries 

associated with this area would be managed under a Mariana Archipelago FEP. For the same 

reasons, Federal waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands would be delineated as an ecosystem 

and managed under a Hawaii Archipelago FEP. Federal waters surrounding the islands of 

American Samoa would be delineated as an ecosystem and managed under an American Samoa 

Archipelago FEP. Federal waters around the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas, some of which 

are part of the Line and Phoenix Islands, would be managed under the PRIA FEP. 

Five FEPs would be approved and implemented and replace the existing FMPs. Four demersal 

FEPs would cover demersal fisheries within each geographic ecosystem, and the Pacific Pelagic 

FEP would include the associated pelagic marine resources within all Federal waters and the 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 41 

management of the U.S. domestic pelagic fisheries occurring in the high seas of the Western 

Pacific Region. 

The Secretary of Commerce has the authority to manage the nation’s fishery resources 

throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Within the Western Pacific Region, and 

with the exception of the waters around the CNMI and the PRIA, the boundaries of the FEPs 

would encompass all Federal waters from 3 to 200 miles from shore. The Federal waters of the 

EEZ around the CNMI and the PRIA are recognized from 0 to 200 miles from the shore. In 

practice, although the CNMI has no jurisdiction over the management (including conservation) 

of fishery resources, the Federal government coordinates with the local jurisdiction in its 

management programs. 

Because state and territorial waters do not exist in the PRIA, jurisdiction over nearshore fishery 

resources and habitat is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) has the authority to regulate activities within the PRIA National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). NOAA has exclusive jurisdiction to manage the nation’s fishery 

resources throughout the PRIA EEZs. 

Alternative 1C and Alternative 1D (the Preferred Alternative) are similar, with the following 

exceptions: (1) Alternative 1D would establish a Pacific Pelagic FEP, which would replace the 

current Pelagics FMP; and (2) under Alternative 1D (the Preferred Alternative), the pelagic 

ecosystem and the management of the pelagic fisheries within the boundaries of the four 

archipelagic FEPs would remain with the Pacific Pelagic FEP. Alternative 1C would split pelagic 

fisheries management between the FEP plans covering pelagics within the U.S. EEZ, and pelagic 

fisheries occurring outside of the U.S. EEZ that would be managed under a Pelagics FMP. 

Alternative 1D, by contrast, would keep the management of domestic pelagic fisheries under a 

single Pacific Pelagic FEP. The boundary of the Pacific Pelagic FEP would overlap with the 

boundaries of the four demersal FEPs; however, the Pacific Pelagic FEP would specifically 

manage those resources and habitats associated with the pelagic ecosystem (Table 2-5). In 

addition, existing regulations relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the 

boundaries of the FEPs (Table 2-6). Although the existing fishery regulations would be 

reorganized, no substantive changes would be made to current fishing regulations as part of 

Alternative 1D. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 42 

Table 2-5. Delineated Ecosystems and FEPs Under Alternative 1D, the Preferred 

Alternative. 

FEP Delineated Ecosystem 

American Samoa 

Archipelago 

Federal waters surrounding American Samoa21 - Demersal 

Ecosystem. 

Mariana Archipelago Federal waters surrounding Guam and CNMI - Demersal 

Ecosystem. 

Hawaii Archipelago Federal waters surrounding Hawaii - Demersal Ecosystem. 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas (PRIA) 

Federal waters surrounding Howland Island, Baker Island, 

Jarvis Island, Johnston Island, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, 

and Wake Island - Demersal Ecosystem. 

Pacific Pelagic All Federal waters and domestic pelagic fisheries operating in 

the high seas surrounding American Samoa, the CNMI, 

Guam, Hawaii and the PRIA - Pelagic Ecosystem. 

 

21 Because of the ecological and cultural connections between Independent Samoa and America Samoa, an advisory 

relationship with independent Samoa would be sought to facilitate the development of collaborative management 

activities. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 43 

Table 2-6. Current and Proposed Management Structure under Alternative 1D - the 

Preferred Alternative.

Current Management Structure: Proposed Management Structure: 

Bottomfish FMP 

American Samoa Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions of the Bottomfish 

FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, Crustaceans 

FMP, and the Precious Corals FMP. Demersal 

ecosystem only. 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

Mariana Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions of the Bottomfish 

FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, Crustaceans 

FMP, and the Precious Corals FMP. Demersal 

ecosystem only. 

Crustaceans FMP 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP 

Would include relevant portions of the Bottomfish 

FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, Crustaceans 

FMP, and the Precious Corals FMP. Demersal 

ecosystem only. 

Precious Corals FMP 

Pacific Remote Island FEP 

Would include relevant portions of the Bottomfish 

FMP, Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, Crustaceans 

FMP, and the Precious Corals FMP. Demersal 

ecosystem only. 

 Pelagics FMP 

Pelagic FEP

Would include all relevant portions of the 

Pelagics FMP for all areas in the Western 

Pacific Region including American Samoa, the 

CNMI, Guam, Hawaii, and the PRIA; Pelagic 

ecosystem only. 

The draft FEPs proposed under Alternative 1D, are available from the Council's website at 

www.wpcouncil.org or by mail22 from the Council. Additionally, a Compact Disc containing 

electronic copies of the draft FEPs are included with this FPEIS (Appendix G). 

 

22 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 44 

2.2.1.5. Alternative 1E: Approve and implement FEPs for each biogeographic and 

pelagic zone which would replace existing FMPs 

Under this alternative, major biogeographic zones for each island area and all demersal and 

pelagic marine resources and habitats associated with those (not necessarily in contiguous zones) 

would be delineated as distinct ecosystems and the fisheries associated with them would be 

managed under separate FEPs. Specifically, within each island area the coral reef ecosystem, the 

deep reef slope benthic ecosystem, the bank-seamount ecosystem, the deep ocean floor 

ecosystem, and the pelagic environment would be delineated as separate and distinct ecosystems 

and managed under separate FEPs. Additionally, under Alternative 1E, the management of the 

domestic pacific pelagic fisheries operating outside one of these biogeographic and pelagic FEPs 

for each island area would be managed under a Pacific Pelagic FEP. 

To illustrate the application of this alternative in the CNMI, all coral reef ecosystems from 

Uracas to Rota would be delineated as an ecosystem and managed under a CNMI Coral Reef 

Ecosystem FEP. Similarly, the fisheries associated with the seamounts located west of CNMI 

would be managed under a CNMI Bank-Seamount FEP. In addition, existing fishery regulations 

relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the boundaries of the FEPs (Table 2-

7). The regulations would be reorganized and no substantive changes would be made to current 

fishing regulations as part of Alternative 1E. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 45 

Table 2-7. Current and Proposed Management Structure under Alternative 1E. 

Current Management Structure Proposed Management Structure 

Bottomfish FMP 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

Crustaceans FMP 

Precious Corals FMP 

Pelagics FMP 

American Samoa Coral Reef FEP 

American Samoa Bank and Seamount FEP 

American Samoa Deep Reef Slope FEP 

American Samoa Deep Ocean Floor FEP 

American Samoa Pelagic FEP 

CNMI Coral Reef FEP 

CNMI Bank and Seamount FEP 

CNMI Deep Reef Slope FEP 

CNMI Deep Ocean Floor FEP 

CNMI Pelagic FEP 

Guam Coral Reef FEP 

Guam Bank and Seamount FEP 

Guam Deep Reef Slope FEP 

Guam Deep Ocean Floor FEP 

Guam Pelagic FEP 

Hawaii Coral Reef FEP 

Hawaii Bank and Seamount FEP 

Hawaii Deep Reef Slope FEP 

Hawaii Deep Ocean Floor FEP 

Hawaii Pelagic FEP 

PRIA Coral Reef FEP 

PRIA Bank and Seamount FEP 

PRIA Deep Reef Slope FEP 

PRIA Deep Ocean Floor FEP 

PRIA Pelagic FEP 

Pacific Pelagic FEP 

2.2.2. Component 1: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further 

Detailed Study 

2.2.2.1. FEP for Entire Pacific Ocean Ecosystem 

Under this alternative, the entire Pacific Ocean, including all marine resources and habitats found 

within, would be delineated as a single ecosystem and the fisheries managed under a single 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 46 

Pacific Ocean FEP regardless of jurisdiction or claim to continental shelf resources or submerged 

lands by states and territories of the United States or foreign coastal nations. While such a 

delineation would provide a theoretical mechanism for implementing the broadest application of 

an ecosystem approach to management, it is anticipated that the regulated area would be of such 

scope and complexity it would preclude flexible and effective management. In addition, there are 

numerous nations within the Pacific Ocean that are not subject to the MSA that assert 

jurisdiction over their respective territorial seas and EEZs. The Council's lack of authority over 

these countries and inability to control their actions would further preclude effective 

management under such a broad approach. Similarly, asserting Federal management authority 

over submerged lands and marine resources of coastal states would conflict with the interests of 

those states. Finally, this approach presents an additional challenge of requiring that management 

considerations for pelagic species be combined with those for benthic species, an approach that 

would be difficult to implement, not only because of the scale of this proposal, but also because 

of the divergent scientific principles applied with regard to the different types of species. For 

these reasons, this alternative was not considered in further detail.

2.2.2.2. FEP for Insular Pacific- Hawaii Large Marine Ecosystem 

This alternative would utilize the definitions of large marine ecosystems (LME) presented by 

Sherman and Alexander (1986). LMEs are regions of ocean space encompassing coastal areas 

from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and the outer 

margins of the major current systems. However, most of these features are not prevalent in the 

Western Pacific Region. Currently, the only delineated LME in the Western Pacific Region is the 

Insular Pacific LME defined by Morgan (1989) and only includes waters from the shoreline out 

to 200 nm surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, including all marine resources and habitats 

found within. Under this alternative, only one FEP, the Hawaii LME FEP would be established. 

However, the State of Hawaii would still retain primary management authority for marine 

resources from 0 to 3 miles within this FEP. 

Under this alternative, fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago would shift to an LME-based 

management approach that would require fully coordinated Federal and state actions to ensure 

consistent management. All other areas in the Western Pacific Region would continue to be 

managed through the species-based FMPs and would not shift to an ecosystem approach. This 

alternative poses several problems: (1) effective management within the Hawaiian LME FEP 

would require similar regulations at the Federal and state levels, as well as management and 

enforcement coordination; (2) fishery management regulations would impose species-based 

requirements in some areas but an ecosystem approach in the fisheries within the Hawaiian LME 

FEP, possibly leading to confusion; and (3) the Council and NMFS would face additional 

regulatory burdens when considering management proposals because a species-based approach 

would be required for some areas but an ecosystem approach would be required for the fisheries 

managed under the Hawaiian LME FEP. Consequently, for these reasons, as well as its similarity 

to Alternative 1B, this alternative is not considered in further detail. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 47 

2.2.2.3. FEPs for Each Island, Atoll, Seamount, or Other Major Benthic Feature 

Under this alternative, Federal waters and associated marine habitats and resources around each 

island, atoll, reef, seamount, bank, or other major benthic feature in the Western Pacific Region 

would be delineated as a separate and discrete ecosystem and the fisheries within these 

ecosystems managed under a separate and discrete FEP. Local, state, territorial, and 

commonwealth governments would retain primary management authority for marine resources 

from 0 to 3 miles. 

To illustrate the application of this alternative in the Hawaiian Archipelago, the islands of 

Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Oahu, Molokai, Kauai, Niihau, Nihoa, Necker, French Frigate 

Shoals, Laysan, Lisianski, Maro Reef; the Pearl and Hermes, Midway, and Kure Atolls; and 

Pioneer and Raita Banks would each be delineated as a distinct ecosystem and managed under a 

separate FEP. Under this alternative, FEPs would be developed for hundreds of locations 

throughout the Western Pacific Region. Taking such an approach would provide a mechanism to 

develop very discrete management measures tailored specifically to meet the needs of an area on 

the basis of the scientific information regarding that particular location. 

However, such a detailed level of management would significantly burden management 

agencies, enforcement personnel, and could be difficult for users to comply with. It would also 

increase the need for site-specific scientific data, administration, management, and personnel in 

order to be successful. While this may be appropriate in the future, constraints on funding and 

capacity to support such a management regime make it impracticable at this time. For this 

reason, this alternative is not considered in further detail.

2.2.2.4. Umbrella FEP for the Western Pacific Region 

Under the “umbrella FEP” approach, FEPs would be a consolidation of individual fishery 

management plans. An FEP would contain information on the structure and function of the 

ecosystem in which fishing activities occur, so that managers could be aware of the effects that 

their decisions have on the ecosystem, and the effects other components of the ecosystem may 

have on fisheries. The goal of this approach would be to improve consideration of ecosystem 

principles in individual FMPs. While this approach is currently being developed by other fishery 

management councils (i.e., North Pacific and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils), 

unlike the other regions, the Western Pacific Region is composed of distinct and distant 

archipelagos, each with different species and ecological conditions. This unique aspect of the 

Western Pacific Region allows for adoption of an ecosystem-based approach for each 

archipelago rather than one combined area which would simply consolidate existing FMPs under 

one document. Moreover, the umbrella approach would impose an additional level of complexity 

to the management of fisheries in the Western Pacific Region by maintaining the existing FMPs 

but providing for the consideration of ecosystem elements in a separate plan. Full adoption of 

ecosystem-based plans was considered a better means of achieving the purpose of the Federal 

action with less complexity. For these reasons, this alternative is not considered in further detail. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 48 

2.2.2.5. Amending the Existing FMPs to Adopt an Ecosystem Approach and 

Implement FEPs 

Under this alternative, the existing FMPs would be amended to adopt an ecosystem approach 

through the implementation of FEPs. This alternative would amend the existing fishery 

management plans rather than replacing the FMPs with fishery ecosystem management plans. 

This alternative would require an ongoing series of "omnibus" amendments to implement future 

place-based measures. This would require significant agency resources and result in a complex 

regulatory process that would likely be confusing to stakeholders. Also, merely amending the 

existing species based plans would not accurately reflect the fundamental shift to ecosystem 

based management, and for these reasons, this alternative is not considered in further detail. 

2.3. Component 2: Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Section 3 of the MSA contains the definition of terms. Section 3 of the MSA defines the term 

"stock of fish" as meaning a species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish 

capable of management as a unit. Consistent with National Standard 3 of the MSA, the MUS 

lists currently contained in the Council’s existing FMPs consist of those species that are caught 

in the region in quantities sufficient to warrant management or specific monitoring by NMFS and 

the Council. Each of the existing Western Pacific Region FMPs has a specific list of MUS to 

which its regulations apply. Each of the FMPs is applied throughout the entire Western Pacific 

Region, and, therefore, the MUS of each plan are presently made up of those species that are 

significantly harvested by fisheries across the region. The Council relies on the best available 

scientific information in making decisions about which species to include in an MUS list. 

Changes to the species that are included in an MUS list are made through the Council process 

and further coordinated with the public by NMFS. 

The primary impact of including species in an MUS list is that the species (i.e., the fishery 

targeting that species) can be directly managed. In an ecosystem approach to fishery 

management, the need for a list of MUS under each FEP remains, and the species listed in each 

FEP should reflect the status of those species within a particular FEP’s boundaries. In addition, 

MUS managed under each FMP are currently categorized into stocks or stock complexes for the 

purposes of stock assessments and determinations regarding overfishing and overfished 

conditions. For example, because of the genetic connectivity between the NWHI and the MHI, 

Hawaii stocks managed under the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP are classified as 

one multi-species complex. Although the Council has preliminarily discussed including CNMI 

bottomfish stocks with those around Guam in a Mariana multi-species bottomfish stock complex, 

because of a lack of information, none of the alternatives considered here would do so or 

otherwise change the current stock and stock complex geographic classifications or overfishing 

control rules and reference points now in effect. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 49 

2.3.1. Component 2: Alternatives Considered in Detail 

For each alternative considered for component 2 (MUS species), no new species are proposed to 

be added to the MUS lists within FEPs. The alternatives consider the organization of MUS as 

FMPs are reorganized into FEPs under the proposed action alternatives. Future changes to the 

lists of MUS species within an FEP would be through the established Council process. 

2.3.1.1. Alternative 2A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current MUS Lists 

Under this alternative, the existing list of MUS from the five existing FMPs would remain 

unchanged (see Appendix A). Using this approach, the MUS lists for all FEPs would be identical 

and would be made up of the current MUS regardless of whether the species is known to exist 

within the particular FEP’s boundaries. 

2.3.1.2. Alternative 2B: Preferred Alternative—Define FEP MUS as Those Current 

MUS That Are Known to be Present Within Each FEP Boundary 

Under this alternative, each FEP would include as MUS only those current bottomfish and 

seamount MUS, crustacean MUS, precious corals MUS, coral reef ecosystems MUS and pelagic 

MUS that are known to be present within each FEP boundary. 

2.3.1.3. Alternative 2C: Define FEP MUS as Those Current MUS Known To Occur 

Within the Boundaries of the FEP, Plus Incidentally Caught and Associated Species 

That Are Known to Occur Within Each FEP Boundary 

Under this alternative, each FEP would include as MUS those target, incidentally caught, and 

associated species (species that occupy the same or similar niche, such as prey competitors or 

habitat competitors) that are known to occur within each FEP boundary. 

2.3.1.4. Alternative 2D: Define FEP MUS as Those Current MUS Believed to 

Potentially Occur, Plus Incidentally Caught and Associated Species Believed to 

Potentially Occur Within Each FEP Boundary 

Under this alternative, each FEP would include as MUS those target, incidentally caught, and 

associated species (species that occupy the same or similar niche such as prey competitors or 

habitat competitors) that are believed to potentially occur within each FEP boundary. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 50 

2.3.2. Component 2: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further 

Detailed Study 

2.3.2.1. Define FEP MUS as All Species Believed to Occur Within the FEP Boundary 

Under this alternative, all species (primary producer to top-level predator) believed to occur 

within each FEP boundary would be included on that FEP’s MUS list. While principles of an 

ecosystem approach to fisheries management direct managers to consider predator–prey 

relationships for each target species, they do not require managers to specifically manage all 

species within an ecosystem. Because there are literally thousands of species that are believed to 

occur in a particular FEP boundary, and in light of the fact that there is no commercial or 

recreational interest to harvest most of these, the inclusion of all of these species in an MUS list 

would serve no function and impose an unnecessary burden on fishery managers and scientists. 

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated at this time without further study. 

2.3.2.2. Define FEP MUS as All Species Known to Occur Within the FEP Boundary 

Under this alternative, all species (primary producer to top-level predator) known to occur within 

each FEP boundary would be included on that FEP’s MUS list. This alternative would require 

managers to identify as a MUS any and all species known to occur within the boundary of an 

FEP. For the reasons discussed above, this alternative was eliminated at this time without further 

detailed study. 

2.4. Component 3: Council Advisory Structure 

The Council’s current advisory process follows the MSA and includes the general public, fishery 

participants and support sectors, social and biological scientists, and local and Federal resource 

managers in the development of its fishery management recommendations. The existing structure 

for these advisory bodies is based on a combination of species and stakeholder interest 

groupings. For example, Plan Teams exist for each of the five species-based FMPs, while 

Advisory Panels are organized around commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries, and 

other interest groups. Given the place-based nature of ecosystem management, several 

alternatives for modifying the existing structure toward a more geographic orientation are 

considered in this FPEIS to assist the Council. These alternatives are not part of the Federal 

action. Important decision criteria are the overall budget implications associated with funding 

additional advisory bodies from the Council’s budget, which is authorized under the MSA. The 

annual budget varies somewhat dependent on Congressional considerations. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 51 

2.4.1. Component 3: Alternatives Considered in Detail 

2.4.1.1. Alternative 3A: No Action - Do Not Change the Current Council Advisory 

Structure 

Under this alternative, the Council’s current advisory structure would not change to one 

reflecting the geographical orientation of ecosystem management and the need for increased 

participation by land-based interests. The Council would continue to utilize its existing five Plan 

Teams, Advisory Panels, Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and Standing Committees 

to provide scientific and management recommendations to the Council. The structure and 

responsibilities of each group would remain as described below. 

Plan Teams 

The Council’s five Plan Teams provide input and guidance in the development of FMPs and 

review information pertaining to the performance of the fisheries and the status of the stocks 

managed under each FMP. Plan Teams meet at least once annually and are made up of 

individuals from local and Federal marine resource management agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations. Plan Teams are led by Chairs who are appointed by the Council Chair after 

consultation with the SSC and the Executive Standing Committee. Plan Team findings and 

recommendations are reported to the Council at their regular meetings. 

Advisory Panels 

The Council’s Advisory Panels advise the Council on fishery management problems; provide 

input to the Council regarding fishery management planning efforts; and advise the Council on 

the content and likely effects of management plans, amendments, and management measures. 

Advisory Panel membership is arranged by fishery sector, with two representatives from each 

island area selected by the Council Chair to serve on each panel (except for Hawaii, which has 

four representatives on each panel because of its larger population; see Table 2-8). Advisory 

Panel members are fishermen and other knowledgeable stakeholders who meet at the direction of 

the Council to provide continuing and detailed participation by industry members and other 

members of the public. 

Table 2-8. Current Council Advisory Panel Structure. 

Commercial 

Panel 

Recreational 

Panel 

Subsistence 

Panel 

Ecosystems and 

Habitat Panel 

American 

Samoa 

Two members Two members Two members Two members 

Guam Two members Two members Two members Two members 

Hawaii Four members Four members Four members Four members 

CNMI Two members Two members Two members Two members 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 52 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

The Council’s SSC is composed of scientists (currently 17) from local and Federal agencies, 

academic institutions, and other organizations. Appointed by the Council, these scientists 

represent the range of disciplines required for the scientific oversight of fishery management in 

the Western Pacific Region. The role of the SSC is to (1) identify scientific resources required 

for the development of FMPs and amendments and recommend resources for Plan Teams; 2) 

provide multidisciplinary review of management plans or amendments and advise the Council on 

their scientific content; (3) assist the Council in the evaluation of such statistical, biological, 

economic, social, and other scientific information as is relevant to the Council's activities, and 

recommend methods and means for the development and collection of such information; and (4) 

advise the Council on the composition of Plan Teams. 

Standing Committees 

The Council’s 12 Standing Committees (Pelagics, Crustaceans, Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish, Precious Corals, Ecosystems and Habitat, International Fisheries, Enforcement, 

Vessel Monitoring Systems, Fishery Rights of Indigenous People, Executive, Budget and 

Program, and Research) are composed of Council members and meet on the first day of each 

Council meeting to review available information and data for components to be considered by 

the Council. The recommendations of the Standing Committees, along with the 

recommendations from all of the other advisory bodies described above, are then presented to the 

full Council for the members’ consideration prior to taking action on specific measures or 

recommendations. 

Under the No Action alternative, these existing advisory bodies would continue to be responsible 

for considering and integrating ecosystem impacts when providing advice to the Council on the 

development and implementation of FMPs or FEPs. 

2.4.1.2. Alternative 3B: Add a Single FEP Plan Team to the Current Advisory 

Structure 

Under this alternative, the existing Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, SSC, and Standing Committees 

would be maintained and one new FEP Plan Team would be established to monitor the 

development and implementation of FEP(s) for the Western Pacific Region. The FEP Plan Team 

would be made up of scientists from local and Federal agencies, academic institutions, and other 

sources with expertise in the following areas: (1) fish stock assessment; (2) habitat; (3) 

oceanography; (4) ecosystem modeling; (5) socioeconomics; (6) geographic information 

systems; and (7) marine ecology and ecosystem dynamics. The FEP Plan Team would identify 

ecosystem components for all management actions and provide appropriate advice to the Council 

and its advisory bodies regarding these components. 

The FEP Plan Team would likely consist of five to seven members that would coordinate and 

consult directly with selected agencies and organizations for each geographic region regarding 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 53 

FEP development and implementation. The existing advisory bodies would continue their duties 

as assigned with respect to industry components, fisheries science, statistical analyses, and 

environmental impacts for each FEP. 

2.4.1.3. Alternative 3C: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, and 

Five Standing Committees with FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Plan Teams, and FEP 

Standing Committees 

Under this alternative, the existing Advisory Panels, FMP Plan Teams, and five Standing 

Committees (Pelagics, Crustaceans, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Precious Corals, and 

Ecosystems, and Habitat) would be replaced with FEP-based Advisory Panels and FEP Plan 

Teams based on each FEP’s boundaries (e.g., a Hawaii Archipelago FEP Plan Team, Mariana 

Archipelago Advisory Panel). The single SSC would continue to function as at present. The FEP 

Advisory Panels, Plan Teams, and Standing Committees would assume all of the duties and 

responsibilities of the existing groups, including the review of fisheries catch and effort data and 

the development of appropriate management measures based on ecosystem principles. Each FEP 

Plan Team would develop annual reports for all fisheries within the FEP boundaries for which it 

is responsible, and all groups would provide advice to the Council as under the current process 

described in Alternative 3A. 

2.4.1.4. Alternative 3D - Preferred Alternative: Replace the Current FMP Advisory 

Panels, Plan Teams, and Five Standing Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP 

Standing Committees, and Two FEP Plan Teams 

As in Alternative 3C, this alternative would replace the existing Advisory Panels and five of the 

Standing Committees with FEP Advisory Panels and FEP Standing Committees. However, this 

alternative would replace the existing five FMP Plan Teams with a single Demersal FEP Plan 

Team and a single Pacific Pelagic FEP Plan Team that would each be responsible for overseeing 

the development and implementation of all Demersal and Pelagic FEPs, respectively. All groups 

would provide advice to the Council as under the current process described in Alternative 3A. 

Under this alternative, the existing SSC structure would be maintained. 

2.4.2. Component 3: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further 

Detailed Study 

Include International Representatives on Existing Advisory Bodies 

Under this alternative, the structure of the Council’s advisory bodies would remain the same but 

they would each include additional representatives from various sectors and government 

agencies from the U.S. Pacific Islands as well as from foreign countries or island groups within 

or bordering the Pacific Ocean. Although this could increase the reach and scope of the 

Council’s recommendations, the logistical and fiscal implications of this alternative are unclear. 

The Council does receive reports from members of a number of international fishery 

management groups. Because information is already available to the Council and the expenditure 

of resources would not substantially improve the Council’s capabilities, this alternative was 

rejected from further detailed study. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 54 

Establish Local Marine Expertise Advisory Bodies 

Under this alternative, the structure of the Council’s existing advisory bodies would remain the 

same, but an additional Local Marine Expertise advisory body would be created for Hawaii. Its 

members would consist of stakeholders, scientists, and managers from Hawaii. This alternative 

could provide additional expertise to the management of the Hawaii area; however, because no 

LMEs have been identified for the remaining waters of the Western Pacific Region, there would 

be no corresponding advisory bodies for the non-Hawaii areas. Because this would create an 

imbalance among advisory bodies and require additional coordination that duplicates existing 

opportunities for individuals with local expertise to participate in Council processes, this 

alternative was rejected from further detailed consideration. 

2.5. Component 4: Regional Coordination 

In the Western Pacific Region, management of ocean and coastal activities is administered by a 

number of agencies at the Federal, state, county, and even village level. Many individual 

agencies administer programs and initiatives that address sometimes overlapping ocean and 

coastal components. In some instances, programs and initiatives are also in conflict with one 

another. A primary reason for including regional coordination as a component for consideration 

in the establishment of FEPs is its ability to address nonfishing impacts on marine ecosystems. A 

common sentiment expressed in public scoping was a need for coordinated and consistent 

management from “mountain to sea.” The primary objective for including and analyzing regional 

coordination options is to develop a mechanism by which the Council may participate in broader 

ecosystem initiatives such as these. The alternatives considered are not part of the Federal action. 

As noted by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan, 

the first step in enhancing the management of oceans and coasts is improving coordination 

among Federal programs and those of state, local, and county departments and agencies. While 

there has been some progress made to increase interagency coordination through the 

establishment of memorandums of agreements and the formation of ad hoc committees, task 

forces, and interagency working groups, a formalized long-term process between NOAA, the 

Council, and other Federal, state, and local agencies is still needed. Alternatives considered here 

would provide the Council a mechanism to actively participate in broader ecosystem initiatives 

that consider the impacts of land-based and nonfishing activities on the marine environment. The 

mechanism considered is the establishment and participation in Councils or Committees made up 

of representatives from Federal, state, local, and county agencies, as well as private entities, 

which are responsible for the permitting or implementation of both land- and ocean-based 

activities that affect marine ecosystems. This would allow member agencies to share information 

on programs and activities and to coordinate management efforts or resources to address 

nonfishing-related components beyond the jurisdiction of the Council that could affect ocean and 

coastal resources. As there are no statutory requirements regarding the development and function 

of regional coordination groups, all groups considered below would have an advisory capacity 

and their recommendations would not be obligatory to member agencies. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 55 

2.5.1. Component 4: Alternatives Considered in Detail 

2.5.1.1. Alternative 4A: No Action - Do Not Establish Ocean Council Type 

Groups 

Under this alternative, the Council would not establish or support additional Ocean Council type 

groups, but would continue to provide information regarding the impacts of land-based and 

nonfishing activities through its membership on the existing Hawaii Ocean and Coastal 

Committee, and as requested on an ad hoc basis. 

2.5.1.2. Alternative 4B - Preferred Alternative: Establish Regional 

Ecosystem Council Committees 

Under this alternative, the Council would establish Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committees 

(REACs) made up of Council members and representatives from Federal, state, and local 

government agencies; businesses; and nongovernmental organizations that have responsibility or 

interest in land-based and nonfishing activities that potentially affect the marine environment. 

Committee membership would be by invitation and would provide a mechanism for the Council 

and member agencies to share information on programs and activities and to coordinate 

management efforts or resources to address fishing and nonfishing-related components of the 

ecosystem that may affect ocean and coastal resources within and beyond the jurisdiction of the 

Council. Committee meetings would coincide with regularly scheduled Council meetings, and 

recommendations made by the REAC committee to the Council would be advisory, as would 

recommendations made by the Council to member agencies. Under the MSA, the Council has the 

authority to create such advisory panels and committees (16 U.S.C § 1852). 

2.5.1.3. Alternative 4C: Participate in and Support Ocean Council Type 

Groups 

Under this alternative, the Council would not establish any new committees or other groups, but 

would instead participate in and support the establishment of Ocean Council type groups 

established by the governor of each inhabited island area served by the Council (i.e., American 

Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). Such a group 

has been established by the governor of Hawaii (the Hawaii Ocean and Coastal Committee) and 

is made up primarily of local and county agencies with oversight of development, ocean 

recreation, tourism, and natural resource management. This committee is tasked with the 

development of policies to improve the permitting and implementation of actions that affect 

ocean and coastal resources under its combined jurisdiction. Federal agencies, including the 

Council, are members of this committee that was established in 2005. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 56 

2.5.1.4. Alternative 4D: Establish Independent Regional Ecosystem 

Councils 

Under this alternative, the Council, NOAA, and NMFS would together establish and administer 

independent Regional Ecosystem Councils to supplement the existing decision-making process. 

These Regional Ecosystem Councils would be made up of executive level representatives from 

Federal, state, and local government agencies; businesses; and nongovernmental organizations 

that have responsibility or interest in land-based and nonfishing activities that potentially affect 

the marine environment. 

The Regional Ecosystem Councils would provide a mechanism for the Council and other 

member agencies to share information on programs and activities and to coordinate management 

efforts or resources to address nonfishing-related components beyond the jurisdiction of the 

Council that could affect ocean and coastal resources. Regional Ecosystem Council meetings 

would coincide with regularly scheduled Council meetings, and recommendations to the Council 

would be advisory, as would recommendations made by the Council to other member agencies. 

2.6. Component 5: International Coordination 

The Council is an active participant in the development and implementation of international 

agreements regarding marine resources. These include agreements made by the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission (of which the United States is a member) and the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (of which the United States is a cooperating nonmember). 

The U.S. delegation that attends meetings of these international commissions is headed by 

representatives from NMFS and the U.S. Department of State. The Council also participates in 

and promotes the formation of regional and international arrangements for assessing and 

conserving all marine resources throughout their range, including the ecosystems and habitats 

that they depend on (i.e., the Forum Fisheries Agency and the Secretariat of the Pacific 

Community’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme). The Council is developing similar linkages with 

the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center and its turtle conservation program. The 

Council participates in various international workshops and seminars such as the ongoing 

International Fishers’ Forum (three forums since 2000), the 2005 South Pacific 

Commission/Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council/Food and Agriculture 

Organization (United Nations) Workshop on Legislation and Community-Based Management, 

the International Marine Debris Conference series (four since 1986), and the 2004 Asia Pacific 

Economic Cooperation Seminar on Derelict Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris. 

The western and central Pacific Ocean is dotted with thousands of islands governed by several 

nations. American Samoa, for example, is surrounded by the EEZs of five independent nations, 

and the PRIA are part of larger archipelagic island chains. As marine ecosystems are generally 

considered “open” systems, and large-scale impacts can be observed within smaller units, 

international coordination will be a necessary component of successful implementation of an 

ecosystem approach within the Western Pacific Region. The following alternatives represent a 

range of nonregulatory actions that the Council has considered in relation to its participation in 

discussions and meetings that are international in scope, but have implications for local 

management of marine resources. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 57 

2.6.1. Component 5: Alternatives Considered in Detail 

2.6.1.1. Alternative 5A: No Action - Continue to Participate in 

International Fisheries Management Fora and International 

Workshops 

Currently, the Council participates in two international Pacific pelagic fisheries management 

bodies: the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter-American Tropical 

Tuna Commission. The Council also participates in various international workshops and 

seminars as discussed previously. Under this alternative, the Council would continue work with 

the U.S. Department of State and the NMFS’s Office of International Affairs to maintain its 

current level of participation in international commissions, meetings, workshops, and seminars. 

2.6.1.2. Alternative 5B - Preferred Alternative: Increase Participation in 

International Fisheries Management Fora and Establish 

Meetings/Workshops with Neighboring Nations of Island Areas of the 

Western Pacific Region 

Under this alternative, the Council’s level of participation in international commissions, 

meetings, workshops, and seminars would be increased to include the establishment of meetings 

and workshops with neighboring nations of Western Pacific Region island areas. For example, 

the EEZ of American Samoa is bounded by the EEZs of five neighboring countries, and Samoa 

(Upolu Island) is located only 70 kilometers west of American Samoa (Tutuila Island). The 

PRIA of Palmyra and Jarvis lie within the Line Island Archipelago, of which Kiribati governs the 

remaining islands. Discussions and meetings between the Council and fishery managers of 

neighboring nations would facilitate information exchange and promote coordination of fishery 

ecosystem management components. Under this alternative, the Council would work with the 

U.S. Department of State and the NMFS’s Office of International Affairs on proper protocols to 

facilitate meetings and workshops with neighboring nations. 

2.6.1.3. Alternative 5C: Do Not Participate in International Management 

Fora 

Under this alternative, the Council would not participate in international meetings, workshops, 

and seminars. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 58 

Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1.Introduction 

Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environment and resources potentially 

affected by the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The information presented in Chapter 

3 represents a general summary of the potentially affected environment that the impact 

analysis in Chapter 4 will use as the environmental baseline. 

3.2. Physical Environment 

The following discussion presents a broad summary of the physical environment of the 

Pacific Ocean. The dynamics of the Pacific Ocean’s physical environment have direct 

and indirect effects on the occurrence and distribution of life in marine ecosystems. 

3.2.1. The Pacific Ocean 

The Pacific Ocean is the world’s largest body of water. Named by Ferdinand Magellan as 

Mare Pacificum (Latin for “peaceful sea”), the Pacific Ocean covers about one third of 

Earth’s surface (approximately 69 million square miles). From north to south, it is over 

9,000 miles long; from east to west, the Pacific Ocean is nearly 12,000 miles wide (on the 

Equator). The Pacific Ocean contains several large seas including: on its western margin, 

the Celebes Sea, Coral Sea, Japan Sea, Philippine Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, South China Sea, 

and the Tasman Sea; in the north, the Bearing Sea; and, in the east, the Sea of Cortez. 

3.2.2. Geology and Topography 

Pacific islands have been formed by geologic processes associated with plate tectonics, 

volcanism, and reef accretion. The theory of plate tectonics provides that Earth’s outer 

shell, the “lithosphere,” is constructed of more than a dozen large solid “plates” that 

migrate across the planet surface over time and interact at their edges. The plates sit 

above a solid rocky mantle that is hot, and capable of flow. Figure 3-1 is a schematic 

diagram of Earth’s lithospheric plates. These are made of various kinds of rock with 

different densities and can be thought of as pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle, where the 

movement of one plate affects the position of others. Generally, the oceanic portion of 

plates is composed of basalt enriched with iron and magnesium which is denser than the 

continental portion composed of granite enriched with silica.23

Tectonic processes and plate movements define the contours of the Pacific Ocean. 

Generally, the abyssal plain or seafloor of the central Pacific basin is relatively uniform, 

with a mean depth of about 4,270 m (14,000 feet).24 Within the Pacific basin, however, 

are underwater plate boundaries that define long mountainous chains, submerged 

 

23 http://academic.reed.edu/chemistry/courses/chem391/401/earth.pdf (accessed January 2007). 24 http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8o.html (accessed January 2007). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 59 

volcanoes, islands and archipelagos, and various other physical features that influence the 

movement of water and the occurrence and distribution of marine organisms. 

Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of Earth’s Lithospheric Plates. 

Source: Dr. C.H. Fletcher III, UH Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, personal communication, December 

2005. 

Divergent plate boundaries —locations where lithospheric plates separate from each 

other—form “spreading centers” where new seafloor is constructed atop high mid-ocean 

ridges. These ridges stretch for thousands of miles25 and are characterized by active 

submarine volcanism and earthquakes. At these ridges, magma is generated at the top of 

the mantle immediately underlying an opening, or rift, in the lithosphere. As magma 

pushes up under the spreading lithosphere it inflates the ridges until a fissure is created 

and lava erupts onto the sea floor (Fryer and Fryer 1999). The erupted lava, and its 

subsequent cooling, forms new seafloor on the edges of the separating plates. This 

process is responsible for the phenomenon known as “seafloor spreading,” where new 

ocean floor is constantly forming and sliding away from either side of the ridge.26

Convergent plate boundaries are locations where two plates move together and one plate, 

usually composed of denser basalt, subducts or slides beneath the other, which is 

composed of less dense rock, and is recycled into the mantle. When two plates of 

equivalent density converge, the rock at the boundary fractures and shears like the front 

ends of two colliding cars, and forms a large mountain range. The Himalayan Range has 

this origin. There are three different types of plate convergence: 1) ocean-continent 

convergence, 2) ocean-ocean convergence, and 3) continent-continent convergence 

 

25 http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/The Restless Earth v.2.0.htm (accessed July 

2005) 26 Ibid 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 60 

(Fryer and Fryer 1999). A well known example of ocean-ocean convergence is observed 

in the western Pacific, where the older and denser Pacific Plate subducts under the 

younger and less dense Philippine Plate at a very steep angle. This results in the 

formation of the Marianas Trench, which at nearly 11 km (approximately 36,000 feet) is 

the deepest point of the seafloor.27 Ocean-ocean convergent boundary movements may 

result in the formation of island arcs, where the denser (generally older) plate subducts 

under the less dense plate. Melting in the upper mantle above the subducting plate 

generates magma that rises into the overlying lithosphere and may lead to the formation 

of a chain of volcanoes known as an island arc.28 The Indonesian Archipelago has this 

geologic origin, as does the Aleutian Island chain. 

Transform boundaries, a third type of plate boundary, occur when lithospheric plates 

neither converge nor diverge, but shear past one another horizontally, like two ships at 

sea that rub sides. The result is the formation of very hazardous seismic zones of faulted 

rock, of which California’s San Andreas Fault is an example (Fryer and Fryer 1999). 

In addition to the formation of island arcs from ocean-ocean convergence, dozens of 

linear island chains across the Pacific Ocean are formed from the movement of the 

Pacific Plate over stationary sources of molten rock known as hot spots (Fryer and Fryer 

1999). A well known example of hot spot island formation is the Hawaiian RidgeEmperor Seamounts chain that extends some 6,000 km from the "Big Island" of Hawaii 

(located astride the hotspot) to the Aleutian Trench off Alaska where ancient islands are 

recycled into the mantle.29 Although less common, hot spots can also be found at midocean ridges, exemplified by the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean.30

The Pacific Ocean contains nearly 25,000 islands which can be simply classified as high 

islands or low islands. High islands, like their name suggests, extend higher above sea 

level, and often support a larger number of flora and fauna and generally have fertile soil. 

Low islands are generally atolls built by layers of calcium carbonate secreted by reef 

building corals and calcareous algae on a volcanic core of a former high island that has 

submerged below sea level. Over geologic time, the rock of these low islands has eroded 

or subsided to where all that is remaining near the ocean surface is a broad reef platform 

surrounding a usually deep central lagoon (Nunn 2003). 

3.2.3. Ocean Water Characteristics 

Over geologic time, the Pacific Ocean basin has been filled in by water produced by 

physical and biological processes. A water molecule is the combination of two hydrogen 

atoms bonded with one oxygen atom. Water molecules have asymmetric charges 

exhibiting a positive charge on the hydrogen sides and a negative charge on the oxygen 

side of the molecule. This charge asymmetry allows water to be an effective solvent, thus 

the ocean contains a diverse array of dissolved substances. Relative to other molecules, 

 

27 http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/chip/ch02/ch_2_7.asp (accessed July 2005) 28 Ibid 

29 http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Hawaiian.html (accessed July 2005) 30 http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/hotspots.html#anchor19620979 (accessed July 2005) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 61 

water takes a great deal of heat to change temperature, thus the oceans have the ability to 

store large amounts of heat. When water evaporation occurs, large amounts of heat are 

absorbed by the ocean (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003). The overall heat flux observed in 

the ocean is related to the dynamics of four processes: (a) incoming solar radiation, (b) 

outgoing back radiation, (c) evaporation, and (d) mechanical heat transfer between ocean 

and atmosphere (Bigg 2003). 

The major elements (greater than 100 ppm) present in ocean water include chlorine, 

sodium, magnesium, calcium, and potassium, with chlorine and sodium being the most 

prominent, and their residue (e.g., sea salt [NaCl]) is left behind when seawater 

evaporates. Minor elements (1 to 100 ppm) include bromine, carbon, strontium, boron, 

silicon, and fluorine. Trace elements (greater than 1 ppm) include nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and iron (Levington 1995). 

Oxygen is added to seawater by two processes: (a) atmospheric mixing with surface 

water and (b) photosynthesis. Oxygen is subtracted from water through processes such as 

the respiration of bacterial decomposition of organic matter (Tomczak and Godfrey 

2003). 

3.2.4. Ocean Layers 

On the basis of the effects of temperature and salinity on the density of water (as well as 

other factors such as wind stress on water), the ocean can be separated into three layers: 

(a) the surface layer or mixed layer, (b) the thermocline or middle layer, and (c) the deep 

layer. The surface layer generally occurs from the surface of the ocean to depth of around 

400 meters or less, depending on location (e.g., 0 to 150 m in the central Pacific), and is 

an area where the water is mixed by currents, waves, and weather. The thermocline is 

generally from 400 to 800 meters and is where water temperatures significantly differ 

from the surface layer, thus forming a temperature gradient that inhibits mixing with the 

surface layer. More than 90 percent of the ocean by volume occurs in the deep layer, 

which is generally below 800 meters and consists of water temperatures around 0 to 4° C. 

The deep zone is void of sunlight and experiences high water pressure (Levington 1995). 

The temperature of ocean water is important to oceanographic systems. For example, the 

temperature of the mixed layer has an affect on the evaporation rate of water into the 

atmosphere, which in turn is linked to the formation of weather. The temperature of water 

also produces density gradients within the ocean that prevent mixing of the ocean layers 

(Bigg 2003). See Figure 3-2 for a generalized representation of water temperatures and 

depth profiles. 

The amount of dissolved salt or salinity varies between ocean zones as well as across 

oceans. For example, the Atlantic Ocean has higher salinity than the Pacific Ocean, 

largely due to the saline input of the Mediterranean Sea where evaporation exceeds both 

precipitation and fresh water influx from large rivers. The average salt content of the 

ocean is 35 parts per thousand, but can vary at different latitudes depending on 

evaporation and precipitation rates. Salinity is lower near the equator than at middle 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 62 

latitudes because of higher rainfall amounts. Salinity also varies with depth, causing 

vertical salinity gradients (Bigg 2003). See below for a generalized representation of 

salinity at various ocean depths. 

Figure 3-2. Temperature and Salinity Profiles of the Ocean. 

Sources: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html&edu=high 

(accessed July 2005) and 

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.html&edu=high 

(accessed July 2005). 

3.2.5. Ocean Depth Zones 

The ocean can be separated into the following five zones (see Figure 3-3) relative to the 

amount of sunlight that penetrates through seawater: (a) epipelagic, (b) mesopelagic, (c) 

bathypelagic, (d) abyssopelagic, and (e) hadalpelagic. Sunlight is one of the principal 

factors for determining the amount of primary production (phytoplankton) in marine 

ecosystems. Because sunlight diminishes with ocean depth, the amount of sunlight 

penetrating seawater, as well as its affect on the occurrence and distribution of marine 

organisms is important. The epipelagic zone extends to nearly 200 meters in the ocean. 

The mesopelagic zone occurs between 200 meters and 1,000 meters and is sometimes 

referred to as the “twilight zone.” Although the light that penetrates to the mesopelagic 

zone is extremely faint, this zone is home to a wide variety of marine species. The 

bathypelagic zone occurs from 1,000 meters to 4,000 meters, and the only visible light 

seen is the product of marine organisms producing their own light, which is called 

“bioluminescence.” The next zone is the abyssopelagic zone (4,000 m–6,000 m), where 

ln~nlJ 'Ti mperai (C) _. l~ng Salinity '/oo) -

o• 12' 16 24' 0--------....--....---........... --, 

1000 

1100 

lncrnasil'lg 

DeJ)tl'I :111111 {ml 

J U)O 

3000 

4!00 L.......1-L--..&..-...... L...-...&.--.L..--' 

____ ... ____________ _ 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 63 

there is extreme pressure and the water temperature is near freezing. This zone does not 

provide habitat for very many creatures except small invertebrates such as squid and 

basket stars. The last zone is the hadalpelagic (6,000 meters and below) and occurs in 

trenches and canyons. Surprisingly, marine life such as tubeworms and starfish are found 

is this zone, often near hydrothermal vents. 

Figure 3-3. Depth Profile of Ocean Zones. 

Source: Image reproduced by WPRFMC 2005. Concept from 

http://www.seasky.org/monsters/sea7a4.html (accessed July 2005). 

3.2.6. Ocean Water Circulation 

The circulation of ocean water is a complex system involving the interaction between the 

oceans and atmosphere. The system is primarily driven by solar radiation, which results 

in wind being produced from the heating and cooling of ocean water and the evaporation 

and precipitation of atmospheric water. Except for the equatorial region, which receives a 

nearly constant amount of solar radiation, the latitude and seasons affect how much solar 

radiation is received in a particular region of the ocean. This, in turn, has an effect on seasurface temperatures and the production of wind through the heating and cooling of the 

system (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003).

3.2.7. Surface Currents 

Ocean surface currents can be thought of as organized flows of water that can exist on a 

pan-oceanic scale with water being transported from one part of the ocean basin to 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 64 

another (Levington 1995). In addition to water, ocean currents also transport plankton, 

heat, salts, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. Wind is the primary force that drives ocean 

surface currents. The sun and moon also influence ocean water movements by creating 

tidal flow, which is more readily observed in coastal areas rather than in open ocean 

environments (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003). Figure 3-4 shows the major surface currents 

of the Pacific Ocean. 

Figure 3-4. Major Surface Currents of the Pacific Ocean. 

Source: Tomczak and Godfrey 2003. 

Note: Abbreviations are used for the Mindanao Eddy (ME), the Halmahera Eddy (HE), the New 

Guinea Coastal (NGCC), the North Pacific (NPC), and the Kamchatka Current (KC). Other 

abbreviations refer to fronts: STF (Subtropical Front), SAF (Subantarctic Front), PF (Polar Front), 

and CWB/WGB (Continental Water Boundary/Weddell Gyre Boundary). The shaded region 

indicates banded structure (Subtropical Countercurrents). In the western South Pacific Ocean, the 

currents are shown for April–November when the dominant winds are the Trades. During 

December–March, the region is under the influence of the northwest monsoon, flow along the 

Australian coast north of 18° S and along New Guinea reverses, the Halmahera Eddy changes its 

North Equatorial Current 

North Equatorial Counter Current 

South 

South Equatori al Counter Current 

.. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 65 

sense of rotation, and the South Equatorial Current joins the North Equatorial Countercurrent east 

of the eddy (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003). 

3.2.8. Transition Zones 

Transition zones are areas of ocean water bounded to the north and south by large-scale 

surface currents originating from subarctic and subtropical locations (Polovina et al.

2001). Located generally between 32° N and 42° N, the North Pacific Transition Zone 

(NPTZ) is an area between the southern boundary of the Subartic Frontal Zone (SAFZ) 

and the northern boundary of the Subtropical Frontal Zone (STFZ; see Figure 3-5). 

Individual temperature and salinity gradients are observed within each front, but 

generally the SAFZ is colder (approximately 8° C) and less salty (approximately 33.0 

ppm) than the STFZ (18° C, approximately 35.0 ppm, respectively). The NPTZ supports 

a marine food chain that experiences variation in productivity in localized areas due to 

changes in nutrient levels brought on, for example, by storms or eddies. A common 

characteristic among some of the most abundant animals found in the Transition Zone 

such as flying squid, blue sharks, Pacific pomfret, and Pacific saury is that they undergo 

seasonal migrations from summer feeding grounds in subarctic waters to winter spawning 

grounds in subtropical waters. Other animals found in the NPTZ include swordfish, tuna, 

albatross, whales, and sea turtles (Polovina et al. 2001). 

Figure 3-5. North Pacific Transition Zone. 

Source: http://www.pices.int/publications/special_publications/NPESR/2005/File_12_pp_201_210.pdf

(accessed July 2005). 

60°N 

50°N 

40°N 

3o•N 

2o·N 

..,J .... [ 

"• I ~ J-1 I 

' -~ ' ' '\-' ',fl ... °" ~"'-~-, ,.;;, ' . . ' . _.,.,, - ,-•· 4-:, '~ 1,11 I ~-y,,J rr..r., .. rr ... - 1""1 "'":.... ,. __ ..,r•: .1 ,..4-_ --':,..-r ~_; , ''LirLx~ .. - .. ,..v 

n • , I 

Subarctic Domain 

. , ~ 

140'W 12o·w 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 66 

3.2.9. Eddies 

Eddies are generally short to medium term water movements that spin off of surface 

currents and can play important roles in regional climate (e.g., heat exchange) as well as 

the distribution of marine organisms. Large-scale eddies spun off of the major surface 

currents often blend cold water with warm water, the nutrient-rich with the nutrient poor, 

and the salt laden with fresher waters (Bigg 2003). The edges of eddies, where the mixing 

is greatest, are often targeted by fishermen as these are areas of high biological 

productivity. In the Hawaiian Islands, the prevailing northeasterly trade winds combined 

with the topography of the area generate eddies on the leeward (western) sides of the 

islands. These eddies have been observed to last 50 to 70 days and have been attributed 

with enhancing the upwelling of nutrients into the euphotic zone and to increasing levels 

of primary productivity, as compared to non-eddy areas (Seki et al. 2001). As geostrophic 

surface currents are sometimes weak or nonexistent, eddies can also play an important 

role for larval transport of many organisms (E. Firing, UH SOEST, personal 

communication, July 2005). See Figure 3-6 for examples of compiled satellite based data 

to monitor an eddy. 

Figure 3-6. Example of an Eddy West of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Source: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010413oceaneddy.html (accessed August 2006). 

Note: The above eddy, named Lorretta, persisted in waters west of Hawaii Island for nearly eight months. 

Lorretta upwelled cool, nutrient rich water that resulted in increases in primary productivity (i.e., 

chlorophyll).

3.2.10. Deep-Ocean Currents 

As described in Tomczak and Godfrey (2003), deep-ocean currents or thermohaline 

movements result from the effects of salinity and temperature on the density of seawater. 

In the Southern Ocean, for example, water exuded from sea ice is extremely dense 

because of its high salt content. The movement of the dense water is influenced by 

bathymetry as it sinks to the bottom and flows “down slope,” thus filling up the deep 

polar ocean basins. For example, the Arctic Ocean does not contribute much of its dense 

water to the Pacific Ocean due to the narrow shallows of the Bering Strait. Generally, the 

u 

f H 

,, 

l"fflJ 

• "' JO i! 

~ , ' 

·~ 

,11 

I GOES temperature ! 

............ j . ~ 'j,,. . . 'i.t>°' 

:Ol tell n, ».I 

Langitucl , ,('WJ 

• 4 

H "' 0 ~ • .. .2 .-,, 

.D ~ 

IW1 .,u 

Longil.,d ■ ("WJ 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 67 

deep-water currents flow through the Atlantic Basin, around South Africa, into the Indian 

Ocean, past Australia, and into the Pacific Ocean. This process has been labeled the 

“ocean conveyor belt,” taking nearly 1,200 years to complete one cycle. The movement 

of the thermohaline conveyor belt is believed to affect global weather patterns (Gelbspan 

2004), and has been the focus of much research. See Figure 3-7 for a simplified 

schematic diagram of the deep-ocean conveyor belt system. 

Figure 3-7. Deep-Ocean Water Movement.

Source: U.N. GEO Yearbook 2004. 

3.2.11. Prominent Pacific Ocean Meteorological Features 

The air–sea interface is a dynamic relationship in which the ocean and atmosphere 

exchange energy and matter. This relationship is the basic driver for the circulation of 

surface water (through wind stress) as well as for atmospheric circulation (through 

evaporation). The formation of weather systems and atmospheric pressure gradients are 

linked to exchange of energy (e.g., heat) and water between air and sea (Bigg 2003). 

Near the equator, intense solar heating causes air to rise and water to evaporate, thus 

resulting in areas of low pressure. The air that has risen in the equatorial region fans out 

into the higher troposphere layer of the atmosphere and settles back toward Earth at 

middle latitudes. As the air settles toward Earth, it creates areas of high pressure known 

as subtropical high-pressure belts. One of these high-pressure areas in the Pacific is called 

the “Hawaiian High Pressure Belt,” which is responsible for the prevailing trade wind 

pattern observed in the Hawaiian Islands (Sturman and McGowan 2003). 

90°N go~w o· 90°1: 180° 91J°r.J 

60°N fl0 °fJ 

:io-~1 30°tJ 

o• o· 

Jo0s 30•s 

60°s 60°s 

90"S oo·s 9o•w o• ~r)"~ 1$[)• 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 68 

Air flowing from higher trade wind pressure areas moves to low pressure areas such as 

the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the South Pacific Convergence Zone 

(SPCZ), which are located around 5° N and 30° S, respectively. Converging trade winds 

in these areas do not produce high winds, but instead often form areas that lack 

significant wind speeds. These areas of low winds are known as the “doldrums.” The 

convergence zones occur near ridges of high sea-surface temperatures, with temperatures 

of 28° C and above, and are areas of cloud accumulation and high rainfall amounts. The 

high rainfall amounts reduce ocean water salinity levels in these areas (Sturman and 

McGowan 2003). 

The Aleutian Low Pressure System is another prominent weather feature in the Pacific 

Ocean and is caused by dense polar air converging with air from the subtropical highpressure belt. As these air masses converge around 60° N, air is uplifted creating an area 

of low pressure. When the relatively warm surface currents (Figure 3-4) meet the colder 

air temperatures of subpolar regions, latent heat is released, which causes precipitation. 

The Aleutian Low is an area where large storms with high winds are produced. Such 

large storms and wind speeds have the ability to affect the amount of mixing and 

upwelling between ocean layers (e.g., mixed layer and thermocline; Polovina et al. 1994). 

The dynamics of the air–sea interface do not produce steady states of atmospheric 

pressure gradients and ocean circulation. As discussed in the previous sections, there are 

consistent weather patterns (e.g., ITCZ) and surface currents (e.g., NPC); however, 

variability within the ocean–atmosphere system results in changes in winds, rainfall, 

currents, water column mixing, and sea-level heights. These can have profound effects on 

regional climates as well as on the abundance and distribution of marine organisms. 

One example of a shift in ocean–atmospheric conditions that can affect global fisheries in 

the Pacific Ocean is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO is linked to 

climatic changes in normal prominent weather features of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, 

such as the location of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). ENSO, which can 

occur every 2 to 10 years, results in the reduction of normal trade winds, which reduces 

the intensity of the westward-flowing equatorial surface current (Sturman and McGowan 

2003). In turn, the eastward-flowing countercurrent tends to dominate circulation, 

bringing warm, low-salinity, and low-nutrient water to the eastern margins of the Pacific 

Ocean. As the easterly trade winds are reduced, the normal nutrient-rich upwelling 

system does not occur, leaving warm surface water pooled in the eastern Pacific Ocean. 

The impacts of ENSO events are strongest in the Pacific through disruption of the 

atmospheric circulation, generalized weather patterns and fisheries. ENSO affects the 

ecosystem dynamics in the equatorial and subtropical Pacific by considerable warming of 

the upper ocean layer, rising of the thermocline in the western Pacific and deepening of 

the thermocline in the east, strong variations in the intensity of ocean currents, low trade 

winds with frequent westerlies, high precipitation at the dateline and drought in the 

western Pacific (Sturman and McGowan 2003). ENSO events have the ability to 

significantly influence the abundance and distribution of organisms within marine 

ecosystems. Human communities also experience a wide range of socioeconomic impacts 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 69 

from ENSO such as changes in weather patterns resulting in catastrophic events (e.g., 

mudslides in California because of high rainfall amounts), as well as reductions in 

fisheries harvests (e.g., collapse of the anchovy fishery off Peru and Chile; Levington 

1995; Polovina 2005). 

Changes in the Aleutian Low Pressure System are another example of how interannual 

variation in a prominent Pacific Ocean weather feature profoundly affects the abundance 

and distribution of marine organisms. Polovina et al. (1994) found that between 1977 and 

1988, the intensification of the Aleutian Low Pressure System in the North Pacific 

resulted in a deeper mixed-layer depth, which led to higher nutrients levels in the top 

layer of the euphotic zone. This, in turn, led to an increase in phytoplankton production 

that resulted in higher productivity levels (higher abundance levels for some organisms) 

in the NWHI. Changes in the Aleutian Low Pressure System, and the resulting effects on 

phytoplankton productivity, have been observed on decadal scales (10 years), as well as 

for longer periods such as 20 to 30 years. The phenomenon is often referred to as the 

“Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),” a term coined by Dr. Steven Hare (Hare 1996). 

3.2.12. Pacific Island Geography 

The Pacific islands can be generally grouped into three major areas: (a) Micronesia, (b) 

Melanesia, and (c) Polynesia. The islands of Japan and the Aleutian Islands in the North 

Pacific are generally not included in these three areas, thus they are not included or 

described here as this analysis focuses on the Western Pacific Region and its ecosystems. 

Information used in this section was obtained from the online version of the U.S. Central 

Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book (2005).31

3.2.12.1. Micronesia 

Micronesia, which is primarily located in the western Pacific Ocean, is made up of 

hundreds of high and low islands within six archipelagos: (a) Caroline Islands, (b) 

Marshall Islands, (c) Mariana Islands, (d) Gilbert Islands, (e) Phoenix Islands, and (f) 

Line Islands. 

The Caroline Islands (approximately 640 square miles) are composed of many low coral 

atolls, with a few high islands. Politically, the Caroline Islands are separated into two 

countries: Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Palau contains six island 

groups (approximately 458 square miles) composed of volcanic and coral islands. The 

population of Palau is estimated to be around 20,000 and the capitol is located in Koror. 

Palau’s EEZ is 232,861 square miles. 

The FSM contains hundreds of low lying coral islands (approximately 278 square miles) 

separated into four groups. The population of FSM is around 110,000 with the most 

populated states being Yap, Pohnpei (capitol), Kosrae, and Chuuk. FSM’s EEZ is 

1,156,944 square miles. 

 

31 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 70 

The Marshall Islands (approximately 180 square miles) are made up of 34 low-lying 

atolls separated by two chains: the southeastern Ratak Chain and the northwestern Ralik 

Chain. The population of the Marshall Islands is around 60,000, with Ebeye being one of 

the most densely populated islands in the Pacific. The capital is Majuro. The EEZ around 

the Marshall Islands is 768,561 square miles. 

The Mariana Islands (approximately 396 square miles) are composed of 15 volcanic 

islands that are part of a submerged mountain chain that stretches nearly 1,500 miles 

from Guam to Japan. Politically, the Mariana Islands are split into the Territory of Guam 

and the CNMI, both of which are U.S. possessions (See sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3). The 

EEZ around Guam and CNMI are 81,470 square miles and 292,717 square miles, 

respectively. 

Nauru (approximately 8 square miles), located southeast of the Marshall Islands, is a 

raised coral reef atoll rich in phosphate. The island has a population of around 13,500 

people and the Republic of Nauru is considered the smallest independent nation in the 

world. Nauru’s EEZ is 119,106 square miles. 

The Republic of Kirabati consists of 33 low lying coral islands (approximately 315 

square miles) within three major island chains (Gilbert, Phoenix, Line) separated by 

hundreds of miles. The population of Kiribati is nearly 105,000 people. The Gilbert 

Islands are located south of the Marshall Islands and are made up of 16 low-lying atolls, 

including Tarawa, the capital of Kiribati. The Phoenix Islands, located to the southwest of 

the Gilbert Islands, are composed of eight coral atolls. Howland and Baker Islands (U.S. 

possessions) are located within the Phoenix Archipelago. The Line Islands, located in the 

central South Pacific, are made up of ten coral atolls, of which Kiritimati is the largest in 

the world (approximately 250 square miles). The U.S. possessions of Kingman Reef, 

Palmyra Atoll, and Jarvis Island are part of the Line Islands. Kiribati has one of the 

largest EEZs in the Pacific at 1,328,913 square miles. 

3.2.12.2. Melanesia 

Melanesia is composed of several archipelagos that include the following: (a) Fiji Islands, 

(b) New Caledonia, (c) Solomon Islands, (d) New Guinea, (e) Bismark Archipelago, (f) 

Louisiade Islands, (g) Tobriand Islands, (h) Maluku Islands, (i) Torres Strait Islands, and 

(j) Vanuatu Islands. 

Located approximately 3,500 miles northeast of Sydney, Australia, the Fiji Archipelago 

(approximately 18,700 square miles) is composed of nearly 800 islands; the largest 

islands are volcanic in origin and the smallest islands are coral atolls. The two largest 

islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, make up nearly 85 percent of the total land area of 

the Republic of Fiji. Fiji’s population is estimated at 905,949 people and the capitol is 

located in Suva. Fiji’s EEZ is 495,369 square miles. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 71 

Located nearly 750 miles east–northeast of Australia, is the volcanic island of Grande 

Terre or New Caledonia (approximately 6,300 square miles). New Caledonia is French 

Territory and includes the nearby Loyalty Islands and the Chesterfield Islands, which are 

groups of small coral atolls. The population of New Caledonia is approximately 219,246 

people and the capitol is located in Noumea. The EEZ around New Caledonia is 549,170 

square miles. 

The Solomon Islands (approximately 27,500 square miles) are located northwest of New 

Caledonia and east of Papua New Guinea. Thirty volcanic islands and several small coral 

atolls make up this former British colony, which is now a member of the Commonwealth 

of Nations. The Solomon Islands are made up of smaller groups of islands such as the 

New Georgia Islands, the Florida Islands, the Russell Islands, and the Santa Cruz Islands. 

Approximately 1,500 miles separate the western and eastern island groups of the 

Solomon Islands. The population of the Solomon Islands is approximately 552,438 

people and the capitol is located in Honiara. The Solomon Islands’ EEZ is 613,711 

square miles. 

New Guinea is the world’s second largest island and is thought to have separated from 

Australia around 5000 BC. New Guinea is split between two nations: Indonesia (west) 

and Papua New Guinea (east). Papua New Guinea (approximately 178,700 square miles) 

is an independent nation that also governs several hundred small islands within several 

groups. These groups include the Bismark Archipelago and the Louisiade Islands, which 

are located north of New Guinea, and the Tobriand Islands, which are southeast of New 

Guinea. Most of the islands within the Bismark and Lousiade groups are volcanic in 

origin, whereas the Tobriand Islands are primarily coral atolls. Papua New Guinea’s 

population is estimated at 5,670,544 people and the capitol is located in Port Moresby. 

Papua New Guinea’s EEZ is 927,545 square miles. 

The Maluku Islands (east of New Guinea) and the Torres Strait Islands (between 

Australia and New Guinea) are also classified as part of Melanesia. Both of these island 

groups are volcanic in origin. The Maluku Islands are under Indonesia’s governance, 

while the Torres Strait Islands are governed by Australia. 

The Vanuatu Islands (4,700 square miles) comprise an archipelago that is located to the 

southeast of the Solomon Islands. There are 83 islands in the approximately 500 milelong Vanuatu chain, most of which are volcanic in origin. The population of Vanuatu is 

approximately 208,869 people and the capitol is located in Port-Vila. Vanuatu’s EEZ is 

256,087 square miles 

3.2.12.3. Polynesia 

Polynesia is composed of several archipelagos and island groups including (a) New 

Zealand and associated islands, (b) Tonga, (c) Samoa Islands, (d) Cook Islands (e) 

Tuvalu, (f) Tokelau, (g) Territory of French Polynesia, (h) Pitcairn Islands, (i) Easter 

Island (Rapa Nui), and (j) Hawaii. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 72 

New Zealand (approximately 103,470 square miles) is composed of two large islands: 

North Island and South Island and several small-island groups and islands. North Island 

(approximately 44,035 square miles) and South Island (approximately 58,200 square 

miles) extend for nearly 1,000 miles on a northeast–southwest axis, and have a maximum 

width of 450 miles. The other small island groups within the former British colony 

include the Chatham Islands and the Kermadec Islands. The Chatham Islands are a group 

of ten volcanic islands located 800 kilometers east of South Island. The four emergent 

islands of the Kermadec Islands are located 1,000 kilometers northeast of North Island 

and are part of a larger island arc with numerous subsurface volcanoes. The Kermadec 

Islands are known to be an active volcanic area where the Pacific Plate subducts under 

the Indo-Australian Plate. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4,076,140 

people and the capitol is located in Wellington. New Zealand’s EEZ is 1,339,411 square 

miles. 

The Tonga Islands (approximately 290 square miles) are located 450 miles east of Fiji 

and consist of 169 islands of volcanic and raised limestone origin. The largest island, 

Tongatapu (approximately 260 square miles), is home to two thirds of Tonga’s 

population of approximately 106,000 people. Tonga’s EEZ is 254,672 square miles. 

The Samoa Archipelago is located northeast of Tonga and consists of seven major 

volcanic islands, several small islets, and two coral atolls. The largest islands in this chain 

are Upolu (approximately 436 square miles) and Savaii (approximately 660 square 

miles). Upolu and Savaii and its surrounding islets and small islands are governed by the 

Independent State of Samoa with a population of approximately 178,000 people. Samoa’s 

EEZ is 49,402 square miles. 

Tutuila (approximately 55 square miles), the Manua Islands (a group of four volcanic 

islands with a total land area of less than 20 square miles), and two coral atolls (Rose 

Atoll and Swains Island) are governed by the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. More 

than 90 percent of American Samoa’s population (approximately 68,000 people) lives on 

Tutuila. The EEZ around American Samoa is 156,246 square miles. 

To the east of the Samoa Archipelago are the Cook Islands (approximately 90 square 

miles), which are separated into the Northern Group and Southern Group. The Northern 

Group consists of six sparsely populated coral atolls and the Southern Group consists of 

seven volcanic islands and two coral atolls. Rorotonga (approximately 26 square miles), 

located in the Southern Group, is the largest island in the Cook Islands and also serves as 

the capitol. From north to south, the Cook Islands spread nearly 900 miles, and the 

distance between the most distant islands is nearly 450 miles. The population of the Cook 

Islands is approximately 21,388 people and the EEZ is approximately 755,781 square 

miles. 

Approximately 600 miles northwest of the Samoa Islands is Tuvalu (approximately 10 

square miles), an independent nation made up of nine low-lying coral atolls. None of the 

islands have elevation higher than 14 feet, and the total population of the country is 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 73 

approximately 11,000 people. Tuvalu’s coral island chain extends for nearly 360 miles 

and the country has an EEZ of 289,500 square miles. 

East of Tuvalu and north of Samoa are the Tokelau Islands (approximately 4 square 

miles). Three coral atolls make up this territory of New Zealand, and a fourth atoll 

(Swains Island) is of the same group, but is controlled by the U.S Territory of American 

Samoa. Tokelau has a population of approximately 1,392 people and an EEZ of 123,343 

square miles. 

The 32 volcanic islands and 180 coral atolls of the Territory of French Polynesia 

(approximately 1,622 square miles) are made up of the following six groups: Austral 

Islands, Bass Islands, Gambier Islands, Marquesas Islands, Society Islands, and the 

Tuamotu Islands. The Austral Islands are a group of six volcanic islands in the southern 

portion of the territory. The Bass Islands are a group of two islands in the southernmost 

part of the territory, with their volcanism appearing to be much more recent than that of 

the Austral Islands. The Gambier Islands are a small group of volcanic islands in the 

southeastern portion of the territory and are often associated with the Tuamotu Islands 

because of their relative proximity; however, they are a distinct group because they are of 

volcanic origin rather than being coral atolls. The Marquesas Islands are an isolated 

group of islands located in the northeast portion of the territory, and are approximately 

1,000 miles northeast of Tahiti. All but one of the 17 Marquesas Islands are volcanic in 

origin. The Society Islands are a group of several volcanic islands that include the Island 

of Tahiti. Tahiti is home to nearly 70 percent of French Polynesia’s population of 

approximately 275,578 people. The capitol city of Papeete is located on Tahiti. The 

Tuamotu Islands, of which there are 78, are located in the central portion of the territory 

and are the world’s largest chain of coral atolls. French Polynesia has one of the largest 

EEZs in the Pacific Ocean at nearly 1,835,669 square miles. 

The Pitcairn Islands (governed by the United Kingdom) are a group of five islands 

thought to be an extension of the Tuamotu Archipelago. Pitcairn Island is the only 

volcanic island, with the others being coral atolls or uplifted limestone. Henderson Island 

is the largest in the group; however, Pitcairn Island is the only one that is inhabited with 

approximately 45 people. The EEZ around Pitcairn Island is 323,325 square miles. 

Easter Island, a volcanic high island located approximately 2,185 miles west of Chile, is 

thought to be the eastern extent of the Polynesian expansion. Easter Island, which is 

governed by Chile, has a total land area of 63 square miles and a population of 

approximately 3,790 people. The EEZ around Easter Island is 275,475 square miles. 

The northern extent of the Polynesian expansion is the Hawaiian Islands, which are made 

up of 137 islands, islets, and coral atolls. The exposed islands are part of a great undersea 

mountain range known as the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain, which was formed by 

a hotspot within the Pacific Plate. The Hawaiian Islands extend for nearly 1,500 miles 

from Kure Atoll in the northwest to the Island of Hawaii in the southeast. The Hawaiian 

Islands are often grouped into the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Nihoa to Kure) and 

the Main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii to Niihau). The total land area of the 19 primary 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 74 

islands and atolls is approximately 6,423 square miles, and the more than 75 percent of 

the 1.2-million population lives on the island of Oahu. The EEZ around Hawaii is 

810,232 square miles. 

3.3. Biological Environment 

This section contains general descriptions of marine trophic levels, food chains and food 

webs. A broad description of the types of marine organisms found within this 

environment is provided, as well as a description of organisms important to fisheries. 

Protected species are also described in this section. 

3.3.1. Marine Food Chains, Trophic Levels, and Food Webs 

Food chains are often thought of as a representation of the basic flow of organic matter 

and energy through a series of organisms. Food chains in marine environments are 

generally segmented into the following six trophic levels: primary producers, primary 

consumers, secondary consumers, tertiary consumers, quaternary consumers, and 

decomposers. 

Generally, primary producers in the marine ecosystems are organisms that fix inorganic 

carbon into organic carbon compounds using external sources of energy (i.e., sunlight). 

Such organisms include single-celled phytoplankton. These organisms share common 

cellular structures called “chloroplasts,” which contain chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is a 

pigment that absorbs the energy of light to drive the biochemical process of 

photosynthesis. Photosynthesis results in the transformation of inorganic carbon into 

organic carbon such as carbohydrates, which are used for cellular growth. 

Primary consumers in the marine environment are organisms that feed on primary 

producers. Secondary, tertiary, and quaternary consumers in the marine environment are 

organisms that feed on primary consumers and include fish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

mammals and other carnivorous and omnivorous organisms. Decomposers live off dead 

phytoplankton and animals and are essential in food chains as they break down organic 

matter and make it available for primary producers (Valiela 2003). 

Marine food webs are simplified representations of overall patterns of feeding among 

organisms. An example of a marine food web is presented in Figure 3-8. The openness of 

marine ecosystems, lack of specialists, long lifespans, and large size changes and food 

preferences across the life histories of many marine species make marine food webs more 

complex than their terrestrial and freshwater counterparts (Link 2002). Nevertheless, food 

webs are important tools in understanding ecological relationships among organisms. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 75 

Figure 3-8. Central Pacific Pelagic Food Web. 

Source: Kitchell et al. 1999. 

3.3.2. Benthic Environment 

The word benthic comes from the Greek word /benthos/ or “depths of the sea.” The 

benthic or demersal environment is quite general in that it is regarded as pertaining to 

habitats of the sea floor extending from the high-tide mark to the deepest depths of the 

ocean. The benthos is home to a wide range of marine organisms that form complex 

community structures. This section presents a simple description of the following benthic 

zones: (a) intertidal, (b) subtidal (e.g., coral reefs), (c) banks and seamounts, (d) deep-reef 

slope, and (e) deep-ocean bottom (see Figure 3-9). "Demersal fisheries" primarily target 

benthic organisms (e.g., lobster, bottomfish, coral reef organisms, etc.), but may include 

species that inhabit the water column or the surface at some portion of their life cycles.

5 

4 

-Cl) 

> Cl) 

-~ 3 

.r:. 

Q. 

0 

~ 

f2 

1 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 76 

Figure 3-9. Benthic Environment and Associated Ocean Zones. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005. 

3.3.2.1. Intertidal Zone 

The intertidal zone is a relatively small margin of seabed that exists between the highest 

and lowest extent of the tides. Because of wave action on unprotected coastlines, the 

intertidal zone can sometimes extend beyond tidal limits due to the splashing effect of 

waves. Vertical zonation among organisms is often observed in intertidal zones, where 

the lower limits of some organisms are determined by the presence of predators or 

competing species, whereas the upper limit is often controlled by physiological limits and 

species’ tolerance to temperature and drying (Levington 1995). Organisms that inhabit 

the intertidal zone include algae, seaweeds, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, echinoderms 

(starfish), and cnidarians (e.g., anemones). 

Many organisms in the intertidal zone have adapted strategies to combat the effects of 

temperature, salinity, and desiccation due to the wide-ranging tides of various locations. 

Marine algae are the primary producers in most intertidal areas. Many primary 

consumers, such as snails, graze on algae growing on rocky substrates in the intertidal 

zone. Secondary and tertiary consumers in intertidal zones include starfish, anemones, 

and seabirds. Because of the proximity of the intertidal zone to the shoreline, intertidal 

organisms are important food items to many human communities. In Hawaii, for 

example, intertidal limpet species (snails; Cellana spp.) such as ‘opihi (Cellana exarata)

have long been eaten by native Hawaiian communities. In addition to mollusks, intertidal 

seaweeds are also important food items for Pacific Islanders. 

Eplpelagtc Zone 

Mesopelaglc Zone 

Bathypelaglc Zone 

Deep Reef Slope 

Abyssopelaglc Zone 

Benthic 

Pelagic 

Abyssal Plain 

Seamounts 

1000mete~ 

4000meters 

Hadal Zone 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 77 

3.3.2.2. Seagrass Beds 

Seagrasses are found in many marine ecosystems and are a regular feature of many 

inshore areas adjacent to coral reefs in the Pacific. According to Hatcher et al. (1989), 

seagrasses stabilize sediments because leaves slow current flow, thus increasing 

sedimentation of particles. The roots and rhizomes form a complex matrix that binds 

sediments and stops erosion. Seagrass beds provide habitat for certain commercially 

valuable shrimps as well as habitat for reef-associated species such as surgeonfishes 

(Acanthuridae) and rabbitfishes (Siganidae). Seagrasses are also important sources of 

nutrition for higher vertebrates such as green sea turtles. A concise summary of the 

seagrass species found in the western tropical South Pacific is given by Coles and Kuo 

(1995). From the fisheries perspective, the fishes and other organisms harvested from the 

coral reef and associated habitats, such as mangroves, seagrass beds, shallow lagoons, 

bays, inlets and harbors, and the reef slope beyond the limit of coral reef growth, 

contribute to the total yield from coral reef associated fisheries. 

3.3.2.3. Mangrove Forests 

Mangroves are terrestrial shrubs and trees that are able to live in the salty environment of 

the intertidal zone. In their native habitat, their prop roots form important substrate on 

which sessile organisms can grow, and they provide shelter for fishes. Mangroves are 

believed to also provide important nursery habitat for many juvenile reef fishes. The 

natural eastern limit of mangroves in the Pacific is American Samoa. In the environments 

in which mangroves are native, such as in areas of the Pacific, mangroves have important 

cultural and economic uses. The plant is used as wood for building, charcoal, and tannin, 

and the mangrove stands can stabilize areas where sedimentation is occurring. They may 

be important as nursery grounds for peneaeid shrimps and some inshore fish species. 

They may also provide a habitat for some commercially valuable crustaceans. 

The red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) was introduced into Hawaii in 1902 and has 

become the dominant plant within a number of large protected bays and coastlines on 

both Oahu and Molokai (Gulko 1998). Oriental Mangrove (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza), 

another introduction, is known from Oahu and Molokai and is rapidly spreading in some 

areas. Mangroves are invasive species in Hawaii where they have become established on 

all the major Hawaiian Islands. Chimner et al. (2006) found that mangroves are still 

expanding at a rapid rate on Oahu and have colonized many different landforms 

including tidal flats, riverbanks, fishponds, canals, embayments, lagoons, and some reef 

areas that are protected from strong waves and currents. Mangroves change water quality, 

alter food chains, and displace vegetation in areas where native waterbirds breed (Enoki 

2004). Numerous research and restoration projects are being implemented to monitor and 

quantify mangrove expansion, and control mangroves through removal and efforts to 

prevent re-establishment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 78 

3.3.2.4. Coral Reefs 

Coral reefs are carbonate rock structures at or near sea level that support viable 

populations of reef-building corals. Apart from a few exceptions in the Pacific Ocean, 

coral reefs are confined to the warm tropical and subtropical waters lying between 30° N 

and 30° S. Coral reef ecosystems are some of the most diverse and complex ecosystems 

on Earth. Their complexity is manifest on all conceptual dimensions, including 

geological history, growth and structure, biological adaptation, evolution and 

biogeography, community structure, organism and ecosystem metabolism, physical 

regimes, and anthropogenic interactions (Hatcher et al. 1989). 

Coral reefs and reef-building organisms are confined to the shallow upper euphotic zone. 

Maximum reef growth and productivity occur between 5 and 15 meters (Hopley and 

Kinsey 1988) and maximum diversity of reef species occurs at 10 to 30 meters (Huston 

1985). Thirty meters has been described as a critical depth below which rates of growth 

(accretion) of coral reefs are often too slow to keep up with changes in sea level. This 

was true during the Holocene transgression over the past 10,000 years, and many reefs 

below this depth drowned during this period. Coral reef habitat does extend deeper than 

30 meters, but few well-developed reefs are found below 50 meters. Many coral reefs are 

bordered by broad areas of shelf habitat (reef slope) between 50 and 100 meters that were 

formed by wave erosion during periods of lower sea level. These reef slope habitats 

consist primarily of carbonate rubble, algae and microinvertebrate communities, some of 

which may be important nursery grounds for some coral reef fish, as well as a habitat for 

several species of lobster. However, the ecology of this habitat is poorly known, and 

much more research is needed to define the lower depth limits of coral reefs, which by 

inclusion of shelf habitat, could be viewed as extending to 100 meters. 

The symbiotic relationship between the animal coral polyps and algal cells 

(dinoflagellates) known as zooxanthellae is a key feature of reef building corals. 

Incorporated into the coral tissue, these photosynthesizing zooxanthellae provide much of 

the polyp’s nutritional needs, primarily in the form of carbohydrates. Most corals 

supplement this food source by actively feeding on zooplankton or dissolved organic 

nitrogen, because of the low nitrogen content of the carbohydrates derived from 

photosynthesis. Because of reef-building coral’s symbiotic relationship with 

photosynthetic zooxanthellae, reef-building corals do not generally occur at depths 

greater than 100 meters (300 feet; Hunter 1995). 

Primary production on coral reefs is associated with phytoplankton, algae, sea grasses, 

and zooxanthellae. Primary consumers include many different species of corals, 

mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, gastropods, sea turtles, and fish (e.g., parrot fish). 

Secondary consumers include anemones, urchins, crustaceans, and fish. Tertiary 

consumers include eels, octopus, barracudas, and sharks. 

The corals and coral reefs of the Pacific are described in Wells and Jenkins (1988) and 

Veron (1995). The number of coral species declines in an easterly direction across the 

western and central Pacific, which is in common with the distribution of fish and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 79 

invertebrate species. More than 330 species are contained in 70 genera on the Australian 

Barrier Reef, compared with only 30 coral genera present in the Society Islands of French 

Polynesia, and 10 genera in the Marquesas and Pitcairn Islands. Hawaii, by virtue of its 

isolated position in the Pacific, also has relatively few species of coral. Approximately 66 

species of scleractinian (hard) corals in 17 genera are known from Hawaii. The main 

Hawaiian Islands lack most of the branching or “tabletop” Acropora species that form the 

majority of reefs elsewhere in the Pacific. The Acropora species provide a large amount 

of complex three-dimensional structure and protected habitat for a wide variety of fishes 

and invertebrates. As a consequence, Hawaiian coral reefs provide limited “protective” 

three-dimensional space. This is thought to account for the exceptionally high rate of 

endemism among Hawaiian marine species. Furthermore, many believe that this is the 

reason certain fish and invertebrate species look and act very differently from similar 

members of the same species found in other parts of the South Pacific (Gulko 1998). 

3.3.2.4.1.Coral Reef Productivity 

Coral reefs are among the most biologically productive environments in the world. The 

global potential for coral reef fisheries has been estimated at nine million metric tons per 

year, which is impressive given the small area of reefs compared with the extent of other 

marine ecosystems, which collectively produce between 70 and 100 million metric tons 

per year (Munro 1984, Smith 1978). An apparent paradox of coral reefs, however, is their 

location in the low-nutrient areas of the tropical oceans. Coral reefs themselves are 

characterized by the highest gross primary production in the sea, with sand, rubble fields, 

reef flats, and margins adding to primary production rates. The main primary producers 

on coral reefs are the benthic microalgae, macroalgae, symbiotic microalgae of corals, 

and other symbiont-bearing invertebrates (Levington 1995). Zooxanthellae living in the 

tissues of hard corals make a substantial contribution to primary productivity in zones 

rich in corals due to their density, greater than 106

 cells cm-2 of live coral surface, and the 

high rugosity of the surfaces on which they live, as well as their own photosynthetic 

potential. However, zones of high coral cover make up only a small part of entire coral 

reef ecosystems, and so contribution to total coral reef primary productivity is small 

(WPRFMC 2001). 

Although the ocean’s surface waters in the tropics generally have low productivity, these 

waters are continually moving. Coral reefs, therefore, have access to open-water 

productivity and thus, particularly in inshore continental waters, shallow benthic habitats 

such as reefs are not always the dominant sources of nutrients for fisheries. In coastal 

waters, detrital matter from land, plankton, and fringing marine plant communities are 

particularly abundant. There may be passive advection of particulate and dissolved 

detrital carbon onto reefs, as well as active transport onto reefs via fishes that shelter on 

reefs but that feed in adjacent habitats. There is, therefore, greater potential for 

nourishment of inshore reefs than offshore reefs by external sources, and this inshore 

nourishment is enhanced by large land masses (Birkeland 1997a, 1997b). 

 

For most of the Pacific Islands, rainfall typically ranges from 2.0 to 3.5 meters per year. 

Low islands, such as atolls, tend to have less rainfall and may suffer prolonged droughts. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 80 

Furthermore, when rain does fall on coral islands that have no major catchment area, 

there is little nutrient input into surrounding coastal waters and lagoons. Lagoons and 

embayments around high islands in the South Pacific are likely to be more productive 

than atoll lagoons. There are, however, some exceptions to the typical amount of rainfall 

on atolls; Palmyra Atoll and Rose Atoll receive up to 4.3 meters of rain per year. 

However, overall the productivity of high-island coastal waters, particularly where there 

are lagoons and sheltered waters, is possibly reflected in the greater abundance of small 

pelagic fishes such as anchovies, sprats, sardines, scads, mackerels, and fusiliers. In 

addition, the range of different environments that can be found in the immediate vicinity 

of the coasts of high islands also contributes to the greater range of biodiversity found in 

such locations. 

3.3.2.4.2.Coral Reef Communities 

A major portion of the primary production of the coral reef ecosystem comes from 

complex interkingdom relationships of animal/plant photosymbioses hosted by animals 

of many taxa, most notably stony corals. Most of the geological structure of reefs and 

habitat is produced by these complex symbiotic relationships. Complex symbiotic 

relationships for defense from predation, removal of parasites, building of domiciles, and 

other functions are also prevalent. About 32 of the 33 animal phyla are represented on 

coral reefs (only 17 are represented in terrestrial environments), and this diversity 

produces complex patterns of competition. The diversity also produces a disproportionate 

representation of predators, which have strong influences on lower levels of the food web 

in the coral reef ecosystem (Birkeland 1997a). 

In areas with high gross primary production—such as rain forests and coral reefs—

animals and plants tend to have a higher variety and concentration of natural chemicals as 

defenses against herbivores, carnivores, competitors, and microbes. Because of this 

tendency, and the greater number of phyla in the system, coral reefs are now a major 

focus for bioprospecting, especially in the southwest tropical Pacific (Birkeland 1997b). 

Typically, spawning of coral reef fish occurs in the vicinity of the reef and is 

characterized by frequent repetition throughout a protracted time of the year, a diverse 

array of behavioral patterns, and an extremely high fecundity. Coral reef species exhibit a 

wide range of strategies related to larval dispersal and ultimately recruitment into the 

same or new areas. Some larvae are dispersed as short-lived, yolk-dependent 

(lecithotrophic) organisms, but the majority of coral reef invertebrate species disperse 

their larvae into the pelagic environment to feed on various types of plankton 

(planktotrophic; Levington 1995). For example, larvae of the coral Pocillopora 

damicornis, which is widespread throughout the Pacific, has been found in the plankton 

of the open ocean exhibiting a larval life span of more than 100 days (Levington 1995). 

Because many coral reefs are space limited for settlement, planktotrophic larvae are a 

likely strategy to increase survival in other areas (Levington 1995). Coral reef fish 

experience their highest predation mortality in their first few days or weeks, thus rapid 

growth out of the juvenile stage is a common strategy. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 81 

The condition of the overall populations of particular species is linked to the variability 

among subpopulations: the ratio of sources and sinks, their degrees of recruitment 

connection, and the proportion of the subpopulations with high variability in reproductive 

capacity. Recruitment to populations of coral reef organisms depends largely on the 

pathways of larval dispersal and “downstream” links. 

3.3.2.4.3.Reproduction and Recruitment 

The majority of coral reef associated species are very fecund, but temporal variations in 

recruitment success have been recorded for some species and locations. Many of the 

large, commercially targeted coral reef species are long lived and reproduce for a number 

of years. This is in contrast to the majority of commercially targeted species in the 

tropical pelagic ecosystem. Long-lived species adapted to coral reef systems are often 

characterized by complex reproductive patterns like sequential hermaphroditism, sexual 

maturity delayed by social hierarchy, multi-species mass spawnings, and spawning 

aggregations in predictable locations (Birkeland 1997b). 

3.3.2.4.4.Growth and Mortality Rates 

Recruitment of coral reef species is limited by high mortality of eggs and larvae, and also 

by competition for space to settle out on coral reefs. High predation intensity is due to a 

disproportionate number of predators, which limits juvenile survival (Birkeland 1997b). 

In response, some fishes, such as scarids (parrotfish) and labrids (wrasses), grow rapidly 

compared with other coral reef fishes. But they still grow relatively slowly compared 

with pelagic species. In addition, scarids and labrids may have complex haremic 

territorial social structures that contribute to the overall effect of harvesting these 

resources. It appears that many tropical reef fishes grow rapidly to near-adult size, and 

then often grow relatively little over a protracted adult life span; they are thus relatively 

long lived. In some groups of fishes, such as damselfish, individuals of the species are 

capable of rapid growth to adult size, but sexual maturity is still delayed by social 

pressure. This complex relationship between size and maturity makes management of 

these species more difficult (Birkeland 1997b). 

3.3.2.4.5.Community Variability 

High temporal and spatial variability is characteristic of reef communities. At large 

spatial scales, variation in species assemblages may be due to major differences in habitat 

types or biotopes. Seagrass beds, reef flats, lagoonal patch reefs, reef crests, and seaward 

reef slopes may occur in relatively close proximity, but represent notably different 

habitats. For example, reef fish communities from the geographically isolated Hawaiian 

Islands are characterized by low species richness, high endemism, and exposure to large 

semiannual current gyres, which may help retain planktonic larvae. The NWHI are 

further characterized by (a) high-latitude coral atolls; (b) a mild temperate to subtropical 

climate, where inshore water temperatures can drop below 18° C (64° F) in late winter; 

(c) species that are common on shallow reefs and attain large sizes, which to the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 82 

southeast occur only rarely or in deep water; and (d) inshore shallow reefs that are largely 

free of fishing pressure (Maragos and Gulko 2002). 

3.3.2.5. Deep Reef Slopes 

As most Pacific islands are oceanic islands versus continental islands, they generally lack 

an extensive shelf area of relatively shallow water extending beyond the shoreline. For 

example, the average global continental shelf extends 40 miles, with a depth of around 

200 feet (Postma and Zijlstra 1988). While lacking a shelf, many oceanic islands have a 

deep reef slope, which is often angled between 45° and 90° toward the ocean floor. The 

deep reef slope is home to a wide variety of marine organisms that are important fisheries 

target species, such as snappers and groupers. Biological zonation does occur on the reef 

slope and is related to the limit of light penetration beyond 100 meters. For example, 

reef-building corals can be observed at depths less than 100 meters, but at greater depths 

gorgonian and black corals are more readily observed (Colin et al. 1986). 

3.3.2.6. Banks and Seamounts 

Banks are generally volcanic structures of various sizes and occur both on the continental 

shelf and in oceanic waters. Coralline structures tend to be associated with shallower 

parts of the banks as reef-building corals are generally restricted to a maximum depth of 

100 meters. Deeper parts of banks may be composed of rock or coral rubble, sand, or 

shell deposits. Banks thus support a variety of habitats, which in turn support a variety of 

fish species (Levington 1995). 

These types of assemblages may be regarded as consisting of metapopulations that are 

associated with specific features or habitats and are interconnected through larval 

dispersal. From a genetic perspective, individual patch assemblages may be considered as 

the same population; however, in many locations, not enough is known about exchange 

rates to distinguish discrete populations. 

Seamounts are undersea mountains, mostly of volcanic origin, which rise steeply from 

the sea bottom to below sea level (Rogers 1994). On seamounts and surrounding banks, 

species composition is closely related to depth. Deep-slope fisheries typically occur in the 

100 to 500-meter depth range. A rapid decrease in species richness typically occurs 

between 200 and 400 meters deep, and most fishes observed there are associated with 

hard substrates, holes, ledges, or caves (Chave and Mundy 1994). Territoriality is 

considered to be less important for deep-water species of serranids, and lutjanids tend to 

form loose aggregations. Adult deep-water species are believed to not normally migrate 

between isolated seamounts. 

Seamounts have complex effects on ocean circulation. One effect, known as the Taylor 

column, relates to eddies trapped over seamounts to form quasi-closed circulations. It is 

hypothesized that this helps retain pelagic larvae around seamounts and maintain the 

local fish population. Although evidence for retention of larvae over seamounts is sparse 

(Boehlert and Mundy 1993), endemism has been reported for a number of fish and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 83 

invertebrate species at seamounts (Rogers 1994). Wilson and Kaufman (1987) concluded 

that seamount species are dominated by those on nearby shelf areas, and that seamounts 

act as stepping stones for transoceanic dispersal. Snappers and groupers both produce 

pelagic eggs and larvae, which tend to be most abundant over deep reef slope waters, 

while larvae of Etelis snappers are generally found in oceanic waters. It appears that 

populations of snappers and groupers on seamounts rely on inputs of larvae from external 

sources. 

3.3.2.7. Deep-Ocean Floor 

At the end of a reef slope lays the dark and cold world of the deep ocean floor. Composed 

of mostly mud and sand, the deep ocean floor is home to deposit feeders and suspension 

feeders, as well as fish and marine mammals. Compared with shallower benthic areas 

(e.g., coral reefs), benthic deep-slope areas are lower in productivity and biomass. 

Because of the lack of sunlight, primary productivity is low, and many organisms rely on 

deposition of organic matter that sinks to the bottom. The occurrence of secondary and 

tertiary consumers decreases the deeper one goes due to the lack of available prey. With 

increasing depth, suspension feeders become less abundant and deposit feeders become 

the dominant feeding type (Levington 1995). 

Although most of the deep seabed is homogenous and low in productivity, there are hot 

spots teeming with life. In areas of volcanic activity such as the mid-oceanic ridge, 

thermal vents exist that spew hot water loaded with various metals and dissolved sulfide. 

Bacteria found in these areas are able to make energy from the sulfide (chemotrophs), 

and are considered primary producers. A variety of organisms either feed on these 

bacteria directly or contain the bacteria in special organs within their bodies called 

“trophosomes.” Types of organisms found near these thermal vents include crabs, 

limpets, tubeworms, and bivalves (Levington 1995). 

3.3.2.8. Benthic Species of Economic Importance 

The following subsections provide brief descriptions of species harvested in noteworthy 

numbers in the Western Pacific Region. These species, and the fisheries that harvest 

them, have been most recently discussed in detail in a 2005 Final EIS for the Bottomfish 

FMP (WPRFMC 2005a), the 2007 Supplemental EIS for Amendment 14 to the 

Bottomfish FMP which was developed to end bottomfish overfishing in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (WPRFMC 2007a), a 2001 Final EIS for the Coral Reef Ecosystems 

FMP (WPRFMC 2001), a 2002 Environmental Assessment for the Precious Corals FMP 

(WPRFMC 2002), and a 2000 Environmental Assessment for the Crustaceans FMP 

(WPRFMC 2000). Please see those documents, which can be accessed at 

www.wpcouncil.org or by contacting the Council32 for further information. 

 

32 WPRFMC. 1164 Bishop St. Ste. 1400. Honolulu, HI. 96813. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 84 

3.3.2.8.1.Coral Reef Associated Species 

The most commonly harvested species of coral reef associated organisms include the 

following: surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), jacks (Carangidae), 

soldierfishes/squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), wrasses (Labridae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), 

octopus (Octopus cyanea, O. ornatus), goatfishes (Mullidae), and giant clams 

(Tridacnidae). Studies on coral reef fisheries are relatively recent, commencing with the 

major study by Munro and his coworkers during the late 1960s in the Caribbean (Munro 

1983). Even today, only a relatively few in-depth studies on reef fisheries are available. 

It was initially thought that the maximum sustainable yields for coral reef fisheries were 

in the range of 0.5 to 5 t km-2 yr

-1, based on limited data (Marten and Polovina 1982, 

Stevenson and Marshall 1974). Much higher yields of around 20 t km-2 yr-1, for reefs in 

the Philippines (Alcala 1981, Alcala and Luchavez 1981) and American Samoa (Wass 

1982), were thought to be unrepresentative (Marshall 1980), but high yields of this order 

have now been independently estimated for a number of sites in the South Pacific and 

Southeast Asia (Dalzell and Adams 1997, Dalzell et al. 1996). These higher estimates are 

closer to the maximum levels of fish production predicted by trophic and other models of 

ecosystems (Polunin and Roberts 1996). Dalzell and Adams (1997) suggested that the 

average MSY for Pacific reefs is estimated to be 16 t km-2 

yr

-1 based on 43 yield 

estimates where the proxy for fishing effort was population density. 

However, Birkeland (1997b) has expressed some skepticism about the sustainability of 

the high yields reported for Pacific and Southeast Asian reefs. Among other examples, he 

noted that the high values for American Samoa reported by Wass (1982) during the early 

1970s were followed by a 70 percent drop in coral reef fishery catch rates between 1979 

and 1994. Saucerman (1995) ascribed much of this decline to a series of catastrophic 

events over the same period. This began with a crown-of-thorns (Acanthaster planci) 

starfish infestation in 1978, followed by hurricanes in 1990 and 1991, which reduced the 

reefs to rubble, and a coral bleaching event in 1994, probably associated with the El Niño 

phenomenon. These various factors reduced live coral cover in American Samoa from a 

mean of 60 percent in 1979 to between 3 and 13 percent in 1993 (Saucerman 1995). 

Furthermore, problems still remain in rigorously quantifying the effects of factors on 

yield estimates such as primary productivity, depth, sampling area, or coral cover. 

Polunin et al. (1996) noted that there was an inverse correlation between estimated reef 

fishery yield and the size of the reef area surveyed, based on a number of studies reported 

by Dalzell (1996). Arias-Gonzales et al. (1994) have also examined this feature of reef 

fisheries yield estimates and noted that this was a problem when comparing reef fishery 

yields. The study noted that estimated yields are based on the investigator’s perception of 

the maximum depth at which true reef fishes occur. Small pelagic fishes, such as scads 

and fusiliers, may make up large fractions of the inshore catch from a particular reef and 

lagoon system, and if included in the total catch can greatly inflate the yield estimate. The 

great variation in reef yield summarized by authors such as Arias-Gonzales et al. (1994), 

Dalzell (1996), and Dalzell and Adams (1997) may also be due in part to the different 

size and trophic levels included in catches. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 85 

Another important aspect of the yield question is the resilience of reefs to fishing, and 

recovery potential when overfishing or high levels of fishing effort have been conducted 

on coral reefs. Evidence from a Pacific atoll where reefs are regularly fished by 

community fishing methods, such as leaf sweeps and spearfishing, indicates that depleted 

biomass levels may recover to preexploitation levels within 1 to 2 years. In the 

Philippines, abundances of several reef fishes have increased in small reserves within a 

few years of their establishment (Russ and Alcala 1994) although recovery in numbers of 

fish is much faster than recovery of biomass, especially in larger species such as 

groupers. Other studies in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia (Polunin et al. 1996) indicate 

that reef fish populations in relatively small areas have the potential to recover rapidly 

from depletion in the absence of further fishing. 

Estimating the recovery from, and reversibility of, fishing effects over large reef areas 

appears more difficult to determine. Where growth overfishing predominates, recovery 

following effort reduction may be rapid if the fish in question are fast growing, as in the 

case of goatfish (Garcia and Demetropolous 1986). However, recovery may be slower if 

biomass reduction is due to recruitment overfishing because it takes time to rebuild adult 

spawning biomasses and high fecundities (Polunin and Morton 1992). Furthermore, many 

coral reef species have limited distributions and may be confined to a single island or a 

cluster of proximate islands. Widespread heavy fishing could cause global extinctions of 

some such species, particularly if there is also associated habitat damage. 

3.3.2.8.2.Crustaceans 

Crustaceans are harvested on small scales throughout the inhabited islands of the Western 

Pacific Region. The most common crustacean harvests include lobster species of the 

taxonomic groups Palinuridae (spiny lobsters) and Scyllaridae (slipper lobsters). Adult 

spiny lobsters are typically found on rocky substrate in well-protected areas, in crevices, 

and under rocks. Unlike many other species of Panulirus, the juveniles and adults of P. 

marginatus are not found in separate habitats apart from one another (MacDonald and 

Stimson 1980; Parrish and Polovina 1994). Juvenile P. marginatus recruit directly to 

adult habitat; they do not utilize separate shallow water nursery habitat apart from the 

adults as do many Palinurid lobsters (MacDonald and Stimson 1980; Parrish and 

Polovina 1994). Juvenile and adult P. marginatus shelter differently from one another 

(MacDonald and Stimson 1980). Similarly, juvenile and adult P. penicillatus also share 

the same habitat (Pitcher 1993). 

Pitcher (1993) observed that, in the southwestern Pacific, spiny lobsters are typically 

found in association with coral reefs. Coral reefs provide shelter as well as a diverse and 

abundant supply of food items, he noted. Pitcher also stated that in this region, P. 

penicillatus inhabits the rocky shelters in the windward surf zones of oceanic reefs, an 

observation also noted by Kanciruk (1980). Other species of Panulirus show more 

general patterns of habitat utilization. At night, P. penicillatus moves onto the reef flat to 

forage. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 86 

Spiny lobsters are nonclawed, decapod crustaceans with slender walking legs of roughly 

equal size. Spiny lobster have a large spiny carapace with two horns and antennae 

projecting forward of their eyes, and a large abdomen terminating in a flexible tailfan 

(Uchida et al. 1980). The appearance of the slipper lobster is notably different than that of 

the spiny lobster. 

Uchida and Uchiyama (1986) provided a detailed description of the morphology of 

slipper lobsters (S. squammosus and S. haanii) and note that the two species are very 

similar in appearance and are easily confused. 

Generally, the different species of the genus Panulirus have the same reproductive 

behavior and life cycle (Pitcher 1993). The male spiny lobster deposits a spermatophore 

or sperm packet on the female’s abdomen (WPRFMC 1983). In Panulirus sp., the 

fertilization of the eggs occurs externally (Uchida et al. 1980). The female lobster 

scratches and breaks the mass, releasing the spermatozoa (WPRFMC 1983). 

Simultaneously, ova are released from the female’s oviduct and are then fertilized and 

attach to the setae of the female’s pleopods33 (Pitcher 1993, WPRFMC 1983). At this 

point, the female lobster is ovigerous, or “berried” (WPRFMC 1983). The fertilized eggs 

hatch into phyllosoma larvae after 30 to 40 days (MacDonald 1986; Uchida and 

Uchiyama 1986). Spiny lobsters are very fecund (WPRFMC 1983). The release of the 

phyllosoma larvae appears to be timed to coincide with the full moon and in some species 

at dawn (Pitcher 1993). In Scyllarides sp. fertilization is internal (Uchida and Uchiyama 

1986). 

Very little is known about the planktonic phase of the phyllosoma larvae of Panulirus 

marginatus (Uchida et al. 1980). After hatching, the “leaf-like” larvae (or phyllosoma) 

enter a planktonic phase (WPRFMC 1983). The duration of this planktonic phase varies 

depending on the species and geographic region (WPRFMC 1983). The planktonic larval 

stage may last from 6 months to 1 year from the time of the hatching of the eggs 

(MacDonald 1986, WPRFMC 1983). 

Johnston (1968) suggested that fine-scale oceanographic features, such as eddies and 

currents, serve to retain lobster larva within island areas. In the NWHI, for example, 

lobster larvae settlement appears to be linked to the north and southward shifts of the 

North Pacific Central Water type (MacDonald 1986). The relatively long pelagic larval 

phase for palinurids results in very wide dispersal of spiny lobster larvae; palinurid larvae 

can be transported up to 2,000 miles by prevailing ocean currents (MacDonald 1986). 

 

33 Pleopod: an abdominal limb in a crustacean, used for swimming. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 87 

3.3.2.8.3.Reef Slope, Bank, and Seamount 

Species 

3.3.2.8.3.1. Bottomfish 

The families of bottomfish and seamount fish that often are targeted by fishermen include 

snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), jacks (Carangidae), and emperors 

(Lethrinidae). See Section 1.6 for a complete list of the Western Pacific Region's MUS. 

Distinct depth associations are reported for certain species of emperors, snappers, and 

groupers, with some groupers restricted to feeding in deep water (Parrish 1987). The 

emperor family (Lethrinidae) are bottom-feeding carnivorous fish found usually in 

shallow coastal waters on or near reefs, with some species observed at greater depths 

(e.g., L. rubrioperculatus). Lethrinids are not reported to be territorial, but may be 

solitary or form schools. The snapper family (Lutjanidae) is largely confined to 

continental shelves and slopes, as well as corresponding depths around islands. Adults are 

usually associated with the bottom. The genus Lutjanus is the largest of this family, 

consisting primarily of inhabitants of shallow reefs. Species of the genus Pristipomoides

occur at intermediate depths, often schooling around rocky outcrops and promontories 

(Ralston et al. 1986), while Eteline snappers are deep-water species. Groupers 

(Serranidae) are relatively larger and mostly occur in shallow areas, although some 

occupy deep-slope habitats. Groupers in general are more sedentary and territorial than 

snappers or emperors, and are more dependent on hard substrata. In general, groupers 

may be less dependent on hard-bottom substrates at depth (Parrish 1987). For each 

family, schooling behavior is reported more frequently for juveniles than for adults. 

Spawning aggregations may, however, occur even for the solitary species at certain times 

of the year, especially among groupers. 

A commonly reported trend is that juveniles occur in shallow water and adults are found 

in deeper water (Parrish 1989). Juveniles also tend to feed in different habitats than 

adults, possibly reflecting a way to reduce predation pressures. Not much is known on the 

location and characteristics of nursery grounds for juvenile deep-slope snappers and 

groupers. In Hawaii, juvenile opakapaka (P. filamentosus) have been found on flat, 

featureless shallow banks, as opposed to high-relief areas where the adults occur. 

Similarly, juveniles of the deep-slope grouper, hāpu‘upu‘u (Epinephelus quernus), are 

found in shallow water (Moffitt 1993). Ralston and Williams (1988), however, found that 

for deep-slope species, size is poorly correlated with depth. 

The distribution of adult bottomfish is correlated with suitable physical habitat. Because 

of the volcanic nature of the islands within the region, most bottomfish habitat consists of 

steep-slope areas on the margins of the islands and banks. The habitat of the major 

bottomfish species tends to overlap to some degree, as indicated by the depth range 

where they are caught. Within the overall depth range, however, individual species are 

more common at specific depth intervals. 

Depth alone does not assure satisfactory habitat. Both the quantity and quality of habitat 

at depth are important. Bottomfish are typically distributed in a nonrandom patchy 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 88 

pattern, reflecting bottom habitat and oceanographic conditions. Much of the habitat 

within the depths of occurrence of bottomfish is a mosaic of sandy low-relief areas and 

rocky high-relief areas. An important component of the habitat for many bottomfish 

species appears to be the association of high-relief areas with water movement. In the 

Hawaiian Islands and at Johnston Atoll, bottomfish density is correlated with areas of 

high relief and current flow (Haight 1989, Haight et al. 1993b, Ralston et al. 1986). 

Although the water depths utilized by bottomfish may overlap somewhat, the available 

resources may be partitioned by species-specific behavioral differences. In a study of the 

feeding habitats of the commercial bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago, Haight et al.

(1993b) found that ecological competition between bottomfish species appears to be 

minimized through species-specific habitat utilization. Species may partition the resource 

through both the depth and time of feeding activity, as well as through different prey 

preferences. Tagging studies by Okamoto revealed that some bottomfish species are 

capable of moving between islands and banks as adults, though, in general, bottomfish 

have limited ranges (Okamoto 1982). 

3.3.2.8.3.2. Precious Corals 

Currently, there are minimal harvests of precious corals in the Western Pacific Region. 

From the 1970s to early 1990s, however, precious corals were targeted and an FMP was 

implemented in 1983 (see Section 1.4). The commonly harvested precious corals include 

pink coral (Corallium secundum, Corallium regale, Corallium laauense), gold coral 

(Narella spp., Gerardia spp., Calyptrophora spp.), bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa,

Acanella spp.), and black coral (Antipathes dichotoma, Antipathes grandis, Antipathes 

ulex). 

In general, the Western Pacific Region's precious corals share several ecological 

characteristics: they lack symbiotic algae in tissues (they are ahermatypic), and most are 

found in deep water below the euphotic zone; they are filter feeders; and many are fan 

shaped to maximize contact surfaces with particles or microplankton in the water column. 

Because precious corals are filter feeders, most species thrive in areas swept by strong-tomoderate currents (Grigg 1993). Although precious corals are known to grow on a variety 

of hard substrate, they are most abundant on substrates of shell sandstone, limestone, or 

basaltic rock with a limestone veneer. 

All precious corals are slow growing and are characterized by low rates of mortality and 

recruitment. Natural populations are relatively stable, and a wide range of age classes is 

generally present. This life history pattern (longevity and many year classes) has two 

important consequences with respect to exploitation. First, the response of the population 

to exploitation is drawn out over many years. Second, because of the great longevity of 

individuals and the associated slow rates of turnover in the populations, a long period of 

reduced fishing effort is required to restore the ability of the stock to produce at the MSY 

if a stock has been over exploited for several years. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 89 

Because of the great depths at which they live, precious corals may be insulated from 

some short term changes in the physical environment; however, not much is known 

regarding the long term effects of changes in environmental conditions, such as water 

temperature or current velocity, on the reproduction, growth, or other life history 

characteristics of the precious corals (Grigg 1993). 

3.3.3. Pelagic Environment 

Pelagic species are closely associated with their physical and chemical environments. 

Suitable physical environment for these species depends on gradients in temperature, 

oxygen, or salinity, all of which are influenced by oceanic conditions on various scales. 

In the pelagic environment, physical conditions such as isotherm and isohaline 

boundaries34 often determine whether the surrounding water mass is suitable for pelagic 

fish, and many of the species are associated with specific isothermic regions. 

Additionally, areas of high trophic turnover as are found in oceanographic fronts35 and 

eddies are important habitat for foraging, migration, and reproduction for many species 

(Bakun 1996). 

The pelagic ecosystem is very large compared with any other marine ecosystem. 

Biological productivity in the pelagic zone is highly dynamic, characterized by advection 

of organisms at lower trophic levels and by extensive movements of animals at higher 

trophic levels, both of which are strongly influenced by ocean climate variability and 

mesoscale hydrographic features. 

Phytoplankton contribute more than 95 percent of primary production in the marine 

environment (Valiela 1995). Phytoplankton, which by definition require exposure to 

sunlight for photosynthesis, primarily live in the upper 100 meters of the euphotic zone 

and include organisms such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, coccolithophores, 

silicoflagellates, and cyanobacteria. Although some phytoplankton have structures (e.g., 

flagella) that allow them some movement, generally phytoplankton distribution is 

controlled by current movements and water turbulence. 

Diatoms can be either single celled or form chains with other diatoms. They are mostly 

found in areas with high nutrient levels such as coastal temperate and polar regions. 

Diatoms are the largest contributor to primary production in the ocean (Valiela 1995). 

Dinoflagellates are unicellular (one-celled) organisms that are often observed in high 

abundance in subtropical and tropical regions. Coccolithophores, which are also 

unicellular, are mostly observed in tropical pelagic regions (Levington 1995). 

Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, are often found in warm nutrient-poor waters of 

tropical ocean regions. 

 

34“Isotherm” refers to areas with generally the same temperature. “Isohaline” refers to areas with roughly 

the same salinity. 

35 “Oceanographic fronts” are areas between currents with steep temperature and salinity gradients. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 90 

Oceanic pelagic fish such as skipjack and yellowfin tuna and blue marlin prefer warm 

surface layers, where the water is well mixed by surface winds and is relatively uniform 

in temperature and salinity. Other fish such as albacore, bigeye tuna, striped marlin, and 

swordfish prefer cooler, more temperate waters, often meaning they occur at higher 

latitudes or greater depths. Preferred water temperature often varies with the size and 

maturity of pelagic fish, and adults usually have a wider temperature tolerance than 

subadults. Thus, during spawning, adults of many pelagic species usually move to 

warmer waters, the preferred habitat of their larval and juvenile stages. Large-scale 

oceanographic events (such as El Niño) change the characteristics of water temperature 

and productivity across the Pacific, and these events have a significant effect on the 

habitat range and movements of pelagic species. Tuna are commonly most concentrated 

near islands and seamounts that create divergences and convergences, which concentrate 

forage species, and also near upwelling zones along ocean current boundaries and along 

gradients in temperature, oxygen, and salinity. Swordfish and numerous other pelagic 

species tend to concentrate along food-rich temperature fronts between cold upwelled 

water and warmer oceanic water masses (NMFS 2001). 

Frontal zones are also likely migratory pathways across the Pacific for loggerhead turtles 

(Polovina et al. 2000). Loggerhead turtles are opportunistic omnivores that feed on 

floating prey such as the pelagic cnidarian Vellela vellela (“by the wind sailor”), and the 

pelagic gastropod Janthina spp., both of which are likely to be concentrated by the weak 

downwelling associated with frontal zones (Polovina et al. 2000). Data from on-board 

observers in the Hawaii-based longline fishery indicate that incidental catch of 

loggerheads occurs along the 17° C front (STF) during the first quarter of the year, and 

along the 20° C front (STF) in the second quarter of the year. The interaction rate, 

however, is substantially greater along the 17° C front (Polovina et al. 2000). 

3.3.3.1. Pelagic Species of Economic Importance 

The most commonly harvested pelagic species in the Western Pacific Region are: tuna 

(Thunnus obesus, Thunnus albacares, Thunnus alalunga, Katsuwonus pelamis), billfish 

(Tetrapturus auda, Makaira mazara, Xiphias gladius), dolphinfish (Coryphaena 

hippurus, C. equiselas), and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri). Pelagic fish live in 

tropical and temperate waters throughout the world’s oceans. They are capable of long 

migrations that reflect complex relationships to oceanic environmental conditions. These 

relationships are different for larval, juvenile, and adult stages of life. The larvae and 

juveniles of most species are more abundant in tropical waters, whereas the adults are 

more widely distributed. Geographic distribution varies with seasonal changes in ocean 

temperature. In both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, there is seasonal 

movement of tuna and related species toward the higher latitudes in the warmer seasons 

and a return toward the equator in the colder seasons. In the western Pacific, some 

species of adult pelagic fish range from as far north as Japan to as far south as New 

Zealand. Albacore, striped marlin, and swordfish can be found in cooler waters at 

latitudes as far north as 50° N, and as far south as 50° S. As a result, fishing for these 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 91 

species is conducted year-round in tropical waters, and seasonally in temperate waters 

(NMFS 2001). 

Migration patterns of pelagic fish stocks in the Pacific Ocean are not easily categorized, 

despite extensive tag-and-release projects for many of the species. This is particularly 

evident for the more tropical tuna species (e.g., yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye) that 

appear to roam extensively within a broad expanse of the Pacific centered on the equator. 

Although tagging and genetic studies have shown that some interchange does occur, it 

appears that short life spans and rapid growth rates restrict large-scale interchange and 

genetic mixing of eastern, central, and far-western Pacific Ocean stocks of yellowfin and 

skipjack tuna. Morphometric studies of yellowfin tuna also support the hypothesis that 

populations from the eastern and western Pacific derive from relatively distinct substocks 

in the Pacific. The stock structure of bigeye in the Pacific is poorly understood, but a 

single Pacific-wide population is assumed. The movement of the cooler water tuna (e.g., 

bluefin and albacore) is more predictable and defined, with tagging studies documenting 

regular, well-defined seasonal movement patterns relating to specific feeding and 

spawning grounds. The oceanic migrations of billfish are poorly understood, but the 

results of limited tagging work conclude that most billfish species are capable of 

transoceanic movement, and some seasonal regularity has been noted (NMFS 2001). 

In the ocean, light and temperature diminish rapidly with increasing depth, especially in 

the region of the thermocline. Many pelagic fish make vertical migrations through the 

water column. They tend to inhabit surface waters at night and deeper waters during the 

day, but several species make extensive vertical migrations between surface and deeper 

waters throughout the day. Certain species, such as swordfish and bigeye tuna, are more 

vulnerable to fishing when they are concentrated near the surface at night. Bigeye tuna 

may visit the surface during the night, but generally, longline catches of this fish are 

highest when hooks are set in deeper, cooler waters just above the thermocline (275–550 

m or 150–300 fm). Surface concentrations of juvenile albacore are largely concentrated 

where the warm mixed layer of the ocean is shallow (above 90 m or 50 fm), but adults 

are caught mostly in deeper water (90–275 m or 50–150 fm). Swordfish are usually 

caught near the ocean surface but are known to venture into deeper waters. Swordfish 

demonstrate an affinity for thermal oceanic frontal systems that may act to aggregate 

their prey and enhance migration by providing an energetic gain through moving the fish 

along with favorable currents (Olson et al. 1994). 

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

For each FMP and list of MUS (see Section 2.1), the Council has declared essential fish 

habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC; 64 FR 19068). The Council 

and NMFS must ensure that any activities being conducted in such areas do not adversely 

affect, to the extent possible, EFH or HAPC for any MUS. Table 3-1 represents the EFH 

and HAPC for all Western Pacific MUS. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 92 

As the table shows, Western Pacific EFH and HAPC fall into two categories: either the 

water column above the ocean bottom or the ocean bottom itself. Water column EFH and 

HAPC have been designated for Pelagic, Bottomfish, Precious Corals, Crustacean, and 

Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS. Areas of ocean bottom have been designated EFH and 

HAPC for Precious Corals, Crustaceans, Bottomfish, and Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS. 

The use of explosives, poisons, trawl nets, and other destructive gears that may adversely 

affect any EFH or HAPC in the Western Pacific Region is prohibited. No fishery under 

Council jurisdiction has been found to adversely affect the EFH or HAPC of any Western 

Pacific Region MUS. 

Table 3-1. EFH and HAPC for Western Pacific Region MUS. 

FMP

EFH 

(Juveniles and Adults)

EFH 

(Eggs and Larvae)

HAPC

Bottomfish 

and 

Seamount 

Groundfish

Bottomfish: Water column 

and bottom habitat down to 

400 meters 

Seamount Groundfish 

(adults only): Water 

column and bottom from 80 

to 600 m, bounded by 29°–

35° N and 171°E–179° W 

Bottomfish: Water 

column down to 400 m 

Seamount Groundfish 

(including juveniles):

epipelagic zone (0–200 

m) bounded by 29°–35° 

N and 171° E–179° W 

Bottomfish: All 

escarpments and slopes 

between 40 and 280 

meters, and three known 

areas of juvenile 

ōpakapaka habitat 

Seamount Groundfish:

Not identified 

Coral Reef 

Ecosystem

Water column and benthic 

substrate to a depth of 100 

meters 

Water column and 

benthic substrate to a 

depth of 100 meters 

All MPAs identified in 

FMP, all PRIA, many 

specific areas of coral 

reef habitat 

Crustaceans

Lobsters 

Bottom habitat from 

shoreline to a depth of 100 

meters 

Deepwater shrimp 

The outer reef slopes at 

depths between 300-700 m 

Water column down to 

150 meters 

Water column and 

associated outer reef 

slopes between 550 and 

700 m 

All banks with summits 

less than 30 meters 

No HAPC designated 

for deepwater shrimp 

Precious 

Corals

Keāhole Point, Makapuu, 

Kaena Point, Westpac, 

Brooks Bank, and 180 

Fathom Bank deepwater 

precious coral (gold and 

red) beds and Milolii, Au’au 

Channel, and S. Kauai black 

coral beds 

NA 

Makapuu, Westpac, and 

Brooks Bank deepwater 

precious coral beds and 

the Au’au Channel black 

coral bed 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 93 

FMP

EFH 

(Juveniles and Adults)

EFH 

(Eggs and Larvae)

HAPC

Pelagics Water column down to 

1,000 meters 

Water column down to 

200 meters 

Water column above 

seamounts and banks 

down to 1,000 meters 

3.4. Protected Species 

To varying degrees, protected species in the Western Pacific Region face various natural 

and anthropogenic threats to their continued existence. These threats include ecosystem 

regime shifts (i.e., rapid reorganizations of ecosystems), habitat degradation, poaching, 

fisheries interactions, vessel strikes, disease, and behavioral alterations from various 

disturbances associated with human activities. 

3.4.1. Sea Turtles 

All Pacific sea turtles are designated under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) as 

either threatened or endangered. The breeding populations of Mexico’s olive ridley sea 

turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) are currently listed as endangered, while all other ridley 

populations are listed as threatened. Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) and 

hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are also classified as endangered. Loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are listed as threatened (the 

green sea turtle is listed as threatened throughout its Pacific range, except for the 

endangered population nesting on the Pacific coast of Mexico). These five species of sea 

turtles are highly migratory or have a highly migratory phase in their life history (NMFS 

2001). Generally, impacts to sea turtles in the Western Pacific Region include natural 

causes of ecosystem variability (e.g., regime shifts), and predation, as well as 

anthropogenic impacts that include loss and degradation of habitat (especially nesting and 

foraging sites), illegal poaching, disturbance (e.g., from tourism, coastal development, 

etc.), fishery interactions (e.g., hookings or gear entanglements), and marine debris 

entanglements. 

A Biological Opinion (Opinion) was issued in February 2004 by NMFS following a 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA on the ongoing operation of the Western Pacific 

Region’s pelagic fisheries as managed under the Pelagics FMP (NMFS 2004a). That 

Opinion concluded these pelagic fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any sea turtles under NMFS’s jurisdiction. Another Opinion, issued in 

October 2005, focused on the deep-set (tuna targeting) sector of the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery and reached the same conclusion (NMFS 2005a). These issues are 

similarly discussed in a 2001 FEIS (NMFS 2001) and a 2004 Supplemental EIS prepared 

as part of the ongoing implementation of the Pelagics FMP. Please refer to those EISs 

and Opinions for additional details on the life history, status, threats, and impacts to 

Pacific sea turtles. Non-pelagic fisheries managed by the Council are not believed to 

adversely impact sea turtles due to the gear types used and species targeted. In the Hawaii 

longline shallow-set fishery that mainly targets swordfish, recent fishing gear 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 94 

requirements, including circle hooks and mackerel-type bait, have greatly reduced sea 

turtle interactions. In association with proposed Amendment 18, NMFS completed an 

updated review of the impacts of the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery on sea 

turtles (NMFS 2008b) that determined the fishery, as proposed to be amended would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed sea turtles. A 3-year incidental take statement 

(ITS) has provisions for sea-turtle and shallow-set longline fishery interactions. NMFS is 

currently reviewing the American Samoa longline fishery to ensure compliance with the 

provisions of the ESA as this ITS was exceed in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

3.4.1.1. Leatherback Sea Turtles 

Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are widely distributed throughout the oceans 

of the world and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans; the 

Caribbean Sea; and the Gulf of Mexico (Dutton et al. 1999). Increases in the number of 

nesting females have been noted at some sites in the Atlantic (Dutton et al. 1999), but 

these increases are far outweighed by local extinctions, especially of island populations, 

and the demise of once-large populations throughout the Pacific, such as in Malaysia 

(Chan and Liew 1996) and Mexico (Sarti et al. 1996, Spotila et al. 1996). In other 

leatherback nesting areas, such as Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and the Solomon 

Islands, there have been no systematic, consistent nesting surveys, so it is difficult to 

assess the status and trends of leatherback turtles at these beaches. In all areas where 

leatherback nesting has been documented, current nesting populations are reported by 

scientists, government officials, and local observers to be well below abundance levels of 

several decades ago. The collapse of these nesting populations was most likely 

precipitated by a tremendous overharvest of eggs coupled with incidental mortality from 

fishing (Sarti et al. 1996). 

Leatherback turtles are the largest of the marine turtles, with a shell length often 

exceeding 150 centimeters and front flippers that are proportionately larger than in other 

sea turtles. These flippers span 270 centimeters in an adult (NMFS and FWS 1998c). The 

leatherback is morphologically and physiologically distinct from other sea turtles, and it 

is thought that its streamlined body, with a smooth dermis-sheathed carapace and dorsolongitudinal ridges, may improve laminar flow. 

Leatherback turtles lead a completely pelagic existence, foraging widely in temperate 

waters except during the nesting season when gravid females return to tropical beaches to 

lay eggs. Males are rarely observed near nesting areas, and it has been proposed that 

mating most likely takes place outside of tropical waters, before females move to their 

nesting beaches (Eckert and Eckert 1988). Leatherbacks are highly migratory, exploiting 

convergence zones and upwelling areas in the open ocean, along continental margins, and 

in archipelagic waters (Eckert 1998). In a single year, a leatherback may swim more than 

10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) (Eckert 1998). 

Satellite telemetry studies indicate that adult leatherback turtles follow bathymetric 

contours over their long pelagic migrations and typically feed on cnidarians (jellyfish and 

siphonophores) and tunicates (pyrosomas and salps), and their commensals, parasites, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 95 

and prey (NMFS and FWS 1998c). Because of the low nutrient value of jellyfish and 

tunicates, it has been estimated that an adult leatherback would need to eat about 50 large 

jellyfish (equivalent to approximately 200 liters) per day to sustain its nutritional needs 

(Duron 1978). Compared with greens and loggerheads, which consume approximately 3 

to 5 percent of their body weight per day, leatherback turtles may consume 20 to 30 

percent of their body weight per day (Davenport and Balazs 1991). 

Females are believed to migrate long distances between foraging and breeding grounds, 

at intervals of typically 2 to 4 years (Spotila et al. 2000). The mean re-nesting interval of 

females on Playa Grande, Costa Rica, is believed to be 3.7 years, while in Mexico, 3 

years was the typical reported interval (NMFS 2004a). In Mexico, the nesting season 

generally extends from November to February, although some females arrive as early as 

August (Sarti et al. 1996). Most of the nesting on Las Baulas takes place from the 

beginning of October to the end of February (Reina et al. 2002). In the western Pacific, 

nesting peaks on Jamursba-Medi Beach (Papua, Indonesia) from May to August; on WarMon Beach (Papua) from November to January (Starbird and Suarez 1994); in peninsular 

Malaysia during June and July (Chan and Liew 1996); and in Queensland, Australia, in 

December and January (Limpus and Reimer 1994). 

Migratory routes of leatherback turtles originating from eastern and western Pacific 

nesting beaches are not entirely known. However, satellite tracking of postnesting 

females and genetic analyses of leatherback turtles caught in U.S. Pacific fisheries or 

stranded on the west coast of the U.S. present some strong insights into at least a portion 

of their routes and the importance of particular foraging areas. Current data from genetic 

research suggest that Pacific leatherback stock structure (natal origins) may vary by 

region. Because of the fact that leatherback turtles are highly migratory and that stocks 

mix in high-seas foraging areas, and based on genetic analyses of samples collected by 

both Hawaii-based and west-coast-based longline observers, leatherback turtles 

inhabiting the northern and central Pacific Ocean are comprised of individuals originating 

from nesting assemblages located south of the equator in the western Pacific (e.g., 

Indonesia, Solomon Islands) and in the eastern Pacific along the Americas (e.g., Mexico, 

Costa Rica; Dutton et al. 1999). 

Recent information on leatherbacks tagged off the west coast of the United States has 

also revealed an important migratory corridor from central California to south of the 

Hawaiian Islands, leading to western Pacific nesting beaches. Leatherback turtles 

originating from western Pacific beaches have also been found along the U.S. mainland. 

There, leatherback turtles have been sighted and reported stranded as far north as Alaska 

(60° N) and as far south as San Diego, California (NMFS and FWS 1998c). Of the 

stranded leatherback turtles that have been sampled to date from the U.S. mainland, all 

have been of western Pacific nesting stock origin (NMFS 2004a). 

3.4.1.2. Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) is characterized by a reddish brown, bony 

carapace, with a comparatively large head, up to 25 centimeters wide in some adults. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 96 

Adults typically weigh between 80 and 150 kilograms, with average curved carapace 

length (CCL) measurements for adult females worldwide between 95 and 100 

centimeters CCL (Dodd 1988) and adult males in Australia averaging around 97 

centimeters CCL (Limpus 1985, Eckert 1993). Juveniles found off California and Mexico 

measured between 20 and 80 centimeters (average 60 cm) in length (Bartlett 1989, in 

Eckert 1993). Skeletochronological age estimates and growth rates were derived from 

small loggerheads caught in the Pacific high-seas driftnet fishery. Loggerheads less than 

20 centimeters were estimated to be 3 years old or less, while those greater than 36 

centimeters were estimated to be 6 years old or more. Age-specific growth rates for the 

first 10 years were estimated to be 4.2 cm/year (Zug et al. 1995). 

For their first years of life, loggerheads forage in open-ocean pelagic habitats. Both 

juvenile and subadult loggerheads feed on pelagic crustaceans, mollusks, fish, and algae. 

The large aggregations of juveniles off Baja California have been observed foraging on 

dense concentrations of the pelagic red crab Pleuronocodes planipes (Nichols et al.

2000). Data collected from stomach samples of turtles captured in North Pacific driftnets 

indicate a diet of gastropods (Janthina spp.), heteropods (Carinaria spp.), gooseneck 

barnacles (Lepas spp.), pelagic purple snails (Janthina spp.), medusae (Vellela spp.), and 

pyrosomas (tunicate zooids). Other common components include fish eggs, amphipods, 

and plastic items (Parker et al. 2002). 

Loggerheads in the North Pacific are opportunistic feeders that target items floating at or 

near the surface, and if high densities of prey are present, they will actively forage at 

depth (Parker et al. 2002). As they age, loggerheads begin to move into shallower waters, 

where, as adults, they forage over a variety of benthic hard- and soft-bottom habitats 

(reviewed in Dodd 1988). Subadults and adults are found in nearshore benthic habitats 

around southern Japan, as well as in the East China Sea and the South China Sea (e.g., 

Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam). 

The loggerhead sea turtle is listed as threatened under the ESA throughout its range, 

primarily due to direct take, incidental capture in various fisheries, and the alteration and 

destruction of its habitat. In general, during the last 50 years, North Pacific loggerhead 

nesting populations have declined 50-90 percent (Kamezaki et al. 2003). From nesting 

data collected by the Sea Turtle Association of Japan since 1990, the past 9 years of 

estimates of the number of nesting females in studied rookeries are as follows: 

1998−2,479 nests, 1999−2,255 nests, and 2000−2,589 nests, 2001−3,122 nests, 

2002−4,035 nests, 2003−4,568 nests, 2005−5167 nests, 2006−2,833 nests, 2007−3,660 

nests, 2008−6,500-10,000 nests, respectively, were recorded on Japanese beaches 

(Matsuzawa 2005; NMFS 2008b). 

In the South Pacific, Limpus (1982) reported an estimated 3,000 loggerheads nesting 

annually in Queensland, Australia, during the late 1970s. However, long-term trend data 

from Queensland indicate a 50 percent decline in nesting by 1988 to 1989 due to 

incidental mortality of turtles in the coastal trawl fishery. This decline is corroborated by 

studies of breeding females at adjacent feeding grounds (Limpus and Reimer 1994). 

Currently, approximately 300 females nest annually in Queensland, mainly on offshore 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 97 

islands (Capricorn-Bunker Islands, Sandy Cape, and Swains Head; Dobbs 2001). In 

southern Great Barrier Reef waters, nesting loggerheads have declined approximately 8 

percent per year since the mid-1980s (Heron Island), while the foraging ground 

population has declined 3 percent and comprised less than 40 adults by 1992. Researchers 

attribute the declines to recruitment failure due to fox predation of eggs in the 1960s and 

mortality of pelagic juveniles from incidental capture in longline fisheries since the 1970s 

(Chaloupka and Limpus 2001). 

3.4.1.3. Green Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are distinguished from other sea turtles by their 

smooth carapace with four pairs of lateral “scutes” (turtle shell plates or scales), a single 

pair of prefrontal scales, and a lower jaw edge that is coarsely serrated. Adult green 

turtles have a light to dark brown carapace, sometimes shaded with olive, and can exceed 

1 meter in carapace length and 100 kilograms in body mass. Females nesting in Hawaii 

averaged 92 centimeters in straight carapace length (SCL), while at Olimarao Atoll in 

Yap, females averaged 104 centimeters in curved carapace length and approximately 140 

kilograms in body mass. In the rookeries of Michoacán, Mexico, females averaged 82 

centimeters in CCL, while males averaged 77 centimeters in CCL (NMFS and FWS 

1998a). Based on growth rates observed in wild green turtles, skeletochronological 

studies, and capture–recapture studies, all in Hawaii, it is estimated that an average of at 

least 25 years would be needed to achieve sexual maturity (Eckert 1993). 

Although most adult green sea turtles appear to have a nearly exclusively herbivorous 

diet, consisting primarily of seagrass and algae (Wetherall 1993), those along the east 

Pacific coast seem to have a more carnivorous diet. Analysis of stomach contents of 

green turtles found off Peru revealed a large percentage of mollusks and polychaetes, 

while fish and fish eggs, jellyfish, and amphipods made up a smaller percentage 

(Bjorndal 1997). Seminoff et al. (2000) found that 5.8 percent of gastric samples and 29.3 

percent of the fecal samples of east Pacific green turtles foraging in the northern Sea of 

Cortéz, Mexico, contained the remains of the fleshy sea pen (Ptilosarcus undulatus). 

Green sea turtles are a circumglobal and highly migratory species, nesting and feeding in 

tropical/subtropical regions. Their range can be defined by a general preference for water 

temperature above 20° C. Green sea turtles are known to live in pelagic habitats as 

posthatchlings/juveniles, feeding at or near the ocean surface. The nonbreeding 

component of this species can lead a pelagic existence many miles from shore. The 

breeding component of this species lives primarily in bays and estuaries, and is rarely 

found in the open ocean. Most migration from rookeries to feeding grounds is via coastal 

waters, with females migrating to breed only once every 2 years or more (Bjorndal 1997). 

Tag returns of eastern Pacific green turtles (often reported as black turtles) establish that 

these turtles travel long distances between foraging and nesting grounds. In fact, 75 

percent of tag recoveries from 1982 to 1990 were from turtles that had traveled more than 

1,000 kilometers from Michoacán, Mexico. Even though these turtles were found in 

coastal waters, the species is not confined to these areas, as indicated by 1990 sightings 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 98 

records from a NOAA research ship. Observers documented green turtles 1,000 to 2,000 

statute miles from shore (Eckert 1993). The east Pacific green is also the second-most 

sighted turtle in the east Pacific during tuna cruises; they frequent a north–south band 

from 15° N to 5° S along 90° W and an area between the Galapagos Islands and the 

Central American Coast (NMFS and FWS 1998a). 

In a review of sea turtle sighting records from northern Baja California to Alaska, Stinson 

(1984, in NMFS and FWS 1998a) determined that the green turtle was the most 

commonly observed sea turtle on the U.S. Pacific coast, with 62 percent reported in a 

band from southern California and southward. The northernmost (reported) year-round 

resident population of green turtles occurs in San Diego Bay, where about 30 to 60 

mature and immature turtles concentrate in the warm water effluent discharged by a 

power plant. These turtles appear to have originated from east Pacific nesting beaches, on 

the basis of morphology and preliminary genetic analysis (NMFS and FWS 1998a). 

California stranding reports from 1990 to 1999 indicate that the green turtle is the second 

most commonly found stranded sea turtle (48 total, averaging 4.8 annually, NMFS 

2004a). 

Stinson (1984) found that green turtles will appear most frequently in U.S. coastal waters 

when temperatures exceed 18° C. An east Pacific green turtle was tracked along the 

California coast by a satellite transmitter that was equipped to report thermal preferences 

of the turtle. This turtle showed a distinct preference for waters that were above 20° (S. 

Eckert, unpublished data). Subadult green turtles routinely dive to 20 meters for 9 to 23 

minutes, with a maximum recorded dive of 66 minutes (Lutcavage et al. 1997a). 

The nonbreeding range of green turtles is generally tropical, and can extend 

approximately 500 to 800 miles from shore in certain regions (Eckert 1993). The 

underwater resting sites include coral recesses, undersides of ledges, and sand bottom 

areas that are relatively free of strong currents and disturbance from natural predators and 

humans. In the MHI, these foraging and resting areas for adults usually occur at depths 

greater than 10 meters, but probably not normally exceeding 40 meters. Available 

information indicates that the resting areas are in proximity to the feeding pastures. In the 

Pacific, the only major (greater than 2,000 nesting females) populations of green turtles 

occur in Australia and Malaysia. Smaller colonies occur in the insular Pacific islands of 

Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia (Wetherall 1993) and on six small sand islands at 

French Frigate Shoals, a long atoll situated in the middle of the Hawaiian Archipelago 

(Balazs et al. 1994). 

Green turtles were listed as threatened under the ESA on July 28, 1978, except for 

breeding populations found in Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were listed 

as endangered. Using a precautionary estimate, the number of nesting female green 

turtles has declined by 48 to 67 percent over the last three generations (approximately 

150 years; Troeng and Rankin 2005). Causes for this decline include harvest of eggs, 

subadults, and adults; incidental capture by fisheries; loss of habitat; and disease. The 

degree of population change is not consistent among all index nesting beaches or among 

all regions. Some nesting populations are stable or increasing (Balazs and Chaloupka 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 99 

2004, Chaloupka and Limpus 2001, Troeng and Rankin 2005). However, other 

populations or nesting stocks have markedly declined. Because many of the threats that 

have led to these declines have not yet ceased, it is evident that green turtles face a 

measurable risk of extinction (Troeng and Rankin 2005). 

Green turtles in Hawaii are considered genetically distinct and geographically isolated; 

although a nesting population at Islas Revillagigedos in Mexico appears to share the 

mtDNA haplotype that commonly occurs in Hawaii. In Hawaii, green turtles nest on six 

small sand islands at French Frigate Shoals, a crescent-shaped atoll situated in the middle 

of the Hawaiian Archipelago (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; Balazs et al. 1992). Ninety 

to 95 percent of the nesting and breeding activity occurs at French Frigate Shoals, and at 

least 50 percent of that nesting takes place on East Island, a 12-acre island. Long-term 

monitoring of the population shows that there is strong island fidelity within the regional 

rookery. Low-level nesting also occurs at Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, and on Pearl 

and Hermes Reef (NMFS 1998). 

After years of exploitation, protection under the ESA and recovery programs have 

resulted in the nesting population of Hawaiian green turtles showing a gradual but 

definite increase (Balazs 1996; Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). In three decades, the 

number of nesting females at East Island increased from 67 nesting females in 1973 to 

467 nesting females in 2002. Nester abundance increased rapidly at this rookery during 

the early 1980s, leveled off during the early 1990s, and again increased rapidly during the 

late 1990s to the present. This trend is very similar to the underlying trend in the recovery 

of the much larger green turtle population that nests at Tortuguero Costa Rica (Bjorndal 

et al. 1999). The stepwise increase of the long-term nester trend since the mid-1980s is 

suggestive, but not conclusive, of a density-dependent adjustment process affecting sea 

turtle abundance at the foraging grounds (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004; Bjorndal et al.

2000). Balazs and Chaloupka (2004) concluded that the Hawaiian green sea turtle stock is 

well on the way to recovery following 25 years of protection. This increase is attributed 

to increased female survivorship since the harvesting of turtles was prohibited, in 

addition to the cessation of habitat damage at the nesting beaches since the early 1950s 

(Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). 

3.4.1.4. Hawksbill Sea Turtles 

Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are circumtropical in distribution, 

generally occurring from latitudes 30° N to 30° S within the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

Oceans and associated bodies of water (NMFS and FWS 1998b). Hawksbills have a 

unique diet of sponges (Meylan 1985, 1988). While data are somewhat limited on their 

diet in the Pacific, it is well documented that in the Caribbean hawksbill turtles are 

selective spongivores, preferring particular sponge species over others (Dam and Diez 

1997b). Foraging dive durations are often a function of turtle size, with larger turtles 

diving deeper and longer. At a study site also in the northern Caribbean, foraging dives 

were made only during the day and dive durations ranged from 19 to 26 minutes at depths 

of 8–10 meters. At night, resting dives ranged from 35 to 47 minutes in duration (Dam 

and Diez 1997a). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 100 

As a hawksbill turtle grows from a juvenile to an adult, data suggest that the turtle 

switches foraging behaviors from pelagic surface feeding to benthic reef feeding (Limpus 

1992). Within the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, hawksbills move from a pelagic 

existence to a “neritic” life36 on the reef at a minimum CCL of 35 centimeters. The 

maturing turtle establishes foraging territory and will remain in this territory until it is 

displaced (Limpus 1992). As with other sea turtles, hawksbills will make long 

reproductive migrations between foraging and nesting areas but otherwise they remain 

within coastal reef habitats (Meylan 1999). In Australia, juvenile turtles outnumber adults 

100:1. These populations are also sex biased, with females outnumbering males 2.57:1 

(Limpus 1992). 

Along the far western and southeastern Pacific, hawksbill turtles nest on the islands and 

mainland of southeast Asia, from China to Japan, and throughout the Philippines, 

Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands (McKeown 1977), and 

Australia (Limpus 1982). 

The hawksbill turtle is listed as endangered throughout its range. In the Pacific, this 

species was rapidly approaching extinction primarily due to the harvesting of the species 

for its meat, eggs and shell, as well as the destruction of nesting habitat by human 

occupation and disruption (NMFS and FWS 1998b). Along the eastern Pacific Rim, 

hawksbill turtles were common to abundant in the 1930s (Cliffton et al. 1982). By the 

1990s, the hawksbill turtle was rare to absent in most localities where it was once 

abundant (Cliffton et al. 1982). Hawksbill turtle populations are benefitting from 

proactive conservation and recovery programs but still face threats. 

3.4.1.5. Olive Ridley Sea Turtles 

Olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) are olive or grayish green above, with a 

greenish white underpart, and adults are moderately sexually dimorphic (NMFS and 

1998e). Olive ridleys lead a highly pelagic existence (Plotkin 1994). These sea turtles 

appear to forage throughout the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, often in large groups, or 

flotillas. In a 3-year study of communities associated with floating objects in the eastern 

tropical Pacific, Arenas et al. (1992) found that 75 percent of sea turtles encountered were 

olive ridleys and were present in 15 percent of the observations, thus implying that 

flotsam may provide the turtles with food, shelter, and/or orientation cues in an otherwise 

featureless landscape. It is possible that young turtles move offshore and occupy areas of 

surface-current convergences to find food and shelter among aggregated floating objects 

until they are large enough to recruit to the nearshore benthic feeding grounds of the 

adults, similar to the juvenile loggerheads mentioned previously. 

While it is true that olive ridleys generally have a tropical range, individuals do 

occasionally venture north, some as far as the Gulf of Alaska (Hodge and Wing 2000). 

The postnesting migration routes of olive ridleys, tracked via satellite from Costa Rica, 

traversed thousands of kilometers of deep oceanic waters ranging from Mexico to Peru 

 

36 Neritic refers to shallower waters. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 101 

and more than 3,000 kilometers out into the central Pacific (Plotkin 1994). Stranding 

records from 1990 to 1999 indicate that olive ridleys are rarely found off the coast of 

California, averaging 1.3 strandings annually (NMFS 2004a). 

The olive ridley turtle is omnivorous, and identified prey include a variety of benthic and 

pelagic prey items such as shrimp, jellyfish, crabs, snails, and fish, as well as algae and 

sea grass (Marquez 1990). It is also not unusual for olive ridley turtles in reasonably good 

health to be found entangled in scraps of net or other floating synthetic debris. Small 

crabs, barnacles, and other marine life often reside on debris and are likely to attract the 

turtles. Olive ridley turtles also forage at great depths, as a turtle was sighted foraging for 

crabs at a depth of 300 meters (Landis 1965, in Eckert et al. 1986). The average dive 

times for adult females and males are reported to be 54.3 and 28.5 minutes, respectively 

(Plotkin 1994, in Lutcavage and Lutz 1997b). 

Declines in olive ridley populations have been documented in Playa Nancite, Costa Rica; 

however, other nesting populations along the Pacific coast of Mexico and Costa Rica 

appear to be stable or increasing, after an initial large decline due to harvesting of adults. 

Historically, an estimated 10-million olive ridleys inhabited the waters in the eastern 

Pacific off Mexico (Cliffton et al. 1982, in NMFS and FWS 1998e). However, humaninduced mortality led to declines in this population. Beginning in the 1960s, and lasting 

over the next 15 years, several million adult olive ridleys were harvested by Mexico for 

commercial trade with Europe and Japan (NMFS and FWS 1998e). Although olive ridley 

meat is palatable, it is not widely sought. The eggs, however, are considered a delicacy, 

and egg harvest is considered one of the major causes for its decline. Fisheries for olive 

ridley turtles were also established in Ecuador during the 1960s and 1970s to supply 

Europe with leather (Green and Ortiz-Crespo 1982). In the Indian Ocean, Gahirmatha 

Beach in India may have once supported the largest nesting population of olive ridleys; 

however, this population continues to be threatened by nearshore trawl fisheries. Direct 

harvest of adults and eggs, incidental capture in commercial fisheries, and loss of nesting 

habits are the main threats to the olive ridley’s recovery. 

3.4.2. Marine Mammals Listed under ESA 

Cetaceans listed as endangered under the ESA that have been observed in the Western 

Pacific Region include the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. physalus), 

and sei whale (B. borealis). In addition, one endangered pinniped, the Hawaiian monk 

seal (Monachus schauinslandi), occurs in the region. Generally, impacts to marine 

mammals in the Western Pacific Region include naturally caused ecosystem variability 

(e.g., regime shifts), shark predation, habitat degradation (e.g., birthing and calving 

areas), wildlife viewing activities that disrupt behavior, fishery interactions (e.g., gear 

entanglements), marine debris entanglements, and vessel collisions. Fisheries managed 

under the Council’s FMPs have been determined by NMFS to not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any ESA listed marine mammal. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 102 

3.4.2.1. Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) can attain lengths of 16 meters. Humpback 

whales usually winter in nearshore waters of 100 fathoms or less. Mature females are 

believed to conceive on the breeding grounds one winter and give birth the following 

winter. Genetic and photo identification studies indicate that within the U.S. EEZ in the 

North Pacific, there are at least three relatively separate populations of humpback whales 

that migrate between their respective summer/fall feeding areas to winter/spring calving 

and mating areas (Hill and DeMaster 1999). The Central North Pacific stock of 

humpback whales winters in the waters of the Main Hawaiian Islands (Hill et al. 1997). It 

is not unusual to observe humpback whales during the months of October to May in the 

nearshore waters off of the Main Hawaii Islands. Another northern hemisphere stock of 

humpbacks uses the northwestern part of the Philippine Sea in winter. Some animals of 

this stock move south to the Northern Mariana Islands, including Saipan and Guam. 

Sightings have been reported in Guam in January and February (Reeves et al. 1999). At 

least six well-defined breeding stocks of humpback whales occur in the Southern 

Hemisphere. Humpbacks arrive in American Samoa from the south between June and 

December (Reeves et al.1999). This area is probably another calving area and mating 

ground for the New Zealand group of Antarctic humpbacks. 

There is no precise estimate of the worldwide humpback whale population. The 

humpback whale population in the North Pacific Ocean basin is estimated to contain 

6,000 to 8,000 individuals (Calambokidis et al. 1997). The Central North Pacific stock 

appears to have increased in abundance between the early 1980s and early 1990s; 

however, the status of this stock relative to its optimum sustainable population size is 

unknown (Hill and DeMaster 1999). 

3.4.2.2. Sperm Whale 

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) is the most easily recognizable whale due to 

the log-like head comprising about 40 percent of its total body length. The current 

average body length for male sperm whales is about 15 meters, with females reaching up 

to 12 meters. Sperm whales are characterized by their brown/gray coloration, relatively 

short dorsal fin, wrinkled appearance of tail stock, and unique blow pattern. Sperm 

whales are the only whales that blow forward and to the left. 

Sperm whales are found in tropical to polar waters throughout the world (Rice 1989). 

They are among the most abundant large cetaceans in the region. Sperm whales have 

been sighted around several of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Rice 1960) and off 

the main islands of Hawaii (Lee 1993). In the early to mid-nineteenth century, Hawaii 

was the center of the whaling operations targeting sperm whales. The sounds of sperm 

whales have been recorded throughout the year off Oahu (Thompson and Freidl 1982). 

Sightings of sperm whales were made during May–July in the 1980s around Guam, and 

in recent years strandings have been reported on Guam (Reeves et al. 1999). Historical 

observations of sperm whales around Samoa occurred in all months except February and 

March (Reeves et al. 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 103 

3.4.2.3. Blue Whale 

The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is the largest living animal. Blue whales can 

reach lengths of 30 meters and weights of 160 tons (320,000 lb), with females usually 

being larger than males of the same age. They occur in all oceans, usually along 

continental shelves, but can also be found in the shallow inshore waters and on the high 

seas. There have been at least two sightings of blue whales reported by Hawaii-based 

longline vessel crews to the north of Hawaii, and acoustic recordings made off Oahu and 

Midway Islands have reported blue whales somewhere within the EEZ around Hawaii 

(Thompson and Freidl 1982). The stock structure of blue whales in the North Pacific is 

uncertain (Forney et al. 2000). The status of this species in Hawaii waters relative to the 

optimum sustainable population is unknown, and there are insufficient data to evaluate 

trends in abundance (Forney et al. 2000). 

3.4.2.4. Fin Whale 

Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are found throughout all oceans and seas of the 

world from tropical to polar latitudes (Forney et al. 2000). Although it is generally 

believed that fin whales make poleward feeding migrations in summer and move toward 

the equator in winter, few actual observations of fin whales in tropical and subtropical 

waters have been documented, particularly in the Pacific Ocean away from continental 

coasts (Reeves et al. 1999). There has been at least one sighting of fin whales—a mixed 

group of adults and calves—almost due south of Oahu between 18 and 19 degrees 

latitude. This sighting was documented by an observer aboard a Hawaii-based longline 

vessel. 

There is insufficient information to accurately determine the population structure of fin 

whales in the North Pacific, but there is evidence of multiple stocks. The status of fin 

whales in Hawaii waters relative to the optimum sustainable population is unknown, and 

there are insufficient data to evaluate trends in abundance (Forney et al. 2000). 

3.4.2.5. Sei Whale 

Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) have a worldwide distribution but are found mainly 

in cold temperate to subpolar latitudes rather than in the tropics or near the poles 

(Horwood 1987). They are distributed far out to sea and do not appear to be associated 

with coastal features. Two sei whales were tagged in the vicinity of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (Reeves et al.1999). Sei whales are rare in Hawaiian waters. The International 

Whaling Commission only considers one stock of sei whales in the North Pacific, but 

some evidence exists for multiple populations (Forney et al. 2000). In the southern 

Pacific most observations have been south of 30° S (Reeves et al. 1999). 

There are no data on trends in sei whale abundance in the North Pacific (Forney et al.

2000). It is especially difficult to estimate their numbers because they are easily confused 

with Bryde’s whales, which have an overlapping, but more subtropical, distribution 

(Reeves et al. 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 104 

3.4.2.6. Hawaiian Monk Seal 

The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) is a tropical seal endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands. Today, the entire population of Hawaiian monk seals is about 1,300 to 

1,400 and occurs mainly in the NWHI. The six major reproductive sites are French 

Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Midway Atoll, 

and Kure Atoll. Small populations at Necker Island and Nihoa Island are maintained by 

both reproduction and immigration, and an increasing number of seals are distributed 

throughout the Main Hawaiian Islands, where they are also reproducing. 

The subpopulation of monk seals on French Frigate Shoals has shown the most change in 

population size, increasing dramatically in the 1960s–1970s and declining in the late 

1980s–1990s. In the 1960s–1970s, the other five subpopulations experienced declines. 

However, during the last decade the number of monk seals increased at Kure Atoll, 

Midway Atoll, and Pearl and Hermes Reef, while the subpopulations at Laysan Island 

and Lisianski Island remained relatively stable. The recent subpopulation decline at 

French Frigate Shoals is thought to be caused by male aggression, shark attack, 

entanglement in marine debris, loss of habitat, and decreased prey availability. The 

Hawaiian monk seal is assumed to be well below its optimum sustainable population, and 

since 1985 the overall population has declined approximately 3 percent per year (Forney 

et al. 2000). 

3.4.2.7. Other Marine Mammals 

All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. Table 3-2 lists known non-ESA 

listed marine mammals that occur in the Western Pacific Region. 

Table 3-2. Non-ESA Listed Marine Mammals of the Western Pacific Region. 

Common Name Scientific Name

Blainsville beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni

Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli 

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei

Killer whale Orcinus orca

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus

Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens 

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata 

Pygmy sperm whale Koiga breviceps 

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 105 

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis 

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus 

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris 

Spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata 

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba 

The MMPA (50 CFR § 229) requires all commercial fisheries to be placed in one of three 

categories, based on the relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and mortalities of 

marine mammals in each fishery: 

• Category I designates fisheries with frequent serious injuries and mortalities 

incidental to commercial fishing; 

• Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious injuries and mortalities; 

• Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious 

injuries or mortalities. 

With the exception of the Hawaii-based longline fishery (Category I), all Western Pacific 

Region fisheries are classified as Category III fisheries under the MMPA (73 FR 73032; 

December 1, 2008). Please see the ESA and additional NEPA analyses listed in Section 

3.4.2 for more information on marine mammals in the Western Pacific Region. 

3.4.3. Seabirds 

Seabirds are widely distributed throughout the Western Pacific Region, and generally are 

high trophic level predators. Generally, impacts to seabirds include naturally caused 

ecosystem variability (e.g., shifts in oceanographic, climate, and prey regimes), habitat 

degradation (e.g., nesting areas), invasive species (e.g., rats and cats), fishery interactions 

(e.g., hookings and gear entanglements), marine debris ingestion and entanglements, and 

collisions with airplanes. The only documented Western Pacific Region fishery 

interactions with seabirds have been with the Hawaii-based longline fleet and NWHI 

bottomfish fishery, which are known to inadvertently hook and entangle boobies and 

black-footed and Laysan albatrosses. On rare occasions, wedge-tailed and sooty 

shearwaters are also incidentally caught by these Hawaii longline vessels (NMFS 2005b). 

Please see the additional NEPA analyses listed in Section 3.4.1 as well as the 2005 Final 

EIS under the Pelagics FMP (NMFS 2005b) for more information on the seabirds in the 

Western Pacific Region. In addition, two Biological Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service37 provide detailed information on short-tailed, Laysan, and black-footed 

albatrosses (USFWS 2002 and 2004). The Opinions document the determination that the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

ESA-listed short-tailed albatross. 

 

37 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or FWS) is the primary agency with authority and 

responsibility to manage endangered seabirds. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 106 

3.4.3.1. Short-Tailed Albatross 

The short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) is the largest seabird in the North 

Pacific, with a wingspan of more than 3 meters (9 feet) in length. It is characterized by a 

bright-pink bill with a light-blue tip and defining black line extending around the base. 

The plumage of a young fledgling (i.e., a chick that has successfully flown from the 

colony for the first time) is brown, and at this stage, except for the bird’s pink bill and 

feet, the seabird can easily be mistaken for a black-footed albatross. As the juvenile shorttailed albatross matures, the face and underbody become white and the seabird begins to 

resemble a Laysan albatross. In flight, however, the adult short-tailed albatross is 

distinguished from the Laysan albatross by a white back and by white patches on the 

wings, as opposed to the Laysan albatross which has a brown back and dorsal coloration 

on its wings. As the short-tailed albatross matures, the white plumage on the crown and 

nape changes to a golden yellow. 

Historically, the short-tailed albatross ranged along the coasts of the entire North Pacific 

Ocean from China, including the Japan Sea and the Okhotsk Sea (Sherburne 1993), to the 

west coast of North America. Prior to the harvesting of the short-tailed albatross at their 

breeding colonies by Japanese feather hunters, this albatross was considered common 

year-round off the western coast of North America (Robertson 1980). Between 1885 and 

1903, an estimated five million short-tailed albatrosses were harvested from the Japanese 

breeding colonies for the feather, fertilizer, and egg trade, and by 1949, the species was 

thought to be extinct (Austin 1949). In 1950, ten short-tailed albatrosses were observed 

nesting on Torishima Island (Tickell 1973). 

The short-tailed albatross is known to breed only in the western North Pacific Ocean, 

south of the main islands of Japan. Although at one time there may have been more than 

ten breeding locations, today there are only two known active breeding colonies: Minami 

Tori Shima Island and Minami-Kojima Island (Hasegawa 1979). On December 14, 2000, 

one short-tailed albatross was discovered incubating an egg on Yomejima Island of the 

Ogasawara Islands (southernmost island among the Mukojima Islands). A few shorttailed albatrosses have also been observed attempting to breed, although unsuccessfully, 

at Midway Atoll in the NWHI. 

In 2000, the breeding population of the short-tailed albatross was estimated at 

approximately 600 breeding age birds, with an additional 600 immature birds, yielding a 

total population estimate of 1,200 individuals (65 FR 46643; July 31, 2000). At that time, 

short-tailed albatrosses were estimated to have an overall annual survival rate of 96 

percent and a population growth rate of 7.8 percent (65 FR 46643, July 31, 2000). More 

recently NMFS estimated the global population at approximately 1,900 individuals (P. 

Sievert, personal communication as cited in NMFS 2005b). The Torishima population 

was estimated to have increased by 9 percent between the 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005 

seasons (Harrison 2005). 

The short-tailed albatross was first listed under the Endangered Foreign Wildlife Act in 

June 1970. On July 31, 2000, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service extended the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 107 

endangered status of the short-tailed albatross to include the species’ range in the U.S. 

The primary threats to the species are destruction of breeding habitat by volcanic eruption 

or mud- and landslides, reduced genetic variability, limited breeding distribution, plastics 

ingestion, contaminants, airplane strikes, and incidental capture in longline fisheries in 

the western and far northern Pacific. 

The short-tailed albatross population is growing annually, likely the result of effective 

habitat protection and management. Active breeding colonies are found on Torishima, 

south of Honshu Island, Japan and Minami-kojima in the Senkaku islands north of 

Taiwan. An estimated 80-85% of the breeding short-tailed albatrosses occur in a single 

colony on Torishima. The current worldwide population is estimated at 2,771 individuals 

(G. Blogh, FWS pers. comm. to L. Van Fossen, NMFS, 2008). Based on breeding pair 

counts, the short-tailed albatross population appears to be increasing by seven percent 

annually (Naughton et al. 2008). In 2006, there were 341 breeding pairs counted at 

Torishima (Hasegawa 2007a), and 382 breeding pairs were counted there in 2007 

(Hasegawa 2007b). No critical habitat has been established for the short-tailed albatross. 

3.4.3.2. Newell’s Shearwater 

The Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) is listed as threatened under the 

ESA. Generally, the at-sea distribution of the Newell’s shearwater is restricted to the 

waters surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, with preference given to the area east and 

south of the main Hawaiian Islands. The Newell’s shearwater has been listed as 

threatened because of its small population, approximately 14,600 breeding pairs, its 

isolated breeding colonies, and the numerous hazards affecting them at their breeding 

colonies (Ainley et al. 1997). The Newell’s shearwater nests in the mountainous areas 

between 500 and 2,300 feet on Kauai.38 Major threats include urban development and 

introduced predators like rats, cats, dogs, and mongooses (Ainley et al. 1997). 

Shearwaters are most active in the day and skim the ocean surface while foraging. During 

the breeding season, shearwaters tend to forage within 50 to 62 miles (80 to 100 km) of 

their nesting burrows (Harrison 1990). Shearwaters also tend to be gregarious at sea, and 

the Newell’s shearwater is known to occasionally follow ships (Harrison 1990). 

Shearwaters feed by surface seizing and pursuit plunging (Warham 1990). Often 

shearwaters will dip their heads under the water to sight their prey before submerging. 

Shearwaters are extremely difficult to identify at sea, as the species is characterized by 

mostly dark plumage, long and thin wings, a slender bill with a pair of flat and wide nasal 

tubes at the base, and dark legs and feet. Like the albatross, the nasal tubes at the base of 

the bill enhance the bird’s sense of smell, assisting them to locate food while foraging 

(Ainley et al. 1997). 

 

38 http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/wesa/ao.html 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 108 

3.4.3.3. Other Seabirds 

Other seabirds found in the region include the black-footed albatross (Phoebastria 

nigripes), Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis), masked booby (Sula dactylatra), 

brown booby (Sula leucogaster), red-footed booby (Sula sula), wedge-tailed shearwater 

(Puffinus pacificus), Christmas shearwater (Puffinus nativitatis), petrels (Pseudobulweria 

spp., Pterodroma spp.), tropicbirds (Phaethon spp.), frigatebirds (Fregata spp.), and 

noddies (Anous spp.).

Seabirds and shorebirds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Council 

considers impacts of fishery management on seabirds through coordination with NMFS 

and the USFWS.

3.5. The Western Pacific Region 

Under the MSA, the WPRFMC has fishery management responsibility for fisheries in the 

Pacific Ocean seaward of American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, Hawaii, and the PRIA (Figure 

3-10). The Western Pacific Region, which is the largest fisheries management area in the 

United States, includes nearly 1.5 million square nautical miles of EEZ waters. This 

section provides information on each island area including summaries of local marine 

features, resources, fisheries, and economies. For more information, refer to the 

additional NEPA analyses listed in Section 3.4.1. 

 

Figure 3-10. The Western Pacific Region. 

Note: The U.S. EEZ is highlighted in light blue. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 109 

3.5.1. American Samoa 

American Samoa has been a U.S. territory since 1899. Pago Pago has one the best 

naturally-formed deep water harbors in the Pacific. Over eighty nine percent of the 

people in American Samoa are considered native Samoan. This population is descended 

from the aboriginal people, who, prior to discovery by Europeans, occupied and 

exercised sovereignty in the area now known as Samoa. Western Samoa is now 

Independent Samoa. Eastern Samoa is known as American Samoa. New Zealand 

occupied Western Samoa in 1914, and in 1962 Western Samoa gained independence. In 

1997, Western Samoa changed its name to Samoa. The demarcation between Samoa and 

American Samoa is mostly political as cultural and commercial exchanges between 

families living and commuting between American Samoa and Samoa is common. 

Approximately 95 percent of the landmass in American Samoa is held under the 

traditional land tenure system and under the direct authority of the Samoan chiefs known 

as “matai.” Under this system, traditional land cannot be purchased or sold, and the 

current reigning chief from within the family unit has final say over the disposition of a 

family's holdings. This system ensures the passage of assets to future generations and 

serves as the catalyst in the preservation of the Samoan culture. 

The five volcanic islands, which are the major inhabited islands of American Samoa, are 

Tutuila, Aunuu, Ofu, Olosega, and Tau. American Samoa is surrounded by 

approximately 156,246 square miles of U.S. EEZ waters. Tutuila, the largest island (55 

square miles), is the center of government and business and is nearly bisected by Pago 

Pago Harbor, the deepest and one of the most sheltered embayments in the South Pacific. 

Aunuu, a satellite of Tutuila, lies one-quarter mile off the coast. The three islands of Ofu, 

Olosega, and Tau are collectively referred to as the Manua islands (with a total land area 

of less than 20 square miles) and lie 70 miles east of Tutuila. Swains Island, with a 

population of approximately 30, lies 200 miles north of Tutuila, and the uninhabited Rose 

Atoll is 60 miles east of Manua. Tutuila, Manua, and Rose Atoll are between 14° and 15° 

S latitude, and Swains Island lies at 11° S latitude. Swains Island is, geographically, a 

member of the Tokelau archipelago. The region was believed to be relatively 

geologically inactive with few seamounts or guyots in comparison to other Polynesian 

states. However, new anecdotal evidence indicates that the region is volcanically active, 

with new seamounts being formed. The majority of islands rise from deep (4,000 m) 

oceanic depths. 

Rose Atoll is both a National Wildlife Refuge and a Marine National Monument. 

American Samoa experiences southeast trade winds that result in frequent rains and a 

warm tropical climate. The year-round air temperatures range from 70° to 90° F. 

Humidity averages 80 percent during most of the year. The average rainfall at Pago Pago 

International Airport is 130 inches per year, while Pago Pago Harbor, only 4.5 miles 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 110 

away, receives an average of 200 inches of rainfall per year (Territorial Planning 

Commission and Department of Commerce 2000). 

3.5.1.1. Marine Environment – American Samoa 

3.5.1.1.1.Coral Reefs 

The coral reef area (includes seagrass beds and sandy and rocky rubble areas) in 

American Samoa is estimated at 55 square kilometers (within 10-fm curve) and 464 

square kilometers (within 100-fm curve), respectively (Rohmann et al. 2005). Within the 

10-fathom curve, the estimated coral reef area of Tutuila is 35.8 square kilometers, OfuOlesega is 3.8 square kilometers, Tau is 3.7 square kilometers, Rose Atoll is 8.0 square 

kilometers, and Swains Island is 3.5 square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). The 

structure and development of most of these reefs, except the submerged banks, has been 

well described (Green 1997, Maragos et al. 1994). 

The conditions of coral reef communities in American Samoa have also been well 

described by numerous quantitative and qualitative surveys, including the following: 

Birkeland et al. 1987, 1994, 1996; Green 1996; Green and Craig 1996; Hunter et al.

1993; Maragos 1994; Maragos et al. 1994; Mundy 1996. In general, the reefs adjacent to 

human population centers (e.g., Tutuila Island) appear to be in worse condition than those 

on less populated or unpopulated islands (e.g., the Manua Group and the two remote 

atolls; Green 1996). 

The reefs of American Samoa have been badly damaged by a combination of natural and 

anthropogenic disturbances in the past two decades. These include a severe outbreak of 

the crown-of-thorns starfish in the 1970s, four major cyclones in the last 18 years, and 

mass coral bleaching events in 1994, 2002, and 2003 (Maragos et al. 1994, Green et al. 

1999, Craig et al. 2005). In some locations (especially Pago Pago Harbor), these reefs 

also appear to have been degraded by a combination of anthropogenic processes, 

including coastal construction, sedimentation, eutrophication, and chemical and solid 

waste pollution (Craig et al. 2005, Green 1996, Maragos et al. 1994). 

Long-term monitoring shows that these disturbances have resulted in major changes to 

the coral and fish communities near the island over the past 20–80 years (Green et al. 

1999). The rate of recovery of the coral reef communities on Tutuila appears to be quite 

variable. The reefs in Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary (FBNMS) and at most 

other locations are recovering well from these disturbances (Birkeland et al. 1987, 1994, 

1996; Green 1996). In contrast, the reefs in Pago Pago Harbor and at several other 

locations around the island are not (Birkeland et al. 1987, 1994, 1996; Mundy 1996). 

Differences in water quality among sites may be partly responsible for these differences 

among the reefs. For example, the reefs in good condition, including those at FBNMS, 

Leone, Fatumafuti, and Vatia, appear to have good water quality. By comparison, the 

reefs that are in poor condition appear to have poor water quality, including high 

sediment loads and the presence of chemical pollutants (Green 1996, Maragos et al. 1994, 

Mundy 1996). Poor quality reefs include most of the reefs in Pago Pago Harbor and some 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 111 

reefs on the northwest shore (Green 1996, Maragos et al. 1994, Mundy 1996). Threats to 

the health of Tutuila’s coral reefs include coral bleaching, coastal alterations from human 

development, fishing pressure, loss of wetlands, soil erosion and sedimentation, solid and 

hazardous waste disposal, and pollution (Craig et al. 2005). 

In general, the reefs on the other less populated islands appear to be in good condition. 

Aunuu Island has suffered the same natural disturbances as Tutuila, including coral 

bleaching and tropical storms; however, reefs there are relatively protected from 

anthropogenic effects, and have been observed to recover quickly from the area’s 

frequent storms (Green 1996, Mundy 1996). 

The reefs of the Manua Islands (Ofu, Olosega, and Tau) were severely damaged by 

Hurricane Tusi in 1987. The starfish invasion in the 1970s and the recent coral bleaching 

event also affected these reefs, but the extent of the damage is unclear (Green 1996). 

Several studies over the past 10 years have shown that the reefs of the Manua Group tend 

to be in better condition than those around Tutuila (Green 1996, Itano and Buckley 1988, 

Maragos et al. 1994, Mundy 1996). In fact, Green (1996) and Mundy (1996) reported that 

some of the reefs in Manua were among the best surveyed in the archipelago, including 

reefs on Ofu (Asaga), Olosega (Sili and Olosega Village), and Tau (Lepula and Afuli). 

The shallow lagoon in the National Park of American Samoa is also in particularly good 

condition (Green 1996, Hunter et al. 1993). In general, anthropogenic effects are less 

pronounced in the Manua Islands because of the lower population on these islands. 

However, the future of some of these reefs is threatened by road construction 

immediately adjacent to the shoreline on all three islands (Green 1996, Green and Mundy 

1995). Intermittent, moderate- to-large infestations of the crown-of-thorns starfish may 

also threaten the condition of some of these reefs in the future, especially on Ofu and 

Olosega (Mundy 1996, Zann 1995). 

3.5.1.1.2.Benthic Habitat 

Because of the steepness of the offshore slope around Tutuila and the other islands that 

make up American Samoa, most of the available benthic habitat is composed of fringing 

coral reefs, a limited reef slope, and a few offshore banks (Craig et al. 2005). The islands 

are fringed by narrow reef flats (50 to 500 m) that drop to a depth of 3 to 6 meters and 

descend gradually to 40 meters. From this depth, the ocean bottom drops rapidly, 

reaching depths of 1,000 meters within 1 to 3 kilometers from shore. The following four 

banks around Tutuila have been identified: Taputapu, Mataula, Leone West Banks, and 

Steps Point (Severance and Franco 1989). 

3.5.1.1.3.Pelagic Habitat 

The waters surrounding the Samoa Archipelago are an area of modest productivity 

relative to areas to the north and west. The region is traversed by two main currents: the 

southern branch of the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current during June–October 

and the eastward-flowing South Equatorial Counter Current during November to April. 

Surface temperatures vary between 27° and 29° C and are highest in the January to April 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 112 

period. The upper limit of the thermocline in ocean areas is relatively shallow (27° C 

isotherm at a 100-meter depth), but the thermocline itself is diffuse (lower boundary at a 

300-meter depth). 

3.5.1.1.4.Surface Currents 

As discussed in Section 3.1.6, ocean circulation is mainly driven by winds and changes in 

temperature and salinity that affect seawater density. Divergent currents bring nutrientrich waters to the surface, which promotes phytoplankton growth, whereas convergent 

currents may accumulate forage items important for species distribution. The Westwind 

Drift (40° to 50° S) and the equatorial current system create an anticlockwise current 

flow or gyre in the South Pacific. From the equator to 20° S, four main currents or 

countercurrents are recognized (Bigelow 1997). 

The northern branch of the South Equatorial Current (SECN) flows westward between 

10° N and 7° S at a mean speed of 30 cm/sec and is 200 meters thick. The southern 

branch of the South Equatorial Current (SECS) flows westward between 11° and 14° S at 

a mean speed of 5 cm/sec and is 200 meters thick (Bigelow 1997). 

Between these two westward-flowing currents is the eastward-flowing South Equatorial 

Countercurrent (SECC) at 7° S to 11° S. The SECC has a mean speed of 20 cm/sec and is 

50-100 meters thick. South of 15° S, the South Tropical Countercurrent (STCC) flows 

eastward (Bigelow 1997). 

Current systems in the South Pacific are not simple latitudinal features, as vertical 

profiles of the equatorial western Pacific show a complex and dynamic stratification of 

currents (Delcroix et al. 1992). Current velocity fields affecting the American Samoa 

EEZ are weak, with maximum velocity of about 25 cm/sec (52 cm/sec = 1 knot). In 

general, current velocities appear southwesterly in the north (5° to 10° S) and southerly 

between 10° and 15° S. The northern branch of the SEC (the SECN) is the strongest 

current in the South Pacific. The SECN flows westward and usually attains its maximum 

velocities within 5° of the equator during March and April (Picaut and Tournier 1991). 

The SECN mainly affects the American Samoa EEZ from January to June. 

The southern branch of the SEC (the SECS) flows westward, but is weaker than the 

SECN. In the central Pacific, it may fragment into a series of vortexes (Picaut and 

Tournier 1991). The SECS is evident to the north of 20° S each month and is strongest 

from May to October. The SECC shares a northern boundary, with the westward-flowing 

SECN and a southern boundary with the westward-flowing SECS. From observational 

oceanographic studies in the western Pacific, the SECC flows eastward, and in June or 

July its area of maximum velocity shifts abruptly from 10° S to 7° S; it may fragment into 

branches that interrupt the flow of the SECN. In the central Pacific, the SECC is evident 

to the south of 10° S during November to April, during which time the velocity of the 

SECS is reduced. From May to October, the SECS strengthens and the SECC is not 

evident in the climatology. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 113 

3.5.1.1.5.Water Temperatures 

Although a 100-meter deep pool of uniformly warm (greater than 29° C) water extends 

over the equatorial western Pacific within 10° N to 10° S (Delcroix et al. 1992), virtually 

all of the EEZ waters around American Samoa lie farther to the south than the western 

Pacific warm pool in the more saline and cooler waters of the subtropical south Pacific. 

Bimonthly sea-surface temperature fields were estimated from a climatology based on an 

optimal interpolation (OI) analysis of in situ ship and buoy data collected from 1950 to 

1979 (Reynolds and Smith 1994). In American Samoa, the SST is warmest during 

January and February and coolest during July and August. Part of the northern portion of 

the American Samoa EEZ is isothermal (29° C) during January to June. Sea-surface 

temperatures show a north–south gradient, and seasonal variation increases with latitude. 

A sea-surface temperatures time series was estimated from 1982 to 1996 for an area north 

and south of 15° S. Monthly sea-surface temperatures were estimated from blended in 

situ (ship and buoy) sea-surface temperature data and satellite retrievals (Reynolds and 

Smith 1994). Throughout the time series, the southern area had a greater annual range in 

sea-surface temperatures (2° to 5° C) than the northern area (0.5° to 1.50° C). The three 

major El Niño, or warm events, that occurred over the time series (1982 to 1983, 1986 to 

1987, and 1991 to 1995) resulted in 10° C cooler winter sea-surface temperatures in the 

southern area than in normal years. The one major La Niña, or cold event, that occurred 

in 1988 to 1989 resulted in cooler summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern area 

than in normal years, but had little affect on the southern area (Reynolds and Smith 

1994). 

While sea-surface temperature is a convenient indicator of water temperature, the 

subsurface thermal structure has a greater influence on the horizontal and vertical 

distribution of some economically important species, including tuna. Two measurements 

used by oceanographers to characterize the subsurface thermal structure are the depth of 

the mixed layer and the depth of the lower boundary of the thermocline. The mixed layer 

is a relatively homogeneous layer of nearsurface water where the temperature remains 

constant with depth, while the thermocline is a region in the water column where 

temperature declines rapidly over a relatively small depth range. In tropical waters, the 

depth of the 27° C isotherm is commonly used as the lower boundary of the mixed layer 

(Cayre et al. 1989); however, the lower boundary of the thermocline is more difficult to 

define. For the purposes of this document, the depth of the 15° C isotherm is considered 

as the lower thermocline depth as suggested by Toole et al. (1988). 

Subsurface temperature data, compiled from expendable bathythermographs (XBTs), 

were used by Bigelow (1997) to develop a time series profile of temperature with depth 

for the neighboring Cook Islands between 1982 and 1996. A total of 2,665 profiles were 

taken from a large area of the Cook Islands EEZ (5° to 25° S, 170° to 150 ° W). During 

this period, 15 profiles were made per month. The isotherm depths show very different 

time series patterns for the two areas. In the northern area, at a range of latitudes similar 

to American Samoa’s EEZ, isotherms were 50 to 100 meters shallower after the strong 

ENSO event of 1982 to 1983. In contrast, isotherm depths showed little temporal 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 114 

variability in the southern area. The average depth of the 27° C isotherm in the northern 

area was 100 meters. The lower boundary of the thermocline was deeper in the southern 

area (330 m) compared with the northern area (275 m; Bigelow 1997). 

The latitudinal distribution of oxygen with depth was derived from a climatology study 

based on historical research ship data (Levitus 1982). There is a latitudinal gradient in 

dissolved oxygen as northern latitudes have less oxygen at a given depth than southern 

latitudes. In waters south of 15° S, oxygen concentrations are generally high (greater than 

3.5 ml O2/liter above 300 m) and should not limit the vertical distribution of tuna. In 

contrast, catchability of yellowfin and bigeye is increased between 5° and 10° S because 

dissolved oxygen concentrations are low (less than 3.0 ml O2/liter below 250 m), which 

effectively restricts their vertical habitat (Bigelow 1997). 

A monthly productivity climatology model derived from the Coastal Zone Color Scanner 

(CZCS), and based on data from 1978 to 1986, gives an indication of relative 

productivity. Within the Pacific, primary production is high in the equatorial western 

Pacific and the tropical eastern Pacific. In contrast, oceanic waters near American Samoa 

are low in productivity (approximately 0.05 mg/m3

) compared with the Society Islands in 

French Polynesia (greater than 0.1 mg/m3). There is little intra-annual variation in 

productivity within the American Samoa fishing zone, but waters to the northeast of 10° 

S have high productivity during winter months (May to August; Bigelow 1997). 

A long-term shift in the physical environment of the equatorial Pacific Ocean began in 

1977 (Miller et al. 1994). Conditions included more clouds, more rainfall, warmer seasurface temperatures, and weaker trade winds, similar to a weak decadal El Niño state. 

These conditions were most pronounced in the central equatorial Pacific, thus American 

Samoa was close to the center of this shift, which persisted until 1999 (J. Polovina, 

PIFSC, personal communication as cited in WPRFMC 2003). 

3.5.1.2. Protected Species – American Samoa 

3.5.1.2.1.Sea Turtles 

The information regarding sea turtles in American Samoa has come from opportunistic 

tagging of turtles and from dead (stranded) turtles. Hawksbill and green turtles are the 

most common species found in local waters. There is one record of a leatherback turtle 

that was incidentally captured about five kilometers south of Swains Island and three 

records of olive ridleys (two dead and one live sighting; Utzurrum 2002). Hawksbill and 

green turtle populations have declined precipitously in American Samoa (Grant et al.

1997). Despite federal and territorial laws prohibiting the killing of sea turtles and an 

extensive education program, some sea turtles and eggs were harvested illegally in 

American Samoa (Grant et al. 1997). In addition to direct take of turtles and eggs, 

degradation of nesting habitat by coastal construction, environmental contaminants, and 

increased human presence are viewed as the major problems to the recovery of green and 

hawksbill turtle populations. Beach mining and beach erosion are also detrimental 

because the islands of American Samoa have very few beaches suitable for turtle nesting 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 115 

habitat. American Samoa’s human population is one of the fastest growing of the Pacific 

Islands (USFWS and NMFS 1998a, 1998b), and the people of the Samoan Archipelago 

have traditionally harvested sea turtles for food and the shell. On the basis of recent 

surveys, the total number of nesting female sea turtles (hawksbill and green turtle species 

combined) is estimated to be approximately 120 (Utzurrum 2002). A voluntary observer 

program on American Samoa based longline vessels did not see any interactions with sea 

turtles on 76 observed longline sets during 2002. 

The American Samoa observer program, implemented as part of the American Samoa 

longline limited entry program, has provided information on interactions between sea 

turtles and the American Samoa longline fishery. The longline fishery observer program 

in American Samoa began in 2006 and coverage rates have averaged between 7 and 8 

percent since its inception. During the period from April 2006 to May 2008, 

approximately 8 percent of the sets deployed by this fishery were monitored by 

observers. During this time period observers reported five green sea turtle interactions, all 

resulting in mortalities, during longline operations in this fishery (four in 2006/07 and 

one in 2008 

3.5.1.2.2.Green Sea Turtle 

As discussed in Section 3.4, the life cycle of the green sea turtle involves a series of longdistance migrations back and forth between their feeding and nesting areas (Craig 2002). 

In American Samoa, their only nesting area is at Rose Atoll. When they finish laying 

their eggs there, the green turtles leave Rose Atoll and migrate to their feeding grounds 

elsewhere in the South Pacific. After several years, the turtles will return to Rose Atoll to 

nest again. Every turtle returns to the same nesting and feeding areas throughout its life, 

but that does not necessarily mean that all turtles nesting at Rose Atoll will migrate to 

exactly the same feeding area. 

Two green turtles with tagged flippers, and three that were tracked by satellite after 

nesting at Rose Atoll, were recovered in Fiji (Balazs et al. 1994). In addition, a green 

turtle with tagged flippers from Rose Atoll was found dead in Vanuatu less than one year 

later (G. H. Balazs 1994, cited in Grant et al. 1997). 

3.5.1.2.3.Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

Hawksbill turtles are most commonly found at Tutuila and the Manua Islands. They are 

known to nest at Rose Atoll and Swains Island (Utzurrum 2002). 

3.5.1.2.4.Leatherback Sea Turtle 

In 1993, the crew of an American Samoa government vessel engaged in experimental 

longline fishing pulled up a small freshly dead leatherback turtle about 5.6 kilometers 

south of Swains Island. This is the first leatherback turtle seen by the vessel’s captain in 

32 years of fishing in the waters of American Samoa. The nearest known leatherback 

nesting area to the Samoan Archipelago is the Solomon Islands (Grant 1994). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 116 

3.5.1.2.5.Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 

Olive ridley turtles are uncommon in American Samoa, although there have been at least 

three sightings. Necropsy of one recovered dead olive ridley found that it was injured by 

a shark, and may have recently laid eggs, indicating that there may be a nesting beach in 

American Samoa (Utzurrum 2002). 

3.5.1.2.6.Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

In 2006, there were two interactions observed between loggerhead turtles and American 

Samoa-based longline fishing gear. 

3.5.1.2.7.Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Southern Pacific Humpback whales have been observed around Fagatele Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary between June and September. Moreover, sperm whales are 

occasionally seen in the Sanctuary and around Tutuila as well. Several species of 

dolphins also frequent the sanctuary waters. In addition, there are anecdotal observations 

of both false killer whales and short-finned pilot whales occasionally stealing bait and 

fish from American Samoa-based longline gear. There are no pinnipeds (i.e., seals and 

sea lions) known to occur in American Samoa. 

3.5.1.2.8.Seabirds 

Table 3-3 presents the seabirds found in American Samoa. Twelve species of migratory 

seabirds reside on Rose Atoll. The bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis) is a 

migratory species listed by the IUCN Red List Category as “Vulnerable” because of a 

small, declining population (estimated to be 7,000 birds worldwide). The primary threat 

is predation occurring on wintering grounds (BirdLife International 2009). This 

migratory shorebird resides on Rose Atoll in American Samoa. In addition, the Newell’s 

shearwater is regarded as a visitor to American Samoa. 

Table 3-3. Seabirds Known to Be Present Around American Samoa. 

Common Name Scientific Name

Resident Seabirds (breeding birds): 

Puffinus pacificus Wedge-tailed shearwaters 

Puffinus lherminieri Audubon’s shearwater 

Puffinus nativitatis Christmas shearwater 

Pseudobulweria rostrata Tahiti petrel 

Pterodroma heraldica Herald petrel 

Pterodroma brevipes Collared petrel 

Sula sula Red-footed booby 

Sula leucogaster Brown booby 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 117 

Common Name Scientific Name

Sula dactylatra Masked booby 

Phaethon lepturus White-tailed tropicbird 

Phaethon rubricauda Red-tailed tropicbird 

Fregata minor Great frigatebird 

Fregata ariel Lesser frigatebird 

Sterna fuscata Sooty tern 

Anous stolidus Brown noddy 

Anous minutus Black noddy 

Procelsterna cerulea Blue-gray noddy 

Gygis alba Common fairy-tern (white tern) 

Visitors/Vagrants 

Puffinus tenuirostris Short-tailed shearwater 

Pterodroma inexpectata Mottled petrel 

Pterodroma alba Phoenix petrel 

Fregetta grallaria White-bellied storm petrel 

Nesofregetta fuliginosa Polynesian storm petrel (Pratt considers 

this a resident) 

Larus atricilla Laughing gull 

Sterna sumatrana Black-naped tern

3.5.1.3. Fisheries of American Samoa 

Under the authority of the MSA, the Council developed (and the Secretary of Commerce 

approved) criteria to determine overfishing (fishing mortality) and overfished (stock 

biomass) conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Currently, no fishery in 

American Samoa has been determined to be experiencing overfishing or to be 

overfished.39

3.5.1.3.1.Demersal Fisheries – American 

Samoa 

3.5.1.3.1.1. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries – American Samoa 

Coral reef fishes and invertebrates are harvested in American Samoa by various gear 

types including hook and line, spear gun, and gillnets. Approximately 25,000 pounds of 

coral reef species were reported landed by domestic commercial fisheries in 2003 (NMFS 

2004b). Resources such as giant clams, parrotfish, surgeonfish, and jacks are believed to 

be low in abundance (Craig et al. 2005). MSY has not been estimated for the American 

Samoa coral reef fishery MUS. 

 

39 Status of U.S. Fisheries, 2005. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/docs/Report_text_FINAL3.pdf 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 118 

3.5.1.3.1.2. Crustaceans Fisheries – American Samoa 

Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) is the main target species of this fishery. Lobsters 

around American Samoa do not appear to enter traps and, thus, are hand harvested. They 

are typically speared at night by free divers hunting for finfish near the outer slope. 

Virtually all harvests, to date, have occurred in territorial waters. Annual commercial 

landings expanded from a market survey are estimated to be 1,000 -1,500 lbs without 

taking subsistence and recreational catches into account40. 

A Federal permit is required to harvest Crustacean MUS in the EEZ around American 

Samoa and permit holders are required to participate in local reporting systems. This is an 

open access fishery, and as of June 2007 one Federal permit had been issued. No catch or 

effort information is available to date for this operation. All previous harvests of 

Crustacean MUS are believed to have occurred in territorial waters. 

Amendment 13 to the Crustaceans FMP designated deepwater shrimp of the genus 

Heterocarpus as management unit species under the FMP, and required Federal permits 

and reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in the U.S. EEZ, including American Samoa. 

The species complex includes all eight species of deepwater shrimp in the western Pacific 

(Heterocarpus ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. lepidus, H. dorsalis, H. 

tricarinatus and H. longirostris). The monitoring program (permits and logbooks) is 

intended to improve understanding of these fisheries and their impact on marine 

ecosystems. Although currently there are no resource concerns regarding western Pacific 

deepwater shrimp, the designation of these shrimp as management unit species provides a 

basis for management of the fisheries, if warranted in the future. 

Deepwater shrimp fisheries have been sporadic and short-lived throughout the Pacific 

since the 1960s. Most of these fishing ventures have been unprofitable due to frequent 

gear loss, a product with a short shelf life and history of inconsistent quality, and the 

rapid localized depletion of stocks leading to low catch rates. However, interest in the 

deepwater shrimp fishery continues. 

The sea floor drops away steeply around Tutuila and the other islands and banks of 

American Samoa. Depths reach 1,000 m within 3 km of the shoreline. Heterocarpus

habitat is limited to a narrow band of steep reef slope around the emergent islands and 

offshore banks. The abundance of Heterocarpus around American Samoa is currently 

unknown, but H. ensifer and H. laevigatus were found between 250 and 700 m in 

Western Samoa. No deepwater shrimp fishery has ever been reported in American 

Samoa, and currently, there are no plans to establish one. 

MSY has not been estimated for the American Samoa crustacean fisheries. 

 

40 WesPac Fisheries Information Network. http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/as/Pages/as_data_8.php 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 119 

3.5.1.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fisheries – American Samoa 

Long before the arrival of Europeans in the islands of Samoa, the indigenous people of 

those islands developed specialized techniques for catching bottomfish from canoes. 

Some bottomfish, such as ulua, held a particular social significance and were reserved for 

the matai (chiefs) according to Severance and Franco (1989). 

By the 1950s, many of the small boats in American Samoa were equipped with outboard 

engines, steel hooks were used instead of ones made of pearl shell, and monofilament 

fishing lines had replaced hand woven sennit lines. However, bottomfish fishing 

remained largely a subsistence practice. It was not until the early 1970s that the 

bottomfish fishery developed into a commercial venture (Ralston 1979). Surveys 

conducted around Tutuila Island from 1967 to 1970 by the American Samoa Office of 

Marine Resources indicated that the potential existed for developing a small-scale 

commercial bottomfish fishery. Four major fishing grounds were identified around the 

island of Tutuila: Taputapu, Matatula, Leone West Banks, and Steps Point (Severance 

and Franco 1989). In 1972, a government-subsidized boat-building program was initiated 

to provide local fishermen with gasoline and diesel powered 24–foot wooden dories 

capable of fishing for bottomfish in offshore waters. Twenty-three boats were eventually 

built and used by fishermen. By 1980, however, mechanical problems and other 

difficulties had reduced the dory fleet to a single vessel (Itano 1996). 

In the early 1980s, the 28-foot alia catamaran, designed by the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, was introduced into American Samoa, and local boat 

builders began constructing these inexpensive but seaworthy fishing vessels. A recovery 

in the size of the fishing fleet, together with a government-subsidized development 

project aimed at exporting deepwater snapper to Hawaii, caused another notable increase 

in bottomfish landings (Itano 1996). Between 1982 and 1988, the bottomfish fishery 

made up as much as half of the total catch of the local commercial fishery. However, 

since 1988, the nature of American Samoa’s fisheries has changed dramatically, with a 

shift in importance from bottomfish fishing to trolling and longlining for pelagic species 

(WPRFMC 1999). Landings trends in the bottomfish fishery have also been periodically 

adversely impacted by hurricanes. The 1987 hurricane, in particular, damaged or 

destroyed a large segment of American Samoa’s small-boat fishing fleet. 

Today, the bottomfish fishery of American Samoa consists of approximately 19 part-time 

vessels that typically jig overnight using skipjack tuna as bait (WPRFMC 2004a, 2004b). 

The fishing technology employed by the fleet continues to be relatively unsophisticated. 

Most vessels are aluminum alia catamarans less than 30 feet in length and many of the 

boats are outfitted with wooden hand reels that are used for both trolling and bottomfish 

fishing. In 1999, less than 10 percent of the boats carried a depth recorder, electronic fish 

finder or global positioning system (Severance et al. 1999). Because few boats carry ice, 

they typically fish within 20 miles of shore. In recent years, however, a growing number 

of fishermen in American Samoa have been acquiring larger (greater than 35 feet) vessels 

with capacity for chilling or freezing fish and a much greater fishing range. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 120 

In recent years, commercial landings of bottomfish accounted for almost all of the total 

bottomfish catch. The amount of bottomfish caught for recreational or subsistence 

purposes was very small. In 2002, there were no recreational or charter landings 

recorded. The commercial catch declined significantly in 1987, recovered slightly in 

1988, but then decreased dramatically again during the early 1990s (Figure 3-11). The 

overall decline was due to the effects of hurricanes that struck Samoa in 1987, 1990, and 

1991, as well as the departure of several highliners from the fishery and a shift by the 

fleet from bottomfish fishing to trolling for pelagic species (WPRFMC 1999). In 

addition, fishermen began to experience competition in local markets from fresh 

bottomfish imported from Samoa and Tonga. In 1991, bottomfish imports exceeded local 

landings of bottomfish. The significantly greater 1994 total landings, when compared to 

previous years, occurred primarily because of improved catch recording, an increase in 

effort by highline vessels and a high fish demand for government and cultural events. 

However, the 1998 harvest was only 25 percent of the 17-year average and was the 

smallest catch since 1992. This decline was primarily due to a shift by highliners in the 

local fleet from bottomfish fishing to fishing for pelagic species with longline gear. Since 

1998, some alias have returned to bottomfish fishing when longline catches and prices for 

pelagic species declined. In 2003, 19 vessels took 291 trips and landed 26,200 pounds of 

bottomfish in American Samoa. Of this, 25,509 pounds were sold for total ex-vessel 

revenue of $25,012 (WPRFMC 2004a, 2004b). 

In 2005 a total of 16 local boats landed an estimated 21,157 pounds of both commercial 

and recreational bottomfish in the territory, where 30 percent of the total landing was sold 

commercially. Revenues from the commercial fishery in 2005 were estimated at $16,744, 

with all catch being sold locally. The majority of the catch consisted of emperors and 

snappers. MSY for deepwater bottomfish around American Samoa is estimated at 74,970 

lb (WPRFMC 2005). Figure 3-11 provides historical data on commercial bottomfish 

harvests in American Samoa. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 121 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Year

Co mmercial Landings (lb) Revenue ($ ) A djusted Revenue ($ )

Figure 3-11. Bottomfish Landings and Value in American Samoa 1982 to 2005 

Source: WPRFMC 2006 

3.5.1.3.2.Precious Corals Fisheries – 

American Samoa 

There are no known historical or current precious coral fisheries in American Samoa. 

MSY for precious corals around American Samoa has not been estimated. 

To prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals, fishing for, taking, or 

retaining any gold coral (live or dead) in any precious coral permit area is prohibited 

through June 30, 2013. This includes all EEZ waters of the Western Pacific Region. 

Additional research results on gold coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations 

between length and age will be considered by the Council and NMFS prior to the 

expiration of the 5-year moratorium. 

3.5.1.3.3.Pelagic Fisheries – American 

Samoa 

The harvest of pelagic fish has been a part of the way of life in the Samoan Archipelago 

since the islands were first settled some 3,500 years ago (Severance and Franco 1989). 

Subsistence fishing continues to the present, but the importance of pelagic fisheries as a 

source of income and employment is increasing. Commercial ventures are diverse, 

ranging from small-scale vessels having very limited range to large-scale vessels catching 

tuna in the EEZ and distant waters and delivering their catches to canneries based in 

American Samoa. Total pelagic landings by American Samoa based longline, troll, and 

handline vessels were approximately 11 million pounds in 2003 (Figure 3-12), with 

longline landings making up nearly 99 percent of this total (WPRFMC 2004a). During 

•' 

• '. 

1, 

I \ 

I \ 

I \, 

I ' 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 122 

2003, nearly 90 percent of these longline landings were albacore, with yellowfin, bigeye, 

and skipjack tuna making up the majority of the remainder (WPRFMC 2004a, 2004b). In 

2004, there was a decrease in tuna landings of 19.2 percent and an increase of 12.4 

percent in the total landings for other pelagic species (Figure 3-12; WPRFMC 2005). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

Year

Tuna (Million Pounds)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Non Tuna PMUS (1000 Lbs.)

Tuna Non-Tuna PMUS

Figure 3-12. Tuna and Non-tuna PMUS Landings in American Samoa 1982 to 2004.

Source: WPRFMC 2005. 

3.5.1.3.3.1. Small-Scale Longline Fishery – American Samoa 

Most participants in the small-scale domestic longline fishery are indigenous American 

Samoans with vessels under 50 feet in length, most of which are alia boats under 40 feet 

in length. The stimulus for American Samoa’s commercial fishermen to shift from troll or 

handline gear to longline gear in the mid-1990s (see Figure 3-12) was the fishing success 

of 28-foot alia catamarans that engaged in longline fishing in the EEZ around 

Independent Samoa. Following this example, the fishermen in American Samoa deploy a 

short monofilament longline, with an average of 350 hooks per set, from a hand-powered 

reel (WPRFMC 2000b). The number of alias fishing in American Samoa has decreased 

significantly in recent years, from 27 in 2002 to 9 in 2004 (WPRFMC 2005). 

3.5.1.3.3.2. Large-Scale Longline Fishery – American Samoa 

American Samoa’s domestic longline fishery expanded rapidly in 2001. Much of the 

recent (and anticipated future) growth was due to the entry of monohull vessels larger 

than 50 feet in length. The number of permitted longline vessels in this sector increased 

from three in 2000 to 30 by March 21, 2002 (DMWR, unpublished data). Of these, five 

permits (33 percent of the vessel size class) for vessels between 50.1 feet and 70 feet and 

l ,,..---' 

"' 

/" 

-----"' ---r"' 

1~ -------=-:--

( 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

/ 

-..... 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 123 

five permits (33 percent of the vessel size class) for vessels larger than 70 feet were 

believed to be held by indigenous American Samoans as of March 21, 2002 (T. 

Beeching, DMWR, personal communication to P. Bartram, WPFMC Consultant, March 

2002). Economic barriers have prevented more substantial indigenous participation in the 

large-scale sector of the longline fishery. The lack of capital appears to be the primary 

constraint to substantial indigenous participation in this sector (DMWR 2002). 

While the smallest (less than or equal to 40 feet) vessels average 350 hooks per set, a 

vessel more than 50 feet long can set 5 to 6 times more hooks and has a greater fishing 

range and capacity for storing fish (8 to 40 mt as compared with 0.5 to 2 mt on a smallscale vessel). Larger vessels are also outfitted with hydraulically powered reels to set and 

haul mainline, and modern electronic equipment for navigation, communications, and 

fish finding. Most vessels are presently being operated to freeze albacore onboard rather 

than to land chilled fish. After the Hawaii longline swordfish fishery closure in 2000, a 

handful of Hawaii-based vessels relocated to American Samoa, but there are some 

vessels that move between Hawaii and American Samoa depending on market conditions. 

Large vessels have participated in the American Samoa longline fishery from diverse 

ports and fisheries, including the U.S. West Coast (six), Gulf of Mexico (three), and 

foreign countries (four under U.S. ownership; O’Malley and Pooley 2002). In 2004, 29 

large vessels fished in the American Samoa EEZ (WPRFMC 2005). In 2005, the 

American Samoa limited entry longline program was established, requiring a limited 

entry permit to fish in the EEZ around American Samoa (70 FR 29646). 

3.5.1.3.3.3. Distant-Water Purse Seine Fishery – American 

Samoa 

The U.S. purse seine fleet operating in the central and western Pacific uses large nets to 

capture skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna near the ocean surface, in free-swimming 

schools and around fish aggregation devices (FADs) deployed by the fleet. These vessels 

often land their catches at canneries based in American Samoa. These large vessels (200–

250 feet length) could not be economically operated for longline fishing, but some former 

participants in the U.S. purse seine fishery have acquired more suitable vessels and have 

participated in the American Samoa based longline fishery (NMFS 2001). 

3.5.1.3.3.4. Distant-Water Jig Albacore Fishery – American 

Samoa 

Domestic albacore jig vessels also supply tuna to the canneries in American Samoa. 

Since 1985, about 50 to 60 U.S. vessels have participated in the high-seas jig fishery for 

albacore. This fishery occurs seasonally (December to April) in international waters at 

35° to 40° S latitude. The vessels range in length from 50 to 120 feet, with the average 

length about 75 feet. The vessels operate with crews of 3 to 5 and are capable of freezing 

45 to 90 tons of fish (WPRFMC 2000). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 124 

3.5.1.3.3.5. Troll and Handline Fishery – American Samoa 

From October 1985 to the present, catch-and-effort data in American Samoa fisheries 

have been collected through a creel survey that includes subsistence and recreational 

fishing, as well as commercial fishing. However, differentiating commercial troll fishing 

activity from noncommercial activity can be difficult. 

Recreational fishing strictly for sport or pleasure is uncommon in American Samoa. Most 

fishermen normally harvest pelagic species for subsistence or commercial sale. However, 

tournament fishing for pelagic species began in American Samoa in the 1980s. Between 

1974 and 1998, 64 fishing tournaments were held in American Samoa (Tulafono 2001). 

Most of the boats that participated were alia catamarans and small skiffs. Catches from 

tournaments are often sold, as most of the entrants are local small-scale commercial 

fishermen. In 1996, 3 days of tournament fishing contributed about 1 percent of the total 

domestic landings. Typically, 7 to 14 local boats carrying 55 to 70 fishermen participated 

in each tournament, which were held two to five times per year (Craig et al. 1993). 

The majority of tournament participants have operated 28-foot alia, the same vessels that 

engage in the small-scale longline fishery. With more emphasis on commercial longline 

fishing since 1996, interest in the tournaments has waned (Tulafono 2001), and in 2001 

the pelagic fishing effort shifted markedly from trolling to longlining (see Figure 3-13). 

However, with the recent decrease in alia longline activity, there are more alia available 

to go trolling, but the price of the gas is likely impeding trolling activity. 

Catch-and-release recreational fishing is virtually unknown in American Samoa. Landing 

fish to meet cultural obligations is so important that releasing fish would generally be 

considered a failure to meet these obligations (Tulafono 2001). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

Year

Number of Boats

A ny M etho d Lo nglining Tro lling

Figure 3-13. Trolling and Longlining in American Samoa. 

 Source: WPRFMC 2005. 

-----

I==-
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 125 

American Samoa has been unable to develop a significant tourist industry that could 

support charter fishing (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 

2000). American Samoa is not known for producing large game fish. Few, if any, charter 

boats are in operation (Tulafono 2001), so no data are collected specifically for the 

charter fishing sector. 

3.5.1.4. Communities – American Samoa 

American Samoan dependence on fishing undoubtedly goes back as far as the peopled 

history of the islands of the Samoan Archipelago, about 3,500 years ago (Severance and 

Franco 1989). Many aspects of the culture have changed in contemporary times, but 

American Samoans have retained a traditional social system that continues to strongly 

influence and depend on the culture of fishing. Centered around an extended family 

(aiga) and allegiance to a hierarchy of chiefs (matai), the social system is rooted in the 

economics and politics of communally held village land. It has effectively resisted EuroAmerican colonial influence and has contributed to a contemporary cultural resiliency 

unique in the Pacific Islands region (Severance et al. 1999). 

From the time of the Deeds of Cession to the present, despite increasing Western 

influences on American Samoa, native American Samoans have expressed a very strong 

preference for and commitment to the preservation of their traditional matai, aiga, and 

communal land system, which provides for social continuity, structure, and order. The 

traditional system is ancient and complex, containing nuances that are not well 

understood by outsiders (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 

2000). 

Traditional American Samoan values still exert a strong influence on when and why 

people fish, how they distribute their catch, and the meaning of fish within the society. 

When distributed, fish and other resources move through a complex and culturally 

embedded exchange system that supports the food needs of aiga, as well as the status of 

both matai and village ministers (Severance et al. 1999). 

Under the MSA, the islands of American Samoa are recognized as a fishing community. 

However, American Samoa’s history, culture, geography, and relationship with the 

United States are vastly different from those of a typical community in the continental 

United States and are closely related to the heritage, traditions, and culture of neighboring 

independent Samoa. The seven islands that make up American Samoa were ceded in 

1900 and 1904 to the United States and governed by the U.S. Navy until 1951, when 

administration was passed to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The DOI continues to 

provide technical assistance, represent territorial views to the federal government, and 

oversee federal expenditures and operations. American Samoa elected its first governor in 

1978 and is represented by a nonvoting member of Congress. 

Tutuila, American Samoa’s largest island is the center of government and business and is 

home to 90 percent of the Territory’s population which is estimated to be 63,000 people. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 126 

American Samoan natives born in the Territory are classified as U.S. nationals and are 

categorized as native Americans by the U.S. government (Territorial Planning 

Commission and Department of Commerce 2000). The population density is about 320 

people/km2

, and the annual population growth rate is nearly 3 percent, with projected 

population doubling in only 24 years. The net migration rate from American Samoa was 

estimated as 3.75 migrants/1,000 population in the year 2000 (Central Intelligence World 

Fact Book 2005). 

The only U.S. territory south of the equator, American Samoa is considered 

unincorporated because the U.S. Constitution does not apply in full, even though it is 

under U.S. sovereignty (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 

2000). American Samoa’s vision for its future is not fundamentally different from that of 

any other people in the United States, but American Samoa has additional objectives that 

are related to its covenant with the United States, its own constitution, and its distinctive 

culture (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 2000). A central 

premise of ceding eastern Samoa to the United States was to preserve the rights and 

property of the islands’ inhabitants. American Samoa’s constitution makes it government 

policy to protect persons of American Samoan ancestry from the alienation of their lands 

and the destruction of the Samoan way of life and language. It provides for protective 

legislation and encourages business enterprise among persons of American Samoan 

ancestry (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 2000). 

American Samoa has a small developing economy, dependent mainly on two primary 

income sources: the American Samoa government, which receives income and capital 

subsidies from the Federal government, and two fish canneries on Tutuila. These two 

primary income sources have given rise to a third: a service sector that derives from and 

complements the first two. In 1993, the latest year for which the American Samoan 

government compiled detailed labor force and employment data, the government 

employed 4,355 persons (32.2 % of total employment), two canneries 3,977 persons 

(29.4 %), and the remainder of the service economy 5,211 persons (38.4 %). As of 2000, 

there were 17,644 people 16 years and older in the labor force, of which 16,718, or 95 

percent, were employed. 41

A large proportion of the territory’s work force is from Western Samoa, which is now 

officially called Samoa (Bank of Hawaii 2000). While it would be true to say that 

Western Samoans working in the territory are legal alien workers, in fact they are the 

same people—by culture, history, and family ties. 

Statistics on household income indicate that the majority of American Samoans live in 

poverty, according to U.S. income standards. American Samoa has the lowest gross 

domestic product and highest donor aid per capita among the U.S.-flag Pacific Islands 

(Adams et al. 1999). However, by some regional measures, American Samoa is not a 

poor economy. Its estimated per capita income of $9,332 (male)42 is almost twice the 

average for all Pacific Island economies, although it is less than half of the per capita 

 

41 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/amsamstatelevel.pdf 42 Ibid 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 127 

income in Guam, where proximity to Asia has led to development of a large tourism 

sector. Sixty-one percent of the population in 1999 was at or below poverty level.43

The excellent harbor at Pago Pago and certain special provisions of U.S. law form the 

basis of American Samoa’s largest private industry, fish processing, which is now more 

than 50 years old. The Territory is exempt from the Nicholson Act, which prohibits 

foreign ships from landing their catches in U.S. ports. American Samoan products with 

less than 50 percent market value from foreign sources enter the United States duty free 

(Headnote 3(a) of the U.S. Tariff Schedule). 

The American Samoan government has estimated that the tuna processing industry 

directly and indirectly generates about 15 percent of current money wages, 10 to 12 

percent of aggregate household income and 7 percent of government receipts in the 

territory (Bank of Hawaii 2000). Both tuna canneries in American Samoa are tied to 

multinational corporations that supply virtually everything but unskilled labor, shipping 

services, and infrastructure facilities (Schug and Galeai 1987). Even a substantial portion 

of the raw tuna processed by StarKist Samoa is landed by vessels owned by the parent 

company. The result is that few backward linkages have developed, and the fishprocessing facilities exist essentially as industrial enclaves. Furthermore, most of the 

unskilled labor of the canneries is imported. Up to 90 percent of cannery jobs are filled 

by foreign nationals from Western Samoa and Tonga. The result is that much of the 

payroll of the canneries “leaks” out of the territory in the form of overseas remittances. 

Harsh working conditions, low wages, and long fishing trips have discouraged American 

Samoans from working on foreign longline vessels delivering tuna to the canneries. 

American Samoans prefer employment on the U.S. purse seine vessels, but the capitalintensive nature of purse seine operations limits the number of job opportunities for 

locals in that sector as well. However, the presence of the industrial tuna fishing fleet has 

had a positive economic effect on the local economy as a whole. Ancillary businesses 

involved in reprovisioning the fishing fleet generate a significant number of jobs and 

amount of income for local residents. Fleet expenditures for fuel, provisions, and repairs 

in 1994 were estimated to be between $45 million and $92 million (Hamnett and Pintz 

1996). 

The tuna processing industry has had a mixed effect on the commercial fishing activities 

undertaken by American Samoans. The canneries often buy fish from the small-scale 

domestic longline fleet based in American Samoa, although the quantity of this fish is 

insignificant compared with cannery deliveries by the U.S. purse seine fleet, U.S. 

albacore fleet, and foreign longline fleets. The ready market provided by the canneries is 

attractive to the small-boat fleet, and virtually all of the albacore caught by the domestic 

longline fishery is sold to the canneries. 

Local fishermen have indicated an interest in participating in the far more lucrative 

overseas market for fresh fish. To date, however, inadequate shoreside ice and cold 

 

43 Ibid 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 128 

storage facilities in American Samoa, as well as infrequent and expensive air 

transportation links, have been restrictive factors. 

Using information obtained from industry sources for a presentation to the American 

Samoa Legislature (Faleomavaega 2002), canning the 3,100 metric tons of albacore 

landed in American Samoa by the domestic longline fishery in 2001 is estimated to have 

generated 75 jobs, $420,000 in wages, $5 million in processing revenue, and $1.4 million 

in direct cannery spending in the local economy. Ancillary businesses associated with the 

tuna canning industry also contribute significantly to American Samoa’s economy. 

American Samoa’s position in the industry is being eroded by forces in the world 

economy and in the tuna canning industry itself. Whereas wage levels in American 

Samoa are well below those of the United States, they are considerably higher than in 

other canned tuna production centers around the world. To remain competitive, U.S. tuna 

producers are purchasing more raw materials, especially precooked loins, from foreign 

manufacturers. Tax benefits to U.S. canneries operating in American Samoa have also 

been tempered in recent years by the removal of a provision in the U.S. tax code that 

previously permitted the tax-free repatriation of corporate income in U.S. territories. 

Trends in world trade, specifically reductions in tariffs, are reducing the competitive 

advantage of American Samoa’s duty-free access to the U.S. canned tuna market. In early 

2009, one of the two canneries in American Samoa, Chicken of the Sea/Samoa Packing, 

announced that it would be shutting down operations. The cannery closure resulted in 

serious economic challenges for the government and communities of American Samoa. 

 

Despite the long history of the tuna canning industry in American Samoa, processing and 

marketing of pelagic fish by local enterprises have not yet developed beyond a few shortterm pilot projects. However, the government’s comprehensive economic development 

strategy (Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce 2000) places a 

high priority on establishing a private sector fish processing and export operations. 

3.5.2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Located between 14 ̊ and 21 ̊ N, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI) encompasses 14 islands and many banks stretching over 400 nautical miles (760 

km) in a north–south direction. The total land area of all 14 islands is approximately 477 

square kilometers. Within the EEZ and approximately 120 nautical miles west of the 

island chain, is the West Mariana Ridge, a line of seamounts running parallel to the main 

islands. The islands north of Saipan are called the northern islands; several of these are 

designated as wildlife conservation areas, including the islands of Uracas, Maug, 

Ascunsion, and Guguan. Seamounts in the West Mariana Ridge include Pathfinder Reef, 

Bank D, Bank C, and Arakane Reef. Comprised of raised limestone and classified as 

geologically “older,” the southern islands include Rota, Aguijan, Tinian, Saipan, and 

Farallon de Medinilla. The southern islands include White Tuna Reef, ESE Reef, and 

Sonome Reefs – all north of Farallon de Medinilla. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 129 

The “younger” and still volcanically active northern islands include Anatahan, Sarigan, 

Guguan, Alamagan, Pagan, Agrihan, Asuncion, Maug, and Farallon de Pajaros. The 

northern islands also include the following: Uracas Bank north of Uracas, Pakapaka Reef, 

Malakis Reef, 300 Reef, Dump Coke Bank, and Zealandia Banks – all south of Anatahan. 

More than 99.5 percent of the population occurs on the southern islands of Saipan, 

Tinian, and Rota, with 89 percent living on Saipan (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Aguijan 

is the only uninhabited southern island. 

The CNMI archipelago lies within the tropical zone. The average air temperatures are 

consistently around 80° F, with little variation. Prevailing winds in the CNMI are 

northeasterly trade winds, averaging near 10 knots; however, southeasterly winds are 

observed in summer months, and west and northwesterly winds are observed during 

winter months. Average annual rainfall in the southern islands and the northern islands is 

around 82 inches and 75 inches, respectively. Because of the Mariana Islands’ position in 

the western Pacific, typhoons occur almost every year in the vicinity (Eldredge 1983). 

3.5.2.1. Marine Environment - CNMI 

3.5.2.1.1.Coral Reefs - CNMI 

The total coral reef area in CNMI is 124 square kilometers within the 10-fm curve and 

476 square kilometers within the 100-fm curve (Rohmann et al. 2005). The older 

southern islands have fringing and/or barrier reefs, while the volcanically active northern 

islands have relatively little coral reef (Eldredge 1983). 

The southern islands support a variety of marine habitat types. Saipan’s potential coral 

reef area within the 10-fathom contour is 58 square kilometers and includes fringing 

reefs, inshore and offshore patch reefs, and a well-developed barrier reef/lagoon system 

along most of the leeward coast (Eldredge 1983, Gourley 1997, Rohmann et al. 2005). 

Saipan Lagoon also comprises some large areas of well-developed seagrass beds, as well 

as a small area of mangroves (Gourley 1997). 

The coral reefs within the 10-fathom curve of Rota (12 km2

), Tinian, and Agrijan (18 

km2

) are less well developed than those on Saipan, and are generally restricted to small 

fringing reef systems (Eldredge 1983, Gourley 1997, Rohmann et al. 2005). Generally, 

the coral reefs around Tinian are more developed on the western (leeward) coastline and 

have greater species diversity than those on the eastern (windward) coast which receive 

more force from breaking waves (PSDA 1997). Rota also has some well-developed reefs, 

especially in Sasanhaya Bay on the south side, and some offshore reefs on the north and 

west sides of the island (PSDA 1997). 

Farallon de Medinilla is an uninhabited island with 2 square kilometers of potential coral 

reef area within the 10-fathom curve (Rohmann et al. 2005). The island has been used as 

a military bombardment range for the last 30 plus years (Eldredge 1983, PSDA 1997, 

Starmer et al. 2005). In general, there is no fringing reef or shallow coastal zone because 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 130 

deep water surrounds much of the island and the submarine slope appears to be very 

steep (PSDA 1997). There is a coral reef platform approximately 30 to 100 ft wide on the 

southwest side of the island and some well-developed wall structures in the nearshore 

areas of Farallon de Medinilla. The combination of this vertical profile and wave action 

on the windward side of the island probably explains the limited coral reef biota in 

shallow water on that side (PSDA 1997). As such, marine resources are mostly 

concentrated on the leeward side of the island, where the substrate drops gradually 

seaward (PSDA 1997). 

The northern islands are relatively young (1–1.5 million years) and include active 

volcanoes on the islands of Pagan (erupted in 1981), Anatahan (erupted in 2003), 

Guguan, Asuncion, Agrihan and Uracas (Asakura et al. 1994). In general, reef 

development is poor or nonexistent on the northern islands (Eldredge 1983), with Pagan 

having the greatest potential coral reef area at 11 square kilometers within the 10-fathom 

curve (Rohmann et al. 2005). Most of the reefs that do exist tend to be narrow, rocky 

reefs on steep slopes, with coral communities growing on volcanic substrata because 

there is little true coral reef development (Birkeland 1997b, Donaldson 1995, Eldredge 

1983). However, there are a few small “embryonic” or “apron” reefs on these islands, 

which may have some reef formation but do not reach sea level (Birkeland 1997b). These 

include areas at depths of greater than 25 meters at western Anatahan, southern Sarigan, 

and parts of Pagan (Donaldson 1995, Donaldson et al. 1994). Eldredge et al. (1977a) also 

reported a well-developed fringing reef on the west side of Maug. 

These differences in the development of reefs throughout the Mariana Islands appear to 

be related to the age and geology of the islands, because coral growth is just as vigorous 

in both the north and south (Birkeland 1997b). For example, geological faulting of large 

areas in the older Southern Marianas (e.g., west coast of Saipan) has created large, 

oblique, shallow water surfaces, which have supported extensive reef growth and the 

development of reef flats and lagoons over time (Birkeland 1997b). In contrast, the 

islands in the north are younger with quite vertical profiles, which do not provide the 

basis for extensive reef development (Birkeland 1997b). 

Low-to-moderate numbers of crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), a coraleating starfish, are believed to have been responsible for substantial coral mortality on 

some reefs around Saipan over the past two decades. This includes areas in Saipan 

Lagoon (Duenas and Swavely 1985, Richmond and Matson 1986), the Obyan-Naftan 

area (Randall et al. 1988), and Laulau Bay (PBEC 1984). 

Starfish outbreaks have also been recorded on the other islands, including occasional 

small-scale outbreaks on Rota since the 1980s (CRM 1996). There have also been reports 

of starfish causing damage to reefs on the northern islands of CNMI, including Maug and 

Alamagan (Eldredge 1983). 

The CNMI’s coral reefs have experienced some damage from the frequent typhoons in 

the area, and coral bleaching has occurred in 1994, 2001, and 2003. In addition, coral 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 131 

reefs in some locations appear to have been affected by human activities, including 

fishing, sedimentation, and nutrient loading (Starmer et al. 2005). 

Available information suggests that the current condition of the coral reefs in the 

southern islands of the CNMI is quite variable (Starmer et al. 2005). Most appear to be in 

good condition, except in some heavily populated areas where the reefs have been 

degraded by human activities. A major management focus is the reefs in Saipan Lagoon, 

because the surrounding area encompasses nearly all of the Commonwealth’s population, 

tourism industry, commercial activity, subsistence fishing, and water-oriented recreation 

(Duenas and Swavely 1985). 

In general, it appears that the reefs in the northern islands are also in good condition 

because of their isolation from human population centers (Birkeland 1997b). The 

exceptions are localized areas that may have been affected by volcanic or military 

activities (e.g., Pagan and Farallon de Medinilla). 

3.5.2.1.2.Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and 

Seamount Habitat- CNMI 

A total of 579 square kilometers of banks and reefs has been estimated in the EEZ 

surrounding the CNMI (Hunter 1995). Of this area, 534 square kilometers are outside 3 

nautical miles. The submerged seamounts 120 nautical miles west of the emergent islands 

have been estimated to have a total of 50 to 60 square kilometers of viable habitat to 

support bottomfish populations (WPRFMC 2005). 

3.5.2.1.3.Pelagic Habitat - CNMI 

Generally, the major surface current affecting the CNMI is the North Equatorial Current 

(see Figure 3-4), which flows in a westward direction through the islands. The 

Subtropical Counter Current affects the northern islands, and currents there generally 

flow in an easterly direction (Eldredge 1983). Depending on the season, sea surface 

temperatures near the Northern Mariana Islands vary between 80.9° and 84.9° F. The 

mixed layer extends to between depths of 300 and 400 feet (Eldredge 1983). 

3.5.2.2. Protected Species - CNMI 

 

3.5.2.2.1.Sea Turtles - CNMI 

Both green and hawksbill turtles are known to occur in waters around the CNMI and 

leatherback and olive ridley sea turtles are believed to occasionally transit the area 

(Starmer et al. 2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 132 

3.5.2.2.2.Green Sea Turtle 

Based on nearshore surveys conducted jointly by the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife 

(DFW) and NMFS around the Southern Islands (Saipan was surveyed in 1999 and Rota 

and Tinian in 2001), it was estimated that 1,000–2,000 green sea turtles forage in these 

areas (Kolinksi et al. 2004). The green sea turtle is a traditional food of the native 

population, and although harvesting them is illegal, divers have been known to take them 

at sea and others have taken nesting females (NMFS and USFWS 1998a). Turtle egg 

poaching occurs in the CNMI. Nesting beaches and seagrass beds on Tinian and Rota are 

in good condition, but beaches and seagrass beds on Saipan have been impacted by 

hotels, golf courses, and general tourist activities. 

3.5.2.2.3.Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

Although hawksbill turtles have occasionally been sighted in the past around the CNMI, 

they were not observed in a detailed assessment conducted in 1999, nor were they 

observed in ten aquatic surveys along the shores of Tinian in 1995. According to the 1998 

Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team Recovery Plan for the hawksbill turtle (NMFS and 

USFWS 1998b), there are no reports of hawksbill nesting in the CNMI. This does not 

rule out the possibility of a few hawksbill nests as nesting surveys on small pocket 

beaches in remote areas of the CNMI have never been done. A single hawksbill sighting 

occurred in 1996 during the detonation of a piece of unexploded ordinance off of Rota. 

The turtle was recovered near the explosion site and subsequently died of internal injuries 

that were the result of the blast (Trianni 1998). 

3.5.2.2.4.Marine Mammals and Seabirds – 

CNMI 

3.5.2.2.4.1. Cetaceans 

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) are known to appear between Saipan and Farallon de Medinilla. 

Sightings of Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Xiphias 

cavirostris), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), pilot whale (Globicephala melaena), 

striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), and the pan-tropic whitebelly spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris longirostris) occur in the waters around the CNMI. 

3.5.2.2.4.2. Pinnipeds and Sirenians 

No pinniped or sirenian species are known to occur in CNMI waters. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 133 

3.5.2.2.4.3. Seabirds 

According to Pratt et al.(1987), the following seabirds that are known to interact with 

fisheries operations have been sighted and are considered residents of the CNMI: wedgetailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus), white-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus), redtailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus), masked booby (Sula dactylatra), and brown booby 

(Sula leucogaster). 

The following seabirds have been sighted and are considered visitors to the CNMI: 

streaked shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas), short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus 

tenuirostris), Christmas shearwater (Puffinus nativitatis), Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus 

auricularis), Audubon’s shearwater (Puffinus iherminieri), Leach’s storm-petrel 

(Oceanodroma leucorhoa), Matsudaira’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma matsudairae), and 

the red-footed booby (Sula sula). Of these, only the Newell’s shearwater is listed as 

endangered. There have been no sightings of the endangered short-tailed albatross 

(Diomedea albatrus) in the CNMI, although the CNMI is within the range of the only 

breeding colony at Tora Shima Island, Japan. 

3.5.2.3. Fisheries of CNMI 

Under the authority of the MSA, the Council established (and the Secretary of Commerce 

approved) criteria to determine overfishing (fishing mortality) and overfished (stock 

biomass) conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Currently, no fishery in 

the CNMI has been determined by NMFS to be experiencing overfishing or to be 

overfished.44 For more information on these fisheries see the additional NEPA analyses 

listed in Section 3.4.1. 

3.5.2.3.1.Demersal Fisheries - CNMI 

3.5.2.3.1.1. Coral Reef Fisheries - CNMI 

Coral reef fisheries in the CNMI occur year-round and mostly around the Southern 

Islands of Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. Finfish and invertebrates are the primary targets, but 

small quantities of seaweed are also taken. In 2003, commercial landings of coral reef 

fish were approximately 136,000 lb and included harvests of parrotfish, surgeonfish, 

goatfish, snappers, and emperors. Little is known of the coral reef fisheries in the 

northern islands of the CNMI, but the catch is believed to be minor. In 1995, the 

nearshore reefs around six of the northern islands (especially Anatahan and Sarigan) were 

fished commercially for several months. During that time, these areas yielded over 

30,000 lb of reef fish and 380 hand-harvested spiny lobsters. 

Several hundred to thousands of fishermen fish for coral reef species in the CNMI, but 

only a small portion of them fish commercially. The fishery consists mostly of 

 

44 Status of U.S. Fisheries, 2005. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/docs/Report_text_FINAL3.pdf 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 134 

recreational and subsistence fishermen (i.e., those who do not sell, barter, or trade their 

catch). In 2007, about 125 fishermen sold reef fish on Saipan (no data collected from 

Rota or Tinian), but the number of actual fishermen may be higher because many 

fishermen consolidate their fish and sell them under one name, and not all commercial 

fishermen report to CNMI Division of Fish Wildlife (Ray Roberto, CNMI DFW, personal 

communication, 2008).

Upwards of 150 vessels may be involved in the commercial coral reef fishery, many of 

which also participate in the bottomfish fishery. These vessels range in size from small, 

human powered vessels to mid-sized vessels (less than 30 ft in length), and occasionally 

larger vessels (over 30 ft in length). 

Most commercial coral reef fishing is done by free divers using spears. (Spearfishing 

with scuba is illegal in the CNMI.) Divers and hook-and-line fishermen target coral reef 

species, either from shore or from boats. Hook-and-line fishermen typically use spinning 

rods and reels with light test monofilament lines (less than 50 lb test) with 1 to 4, small Jstyle hooks (much smaller than those used in the bottomfish fishery). Throw nets are the 

only nets legally allowed in the inshore waters of the CNMI without a special permit. Gill 

nets and surround nets are occasionally used for special occasions, but require a special 

permit, and the nets are required to be tended constantly (Ray Roberto, CNMI DFW, 

personal communication, 2008). The commercial coral reef fishery also includes about 10 

charter vessels that take tourists to fish for coral reef species. These vessels fish using 

hook-and-line with one line per customer, and 2-4 J-style hooks per line. The CNMI is 

currently re-establishing an inshore creel survey program at Saipan Lagoon to improve 

data on the coral reef fishery. 

Generally, coral reef fisheries in the CNMI are believed to be in good condition, but local 

depletion likely occurs in some areas of Saipan (Starmer et al. 2005). MSY has not been 

estimated for the CNMI coral reef fishery. 

3.5.2.3.1.2. Crustacean Fisheries - CNMI 

The CNMI crustacean fisheries consist primarily of a nearshore lobster fishery, but a 

short-lived deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.) fishery was active during the 1980s 

and could resume in the future.

The CNMI commercial lobster fishery is small and monitoring is based on voluntary 

reporting to the CNMI DFW. Reported commercial landings in 2004 totaled 1,337 kg and 

were worth an estimated $19,408. However, because the number of participants in the 

lobster fishery is not well known, the unreported commercial and recreational catch could 

increase these figures. Reported catches are taken almost exclusively within 3 nm of the 

inhabited southern islands. The fishery primarily targets spiny lobster in shallow waters. 

Because the bathymetry typically drops off steeply, most lobster habitats are relatively 

small and very close to shore. Thus, the vessels typically used in the CNMI commercial 

lobster fishery are small, usually less than 9.1 m long, and the typical trip length is less 

than a day. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 135 

Because lobsters do not readily go into traps in the Marianas, most lobster harvest in the 

CNMI is done by hand, incidental to spear fishing. Some lobsters are also taken from the 

reef surrounding Farallon de Medinilla in the Northern Islands. There, bottomfish 

fishermen occasionally dive for lobsters, mostly for personal consumption, while 

anchored overnight. The directed commercial fishery is relatively small, with 493 pounds 

of commercial landings estimated for 2003 (NMFS 2004b). However, unreported 

commercial and noncommercial catches could raise this figure. 

A second fishery for crustacean species occurred in the 1990s, mostly on grounds around 

Saipan and Tinian. The fishery trapped deepwater shrimp, with fishing occurring on flat 

areas near steep banks at depths greater than 350 meters (Ostazeski 1997). Two fishing 

companies began fishing for deepwater shrimp in May of 1994. Three species of pandalid 

shrimp are known to occur at varying depths around the Mariana Archipelago: 

Heterocarpus ensifer (366–550 m), H. laevigatus (550–915 m), and H. longirostris (> 

915 m). H. laevigatus is the largest and the most commercially valuable species. 

Subsequently, it is the most targeted. 

Amendment 13 to the Crustacean FMP designated deepwater shrimp of the genus 

Heterocarpus as management unit species under the FMP, and required Federal permits 

and reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in the U.S. EEZ, including the CNMI 

(WPRFMC 2008a). The species complex includes all eight species of deepwater shrimp 

in the western Pacific (Heterocarpus ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. 

lepidus, H. dorsalis, H. tricarinatus and H. longirostris). The monitoring program 

(permits and logbooks) is intended to improve understanding of these fisheries and their 

impact on marine ecosystems. Although currently there are no resource concerns 

regarding western Pacific deepwater shrimp, the designation of these shrimp as 

management unit species provides a basis for management of the fisheries, if warranted 

in the future. 

Deepwater shrimp fisheries have been sporadic and short-lived throughout the Pacific 

since the 1960s (Hastie and Saunders 1992). The fisheries have been unregulated, and 

there has been no comprehensive collection of information on the fishery. Most of these 

fishing ventures have been unprofitable. The reasons for this are manifold. Gear loss has 

been a common problem and made many past ventures unprofitable. A second difficulty 

is the short shelf life and a history of inconsistent product quality, leading to fluctuating 

market demand for the product. Lastly, these fisheries generally experience local 

depletion on known fishing grounds, which leads to much lower catch rates. While other 

banks might have abundant stocks, unfamiliarity with them could lead to even greater 

gear loss. 

Traps are the primary method used to harvest deepwater shrimps in the western Pacific, 

but must comply with gear provisions that reduce bycatch. Trawls do not work well in 

areas with the steep bathymetry that is typical for the region, and are prohibited by 

fishery regulations in the Western Pacific Region. Several types of traps have been used. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 136 

Some consist of a steel frame that is covered with wire or plastic mesh, or with netting. 

Some are boxes made of plastic-coated wire mesh panels or formed plastic shells. 

Trap shapes include boxes, ovals, half-cylinders, and pyramids. The traps used in the 

Hawaiian Islands have been 0.91 m tall pyramids with 1.83 m2 bases, with a single 

entrance at the top. Two types of traps have been used in the CNMI. One type was a 

hinged plastic 1.22 by 0.91 m oval shell about 0.61 m tall, with an entrance on each side. 

The other trap consisted of a light weight metal frame covered with netting. Trap 

entrances are funnel shaped and inward pointing. The small end of the entrance is about 

15.24 cm wide. 

Traps have typically been baited with mackerel, set during the day, left out overnight, and 

recovered the next day. The traps in Hawaii were deployed individually, whereas in the 

NMI, several traps were deployed strung out on a line. Traps are connected to the surface 

by long float lines and marked with buoys. Hawaiian traps used 1.91 cm polypropylene 

float lines with two large floats spaced several yards apart on the surface. 

Typically, fishery operations consisted of one to four vessels. Vessels lengths ranged 

from 7.5 to 40 m. Based on the Hawaii fishery, a 30-meter vessel could carry about 50 

traps, but typically set about 30 traps per night. 

Between May of 1994 and February of 1996, 12,160 kilograms of deepwater shrimp were 

landed in the CNMI. Of these, more than 97 percent were Heterocarpus laevigatus, with 

the remainder being Heterocarpus ensifer. Bycatch included a few deepwater eels 

(Synaphobranchus spp.) and dogfish sharks. A large number of two species of Geryonid 

crabs were also caught. The crabs are a marketable incidental catch and could contribute 

to the success of any deepwater shrimp fishery. Strong currents, rough bottom 

topography, and fishing depth all contribute to the potential for gear loss, which has been 

experienced by this fishery in the past. 

Shrimp trapping was conducted at 22 islands and banks during the NMFS Resource 

Assessment Investigations of the Mariana Archipelago (RAIOMA) cruises. Depth and 

area distribution were observed for the three major species of pandalid shrimp. Average 

size, size at maturity, reproductive cycles, and sex ratios were analyzed and determined. 

Growth and mortality were also calculated. From analysis of catch-per-unit effort, 

determination of suitable habitat and the above parameters, total biomass and sustainable 

yield were calculated. 

The CNMI DFW conducted a data collection project specifically for the deepwater 

shrimp fishery between May of 1994 and June of 1995. Catch-and-effort data were 

gathered for both types of traps, as well as bycatch data. Depth ranges for the fishery as 

well as depth of greatest abundance were recorded. Sex ratios and reproductive cycles 

were determined from 1,533 H. laevigatus examined (Ostazeski 1997). Research has also 

been conducted to create a depletion model that would estimate catch ability and help 

determine the commercial viability of this fishery. Moffitt and Polovina (1987) estimated 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 137 

676.6 tons of Heterocarpus laevigatus biomass and an MSY of 162 tons per year for the 

combined EEZ waters around Guam and CNMI. 

3.5.2.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fishery - CNMI 

The bottomfish fishery can be broken down into two sectors: shallow water (100 to 500 

ft) and deepwater (greater than 500 ft). There are approximately 150 local small vessels 

(less than 24 ft) used for commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing. Generally, 

fewer than ten vessels between 30 and 60 ft sporadically participate in the deepwater 

bottomfish fishery. In 2006 there were six active vessels, and in 2007 only one was active 

in the fishery. 

The shallow water fishery is mostly commercial, but also includes subsistence fishermen. 

Shallow water bottomfish fishermen primarily target the redgill emperor (Lethrinus 

rubrioperculatus) and reef fishes. Most small-scale fishermen navigate without a Global 

Positioning System (GPS), fathometer, or nautical charts, instead relying on landmarks to 

locate fishing areas. Fishermen deploy their fishing lines as hand lines, or use homefabricated hand reels or electric reels. This type of fishing usually results in a lower 

catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) as compared to other fishing techniques such as pelagic 

trolling. Many of these fishermen make multi-purpose trips, trolling on their way to reefs 

where they fish for shallow water bottomfish and reef fish. Fishing trips are usually 

conducted during daylight hours, with vessels returning before or soon after sunset. 

Vessels that fish in the northern islands tend to make multi-day trips because of the travel 

time required to access the fishing grounds. Because reef fish are worth more now than 

in previous years, an increasing number of small-scale fishermen are targeting reef 

species rather than bottomfish. 

Vessels 30 ft and larger in length are primarily commercial, and target deepwater 

snappers, such as species in the genera Etelis and Pristipomoides, and groupers such as 

Epinephelus octofasciatus. These vessels are commonly referred to as “highliners.” In 

1997, two large vessels began fishing for deepwater bottomfish in the northern islands. 

Since then, effort has fluctuated between two and six vessels, with four to six vessels 

over 40 ft fishing for bottomfish around the CNMI each year between 2000 and 2006. In 

2007, there was one vessel active in this fishery. These vessels are capable of fishing trips 

up to 10 days long. They tend to focus their effort around CNMI’s northern islands as far 

north as Pagan Island and Zealandia Bank, but are also known to fish in waters around 

the southern islands and nearby banks like Esmeralda. Two trips per month is average 

during the non-summer months, with vessels increasing their activity to three trips per 

month during the summer. 

The basic bottomfish gear configuration consists of a main line with a 5 to 10 lb weight 

attached to the end and several 1.5 ft long branchlines with circle hooks attached above 

the weight at 1.5 to 3 ft intervals. Most fishermen use braided Dacron mainlines, but 

some still use monofilament. Circle hooks are preferred because they are self-setting and 

they are less prone to snag on the bottom. Squid or cut fish are preferred baits. A chum 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 138 

bag containing chopped bait may also be suspended above the highest hook to attract 

fish. The gear is dropped to the bottom, and retrieved only after several fish are hooked. 

The fishing configuration used on vessels smaller than 30 ft varies, and available 

information is mostly anecdotal. In most cases, there are two fishermen and two lines per 

boat with 6-12 circle hooks per line. Hook size varies, depending on the depth fished and 

the species targeted, but 8/0 to 18/0 hooks are most common. Although some handlines 

and home-built hand reels are still used, most fishermen use electric reels to deploy and 

recover fishing lines, which are typically braided Dacron, although some still use 

monofilament line. 

Large bottomfish vessels are typically equipped with GPS, fathometers, and up to eight 

electric or hydraulic reels that deploy braided Dacron lines with 20 to 30 circle hooks per 

line. Hook size varies, but 18/0 hooks are commonly used. 

Landings of bottomfish decreased in 2002 (34.3 percent fewer pounds in 2002 than in 

2001) from the fishery’s 2001 peak landings, but increases in landings were observed in 

2004 (see Figure 3-14). This fishery continues to show a high turnover with changes in 

the highliners participating in the fishery and an increased number of local fishermen 

focusing on reef fishes in preference to bottomfishes. Fishermen are also moving towards 

an increasing number of multi-purpose trips that focus primarily on reef fishes and catch 

pelagic species while in transit. In doing so, the shallow water bottomfish complex 

continues to be exploited, but as part of the exploitation of reefs near the populated 

islands. Redgill emperor (“mafute”) is the most frequently harvested and easily identified 

species in this complex, although a variety of snappers and groupers are also harvested 

(M. Trianni, DFW, personal communication). 

Over the last 6 years, 64 percent of mafute fishermen and 62 percent of onaga fishermen 

making commercial sales participated for only a single year, and no fishermen 

participated in all six years (regardless of how small the sales) (WPRFMC 2005). 

Fishermen utilizing larger vessels have greater access to the deepwater bottomfish 

resources, especially in the northern islands of the CNMI. However, this sector of the 

industry requires more investment, consistent long-term effort, and knowledge to recoup 

start-up costs than does the shallow water bottomfish sector. This industry could continue 

to expand with support from a training program in bottomfishing that addresses the 

following: proper fish handling and maintenance of product quality; use of fathometers, 

nautical charts, and modern electronic equipment such as global positioning systems 

(GPS), fish finders, and electric reels; anchoring techniques; marketing; and financial 

planning. Moreover, side-band sonar mapping of the banks used by commercial 

fishermen from Farallon de Medinilla to Rota should assist the growth of this sector (M. 

Trianni, DFW, personal communication). It is estimated that in 2005, 70,034 lb of 

commercial landings of bottomfish were made, with a total ex-vessel value of $189,478 

(see Table 3-4; WPRFMC 2005).
Chapte

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 139 Table 3-4. Bottomfish Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2003. Year Landings Total (Lb) CPUE (Lb/Trip) CPI CPI Adjusted Revenue ($) CPI Adjusted Price ($/Lb) 1983 28,529 43 140.90 97,052 3.40 1984 42,664 70 153.20 131,265 3.08 1985 40,975 117 159.30 117,717 2.87 1986 29,911 104 163.50 93,538 3.13 1987 49,715 169 170.70 142,838 2.87 1988 47,313 181 179.60 130,336 2.75 1989 24,438 73 190.20 73,965 3.03 1990 12,927 81 199.33 42,354 3.28 1991 7,093 47 214.93 25,281 3.56 1992 10,598 59 232.90 30,877 2.91 1993 18,461 84 243.18 52,235 2.83 1994 25,469 74 250.00 76,905 3.02 1995 36,101 93 254.48 128,991 3.57 1996 66,387 119 261.98 230,216 3.47 1997 64,143 137 264.95 217,078 3.38 1998 59,022 148 264.18 206,111 3.49 1999 55,991 156 267.80 204,633 3.65 2000 45,258 56 273.23 128,120 2.83 2001 71,256 68 271.01 218,462 3.07 2002 46,765 101 271.55 135,146 2.89 2003 41,903 89 268.92 120,315 2.87 2004 54,474 104 271.28 142,362 2.61 2005 70,034 76 271.90 189,478 2.71 Average 41,279 98 127,908 2.60 Standard Deviation 19,101 39 61,905 0.61 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 140 

Figure 3-14. Bottomfish Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2003. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005. 

Commercial landings of shallow water bottomfish appear to have peaked between 1996 

and 2001 and were again headed upwards in 2004 and 2005. It is likely that there was a 

comparable peak in landings between 1984 and 1987, but this result is difficult to discern 

because of the large number of bottomfish that were categorized as “assorted bottomfish” 

during the earlier period. Commercial landings of emperor (mafute' of the family 

Lethrinidae) have fluctuated widely over the last 20 years, particularly over the last eight 

years. In 2002, commercial landings of mafute' fell below the 20-year mean to their 

lowest level since 1995. In 2003 they increased slightly but remained below the 21-year 

mean. In 2004 commercial mafute' landings increased by 136 percent from 2003 and they 

increased again by 18 percent in 2005. 

Table 3-5 provides a summary of commercial bottomfish landings from the CNMI 

fishery over time. Commercial landings of jacks from shallow areas (itemized as “jacks,” 

amberjack [Seriola dumerili], giant trevally [Caranx ignobilis], brassy trevally [C. 

papuenis], and black jack [C. lugubris] on the sales invoices) appear to have slowly 

increased over the last 10 years, with the highest landings reported in 2003. Commercial 

landings of jacks were up 57 percent in 2002 but were down 87 percent by 2004. 

However 2005 landings increased by 313 percent. The category “jacks” includes any 

carangids sold and includes both BMUS species and Carangoides orthogrammus, 

Caranx melampygus, C. papuensis, and C. sexfasciatus. Commercial landings of 

amberjack were slightly lower in 2005 than the previous year. Giant trevally and black 

jack were reported in 2002 for the first time and brassy trevally was reported in 2003 for 

the first time, both likely as a result of being added to the new sales invoice. 

---+-- B ottornfish Species Total - --- - Shallow-Water - - 1..- - Deep-Water - - + - - Ass orle d 

80 ~--------------------------------------, 

70 

60 

.. 

§50 

If 140 

ra 

~30 

20 

10 

+ / \ 

I ' 

/ I -~ ' I' >- -;,. .I I " ., 

+· - - +, I L I ' ' ,,._ ""- -'+ / \ .,- ■ .,. "\. -... / I - ' J _. I '- ~ ./ -+. ,,- , --- .,a.._ ■ + _,.. 'I, +, I ■ '- +--- - 'I, "\ } - ___- 'I, _,,+ r - ·+ / ■ - _;; , )r-- - - ' -. ' - - - 'I, I ' ·+- - -.,-.,,< A ,,-- ·+~ - - + - - +,. , - - -+ \.. . • ~ ---- - +- ~ , ~ _ __. ' + - + 

I 

,l - .... . -1..- • k • £ .. - -:, - -- ._ • -& ■ 0 --~-..----,------a;;a-----,----,----- -----.---.--..----..----,------,,-----,----,----.----r---r---r-----i 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 141 

Jobfish (Aprion virescens) have been reported in eight of the last 20 years, and 2004 

commercial landings were the highest ever reported, surpassing the previous year by 100 

percent. Commercial uku landings were down slightly in 2005 and landings of blueline 

snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) and humpback snapper (Lutjanus gibbus) were much higher 

than last year, but these species are often lumped within assorted reef fishes and so this 

increase may be overstated. 
Chapte

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 142 Table 3-5. CNMI Commercial Landings of Bottomfishes in Pounds.

year btm_as empr jack_as amber giant_j brass_j blk_jack uku jack_s 

1983 12,998 9,555 1,031 0 0 0 0 0 1,031 1984 20,971 13,925 906 0 0 0 0 0 906 1985 21,904 11,676 962 135 0 0 0 81 1,098 1986 14,528 9,250 818 0 0 0 0 363 818 1987 30,929 15,568 607 0 0 0 0 0 607 1988 41,823 3,078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1989 15,891 3,963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990 6,931 4,021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1991 4,296 1,212 175 0 0 0 0 0 175 1992 5,543 2,338 337 0 0 0 0 450 337 1993 7,055 8,083 454 0 0 0 0 0 454 1994 13,002 1,870 1,169 0 0 0 0 16 1,169 1995 10,779 4,276 596 0 0 0 0 171 596 1996 7,846 11,990 1,697 0 0 0 0 152 1,697 1997 3,998 25,445 3,482 0 0 0 0 526 3,482 1998 7,351 13,853 2,362 317 0 0 0 1,746 2,679 1999 7,004 8,419 2,019 343 0 0 0 683 2,363 2000 13,451 11,223 2,142 28 0 0 0 190 2,169 2001 17,485 16,987 3,761 21 0 0 0 425 3,782 2002 5,718 5,364 4,584 184 48 52 0 389 4,868 2003 6,526 7,999 3,685 322 26 725 138 597 4,896 2004 20,831 18,889 477 488 91 27 931 1,194 2,015 2005 26,128 22,240 1,969 411 84 0 1,405 1,102 3,868 

Average 14,043 10,053 1,445 98 11 35 108 352 1,696 Stnd. Dev. 9,567 6,650 1,348 160 27 151 343 463 1,559 Legend for Table 3-5: Btm_As: Assorted bottomfish; empr: Emperor (mafute’); jack_a: As jacks; amber: Amberjack; gian

blk_jack: Black jack; uku: Jobfish; jack_s: All shallow water jacks; taape: Blueline snapper; and shallow water snappers 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 143 

Review of Bycatch 

Almost all fishes caught in the CNMI are considered food fishes, including many that show a 

high incidence of ciguatera (e.g., lyretail grouper [Variola louti] and red snapper [Lutjanus 

bohar]). Bycatch estimates for CNMI bottomfish fisheries as shown in Table 3-6, are derived 

from interviews of fishermen during boat-based creel surveys. The interviews are divided into 

vessels engaged in non-charter (including commercial, noncommercial, and subsistence 

fishermen) and charter fishing. 

In 2003, the non-charter sector reported zero incidences of bycatch. For the charter sector, only a 

single charter vessel was engaged in bottomfish fishing and reported a 19.57 percent bycatch rate 

(WPRFMC 2003b). Catch rates in this sector must remain high to ensure that the clientele are 

satisfied with the charter. For this reason, small fishes are often released alive so that they may 

be recaptured on subsequent charters. All bycatch reported in this sector was released alive. 

Table 3-6. Bycatch in the CNMI Bottomfish Fishery. 

Species Name 

Interview 

with 

Bycatch 

All 

Interview 

Released 

Alive 

Total 

Catch 

Bycatch

Percentage

Non-Charter 2 220 0.91%

 Dogtooth Tuna 1 18 5.56%

 Blueline Snapper 4 213 1.88%

 Blackjack 1 29 3.45%

 All Species with Bycatch 6 260 2.31%

 Compared with All 

Caught 5756 .10% 

Charter 12 84 14.29%

 Redgill Emperor 6 240 2.50%

 Triggerfish (misc.) 55 165 33.33%

 Emperor (mafute/misc.) 7 129 5.43%

 Red Snapper 5 9 55.56%

 Blueline Snapper 3 64 4.69%

 Lyretail Grouper 5 19 26.32%

 Flagtail Grouper 4 116 3.45%

 Maitai (blk-tipped Grper) 4 139 2.88%

 Jobfish (uku) 1 5 20.00%
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 144 

Species Name 

Interview 

with 

Bycatch 

All 

Interview 

Released 

Alive 

Total 

Catch 

Bycatch

Percentage

 All Species with Bycatch 90 886 10.16%

 Compared with All 

Caught 1247 7.22% 

Source: WPFMC 2005 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

There are no reported interactions with protected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, 

birds) in the CNMI bottomfish fishery. 

CNMI Bottomfish MSY 

A Resource Assessment Investigation of the Mariana Archipelago (RAIOMA) was conducted in 

1982-1985 to assess the bottomfish and other resources of the Mariana Archipelago (Polovina et 

al. 1985). Sampled areas were divided into three regions: the Northern Islands, the Southern 

Islands and the Western Seamounts. These studies resulted in several publications describing the 

bottomfish complexes and included maximum sustainable yield (MSY) estimates for deep-slope 

bottomfish species in each area as presented in Table 3-7. 

Table 3-7. Annual MSY estimates for CNMI deep-slope bottomfish. 

Area MSY (pounds) 

Northern Islands: Maug, Asuncion, Agrihan, Pagan, Alamagan, Guguan, 

Sarigan, Anatahan, 38-fathom, Esmeralda 64,577 

Southern Islands: Farallon de Medinilla, Saipan, Tinian, Aguijan, Rota 110,641 

Western Seamounts: Bank C, Bank D, Pathfinder, Arakane, Bank A 9,036 

Total 184,254 

Source: Polovina et al. 1985. 

Given an annual MSY of 184,254 pounds, and a recent (2001-2005) average annual commercial 

catch of approximately 20,000 pounds (with the majority coming from the Southern Islands, 

which have an estimated annual MSY of approximately 111,000 pounds), CNMI deep-slope 

bottomfish do not appear to be subject to overfishing nor to be overfished. Unknown recreational 

catches would increase annual landings, but it is believed unlikely that these would be enough to 

cross or even approach any of the MSY estimates. 

3.5.2.3.2.Precious Corals Fisheries – CNMI 

Little is known about the presence of precious corals in the waters around the CNMI. The 

amount of habitat where precious corals can grow is limited throughout the archipelago because 

of the steep topography. Black coral grows in relatively shallow waters of 30–100 meters, while 

pink, gold, and bamboo corals grow in deeper waters of 300–1,500 meters (Grigg 1993). Reports 

of a fishery from pre–World War II suggest that large quantities of high-quality Corallium spp. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 145 

were taken in waters north of Pagan Island (Takahashi 1942, as cited in Grigg and Eldredge 

1975). Since then, no known precious coral harvests have occurred within EEZ waters around 

CNMI. 

During the 1970s, surveys for precious coral in the waters surrounding the CNMI were 

performed (Grigg and Eldridge 1975). The study focused on the presence of pink and red corals 

(Corallium spp.) and black coral (Antipathes spp.). Although few precious coral resources were 

found in these surveys, precious corals likely exist (in sparse aggregations) in both the nearshore 

waters (0–3 nm) and the offshore waters (3–200 nm). 

To prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals, fishing for, taking, or retaining any 

gold coral (live or dead) in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2013. 

This includes all EEZ waters of the Western Pacific Region. Additional research results on gold 

coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations between length and age will be considered by 

the Council and NMFS prior to the expiration of the 5-year moratorium. 

3.5.2.3.3.Pelagic Fisheries - CNMI 

The CNMI’s pelagic fisheries occur primarily from the island of Farallon de Medinilla south to 

the Island of Rota. Trolling is the primary fishing method utilized in the pelagic fishery. The 

pelagic fishing fleet consists mostly of vessels less than 24 feet in length, which usually have a 

limited 20-mile travel radius from Saipan. The current Commercial Purchase Database system 

documents commercial sales on Saipan only, however, data collection systems for Rota and 

Tinian islands are being established. The existing database lacks information on fishing method, 

gear, location, and effort. There is currently no Federal logbook system in effect and information 

on charter vessel catches is mostly lacking because these vessels rarely sell their catches. There 

is also a small subsistence fishery on Saipan in which a portion of the landings are sold to cover 

trip expenses. 

The primary target and most marketable species for the pelagic fleet is skipjack tuna (67 percent 

of 2004 commercial landings). Yellowfin tuna and mahimahi are also easily marketable species, 

but they are seasonal. During their migrations, these fish are usually found close to shore and 

provide easy targets for the local fishermen. In addition to the economic advantages of being 

near shore and their relative ease of capture, these species are widely accepted by all ethnic 

groups, which has kept market demand fairly high. Figure 3-15 presents historical data on 

pelagic landings near CNMI. It is estimated that in 2004, 68 fishery participants made 235,382 

pounds of commercial landings of pelagic species, with a total ex-vessel value of $466,490 

(WPRFMC 2005). 

There has been some effort to build the longline fishery in CNMI to exploit the tuna resources 

and the proximity to the Asian market. Currently, there are 2 U.S. longline vessels active in the 

CNMI. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 146 

Figure 3-15. Pelagic Landings in CNMI 1983 to 2004. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005 Pelagic Annual Report. 

3.5.2.4. Communities- CNMI 

Fishery resources have played a central role in shaping the social, cultural, and economic fabric 

of the CNMI. The aboriginal peoples indigenous to these islands relied on seafood as their 

principal source of protein and developed exceptional fishing skills. Later immigrants to the 

islands from East and Southeast Asia also possessed a strong fishing tradition. Under the MSA, 

the CNMI is defined as a fishing community. 

The CNMI consists of 14 islands, five of which are inhabited, with a total land area of 176.5 

square miles spread over approximately 264,000 square miles of ocean. The Northern Mariana 

Islands became part of the Pacific Trust Territory administered by the United States under a 

mandate granted in 1947. The covenant that created the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands and attached it to the United States was fully implemented in 1986, pursuant to a 

Presidential Proclamation that terminated the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands as it applied 

to the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Per capita income in the CNMI in 1999 was $9,151. The median household income for the 

CNMI as a whole was $22,898. For Saipan, the median household income was $19,698 in the 

first quarter of 1999, as compared with $21,457 in 1990. The commonwealth had an 

1-+-- Total Pelagics - ---- Tuna Plv.CTJS - • ._. - Non-Tuna Plv.CTJS I 

400 ~------------------------------------, 

350 

300 

~ 

"'=250 e 

0 

i:a.. 

1;200 

~ ::, 

0 

..= 150 

i-, 

100 

50 

0 

1883 

' 1 l 

/ \ 

/ \ ~ \ I \ 

l I \ 

I \ I 

l I I 

\ I \ I 

1. \ ■ \ I 

~ 

- .. - .... -.&.- - II. 

I 

.. ___ 

I 

I ~ 

• ' 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~-

\ 

\ 

.__ 

-~ 

1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1888 1880 

... JI, I 

I \ I I .,JI,_ I I \ _,, \ I 

" 

W' \ _,,• - --.. \ J 

• 

..... .... -~ ~ ... .. ... ~ II. -. 

)I,_~ 

·~ ~ -. . , .... - ... 

1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1888 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 147 

unemployment rate in 1999 of 5.5 percent. Forty-six percent of the CNMI population was at or 

below poverty in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

In 2000, CNMI had 20,378 men ages 16 and over in the labor force, of whom 96 percent, or 

19,458, were employed. There were 24,093 women ages 16 and over in the labor force, of which 

97 percent were employed (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The economy of the CNMI has 

historically benefited substantially from financial assistance from the United States, but in recent 

years this assistance has declined as locally generated government revenues have grown. 

Between 1988 and 1996, tourism was the commonwealth’s largest income source. During that 

period, tourist traffic to the CNMI tripled from 245,505 to 736,117 (Bank of Hawaii 1999c). 

Total tourist expenditures in the CNMI were estimated to be a record $587 million in 1996. In 

1997 and 1998, however, the loss of air service between the CNMI and Korea, together with the 

impact of the Asian financial crisis on both Korean and Japanese travelers, caused tourist arrivals 

in the CNMI to drop by one third (Bank of Hawaii 1999c). 

More recently, garment production has been an important industry, with shipments of $1 billion 

to the United States under duty and quota exemptions during 1999 (Bank of Hawaii 1999c). The 

garment industry is credited with preventing an economic depression in the commonwealth 

following the decline of its tourist industry, but the future of the CNMI’s garment manufacturers 

is uncertain. When the commonwealth was created, it was granted an exemption from certain 

U.S. immigration, naturalization, and labor laws. These economic advantages are now a matter 

of national political debate centered on what some regard as unfair labor practices in the CNMI’s 

garment industry. The two main advantages for manufacturing garments in the CNMI are lowcost foreign labor and duty-free sale in the United States. The controversy over labor practices in 

the CNMI may cause the commonwealth to lose these unique advantages, forcing garment 

makers to seek alternative low-cost production sites. The end of the quota on foreign textiles in 

2005 may cause garment manufacturers to move to China, which has some competitive 

advantages (Bank of Hawaii 2004). 

In the early 1980s, U.S. purse seine vessels established a transshipment operation at Tinian 

Harbor. The CNMI is exempt from the Jones Act, which requires the use of U.S.-flag and U.S.- 

built vessels to carry cargo between U.S. ports. The U.S. purse seiners took advantage of this 

exemption by offloading their catch at Tinian onto foreign vessels for shipment to tuna canneries 

in American Samoa. In 1991, a second type of tuna transshipment operation was established on 

Saipan (Hamnett and Pintz 1996). This operation transships fresh tuna caught in the Federated 

States of Micronesia from air freighters to wide-body jets bound for Japan. The volume of fish 

flown into and out of Saipan is substantial, but the contribution of this operation to the local 

economy is minimal (Hamnett and Pintz 1996). 

With the exception of the purse seine support base on Tinian (now defunct), the CNMI has never 

had a large infrastructure dedicated to commercial fishing. The majority of boats in the local 

fishing fleet are small outboard engine-powered vessels. Between 1994 and 1998, the annual exvessel value of commercial landings of bottomfish and pelagic species has averaged about 

$473,900, of which bottomfish accounts for about 28 percent of the total revenues (WPRFMC 

1999). Existing planning data for the CNMI are not suited to examining the direct and indirect 

contributions attributed to various inter-industry linkages in the economy. It is apparent, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 148 

however, that fishing by the local small-boat fleet represents only a small fraction of the 

economic activity in the commonwealth. 

3.5.3. Guam 

At 560 square kilometers, Guam is the largest and most populated (approximately 160,000) 

island in Micronesia. Guam has a tropical climate with average air temperatures around 80° F 

and relative humidity around 90 percent near the coast. Prevailing winds are northeasterly trade 

winds that average around 10 knots. Guam’s annual average rainfall amount is around 90 inches, 

with more than 75 percent of the rain occurring in the wet season between July and November 

(Eldredge 1983). Because of its position in the western Pacific Ocean, Guam experiences a high 

number of tropical cyclones during its wet season. For example, between 1948 and 1975, more 

than 70 cyclones came within 200 miles of Guam. Of those 70, 26 were categorized as typhoon 

strength (greater than 64 knot (74 mph) winds; Eldredge 1983). Over the past 10 years, Guam 

has been directly hit by four typhoons with sustained winds of more than 150 mph (Porter et al.

2005). 

3.5.3.1. Marine Environment - Guam 

3.5.3.1.1.Coral Reefs - Guam 

Approximately 50 percent of Guam’s 153-kilometer shoreline is surrounded by well-developed 

coral reefs (Myers 1997, Randall and Myers 1983). Most of the reefs are fringing reefs (up to 

600-m wide), except for the broad barrier reef enclosing the shallow Cocos Lagoon at the 

southwest tip of the island (Eldredge 1983, Randall and Myers 1983). A raised barrier reef 

(Cabras Island), a greatly disturbed barrier reef (Luminao Reef), and a coral bank (Calalan Bank) 

enclose the deep lagoon of Apra Harbor (Randall and Myers 1983). Patch reefs are also 

associated with Anae Island on the southwest coast and at Pugua Patch Reef (or Double Reef) on 

the northwest coast (Randall and Myers 1983). Most of the reef flats, lagoons, patch reefs, and 

outer reef slopes surrounding Guam are located within territorial waters (Hunter 1995, Myers 

1997). There are some high quality nearshore reef areas under Federal jurisdiction in northern 

and central Guam. 

The potential coral reef area around Guam is estimated at 108 square kilometers within the 10-

fm curve and 276 square kilometers within the 100-fm curve, respectively (Rohmann et al.

2005). Most of the reefs are located in territorial waters (0 to 3 nm), while reefs located at the 

offshore banks are in Federal waters. 

The health of Guam’s coral reefs varies considerably, with impacts ranging from anthropogenic 

to natural sources. Coral bleaching events have not been a major threat to Guam’s coral reefs as 

only two have been observed since 1970 (Porter et al. 2005). 

Typhoons are frequent on Guam (up to five major typhoons per year: Birkeland 1997b, Eldredge 

1983, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995) and cause some damage to the reefs (Birkeland 

1997b, Randall and Eldredge 1977). However, the reefs on Guam tend to experience less 

physical damage from these storms than is the case in other areas, because corals in exposed 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 149 

locations are “adapted” to these rough conditions and grow in low-profile growth forms 

(Birkeland 1997b, Randall and Eldredge 1977). As such, severe typhoon damage to the reefs on 

Guam tends to be localized in areas that are usually protected from heavy wave action by the 

shape of the coastline (Birkeland 1997b). 

Several outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish have also occurred on Guam over the past few 

decades (Birkeland 1997b). One outbreak in the 1960s caused severe catastrophic mortality (90 

%) of reef slope corals along 38 kilometers of Guam’s northwest coast (Chesher 1969; Colgan 

1981, 1982; Randall 1971, 1973). However, by 1981, the reefs had started to recover from the 

starfish invasion and coral cover was high again (65 %; Colgan 1987). Occasional earthquakes 

and El Niño events have also been known to cause substantial damage to the reefs on Guam 

(Birkeland 1997b). However, the biggest threat to Guam’s reefs appears to be from 

anthropogenic effects, including overfishing and habitat degradation due to poor land use 

practices, urbanization, and development (Myers 1997). Sedimentation and overfishing are 

probably the most serious problems causing coral reef degradation on Guam (Birkeland 1997b, 

Myers 1997). For example, Birkeland (1997b) reported that the rates of coral replenishment have 

been substantially reduced on Guam over the past 20 years, possibly as a result of increased 

sedimentation and the overfishing of herbivores (Birkeland 1997b). As a result of the loss of 

living cover and the lack of replenishment of these reefs, coral cover on the island has declined 

substantially over time (Birkeland 1997b). This effect has been most pronounced on the reef 

slopes, and coral cover is still reasonably high in some places on the reef flat (Birkeland 1997b). 

Other anthropogenic impacts that may have affected coral reef health on Guam include industrial 

pollution, nonpoint source pollution, oil spills, sewage, and coastal construction (Myers 1997). 

Current opinion is that coral reef health varies around the island of Guam. In general, many of 

the reefs on the southern part of the island are threatened by good reef access and high runoff of 

sediments onto the reefs from large rivers in southern Guam (Myers 1997, Porter et al. 2005). 

One example is the reef between Facpi Point and Umatac on the southwest side of the island, 

which has been repeatedly buried by sediment since the late 80s (R. Myers, R. Richmond, and S. 

Amesbury, personal communication, as cited in Green 1997). By contrast, the reefs on the 

northern part of the island (e.g., Ritidian Point and Pati Point) tend to be in better condition 

because there are fewer people, less development, less access to the reef, and no rivers (R. 

Myers, C. Birkeland, S. Amesbury, and R. Sakomoto, personal communication, as cited in Green 

1997). 

Very little is known about the coral reef resources on the banks of submerged Federal waters 

around Guam because the resources are in remote locations and difficult to access (Myers 1997). 

The small amount of information that is available is based on anecdotal observations by 

scientists and fishermen who have made one or more dives on the banks (e.g., C. Birkeland and 

E. Poppe Jr.; personal communication, as cited in Green 1997). In general, the coral reefs at 

Rota, Santa Rosa, and White Tuna Banks are thought to be in good condition, while fishery 

resources at Galvez Bank are believed to be in lower abundance because it is closer to Guam and 

more heavily fished (J. Cruz, WPRFMC Guam Coordinator, personal communication, July 

2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 150 

3.5.3.1.2.Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and Seamount 

Habitat - Guam 

Deepwater banks are located at several locations around the island, four of which are located in 

Federal waters: Rota Bank to the north and Galvez, Santa Rosa, and White Tuna Bank to the 

south (Donaldson 1995, Hunter 1995, Myers 1997). 

3.5.3.1.3.Pelagic Habitat - Guam 

Generally, the major surface current affecting Guam is the North Equatorial Current (see Figure 

3–4), which flows westward through the islands. Sea surface temperatures off Guam vary 

between 80.9° and 84.9° F, depending on the season. The mixed layer extends to depths between 

300 and 400 feet (Eldredge 1983). 

3.5.3.2. Protected Species Guam 

3.5.3.2.1.Sea Turtles - Guam 

Both hawksbill and green sea turtles are known to nest on Guam, and there have been occasional 

sightings of leatherback turtles as well. Nesting surveys for green sea turtles have been done on 

Guam since 1973 by the GDAWR, with the most consistent data having been collected since 

1990. There have been up to 60 nesting females observed annually, with a generally increasing 

trend over the past 12 years. Aerial surveys done in 1999–2000 also found an increase in green 

sea turtle sightings around Guam (Cummings 2002). 

3.5.3.2.2.Marine Mammals and Seabirds - Guam 

3.5.3.2.2.1. Cetaceans 

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), Risso’s 

dolphins (Grampus griseus), Cuvier’s beaked whales (Xiphias cavirostris), pygmy sperm whales 

(Kogia breviceps), pilot whales (Globicephala melaena), striped dolphins (Stenella 

coeruleoalba), and the pantropic whitebelly spinner dolphins (Stenella l. longirostris) have been 

sighted around Guam. 

3.5.3.2.2.2. Pinnipeds and Sirenians 

No pinniped species are known to occur in Guam waters. 

A single dugong was observed in Cocos Lagoon, Guam in 1975. . Dugongs are members of the 

Sirenia order, which include sea cows and manatees, and have a distribution from the east 

African coast to islands in the southwestern Pacific. Several sightings were reported in 1985 on 

the southeastern side of Guam. Since that time, however no reports of dugong sightings have 

been made. 

 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 151 

3.5.3.2.2.3. Seabirds 

The following seabirds that may be associated with fishery operations are reported to be 

residents of Guam: wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus), white-tailed tropicbird 

(Phaethon lepturus), red-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus), masked booby (Sula dactylatra), 

and brown booby (Sula leucogaster). Other species believed to be visitors to Guam include the 

following: streaked shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas), short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus 

tenuirostris), Christmas shearwater (Puffinus nativitatis), Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus 

auricularis), Audubon’s shearwater (Puffinus iherminieri), Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma 

leucorhoa), Matsudaira’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma matsudairae), and the red-footed booby 

(Sula sula). 

3.5.3.3. Fisheries of Guam 

Under the authority of the MSA, the Council established (and the Secretary of Commerce 

approved) criteria to determine overfishing (fishing mortality) and overfished (stock biomass) 

conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Currently, no fishery in Guam has been 

determined by NMFS to be experiencing overfishing or to be overfished.45 For more information 

on these fisheries please see the additional NEPA analyses listed in Section 3.4.1. 

3.5.3.3.1.Demersal Fisheries – Guam 

3.5.3.3.1.1. Bottomfish Fisheries – Guam 

There are two distinct bottomfish fisheries on Guam that can be separated by depth and species 

composition. The shallow water complex (less than 500 feet) makes up a larger portion of the 

total bottomfish effort, and the harvest usually comprises reef-dwelling snappers, groupers, and 

jacks of the genera Lutjanus, Lethrinus, Aprion, Epinephelus, Variola, Cephalopholis, and 

Caranx. The deepwater complex (greater than 500 feet) consists primarily of groupers and 

snappers of the genera Pristipomoides, Etelis, Aphareus, Epinephelus, and Cephalopholis. 

Bottomfish fishing on Guam is a combination of recreational, subsistence, and small-scale 

commercial fishing. The fishery can be highly seasonal, with effort significantly increasing when 

sea conditions are calm, generally during the summer months. During these periods, bottomfish 

fishing activity increases substantially on the offshore banks (in the EEZ), as well as on the east 

side of the island (in territorial waters); areas that are inaccessible to small boats during most of 

the year due to rough seas. 

The Guam bottomfish fishery is described as having three main components based on their target 

depths: shallow water (60 to 150 ft), mid-water (200 to 300 ft), and deepwater (700 to 900 ft). In 

2006, there were about 260 bottomfish vessels on Guam, including about 12 large highliners. 

Shallow water bottomfish fishermen operate vessels 16 to 30 ft in length, the majority of which 

are less than 25 ft in length. The fishery is conducted during the day, almost exclusively within 

 

45 Status of U.S. Fisheries, 2005. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/docs/Report_text_FINAL3.pdf 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 152 

territorial waters. Only about 30 boats are involved in the commercial component of the shallow 

water fishery, and most participants are recreational or subsistence fishermen who seldom sell 

their catch. Bottomfish fishing normally takes place between morning and evening pelagic 

trolling sessions, and lasts about four hours. Fishermen typically use two to four spinning reels, 

with 30 to 40 lb test monofilament line, with 1-3 8/0 circle hooks per line. These fishermen tend 

to target a mix of coral reef and bottomfish species. More fishermen participate in the shallow 

water fishery than in the deep water fishery because of the lower expenses of the fishery and 

relative ease of fishing close to shore. Less than 20 percent of the total shallow water marine 

resources harvested in Guam are taken from Federal waters, primarily because the offshore 

banks are deep, remote, less accessible due to weather, and subject to strong currents. 

Depredation of bottomfish catches by sharks is also a larger problem in the offshore areas than in 

territorial waters around Guam. 

The mid-water bottomfish fleet consists of approximately twelve boats (20 to 30 ft in length). 

These vessels, which typically have 2-3 people on board, usually fish overnight on the banks and 

reefs within 30 nm of Guam when the weather is good. The typical fishing configuration is 2-4 

electric reels and/or manual rods and reels per boat. Fishermen tend to use 60 lb test braided 

Dacron fishing line, but 80 lb test monofilament is also common. Each line is rigged with a large 

weight at the bottom with 3-4, 14/0 to 18/0 circle hooks baited with skipjack tuna or squid. 

The Guam deepwater bottomfish fishermen are primarily commercial and are commonly referred 

to as “highliners.” There are currently about 12 active commercial vessels (over 25 ft in length) 

that make two-day trips to offshore banks and seamounts around Guam. Generally, these banks 

are only accessible during calm weather in the summer months (May to August/September). 

Galvez Bank is the closest and most heavily fished. In contrast, the other banks (White Tuna, 

Santa Rosa and Rota) are remote and can only be fished during exceptionally good weather. 

These vessels typically fish during the day and operate two electric reels with 150 lb test braided 

Dacron line. Each line is rigged with an average of five hooks, but up to 30 hooks have been 

deployed on a single line. The majority of the vessels use 18/0 circle hooks. Skipjack tuna or 

squid are the most commonly used baits. 

Charter fishing has been a substantial component of the fishery since 1995, accounting for about 

15–20 percent of all bottomfishing trips from 1995 through 2004 (WPRFMC 2005). Charter 

vessels typically make multiple two-to-four hour trips on a daily basis. The charter fleet 

includes both vessels that engage in both trolling and bottomfishing trips and larger 

bottomfishing-only vessels that can accommodate as many as 35 patrons per trip. These larger 

vessels consistently fish in the same general area and release most of their catch, primarily small 

triggerfish, small groupers, and small goatfish. They occasionally keep larger fish and use a 

portion of the catch to serve as sashimi for their guests. 

The Agana Boat Basin is centrally located on the western leeward coast and serves as the 

island’s primary launch site for boats fishing areas off the central and northern leeward coasts 

and the northern banks. The Merizo boat ramp, Seaplane Ramp in Apra Harbor, Umatac boat 

ramp, and Agat Marina are boat launch sites that provide access to the southern coast, Apra 

Harbor, Cocos Lagoon, and the southern banks. The Agat Marina, in particular, located between 

the Agana Boat Basin and the Merizo boat ramp, provides trailered boats from the northern and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 153 

central areas of the island a closer and more convenient launch site to the southern fishing 

grounds. At Ylig Bay, a paved parking area and maintenance of the brush along the highway 

have helped increase the number of boats accessing the east side of the island. 

Table 3-8. Guam Bottomfish Fishery Statistics. 

Year Landings1

Total (Lb) 

CPUE 

(Lb/Hour) CPI Adjusted Revenue ($)

Adjusted 

Price ($/Lb) 

Number

of Boats

1980 134.0 48,454 5.14 

1981 161.4 65,681 6.20 

1982 37,639 7.1 169.7 44,514 6.41 154

1983 47,119 6.2 175.6 214,911 5.81 106

1984 58,095 7.4 190.9 130,429 5.60 144

1985 88,113 5.7 198.3 148,563 5.30 161

1986 36,774 5.2 203.7 60,412 4.99 118

1987 45,924 5.9 212.7 62,364 4.93 139

1988 62,273 5.0 223.8 75,052 4.71 198

1989 82,756 5.5 248.2 107,472 5.47 223

1990 78,349 4.5 283.5 100,301 5.30 226

1991 69,619 4.8 312.5 57,129 5.07 246

1992 82,682 5.8 344.2 49,660 4.66 236

1993 95,815 4.2 372.9 44,585 4.37 360

1994 103,046 5.5 436.0 135,823 4.47 298

1995 103,344 2.5 459.2 55,004 3.98 402

1996 138,621 4.1 482.0 22,812 3.09 408

1997 100,105 3.6 491.4 36,082 3.40 332

1998 100,736 2.7 488.9 55,031 3.73 354

1999 117,067 3.2 497.9 124,485 4.05 411

2000 138,398 3.7 508.1 85,841 3.92 312

2001 117,177 3.9 501.2 95,539 3.63 337

2002 68,289 3.0 504.5 62,597 3.42 351

2003 92,880 4.7 521.4 39,450 3.36 481

2004 72,844 4.0 563.2 73,466 2.93 347

2005 61,601 4.8 563.2 69,186 3.18 233

Average 83,303 4.7 355.7 79,417 4.50 274

Standard 

Deviation 28,806 1.3 149.1 43,083 1.00 106

1 Landings by boat-based bottomfishing activity only and includes both deepwater and shallow water bottomfish. 

Source: WPRFMC 2006 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 154 

Figure 3-16. Guam Bottomfish Landings. 

Source: WPRFMC 2006. 

Table 3-9. Expanded Boat-Based Creel Survey Composition of Bottomfish Management 

Unit Species (BMUS) for 2005. 

Management Unit Species Harvest (lb)

BMUS

Lehi (A. rutilans) 2,090

Uku (A. virescens) 4,791

Ehu (E. carbunculus) 3,488

Onaga (E. coruscans) 15,309

Yellowtail Kalekale (P. auricilla) 1,069

Opakapaka (P. filamentosu) 458

Yelloweye Opakapaka (P. 

flavipinnis) 265

Gindai (P. zonatus) 637

Ta'ape (L. kasmira) 479

Giant Trevally (C. ignobilis) 217

Black Jacks (C. lugubris) 482

Amberjack (S. dumerili) 288

Blacktip Grouper (E. fasciatus) 1,495

Lyretail Grouper (V. louti) 2,479

Redgill Emperor (L. 2,214

I --+-- Tot al B ottomfish - ---- - Commercial Bottomfish I 

160 -,---------------------------------------, 

140 

120 

~ 

3 lOO 

e. 

"C so a 

.. 

§: 60 

~ 

40 

20 

~ ' a L I ----- - --, / "- / ' -.- ..-&. ~ _. _ I "- - --- _.._ - a. ~ / "- / ■ / I • - ■ ■ - --- .... ■ ' --- - • ~ ..,. ....-

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 155 

Management Unit Species Harvest (lb)

rubrioperculatus)

BMUS Total 35,761

Non-BMUS Bottomfish

Other Snappers 1,558

Other Jacks 7,718

Other Groupers 6,778

Other Emperors 8,804

Non-BMUS Bottomfish Total 24,858

Non-Specific Bottomfish

Misc Bottomfish 0

Shallow Bottomfish 975

Deep Bottomfish 6

Non-Specific Bottomfish Total 981

Bottomfish Total 61,601

 Source: WPRFMC 2006 

Catch composition of the shallow-bottomfish complex (or coral reef species) is dominated by 

lethrinids. Other important components of the bottomfish catch include lutjanids, carangids, 

serranids, and sharks. Holocentrids, mullids, labrids, scombrids, and balistids are minor 

components. It should be noted that at least two of these species (Aprion virescens and Caranx 

lugubris) also go into deeper waters, and some of the catch of these species occurs in the 

deepwater fishery. It is reported that in 2005, 233 domestic vessels landed 61,601 pounds of 

bottomfish in Guam (Table 3-8) with an ex-vessel value of $69,186 (WPRFMC 2005). MSY for 

Guam’s deepwater bottomfish fishery has been estimated at 56,863 lb (Polovina and Ralston 

1986). As seen in Table 3-9, 35,761 lb of BMUS were reported caught in 2005, which includes 

both deepwater and shallow water bottomfish. Current catches of deepwater BMUS are 

believed to be below their MSY. The MSY for shallow water BMUS has not been estimated. 

Bycatch in the non-charter and charter Guam bottomfish fishery is summarized in Table 3-10. 

Table 3-10. Guam Bottomfish Fishery Bycatch (2005): Non-charter and Charter. 

Number Released 

Species Name Alive Dead or 

Injured Both 

Total 

Caught 

Bycatch

(%) 

Non-Charter 

Epinephelus howlandi 2 2 3 66.67 

Epinephelus merra 1 1 20 5.00 

Non-Charter Bycatch Total 3 3 23 13.04 

Comparison with All Species 

Caught 1,434 0.21 

Charter 

Serranidae 3 3 3 100.00 

Epinephelus fasciatus 6 6 23 26.09 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 156 

Number Released 

Species Name Alive Dead or 

Injured Both 

Total 

Caught 

Bycatch

(%) 

Mullidae 16 16 16 100.00 

Mulloidichthys flavolineatus 8 8 8 100.00 

Parupeneus multifasciatus 10 10 11 90.91 

Balistidae 4 4 5 80.00 

Melichthys vidua 10 10 10 100.00 

Odonus niger 5 5 5 100.00 

Rhinecanthus rectangulus 1 1 1 100.00 

Charter Bycatch Total 63 63 82 76.83 

Comparison with All Species 

Caught 235 26.81 

 

All Bycatch Total 66 66 105 62.85 

Comparison with All Species 1,669 3.95 

3.5.3.3.1.2. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries - Guam 

Guam’s coral reef fisheries are culturally and economically important. The gear most often used 

to harvest coral reef resources includes hook and line, cast nets, spears, and surround nets. The 

most common fish harvested include the following families: Kyphosidae (rudderfish), 

Acanthruidae (surgeonfish), Lethrinidae (emperors), Scaridae (parrotfish), and Labridae 

(wrasses). Invertebrate harvests include octopus, spiny lobster, trochus shells, conch shells, and 

reef crabs. Total coral reef fish landings for 2002 and 2003 were estimated at 273,799 pounds 

and 306,626 pounds, respectively (See Table 3-11). No MSY estimates are available for Guam’s 

coral reef ecosystem management unit species. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 157 

Table 3-11. Estimated Harvest of Top 10 Families for Inshore and Offshore Guam 

FisheriesDuring 2002 and 2003.

Sources: Gutierrez 2003; Flores 2003; DAWR unpublished data. 

Note: Inshore data excludes seasonal runs of juvenile siganids and bigeye scads 

Inshore* Offshore** 

2002 2003 2002 2003 

Family Catch 

(lb) 

Family Catch 

(lb) 

Family Catch 

(lb) 

Family Catch 

(lb) 

Kyphosidae 

(Rudderfishes) 

20,823 Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfishes) 

27,920 Lethrinidae 

(Emperors) 

29,915 Lethrinidae 

(Emperors) 

25,590 

Siganidae 

(Rabbitfishes) 

19,300 Carangidae 

(Jacks) 

21,337 Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfish) 

20,523 Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfish) 

18,620 

Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfish) 

17,129 Siganidae 

(Rabbitfishes) 

12,408 Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

16,438 Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

18,141 

Carangidae 

(Jacks) 

14,938 Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

11,818 Carangidae 

(Jacks) 

12,192 Carangidae 

(Jacks) 

21,117 

Lethrinidae 

(Emperors) 

9,856 Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

9,464 Serranidae 

(Groupers) 

6,562 Serranidae 

(Groupers) 

23,621 

Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

8,679 Lethrinidae 

(Emperors) 

5,174 Lutjanidae 

(Snappers) 

3,319 Lutjanidae 

(Snappers) 

6,791 

Lutjanidae 

(Snappers) 

5,966 Diodontidae 

(Porcupinefish) 

3,627 Sphyraenidae 

(Barracudas) 

3,491 Sphyraenidae 

(Barracudas) 

7,345 

Serranidae 

(Groupers) 

4,765 Scombridae 

(Mackerels) 

2,875 Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

3,060 Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

5,229 

Mugilidae 

(Mullets) 

4,378 Serranidae 

(Groupers) 

2,824 Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

5,150 Scombridae 

(Mackerels) 

7,548 

Belonidae 

(Needlefishes) 

4,329 Carcharhinidae 

(Requiem 

Sharks) 

2,767 Siganidae 

(Rabbitfish) 

3,055 Carcharhinidae 

(Requiem 

Sharks) 

3,590 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 158 

3.5.3.3.1.3. Crustacean Fisheries - Guam 

Fishing for crustaceans around Guam occurs mostly in locally-managed territorial waters and 

usually by subsistence or recreational fishermen. However, in 2004, two Federal permits were 

registered to vessels to fish for spiny and slipper lobsters in the EEZ around Guam. The current 

activities of these vessels, if any, remains unknown. A short-lived and unregulated deepwater 

shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.) fishery was active around Guam during the 1970s. The future of that 

fishery is uncertain, but management measures are in place that require permits and logbooks.

Lobsters around Guam are hand harvested, with virtually all harvests occurring in territorial 

waters. An estimated total of 1,009 kg of spiny lobsters, with a total ex-vessel value of $7,279 

were commercially harvested in 2003, and 905 kg were commercially harvested in 2004. 

No MSY value for the Guam lobster fishery has been estimated. 

3.5.3.3.1.4. Precious Corals Fishery - Guam 

There is no precious coral fishery currently operating around Guam, nor have there been any 

reported or observed landings of precious corals harvests from EEZ waters around Guam. No 

MSY values for precious corals around Guam have been estimated. 

To prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals, fishing for, taking, or retaining any 

gold coral (live or dead) in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2013. 

This includes all EEZ waters of the Western Pacific Region. Additional research results on gold 

coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations between length and age will be considered by 

the Council and NMFS prior to the expiration of the 5-year moratorium. 

3.5.3.3.1.5. Pelagic Fisheries - Guam 

Guam’s pelagic fisheries consist of primarily small, recreational, trolling boats that are either 

towed to boat launch sites or berthed in marinas. These boats are used to fish only within local 

waters, either within EEZ waters around Guam or on some occasions in the adjacent EEZ 

waters around the Northern Mariana Islands. In recent years, there has been an increase in the 

number of longline vessels in Guam. 

Domestic annual pelagic landings in Guam have varied widely, ranging between 322,000 and 

937,000 pounds in the 23-year time series. The 2004 total pelagic landings were approximately 

691,366 pounds, an increase of 36 percent compared with 2003. Of this total, it is estimated that 

285,545 pounds were sold for a total ex-vessel revenue of $433,911 (WPRFMC 2005). 

Landings consisted primarily of five major species: mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo 

(Acanthocybium solandri), bonita or skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna 

(Thunnus albacares), and Pacific blue marlin (Makaira mazara). Other minor pelagic species 

caught include rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulatus), great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), 

kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis), dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor), double-lined mackerel 

(Grammatorcynus bilineatus), oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), and three less common species of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 159 

barracuda. Sailfish and sharks were also known to be caught during 2004, but these species 

were not encountered during offshore creel surveys. 

There are wide year-to-year fluctuations in the estimated landings of the five major species. The 

2004 mahimahi catch increased more than 134 percent from 2003, reaching its highest level 

since 1998. Wahoo catch totals increased 83 percent from 2003, which was its sixth highest 

total during the 23-year recording period. Pacific blue marlin landings decreased 28 percent 

from 2003, and were 24 percent below the 23-year average. Supertyphoon Pongsona’s direct hit 

on Guam in December 2002, and subsequent negative impact on fishing during the first quarter 

of 2003, probably account for the low numbers of mahimahi caught during 2003. Participation 

and effort generally increased in 2004, with the number of trolling boats up by 8 percent 

(WPRFMC 2005). 

The number of boats involved in Guam’s pelagic or open-ocean fishery gradually increased from 

193 in 1983, to 469 in 1998. This number decreased until 2001 and has been increasing ever 

since. There were 401 boats active in Guam’s domestic pelagic fishery in 2004. A majority of the 

fishing boats are less than 10 meters (33 feet) in length and are usually owner operated by 

fishermen who earn a living outside of fishing. Most fishermen sell a portion of their catch at one 

time or another and it is difficult to make a distinction between recreational, subsistence, and 

commercial fishers. A small, but significant, segment of Guam’s pelagic fishery is made up of 

marina-berthed charter boats that are operated primarily by full-time captains and crews. These 

operations were responsible for 22 percent of all domestic pelagic fishing trips from Guam in 

2004 (WPRFMC 2005). Figure 3-17 provides the estimated annual total domestic pelagics catch 

in Guam. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 160 

Figure 3-17. Estimated Annual Total Domestic Pelagics Catch in Guam 1982 to 2004. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005 Pelagics Annual Report. 

3.5.3.4. Fishing Communities – Guam 

Under the MSA, Guam is designated as a fishing community. However, Guam’s history, 

culture, geography, and relationship with the United States are vastly different from those of a 

typical fishing community in the continental United States. 

Over the centuries of acculturation beginning with the Spanish conquest in the late seventeenth 

century, many elements of traditional Chamorro culture in Guam were lost. But certain 

traditional values, attitudes, and customs were retained to become a part of contemporary life. 

Amesbury et al. (1989, p. 48) noted that the practice of sharing one’s fish catch with relatives 

and friends during Christian holidays is rooted in traditional Chamorro culture: 

“A strongly enduring cultural dimension related to offshore fishing is the high value 

placed on sharing of the catch, and the importance of gifts of fish to relatives and 

friends.” 

On the basis of creel surveys of fishermen, only about one quarter to one third of the inshore 

catch is sold. The remainder enters noncommercial channels (Knudson 1987). Reef and 

bottomfish continue to be important for social obligations, such as fiestas and food exchange 

~ 

--= 

= ,., 

0 

i:i.. 

--= = 

~ 

= 0 

-= f-, 

1,000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

!--+-- Total Pelagics - ---- - Tuna P1.fUS - -;.- - Non-Tuna P1.fUS I 

;. 

I ' 

' 

' 

~ \ 

\ 

• 

\ 

ill"" 

;. 

• l 

I l 

- .&. 

.,, ■ / ...... ' / • 

;. ' ,;. 

I 

I 

, .. .,a......_ I / ....... ~-- ~ ,--- / ' ' / • 

0 +--..------,----.----.---..------.----.----.---~--,----,----,---~--,,-----,----,----.---,,--~---.---.----t 

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 161 

with friends and families. One study found a preference for inshore fish species in 

noncommercial exchanges of food (Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson 1989). 

The social obligation to share one’s fish catch extends to part-time and full-time commercial 

fishermen. Such gifts are often reef fish or shallow water bottomfish (Amesbury and HunterAnderson 1989). Even when fish are purchased informally by friends, neighbors, or relatives of 

the fisherman, the personal marketing tends to restrain the price asked (WPRFMC 2003). 

Domestic fishing on Guam supplements family subsistence, which is gained by a combination 

of small-scale gardening, ranching, and wage work (Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson 1989). 

The availability of economic activities such as part-time fishing is among the major reasons that 

Guam has not experienced more social problems during times of economic hardship and 

increasing unemployment. The subsistence component of the local economy has gained 

significance in recent years with the downturn in Guam’s major industries and increasing 

unemployment. 

Fishing in Guam continues to be important not only in terms of contributing to the subsistence 

needs of the Chamorro people but also in terms of preserving their history and identity. Fishing 

assists in perpetuating traditional knowledge of marine resources and the maritime heritage of 

the Chamorro culture. 

The Island of Guam was ceded to the United States following the Spanish American War of 

1898 and has been an unincorporated territory since 1949. Guam’s population is approximately 

155,000 people.46 The main income sources on Guam include tourism, national defense, and 

trade and services. Per capita income in Guam was $12,722 in 2000, up from $10,152 in 1991.47

Median household income was $38,769 in 2000, up from $31,118 in 1991. Twenty-three 

percent of the population in 2000 was at or below the poverty level.48

The Guam Department of Labor estimated the number of employees on payroll to be 64,230 in 

1998, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 1997 figure. Of the 64,230 employees, 44,780 were in 

the private sector and 19,450 were in the public sector. The Federal government employs 7.6 

percent of the total work force, while the government of Guam employs 22.7 percent. Guam had 

an unemployment rate of 7 percent in 2000, with 39,143 men age 16 and over in the labor force 

and 29,751 women age 16 and over in the labor force.49

The major economic factor in Guam for most of the latter part of the twentieth century was the 

large-scale presence of the U.S. military (Bank of Hawaii 1999b). In the 1990s, however, the 

military’s contribution to Guam’s economy waned and was largely replaced by Asian tourism. 

Guam’s macroeconomic situation exhibited considerable growth between 1988 and 1993 as a 

result of rapid expansion of the tourism industry. In fact, Guam’s economy has become so 

dependent on tourists from Asia, particularly Japan, that any significant economic, financial, 

and foreign exchange development in the region has had an immediate impact on the Territory 

 

46 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/guamstatelevel.pdf 47 Ibid. 

48 Ibid. 

49 Ibid. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 162 

(Bank of Hawaii 1999b). During the mid- to late 1990s, as Japan experienced a period of 

economic stagnation and cautious consumer spending, the impact was felt just as much in Guam 

as in Japan. Visitor arrivals in Guam dropped 17.7 percent in 1998. Despite recent efforts to 

expand the tourist market, Guam’s economy remains dependent on Japanese tourists. 

The Government of Guam has been a major employer on Guam for many years. However, 

recent deficits have resulted from a steady rise in government spending at the same time that tax 

bases have not kept up with spending demands. Many senior government workers have been 

offered, and have accepted, early retirement to reduce the payroll burden. 

In the 1990s, after three decades of troop reductions, the military presence on the island 

diminished to the lowest level in decades. But with the post–9/11 emphasis on homeland 

security, the war in Iraq, and repositioning of military assets from Asia and the mainland United 

States, military spending on Guam has rebounded significantly, and the effects have been felt 

throughout the economy, including in employment and housing prices (Los Angeles Times, July 

25, 2004). The U.S. military is in the process of increasing military presence on Guam which is 

expected to have an important economic impact on Guam. 

Guam used to be major regional fish transshipment center and resupply base for domestic and 

foreign tuna fishing fleets. Among Guam’s advantages as a home port are: Well-developed and 

highly efficient port facilities in Apra Harbor, an availability of relatively low-cost vessel fuel, a 

well-established marine supply/repair industry, and recreational amenities for crew shore leave 

(Hamnett and Pintz 1996). In addition, Guam is exempt from the Nicholson Act, which 

prohibits foreign ships from landing their catches in U.S. ports. Initially, the majority of vessels 

calling in Apra Harbor to discharge frozen tuna for transshipment were Japanese purse seine 

boats and carrier vessels. Later, a fleet of U.S. purse seine vessels relocated to Guam and in the 

late 1980s, Guam became an important port for Japanese and Taiwanese longline fleets. 

However, in recent years, Japanese and Taiwanese longline fleets have reduced their port of 

calls and offloading in Guam. The number of vessels operating out of Guam decreased by 

almost half from 1996 to 1997, and further declined in 1998 (Hamnett and Anderson 2000). 

Some people believe this is due to the prohibition on landing shark fins without corresponding 

carcasses at U.S. ports (P. Dalzell, WPRFMC, personal communication). As a result of 

fluctuations in the tourism industry and cuts in military expenditures in Guam, the importance 

of economic diversification has increased. 

3.5.4. Hawaii 

In the central North Pacific Ocean, roughly 2,500 miles southwest of North America, lies the 

Hawaiian Archipelago. This 137-island chain stretches nearly 1,500 miles from Kure Atoll in 

the NWHI to the island of Hawaii at the southern tip of the inhabited MHI. The total land area 

of the Hawaiian Islands is 6,423 square miles. The NWHI make up roughly 1,000 miles of the 

1,500-mile long archipelago, and are composed of volcanic islands, atolls, shoals, and 

submerged banks. 

The NWHIs include the northernmost coral reef ecosystem (Kure Atoll) on the planet. The 

water temperatures experienced there are assumed to be the lower limit for corals to thrive and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 163 

reefs to grow (approximately 65° F). Grigg (1982) suggested that Kure Atoll lies at the “Darwin 

Point” for reef development, a geographical limit beyond which corals and coralline algae can 

no longer deposit enough calcium carbonate to keep up with the subsidence of the area’s 

volcanic base. It is theorized that reefs at latitudes higher than the Darwin Point fail to remain at 

sea level and sink below the photic zone within which growth can occur (Grigg 1982). 

The Hawaii Archipelago is subject to high wave energy produced from weather systems 

generated off the Aleutian Islands and other areas of the North Pacific. Such waves can have 

major effects on the nearshore environment. For example, high wave energies can break off 

pieces of coral, move underwater boulders, shift large volumes of sand, and erode islands 

(Grigg 1976). 

Because of its position in the North Pacific, Hawaii (more specifically the NWHI) also acts as a 

sink for a multitude of marine debris originating from Pacific-rim countries. Perhaps the most 

damaging is derelict fishing gear such as nets and rope that are believed to be carried by ocean 

currents from North Pacific trawl fisheries. Other types of debris include materials made from 

rubber and plastics (e.g., lighters). Marine debris impacts the nearshore environment of the 

NWHI by choking and breaking coral reefs, entangling marine life, and carrying invasive 

species. Since 1996, NMFS has led a multiagency cleanup effort that has removed nearly 450 

metric tons of derelict fishing nets and other debris from the NWHI (J. Asher, PIFSC, personal 

communication, July 2005). In recent years, the effort has removed more than 100 tons of 

marine debris per year. The total amount of marine debris accumulating each year in the NWHI 

is difficult to quantify, but is estimated to be 50 tons or more (S. Balwani, PIFSC, personal 

communication, July 2005). 

3.5.4.1. Marine Environment - Hawaii 

3.5.4.1.1.Coral Reefs - Hawaii 

The total potential coral reef area in Hawaii (MHI and NWHI) is estimated to be 2,826 square 

kilometers within the 10-fathom curve, and 20,437 square kilometers within the 100-fathom 

curve. This comprises approximately 8 percent and 14 percent, respectively, of all U.S. coral 

reef ecosystems (Rohmann et al. 2005). The MHI represent the younger portion of the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, and have less well-developed fringing reefs that have not subsided as far below 

sea level as those in the NWHI (Smith 1993). The potential coral reef area surrounding the MHI 

is estimated at 1,231 square kilometers within the 10-fathom contour (Rohmann et al. 2005). 

Grigg (1997) summarized the condition of the reefs on each island and concluded that 90 

percent of Hawaii’s reefs are healthy. However, there are increasing problems with excessive 

levels of fishing and environmental degradation associated with a growing human population, 

urbanization, and development (Friedlander 1996; Grigg 2002; J. Maragos, USFWS, personal 

communication, as cited in Green 1997). Focal points for coral reef degradation in Hawaii 

include reefs adjacent to urban areas, coastal recreational developments (e.g., hotels, golf 

courses), and ocean outfalls (Jokiel and Cox 1996, in Friedlander 1996; J. Maragos personal 

communication, as cited in Green 1997). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 164 

A combination of natural and anthropogenic factors, including wave energy, depth, 

sedimentation, turbidity, light, nutrient concentration, and other biological factors, control coral 

reef community structure in Hawaii (Grigg 2002). Most coastline areas in the state are exposed 

to the open ocean, and the reefs in these areas are frequently disturbed by wave-induced 

mortality (Grigg 2002). As such, the only significant buildup of reefs in the MHI is found in 

areas that are reasonably sheltered from open ocean swells and at depths that are not constrained 

by sea level (Grigg 2002). Such areas are typically restricted to embayments and areas sheltered 

from wave exposure by nearby islands (Grigg 2002). Examples include the Kona Coast of 

Hawaii, the south coast of west Maui, the north coast of Lanai and Kauai, Kaneohe Bay, 

Hanauma Bay, and Barber’s Point on Oahu (Des Rochers 1992; J. Maragos, personal 

communication, as cited in Green 1997). In most places, the modern Holocene reefs consist of 

only a thin veneer on top of the older Pleistocene reefs, which suggests that no accretion of 

living corals is taking place (Grigg 2002). Slow coral growth, low rates of recruitment, and 

sedimentation have also been proposed as factors that have contributed to the slow rate of coral 

reef formation in Hawaii (Friedlander 1996). 

In general, impacts related to anthropogenic factors, such as point-source and nonpoint-source 

pollution, tend to be of most significance in wave-sheltered environments or in areas with high 

residence time such as embayments and lagoons (Friedlander et al. 2005, Grigg 2002). In cases 

in which the ecology of reefs is under primary or dominant control by wave’s forces, the 

potential effects of pollution may be less pronounced, except with respect to aesthetic values or 

water quality and human health (Grigg 2002). Friedlander (1996) and Grigg (1997) both noted 

that excessive fishing is a serious problem throughout the MHI. Grigg (1997) also found that 

each of the MHI is characterized by other specific and localized threats to coral reef health. 

3.5.4.1.1.1. Oahu Coral Reefs 

Oahu, being the population center of Hawaii, ranks highest among the MHI in terms of coral 

reef resource problems and the need for better long-term management. Most of the open 

coastline of Oahu is fringed by coral reefs with low natural coral cover due to wave action. The 

best reef development is found in embayments or sheltered areas, such as Kaneohe Bay or 

Hanauma Bay. Reef communities are generally healthy except for local areas where shoreline 

use is high or in some embayments where water circulation is restricted. Point and nonpoint 

source pollution has degraded many of these environments, and overexploitation of coral reef 

fishes has reduced fish abundance. Notwithstanding these problems, Grigg reported that many 

improvements in coastal environments have occurred on Oahu in recent years. All shallow, 

nearshore sewage discharges have been replaced by deepwater outfalls, and better land 

management practices and the curtailment of dredging and filling activities have greatly reduced 

sedimentation problems to coral reefs island wide (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.2. Maui Coral Reefs 

Most coral reefs on Maui are also under primary control of wave forces. Healthy reefs can be 

found off Honokowai on the western end and the stretch of coastline between Olowalu and 

Papawai off the south coast of West Maui. Both of these areas were sheltered from the effects of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 165 

Hurricane Iniki in 1992, and coral cover ranges from 50 to 80 percent (depth: 10 to 20 m). Other 

pristine reefs also exist at 30 to 40 meters in the Au’au Channel where they are totally sheltered 

from wave stress. Exposed areas, some with reefs containing more than 50 percent coral cover, 

were devastated by Hurricane Iniki, which resulted in mortality of up to 100 percent (E. Brown, 

UH, personal communication, as cited in Grigg 2002). 

The two most significant environmental problems affecting coral reefs on Maui are excessive 

fishing and increases in various species of invasive algae, which may be related to nutrient 

loading, periodic natural upwelling, the low abundance of urchins, or high fishing pressure on 

herbivorous fishes (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.3. Lanai Coral Reefs 

Virtually all of the reefs near Lanai are in a healthy condition, although those near the northern 

half experience episodic mortally as the result of sediment runoff (Grigg 2002; J. Maragos, 

personal communication as cited in Green 1997). None of Lanai’s reefs seem to experience 

pollution, and most experience fishing pressure (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.4. Molokai Coral Reefs 

The south coast of Molokai supports the longest fringing reef in Hawaii (approximately 35 

miles long; J. Maragos, USFWS, personal communications cited in Green 1997). The condition 

of this reef varies from poor to excellent; with much of the reef degradation associated with 

sedimentation due to poor land use practices (J. Maragos, USFWS, personal communication, as 

cited in Green 1997). The reefs of Molokai have been subjected to widespread and high fishing 

levels as well as sedimentation, although other anthropogenic effects on these reefs appear to be 

minimal (Grigg 2002). There was an outbreak of the crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster 

planci) off the southeast coast in 1972, and an attempt was made to eradicate the outbreak 

(Branham et al. 1972, in Grigg 2002). However, it appears that the starfish returned to its 

normal abundance level naturally over a period of several years (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.5. Kahoolawe Coral Reefs 

Kahoolawe was used as a military target for live firing and bombing for years, which resulted in 

high rates of sedimentation onto the reefs). The reefs are now in a state of recovery since the 

bombing ceased in 1994. Interestingly, little ordinance can be found on any reefs around 

Kahoolawe today, suggesting rapid overgrowth by coral and/or high accuracy of the military 

target practice (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.6. Hawaii Coral Reefs 

The Island of Hawaii (known locally as the Big Island) is still geologically active. The reefs on 

this island are dramatically different on the windward and leeward coasts. Reefs on the 

windward side (except in Hilo Bay) are controlled by wave stress, and are characterized by 

early successional reef stages (i.e., scattered coral colonies or thin veneers on basalt 

foundations; Grigg 2002; J. Maragos, USFWS, personal communication as cited in Green 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 166 

1997). In contrast, rich coral reef communities exist along the sheltered leeward side of the 

island (Grigg 2002; J. Maragos, personal communication as cited in Green 1997). However, 

Grigg noted that the reefs along the leeward shore are subject to severe storms with a periodicity 

of approximately 40 years, which may explain why fringing reefs are not well developed in this 

area. Human impacts have also had some effect on the reefs of this island. Reefs on the 

Hamakua Coast have been degraded by sugarcane waste waters in the past, while excessive 

fishing, aquarium fish collecting, and ground water intrusion have caused serious human 

impacts on the reefs on the leeward coast (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.7. Kauai Coral Reefs 

Kauai is the oldest and wettest island in the MHI, and Grigg (1997) suggested that 

sedimentation may be responsible for the lack of well-developed fringing reefs around most of 

the island. Grigg noted that the reefs that are most heavily impacted by sediments are those that 

are in shallow or enclosed areas that have restricted circulation. In contrast, the healthiest reefs 

were found on the exposed northeast and north coasts where the sediment is washed away by 

waves and currents (Grigg 2002; J. Maragos, USFWS, personal communication as cited in 

Green 1997). Grigg also noted that some of the best reefs on the island exist in deep water (15 

to 25-m deep) in areas with the least exposure to sediment-laden streams (e.g., reefs of Poipu 

and Makahuena). However, these reefs have been impacted by hurricanes in recent years (Ewa 

in 1982 and Iniki in 1992; Grigg 2002). In addition to the recent reefs, fossil limestone reefs are 

present off the southern shore off Kauai (30 to 70-m deep), where abundant populations of the 

black coral Antipathes dichotoma can be found. In addition to sedimentation, human impacts 

that are perceived to be a problem on the reefs of Kauai include high fishing pressure and poor 

water quality (Grigg 2002). 

3.5.4.1.1.8. Niihau Coral Reefs 

Little is known about the reefs on the small, privately owned island of Niihau. However, they 

are believed to be in good condition, especially along the western coast (J. Maragos, USFWS, 

personal communication as cited in Green 1997).

3.5.4.1.1.9. Penguin Bank Coral Reefs 

The reef habitat in Federal waters in the MHI is restricted to Penguin Bank and Kaula Rock 

(Hunter 1995). Very little is known of the condition of the reefs in these locations, although 

they are presumed to be in good condition because of their remoteness to human population 

areas. On the basis of interpretations of navigational charts, Hunter (1995) suggested that 

Penguin Bank supports areas of coral or coralline algae at a depth of approximately 50 meters. 

In deeper waters (50 to 100 m), the reef on Penguin Bank is dominated by coralline algae, 

Halimeda, bryozoans, and pen shells; corals are present in low abundances (Agegian and 

Abbott 1985, in Hunter 1995). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 167 

3.5.4.1.1.10. NWHI Coral Reefs 

The NWHI comprise a multitude of reef areas (Hunter 1995; Maragos and Gulko 2002), 

including the following: numerous islands or reefs (French Frigate Shoals, Kure, Laysan, 

Lisianski, Maro Reef, Midway Atoll, Necker Island, Nihoa Island, Pearl and Hermes Atoll, and 

Gardner Pinnacles); two seamounts (Ladd and Nero); several banks (Brooks, Northhampton, 

Pioneer, Raita, Saint Rogatien, and Salmon); and eight shoals (Gambia Shoal and seven 

unnamed shoals, including three between Nihoa and Necker and one north of St. Rogatien). In 

general, these coral reefs are in excellent condition with unique biodiversity and high standing 

stock of many reef fishes, probably because of their isolation, protected status, and harsh 

seasonal weather conditions (Friedlander 1996). The pristine condition of this resource is likely 

to continue because they are distant from land-based sources of pollution and are protected from 

any large-scale human activities in the region (Friedlander 1996, Maragos and Gulko 2002). 

The potential coral reef area surrounding the NWHI is estimated at 1,595 square kilometers 

within the 10-fathom contour (Rohmann et al. 2005). 

Many reefs in the NWHI are made up of calcareous algae (Green 1997). A peak in coral species 

diversity occurs in the middle of the Hawaiian Archipelago at French Frigate Shoals and Maro 

Reef (Grigg 1983). In general, fish species diversity appears to be lower in the NWHI than in the 

MHI. Although the inshore fish assemblages of the two regions are similar, fish size, density, 

and biomass are higher in the NWHI, and fish communities in the NWHI are dominated by apex 

predators (sharks and jacks), whereas those in the MHI are not (Friedlander and DeMartini 

2002). Some fish species that are common in parts of the NWHI are rare in the MHI (Green 

1997). In 2006, President George W. Bush established the NWHI Marine National Monument, 

later renamed the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, and instructed the 

Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to co-manage the marine resources within monument 

boundaries (71 FR 36447; June 26, 2006). These two federal agencies and the State of Hawaii 

are co-administrators of the Monument. For more information on the monument see 

http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/. 

3.5.4.1.2.Deep Reef Slope, Banks, and Seamount 

Habitat - Hawaii 

Within the Hawaiian Islands Archipelago, there are numerous banks and seamounts, with more 

located in the NWHI than in the MHI. In the MHI, the largest bank is Penguin Bank, which is 

located southeast of Oahu. 

3.5.4.1.3.Pelagic Habitat - Hawaii 

The archipelago’s position in the Pacific Ocean lies within the clockwise rotating North Pacific 

Subtropical Gyre, extending from the northern portion of the North Equatorial Current into the 

region south of the Subtropical High, where the water moves eastward in the North Pacific 

Current. At the pass between the MHI and the NWHI, there is often a westward flow from the 

region of Kauai along the lee side of the lower NWHI. This flow, the North Hawaiian Ridge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 168 

Current (NHRC), is extremely variable and can also be absent at times. The analysis of 10 years 

of shipboard acoustic Doppler current-profiler data collected by the NOAA research vessel 

Townsend Cromwell shows the mean flow is through the ridge between Oahu and Nihoa, 

extending to a depth of 200 meters (Firing and Brainard 2006). 

Imbedded in the mean east-to-west flow is an abundance of mesoscale eddies created from a 

mixture of wind, current, and seafloor interactions. The eddies can rotate either clockwise or 

counterclockwise and have important biological impacts. For example, eddies create vertical 

fluxes, with regions of divergence (upwelling) and convergence (downswelling). At regions of 

divergence, the thermocline shoals and deep nutrients are pumped into surface waters enhancing 

phytoplankton production. At regions of convergence the thermocline deepens. Sea surface 

temperatures around the Hawaiian Archipelago experience seasonal variability, but generally 

vary between 18° and 28° C (64° to 82° F), with the colder waters occurring more often in the 

NWHI. 

Significant sources of inter-annual physical and biological variation around Hawaii are El Niño 

and La Niña events. During an El Niño, the normal easterly trade winds weaken, resulting in a 

weakening of the westward equatorial surface current and a deepening of the thermocline in the 

central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Water in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific 

becomes warmer and more vertically stratified with a substantial drop in surface chlorophyll. 

Physical and biological oceanographic changes have also been observed on decadal time scales. 

These low-frequency changes, termed regime shifts, can impact the entire ocean ecosystem. 

Recent regime shifts in the North Pacific occurred in 1976 and 1989, with both physical and 

biological (including fishery) impacts (Polovina 1996, Polovina et al. 1995). In the late 1980s, 

an ecosystem shift from high carrying capacity to low carrying capacity occurred in the NWHI. 

The shift was associated with the weakening of the Aleutian Low Pressure System (North 

Pacific) and the Subtropical Counter Current. The ecosystem effects of this shift were observed 

in lower nutrient and productivity levels and decreased abundance of numerous species in the 

NWHI, including the spiny lobster, the Hawaiian monk seal, various reef fish, the red-footed 

booby, and the red-tailed tropic bird (Demartini et al. 2002, Polovina and Haight, 1999). 

3.5.4.2. Protected Species - Hawaii 

3.5.4.2.1.Sea Turtles - Hawaii 

Green and hawksbill turtles are known to occur in nearshore waters around Hawaii, and 

loggerhead, leatherback, and olive ridley turtles have been incidentally caught by Hawaii-based 

pelagic longline vessels (NMFS 2005a). 

3.5.4.2.1.1. Leatherback Sea Turtles 

Leatherback turtles are not known to nest in the Hawaiian Islands; however, anecdotal reports 

indicate that they have been sighted within EEZ waters (NMFS 2001). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 169 

3.5.4.2.1.2. Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

Loggerhead turtles occur around the Hawaiian Islands and there have been loggerhead 

migrations tracked that include transits through the Hawaiian Archipelago (Wallace et al. 1999). 

3.5.4.2.1.3. Green Sea Turtles

The Hawaii population of green sea turtles is the only Pacific population known to be 

increasing, with both the foraging population and nesting populations showing 30-year 

increasing trends (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). 

3.5.4.2.1.4. Hawksbill Sea Turtles 

Hawksbill turtles are known to reside and nest in the MHI, primarily on several small beaches 

on the Island of Hawaii (Balazs et al. 1992, Katahira et al. 1994). Although the local population 

has increased, there are still only a few dozen sea turtles that nest each year (Balazs 2002). 

3.5.4.2.1.5. Olive Ridley Sea Turtles 

There have been two reports of single nests in Hawaii. The first was in 1985 on Maui, but the 

eggs did not hatch (Balazs and Hau 1986); the second was in 2002 on the Island of Hawaii. 

3.5.4.2.2.Marine Mammals and Seabirds - Hawaii 

3.5.4.2.2.1. Humpback Whales 

Humpback whales occur off all eight Main Hawaiian Islands during the winter breeding season, 

but particularly within the shallow waters of the four-island region (Kahoolawe, Molokai, 

Lanai, and Maui including Penguin Bank); the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawaii; and 

the waters around Niihau, Kauai, and Oahu. 

3.5.4.2.2.2. Hawaiian Monk Seals 

Monk seals are found at six main reproductive sites in the NWHI: Kure Atoll, Midway Island, 

Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, and French Frigate Shoals. Smaller 

populations occur on Necker Island and Nihoa Island, and NMFS researchers have also 

observed monk seals at Gardner Pinnacles and Maro Reef. The 2004 U.S. Pacific Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment estimates that there are 1,304 monk seals in the Hawaiian Islands 

with at least 52 of those occurring in the MHI (Carretta et al. 2004). 

3.5.4.2.2.3. Other Marine Mammals 

Sperm whales, rough-toothed dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, pantropical 

spotted dolphins, spinner dolphins, striped dolphins, pygmy killer whales, false killer whales, 

melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales, Bryde’s whales, Blainsville’s beaked whales, 

and pygmy sperm whales are known to occur around Hawaii. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 170 

3.5.4.2.2.4. Seabirds 

Many seabird species occur around Hawaii. Seabirds that are generally of concern to fishing 

operations include short-tailed, black-footed, and Laysan albatrosses; Christmas, Newell’s, 

flesh-footed, wedge-tailed, and sooty shearwaters; and masked, brown, and red-footed boobies. 

The bristle-thighed curlew (Numiensis tahitiensis) is a migratory shorebird that is present in the 

Hawaiian Archipelgago during the winter months. The species is listed by the IUCN Red List 

Category as “Vulnerable” because of a small, declining population (estimated to be 7,000 birds 

worldwide). The primary threat is predation occurring on wintering grounds (BirdLife 

International 2009). 

3.5.4.3. Fisheries of Hawaii 

Under the authority of the MSA, the Council established (and the Secretary of Commerce 

approved) criteria to determine overfishing (i.e., fishing mortality) and overfished (stock 

biomass) conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Since 2000, the NWHI lobster 

fishery has been closed because of uncertainty in lobster stock assessments. On December 15, 

2004, the Council was notified by letter that the Secretary of Commerce had determined on June 

14, 2004, that overfishing of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) was occurring throughout the Pacific 

Ocean (69 FR 78397). On May 25, 2005, it was determined that the Hawaii Archipelago multispecies bottomfish complex was subject to overfishing as defined in the MSA, with the MHI 

being the area where the overfishing problem primarily occurs (70 FR 34452, June 14, 2005). On 

March 16, 2006, the Council was notified by letter that the Secretary of Commerce had 

determined that overfishing is occurring on the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) stock in the 

western and central Pacific Ocean (71 FR 14837). As required under the MSA, the Council has 

made management recommendations to address these overfishing determinations. NMFS is now 

processing these recommendations and accompanying NEPA analyses. 

3.5.4.3.1.Demersal Fisheries - Hawaii 

3.5.4.3.1.1. Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries - Hawaii 

In recent decades, there has been a notable decline in nearshore fishery resources in the MHI 

(Shomura 1987). Excessive fishing is considered to be one of the major causes of this decline 

(Grigg 2002, Harman and Katekaru 1988). Coastal construction, sedimentation, and other 

effects of urbanization have also caused extensive damage to coral reefs and benthic habitat 

near the populated islands. 

The majority of the total commercial catch of inshore fishes, invertebrates, and seaweed comes 

from nearshore reef areas around the MHI. Nearshore reefs in the MHI are the focus of 

commercial reef ornamentals harvesting and black coral collecting (Friedlander 1996). 

Although precise fishing locations are not reported, fishing gear types that mainly target inshore 

and coastal pelagic species accounted for about 10 percent (1.5 million lb) of total annual 

commercial fish catches from 1990 to 1995. Recreational and subsistence catches are not 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 171 

reported in Hawaii, but creel surveys at Kaneohe, Hanalei, and Hilo Bays suggest that these 

catches are at least equivalent to the reported commercial catch and may be two or three times 

greater (Friedlander 1996). 

Commercial catches of coral reef fish include surgeonfishes (20 %), goatfishes (13 percent), 

squirrelfishes (11 percent), unicornfishes (8 %), and parrotfishes (8 %; DeMello 2004). Crabs, 

octopus, seaweed, limpets, and other types of coral reef associated species are also harvested 

regularly. No MSY values have been estimated for Hawaii’s coral reef fisheries. 

There is a long history of coral reef fishing in the NWHI. Iverson et al. (1990) found 

extensive evidence of fishing by the ancient Hawaiians as far north as Necker Island. Starting 

in the 1920s, a handful of commercial boats ventured into the NWHI to fish for shallow and 

deepwater bottomfish, spiny lobsters, and other reef and inshore species. Black-lipped pearl 

oysters at Pearl and Hermes Reef in the NWHI were overfished in the late 1920s, and 

although there seems to be some pearl oyster recruitment occurring, the population has not 

recovered to preexploitation levels (Keenan et al. 2006). From the late 1940s to the late 

1950s, there was a large commercial fishery for akule and reef fish (e.g., ulua) around French 

Frigate Shoals and Nihoa Island. 

During the 1960s, and as recently as 1978, Asian fleets harvested tuna, billfish, precious 

corals, and groundfish in and around the NWHI using longliners, pole-and-line vessels, 

draggers, and trawlers. Foreign fishing in now prohibited throughout the archipelago. 

Currently, there are no active coral reef fisheries in the NWHI. 

3.5.4.3.1.2. Crustacean Fisheries - Hawaii 

Lobster 

Ula (lobster) was a traditional source of food for native Hawaiians and was sometimes used in 

early religious ceremonies (Titcomb 1972). After the arrival of Europeans in Hawaii, the lobster 

fishery became by far the most productive of Hawaii’s commercial shellfish fisheries. It was 

reported that the MHI commercial lobster catch in 1901 was 131,200 pounds (Cobb 1902). By 

the early 1950s, the commercial catch of spiny lobsters (P. penicillatus) around the MHI had 

dropped by 75 to 85 percent (Shomura 1987). 

In the late 1970s, NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii’s DAR, and the University 

of Hawaii’s Sea Grant Program joined in a cooperative agreement to conduct a 5-year 

assessment of the biotic resources of the NWHI. The survey reported that Necker Island and 

Maro Reef had sufficiently large stocks of lobsters to support some commercial exploitation 

(Uchida and Tagami 1984). 

Shortly after, several commercial vessels began lobster-trapping operations. A period of low 

catches was followed by a rapid increase in landings as more vessels entered the fishery and 

markets were developed (Polovina 1993). In the mid-1980s, the NWHI lobster fishery was 

Hawaii’s most lucrative fishery (Pooley 1993). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 172 

Trapping activity fell in 1987 principally because of the exit of several large vessels from the 

fishery (Samples and Sproul 1988), but landings reached a record high in 1988 when wind and 

sea conditions allowed for an extended period of fishing in the upper bank areas where spiny 

lobsters tend to congregate (Clarke 1989). 

In 1990, however, lobster catch rates fell dramatically, although overfishing is not thought to be 

responsible for the decline (Polovina and Mitchum 1992). Rather, the decrease was found to be 

most likely due to a climate-induced change in oceanic productivity (Polovina et al. 1994). 

Nevertheless, the 1990 season showed that there was excessive fishing capacity in the industry 

given the reduced population size (Polovina and Haight 1999). Responding to this concern, the 

Council established a limited access program and a fleet-wide seasonal harvest guideline (or 

quota) in 1991 that significantly altered fishing operations (Kawamoto and Pooley 2000). 

From 1992 through 1997, Necker Island accounted for 48 to 64 percent of the total NWHI 

lobster fishery effort, and Gardner Pinnacles and Maro Reef accounted for most of the rest 

(WPRFMC 1999). In 1998, separate harvest guidelines were calculated for each of four fishing 

areas (Necker Island Lobster Grounds, Gardner Pinnacles Lobster Grounds, Maro Reef Lobster 

Grounds, and general NWHI lobster grounds) to prevent localized depletion. 

By 1999, all participants in the NWHI lobster fishery used plastic dome-shaped, singlechambered traps with two entrance funnels located on opposite sides. By regulation, all traps 

have escape vents to allow unwanted organisms to exit. The traps are typically fished in strings 

of several hundred that are set before sunset in depths from 20 to 70 meters, and are retrieved the 

next day. Both spiny and slipper lobsters may be caught in the same trap, but fishermen can 

affect the proportion of each species by selecting the trapping area and depth (Polovina 1993). 

Almost all lobsters harvested from the NWHI were sold as a frozen tails; however, from 1996 to 

1998, the fleet also landed a significant quantity of live lobsters. 

Between 1985 and 1991, total landings showed varying trends. Beginning in 1992, landings were 

capped by the harvest guidelines (see Figure 3-18). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 173 

1983 1990 1995 1999

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Spiny Lobster Slipper Lobster

(Pounds)

Figure 3-18. NWHI Lobster Fishery Landings 1983 to 1999. 

Source: PIFSC 2003 unpublished data. 

Nontargeted species account for a small percentage of the total catch in the NWHI lobster 

fishery, as the traps are designed for high selectivity. Using data from 1976 to 1991 (wire traps) 

and 1986 to 2003 (plastic traps) from research cruises in the NWHI, Moffitt et al. (2006) 

examined the diversity of catch composition. The traps used for the research were more 

conservative than commercial traps as they did not have escape vents, but otherwise they 

conformed to fishery regulations. Both wire and plastic traps were found to be highly selective; 

that is, they primarily caught lobsters. Wire traps caught a total of 82 species over the study 

period, of which the two target species of lobsters accounted for 90.5 percent by number. Plastic 

traps caught a total of 258 species over the study period, of which 73.1 percent by number were 

the lobster species. Because lobsters are one of the larger organisms captured, they would be a 

much higher percentage of the total catch if measured by weight. Of the organisms that were 

caught incidentally, hermit crabs made up the largest component, which was followed by moray 

eels and small reef fish. 

Octopus abundance in the traps was also evaluated because of its potential as a prey species for 

the Hawaiian monk seal. Eighty-three individuals were captured during the entire 1986–2003 

study period, and examination of the data showed no significant decline or increase in their 

capture rate over time. Based on the data, the study found that it is highly unlikely that lobstertrapping activities have lowered octopus abundance to such a degree that monk seal populations 

would be negatively impacted (Moffitt et al. 2006). 

Overall, Moffitt et al. (2006) concluded that lobster-trapping activities are responsible for 

changes in abundance of a few species (target species have declined, and some crab species have 

increased because of competitive replacement) of the benthic community in the NWHI, but do 

not appear to have resulted in major changes to the ecosystem. Moffitt et al. (2006) also observed 

that gear lost in this fishery has not been found to be “ghost fishing” (still catching organisms), 

and although direct damage to the benthic habitat by the traps has not been studied, it is not 

■ ■ 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 174 

likely to be substantial because of the low-relief, hard substrate that characterizes the fishing 

grounds. 

Since 1999, NMFS has not issued harvest guidelines for the NWHI lobster fishery because of 

uncertainties in accurate lobster stock assessments. In 2006, President George W. Bush 

essentially closed the fishery permanently in his proclamation establishing the NWHI Marine 

National Monument by instructing the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that any commercial 

lobster fishing permit shall be subject to a zero annual harvest limit (71 FR 36447; June 26, 

2006). 

Deepwater shrimp 

Eight species of Heterocarpus have been reported throughout the tropical Pacific (Heterocarpus 

ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. lepidus, H. dorsalis, H. tricarinatus, and H. 

longirostris). These shrimp are generally found at depths of 200 to 1,200 meters on the outer 

reef slopes that surround islands and deepwater banks. Species distribution tends to be stratified 

by depth with some overlap. The deepwater trap fisheries have primarily targeted Heterocarpus 

ensifer and H. laevigatus. Western Pacific commercial trap fisheries for deepwater shrimp are 

intermittent. There were small-scale fisheries in Guam during the 1970s and some activity in the 

CNMI during the mid-1990s. 

In Hawaii, an intermittent deepwater shrimp fishery began in 1967 (Tagami and Ralston 1988) 

and continues to vary from year to year with an average of three vessels reporting the catch of 

deepwater shrimp to the state of Hawaii. Vessels ranged in size from 7.5 to 40 m in length, 

though the number of smaller vessels increased as larger vessels left the fishery (Tagami and 

Barrows 1988). To date, the highest landings (~175,000 lb) of deepwater shrimp in Hawaii 

occurred in 1984; however, in 1989 nearly 270,000 lb were landed, with an estimated ex-vessel 

value of more than $1 million. In 2005, vessels from the Pacific Northwest fished for 

Heterocarpus spp. in Hawaii and landed over 100,000 lb. Between 1982 and 2005, the 

cumulative landings of H. laevigatus amounted to over 1.5 million lb, while during the same 

time period H. ensifer landings totaled over 20,000 lb. 

Deepwater shrimp fisheries have been sporadic and short-lived throughout the Pacific since the 

1960s (Hastie and Saunders 1992). The fisheries have been unregulated, and there has been no 

comprehensive collection of information on the fishery. Most of these fishing ventures have been 

unprofitable. The reasons for this are manifold. Gear loss has been a common problem and made 

many past ventures unprofitable. A second difficulty is the short shelf life and a history of 

inconsistent quality, leading to fluctuating market demand for the product. Lastly, these fisheries 

generally experience local depletion on known fishing grounds, which leads to much lower catch 

rates. While other banks might have abundant stocks, unfamiliarity with them could lead to even 

greater gear loss. 

Traps are the primary method used to harvest deepwater shrimps in the western Pacific. Trawls 

do not work well in areas with the steep bathymetry that is typical for the region. Several types 

of traps have been used. Some consist of a steel frame that is covered with wire or plastic mesh, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 175 

or with netting. Some are boxes made of plastic-coated wire mesh panels or formed plastic 

shells. 

Trap shapes include boxes, ovals, half-cylinders, and pyramids. The traps used in the Hawaiian 

Islands have been 0.91 m tall pyramids with 1.83 m2 bases, with a single entrance at the top. 

Traps have typically been baited with mackerel, set during the day, left out overnight, and 

recovered the next day. The traps in Hawaii were deployed individually, whereas in the NMI, 

several traps were deployed strung out on a line. Traps are connected to the surface by long float 

lines and marked with buoys. Hawaiian traps used 1.91 cm polypropylene float lines with two 

large floats spaced several yards apart on the surface. 

Typically, fishery operations consisted of one to four vessels. Vessels lengths ranged from 7.5 to 

40 m. Based on the Hawaii fishery, a 30-meter vessel could carry about 50 traps, but typically 

set about 30 traps per night. 

Currently, there is little information about bycatch associated with the deepwater shrimp 

(Heterocarpus spp.) fishery and what is known comes primarily from research sampling. 

Lobsters harvested in the Hawaiian Archipelago are marketed as fresh product or as frozen 

lobster tails, with each vessel processing its catch at sea. In general, shrimp are considered luxury 

food items; therefore care in handling is practiced. Smaller vessels normally wash the shrimp and 

store them in iced sea-water for transportation to protect the shrimp from enzyme-induced 

reactions (King 1993). Larger vessels have the space on board to process the shrimp by quick 

freezing them, which preserves their quality and allows them to be easily exported. Local 

markets, restaurants, and hotels use whole, fresh, chilled shrimp. Shrimp tails are less likely to be 

used because of low meat recovery rates, which is not commercially attractive (Oishi 1983). The 

domestic processing capacity and domestic processing levels will equal or exceed the harvest for 

the foreseeable future. 

3.5.4.3.1.3. Bottomfish Fisheries - Hawaii

Bottomfish fishing was a part of the economy and culture of the indigenous people of Hawaii 

long before European explorers first visited the islands. Descriptions of traditional fishing 

practices indicate that Native Hawaiians harvested the same deep-sea bottomfish species as the 

modern fishery and used some of the same specialized gear and techniques employed today. 

The deep-slope bottomfish fishery in Hawaii concentrates on species of eteline snappers (e.g., 

opakapaka), carangids (e.g., jacks), and a single species of grouper (hapuupuu) concentrated at 

depths of 30–150 fathoms. The fishery can be divided into two geographical areas: the inhabited 

MHI with their surrounding reefs and offshore banks, and the NWHI, a 1,200-nautical chain of 

largely uninhabited islets, reefs, and shoals. Bottomfish fishing grounds within federal waters 

around the MHI include Middle Bank, most of Penguin Bank, and approximately 45 nautical 

miles of 100-fathom bottomfish habitat in the Maui–Lanai–Molokai complex. For management 

purposes, the NWHI fishery has been separated into the closer Mau Zone between 165° W and 

161° 20' W, and the more northwestern Hoomalu Zone to the west of 165° W. Participants in the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 176 

NWHI bottomfish fishery are commercial, while those in the MHI fishery will fish both 

commercially and non-commercially. 

The basic design of the handline gear used in the MHI bottomfish fisheries consists of a main 

line with a 2 - 4 kg weight attached to the terminus. Several 40-60 cm long branchlines with 

circle hooks baited with squid or other cut bait are attached above the weight at 0.5-1.0 meter 

intervals. A chum bag containing chopped fish or squid may be suspended above the highest of 

these hooks. The gear is retrieved after several fish are hooked. 

Circle hooks used in the bottomfish fishery are flat by design. Offset hooks are also available, 

but are not generally used. The flat circle hooks are designed to be self-setting and work well for 

fish that engulf the bait and move off with it in their mouth. As a fish moves off with the baited 

hook, the line will trail out of the corner of the fish’s mouth. The hook will be drawn into the 

corner of the mouth where the motion of the fish in relation to the pull of the line will rotate the 

hook through the corner of the jaw. Circle hooks, unlike “J” type hooks, are generally not 

effective for fish that mouth the bait and spit it out. Fishermen use the circle hook for its selfsetting ability and for its curved design that makes it difficult for the fish to rid itself of the hook 

once it is embedded. The circle hook shank is typically thicker and round in cross section (unlike 

the thinner, straight J type hooks), which tends to minimize ripping or wearing a hole in the 

fish’s jaw. An additional characteristic of the circle hook design that appeals to fishermen is that 

it is less prone to snagging on rocky or hard substrate bottoms and difficult to snag on flat or 

smooth surfaces. This characteristic minimizes the loss of gear (K. Kawamoto, PIFSC, personal 

communication). 

The “Deep 7” species are the most commercially important bottomfish in Hawaii, and as such 

are the primary target of most bottomfish fishermen in Hawaii. The “Deep 7” bottomfish are 

onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P.

sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapu‘upu‘u (Epinephelus 

quernus). Other species such as uku (Aprion virescens), white ulua (Caranx ignobilis), and 

kahala (Seriola dumerili) are also taken. The ability to target particular species varies widely 

depending on the skill of each fisherman. Electronic navigation and fish-finding equipment 

greatly aid fishermen in returning to a particular fishing spot and catching desired species with 

little incidental catch (Haight et al. 1993). Opakapaka is one of the primary target species due to 

the relatively high price it commands as a result of its constant demand at the fish auction. 

Hapu‘upu‘u and white ulua are sought because of their sturdiness and ability to retain good flesh 

quality. In addition, white ulua can be caught in rough sea conditions when other species are 

difficult to capture. Because of potential ciguatera toxicity, however, ulua are not usually 

targeted. Kahala are one of the least valuable bottomfish because large specimens have a 

reputation for carrying the ciguatera toxin and high densities of parasites in the flesh. 

Commercially-important deepwater bottomfish inhabit the deep slopes of islands and banks 

between depths of 100 and 400 meters (about 55 to 220 fathoms). The distribution of adult 

bottomfish is highly correlated with suitable physical habitat, which generally includes highrelief areas with water movement. Fishermen target specific areas by drifting or anchoring their 

vessels, taking into consideration ocean currents (both surface and at depth), wind speed, wind 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 177 

direction and sea conditions. These environmental constraints limit the time during which 

bottomfish fishing can be conducted. 

MHI Commercial Bottomfish Fishery 

Commercial bottomfish vessels are required to obtain a State of Hawaii commercial marine 

license through the DAR, DLNR. Commercial vessel operators are required to report catch, 

effort, and location information on a monthly basis. There are currently 2,355 commercial 

bottomfish vessels registered with DLNR (unpublished data, DLNR-DAR 2007). Some 300 

fishermen reported catching and selling bottomfish (i.e., commercial fishing) in 2006 (Moffitt et 

al., 2006). 

The number of fishermen engaged in commercial bottomfish fishing in the MHI increased 

dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, but then declined in the early 1990s. It rebounded 

somewhat in the late 1990s, but in 2002 reached its lowest level since 1977. The recent decline 

in vessels and fishing effort may be due to the long-term decrease in catch rates in the bottomfish 

fishery and a shift of fishing effort towards tuna and other pelagic species. 

The breakdown of vessel types by each island is shown in Table 3-12. Registered vessels range 

in size from 8 - 65 ft in length. However, the vast majority of the registered vessels lie in the 

range of 14 to 30 ft in length. The largest size class is 19 ft. 

Table 3-12. Bottomfish Vessel Registration by Island and by Commercial Status. 

Category Kauai Oahu Molokai Lanai Maui Hawaii 

Commercial 342 723 7 17 337 907 

Non-commercial 159 1,311 29 10 152 242 

Total by Island 501 2,034 36 27 489 1,149 

Total Commercial 2,355

Total Noncommercial 1,881

Percent (%) Noncommercial by 

Island 

31.7 64.5 19.4 37.0 31.1 21.1 

TOTAL PERCENT 

(%) NONCOMMERCIAL 

44.4

Source: Hawaii DAR unpublished data 

Fishermen who make trips longer than 24 hours are mostly full-time commercial fishermen. 

They typically operate larger boats than the part-time commercial/non-commercial fishermen 

and are able to fish during rough weather and venture further from port to fish less-exploited 

areas off Kauai, Niihau, and east Maui that are less accessible to the small boat fishermen. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 178 

The majority of participants in MHI fisheries shift target species groups and from the bottomfish 

fishery to other fisheries, primarily the pelagic troll and handline fisheries, in response to 

seasonal fish abundance or fluctuations in price. Except for those individuals who fish 

commercially on a full-time basis, most fishermen usually fish for bottomfish no more than 60 

days a year. Seasonal price variability of bottomfish causes part-time commercial fishermen to 

concentrate their bottomfish fishing effort during December, when they can take advantage of 

the year-end holiday demand for red snappers. Pelagic species are often an important secondary 

target during bottomfish fishing trips regardless of the season. These pelagic species are often 

caught by pelagic gear when bottomfish vessels are transiting to the bottomfish areas. 

The Main Hawaiian Islands 

MHI Non-commercial Bottomfish Fishery 

According to the State’s bottomfish fishing vessel registration requirement, in 2007 there were 

4,236 vessels registered to fish for bottomfish in Hawaii, with 1,881 of those being noncommercial (Unpublished data, DLNR-DAR 2007). The majority of the non-commercial fishery 

participants are based on Oahu. The DAR bottomfish fishing registry is not updated on a regular 

basis so it is difficult to know exactly how many of these vessels are actively fishing. 

Statistics for the non-commercial bottomfish fishery are limited as there is currently no 

requirement for recreational saltwater fishing licenses or catch reporting. Over the years, surveys 

have been conducted, but no systematic collection of non-commercial fisheries data has been 

sustained. The NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey, active in other parts of 

the country, was discontinued in Hawaii in the mid-1980s. Recently, however, this program has 

returned as the Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey (HMRFS), and it collects data using 

a dual survey approach consisting of random telephone surveys and a fisherman intercept survey 

conducted at boat launch ramps, small boat harbors, and shoreline fishing sites. To date, 

however, an insufficient number of intercepts of bottomfish fishermen have occurred to allow 

catch and effort determinations for this fishery. 

In 2005, the HDAR surveyed Hawaii’s registered bottomfish vessel owners by mail. The survey 

was mailed to 3,678 fishermen who were registered with the State bottomfish fishery. The return 

rate was approximately 22 percent. Of the 802 completed questionnaires, 38 percent said they 

actually fished for deepwater bottomfish in the previous year. Forty-eight percent said they 

sometimes fish for deepwater bottomfish, but had not done so during the previous year. Fourteen 

percent said they do not bottomfish at all. Of those who fished, most fished with another person 

(results ranged from one to five), fished two lines (results ranged from one to five) with, most 

often, five hooks per line (results ranged from one to 13). Bottomfish fishing effort varied 

cyclically over an annual cycle with the most effort occurring during November and December, 

and least effort during April and May. Weekends and holidays were the favored days for 

bottomfish fishing. Penguin Banks was the preferred fishing area. 

At this time it is not possible to accurately estimate what the total non-commercial landings are. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that landings by non-commercial bottomfish vessels average much less 

than landings by commercial bottomfish fishermen because of differences in vessel capability, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 179 

fishing skill, and avidity. There are limited data from the HMRFS program and some concerns 

about the sampling methods; statistical algorithms employed to develop non-commercial catch 

totals are being refined. The HMRFS program may be able to provide this estimate in the future 

with a revised HMRFS sampling protocol and data analysis and more bottomfish fisherman 

intercepts. New requirements for reporting Deep 7 bottomfish catch by non-commercial 

fishermen will also provide better data. 

NWHI Commercial Bottomfish Fishery 

Bottomfish fishing in the NWHI is conducted solely by commercial fishermen, and the vessels 

used tend to be larger (although required to be 60 feet or less) than those fishing around the MHI, 

as the distance to fishing grounds is greater. Participation in the NWHI bottomfish fishery is 

controlled through limited access programs in each of the two sub-management zones (Mau and 

Hoomalu). These zones were established to reduce the risk of biological overfishing and to 

improve the economic health and stability of the bottomfish fishery in the NWHI. Permits may 

not be sold, leased, or chartered. On the basis of the biological, economic, and social 

characteristics of the bottomfish fisheries in the two zones, the long-term target fleet sizes for the 

Hoomalu and Mau Zones were determined to be seven and ten vessels, respectively. In 2004, 

four vessels fished in the Hoomalu Zone, and five vessels fished in the Mau Zone. All of these 

vessels are independent, owner-operated fishing operations. In 2005, four vessels operated in 

each zone, for a total of eight operating in the NWHI. The NWHI bottomfish fishery will close 

on June 15, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument, which was established in the NWHI through Presidential Proclamation No. 8031 on 

June 15, 2006. 

Bottomfish gear and fishing strategies are highly selective for desired species and sizes. In 

addition, the use of bottom trawls, bottom gillnets, explosives, and poisons are forbidden under 

the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP. 

Overview of Hawaii Bottomfish Landings and Sales 

On the basis of recent (1998 to 2002) harvest data, commercial bottomfish catches in the MHI 

fishery represent approximately 60 percent of the total commercial bottomfish harvest in Hawaii 

(WPRFMC 2004a, 2004b). Data for 2003 indicate that a total of 272,569 pounds of commercial 

landings were made by 325 vessels in the MHI, with a total ex-vessel value of $1,460,000 

(Figures 3-19 and 3-20). Mau Zone landings for 2003 were estimated to total 77,000 pounds, 

with a total ex-vessel value of $356,769, while Hoomalu Zone landings were 145,000 pounds, 

with a total ex-vessel value of $494,450 (WPRFMC 2005). The bottomfish MSY for the MHI is 

estimated at 353,435 lb. Bottomfish MSY values for the Mau and Hoomalu Zones are estimated 

at 97,904 lb and 339,728 lb, respectively (Moffitt et al. 2006). In 2008, the total commercial 

catch of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish was restricted to 178,000 lb; and in 2009, the total allowable 

catch was restricted to 241,000 lb. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 180 

1986 1990 1995 2000 2003

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

MHI Ho'omalu Zone

Mau Zone

(1000 lbs)

Figure 3-19. MHI and NWHI Bottomfish Landings 1986 to 2003. 

Source: WPRFMC 2004c; 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

Figure 3-20. Hawaii Bottomfish Revenue (Inflation Adjusted) by Area 1970 to 2003. 

Source: WPRFMC 2004c. 

Nearly all bottomfish caught in the NWHI fisheries are sold through the Honolulu fish auction 

(United Fishing Agency, Ltd.). Bottomfish caught in the MHI fishery are sold in a wide variety 

~ • I I I I I • ..-.. ' • ,. • I I I • I I I • 

~ ~,..' I I I • ., • I I I -l' , 

■,■ ■' "'- I - I.:..:.•.· , 

, '•--------- -- --·-·-■------.. ~ 

I I I I I I I I 

I 

DMNHI DMHI 

0 

0 $8,000 0 

..... 

~ $7,000 --

"O 

a, $6,000 -(/) 

::::i $5,000 =o' 

c,s 

C $4,000 

0 

~ $3,000 c,s 

;;:: 

C 

$2,000 

a, 

::::i 

C $1 ,000 

a, 

> a, $0 a:: 

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003p 

Year 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 181 

of market outlets (Haight et al. 1993a). Some fish are marketed through the fish auction and 

intermediary buyers on all islands. Sales of MHI bottomfish also occur through less formal 

market channels such as local restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, and individual consumers. 

Unsold fish are consumed by fishermen and their families, given to friends and relatives as gifts, 

and bartered in exchange for various goods and services. 

Onaga and opakapaka make up the largest valued landings in each area for most years (ignoring 

the highly fluctuating landings of uku); NWHI ex-vessel prices were $4.53 and $4.79 per pound, 

respectively, in 2003 while MHI prices were $5.89 and $5.01, respectively. However, the NWHI 

landings comprise a higher percentage of these higher priced species compared with the MHI, so 

the difference in revenues for individual species by area is flattened by the different species 

compositions between the two areas (see Figure 3-21). 

Figure 3-21. Average Prices for NWHI and MHI BMUS Landings 1970 to 2003. 

Source: WPRFMC 2004c. 

According to U.S. Customs data for the Port of Honolulu, 801,000 pounds of snapper were 

imported in 2003 and were worth $2.26 million ($2.82 per pound). This exceeded the domestic 

supply and thus was a significant factor upon which to base local ex-vessel prices (WPRFMC 

2004c). Tonga and Australia were the largest sources of fresh snapper, with Fiji and New 

Zealand also being major sources. Not only has the quantity of foreign-caught fresh fish 

increased during the last few years, but the number of countries exporting fresh fish to Hawaii 

has also increased. A decade ago, for example, fresh snapper was exported to Hawaii mainly 

from within the South Pacific region. In recent years, Tonga and Australia were the largest 

sources of imported fresh snapper, along with Fiji and New Zealand, but snapper and other types 

of bottomfish have also been received from Indonesia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chad, Japan, 

Kiribati, Mozambique, Philippines, and Vietnam.50

 

50http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/trade_dist_allproducts_mth.results?qtype=IMP&qmonthfrom=01&qmonthto=0

1&qyearfrom=1996&qyearto=2005&qproduct=%25&qdistrict=32&qsort=COUNTRY&qoutput=TABLE (January 

2007). 

a, 

(.) 

$6.00 

$5.00 

$4.00 

$3.00 

$2.00 

;r $1.00 

$0.00 

- MHI 

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003p 

Year 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 182 

Hawaii bottomfish fishery status and regulations 

In 2005, it was determined that the Hawaii Archipelago multi-species bottomfish complex was 

experiencing overfishing as defined in the MSA, with the MHI the area where the overfishing 

problem primarily occurs (70 FR 34452; June 14, 2005). A more recent stock assessment found 

that the Hawaii archipelagic bottomfish stocks are in better condition than the previous analysis 

(Brodziak et al. 2009). 

Amendment 14 to Hawaii’s Bottomfish FMP became effective April 1, 2008 (73 FR 18450), 

with the permit and reporting requirements effective as of August 18, 2008 (73 FR 41296). 

Amendment 14 implemented the following requirements for vessel-based bottomfish fishing in 

the MHI: 

(1) Federal bottomfish permits are required for vessel owners and fishermen to conduct 

vessel-based non-commercial fishing for any bottomfish management unit species 

(BMUS), not just Deep 7 species, in Federal waters around the MHI (except customers of 

charter fishing trips). 

(2) Operators of non-commercial fishing vessels are required to submit daily Federal 

logbooks that document bottomfish fishing effort and catch for each fishing trip, and 

vessel owners share the responsibility for submitting the logbooks in a timely manner. 

The data from these logbooks will be the basis for calculating non-commercial fishing 

effort and harvest of BMUS, bycatch, and interactions with protected species. 

(3) A closed season was implemented between May and August of 2008. During this closure, 

fishing for Deep 7 species was prohibited in Federal waters. Fishing for bottomfish 

species other than Deep 7 species was not prohibited during the closed season. 

(4) An annual total allowable catch (TAC) management system was established for the MHI 

commercial bottomfish fishery. The TAC will be determined each fishing year using the 

best available scientific information, commercial and non-commercial fishing data, and 

other information, and will consider the associated risk of overfishing. NMFS will 

publish in the Federal Register by August 31 the TAC for the upcoming fishing year, and 

will use other means to notify permit holders of the TAC. When the TAC is projected to 

be reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register and use other means 

to notify permit holders that the fishery will be closed on a specified date, providing 

fishermen with two weeks advance notice of the closure. The TAC for the 2007-08 

fishing year (October 2007 through April 2008) was set at 178,000 lb (80,740 kg) of 

Deep 7 species. Progress toward the 2007-08 TAC was determined by the catch reported 

by holders of Hawaii commercial marine license (CML). When the 2007-08 TAC was 

reached, the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish were 

closed. Based on the latest stock assessment, the 2008-2009 TAC was set at 241,000 lbs. 

There is no prohibition on fishing for other bottomfish species throughout the year. NMFS 

intends to repeal the Federal non-commercial bag limits once the data collected from the non-
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 183 

commercial bottomfish fishery are determined to be adequate to include in the annual TAC 

calculation. 

Non-commercial fishermen are allowed to catch, possess, and land as many as five Deep 7 fish 

combined, per person, per fishing trip regardless of whether the fish were caught in State or Federal 

waters. The State of Hawaii also has a similar bag limit for non-commercial fishing but is not 

cumulative with the Federal bag limit. 

At the Council’s request, NMFS issued a final notice of specifications for the MHI Deep 7 

bottomfish fishery (74 FR 6998) which specified a Total Allowable Catch of 241,000 lb of Deep 

7 species caught by commercial fishermen in waters around the Main Hawaiian Islands during 

the 2008-2009 fishing year. 

The Presidential Proclamation of June 15, 2006, closed commercial fisheries within the 

monument’s boundaries immediately except for the NWHI commercial bottomfish fishery which 

will close by June 15, 2011. However, Native Hawaiian cultural practices, including subsistence 

fishing, may be permitted to continue. Although the commercial bottomfish and associated 

pelagic fishing operations in the NWHI may continue over the five-year period, they would be 

subject to a landing limit on each species complex. No more than 350,000 pounds of bottomfish 

and no more than 180,000 pounds of pelagic fish may be landed within a given year. 

Furthermore, over the next five years, all bottomfish fishing operations in the NWHI must 

comply with new area closures, vessel monitoring and reporting requirements in addition to 

existing regulations. 

3.5.4.3.1.4. Precious Corals Fisheries - Hawaii 

The collection of black coral from depths of 30–100 meters by scuba divers has continued in 

Hawaii since black coral beds were discovered off Lahaina, Maui, in the late 1950s, although 

harvest levels have fluctuated with changes in demand. Since 1980, virtually all of the black 

coral harvested around the Hawaiian Islands has been taken from a bed located in the Au’au 

Channel. Most of the harvest has come from State of Hawaii waters, and no black coral diver 

has ever received a federal permit to harvest precious coral in the EEZ. However, a substantial 

portion of the black coral bed in the Au’au Channel is located in the EEZ. In 1999, concern 

about the potential for greater harvesting pressure on the black coral resources led the State of 

Hawaii to prohibit taking the harvest of black coral with a base diameter of less than threequarter inches from state waters. A Regulatory Amendment to the FMP in 2007, eliminated an 

exemption to harvest of black corals that have a minimum base diameter of 3⁄4 of an inch for 

fishermen that reported harvest to the State of Hawaii prior to April 17, 2002. (72 FR 58259). 

Currently, live black corals may only be harvested at a minimum base diameter of 1 inch or 

minimum height of 48 inches. The Au’au Channel Bed became an established bed in 2008 

through Amendment 7 to the Precious Corals FMP (73 FR 47098). 

After two decades of minimal activity, the domestic fishery for pink, gold, and bamboo precious 

corals in the EEZ of Hawaii resumed in December 1999. One company used two one-man 

submersibles to survey and harvest pink and gold corals at depths between 400 and 500 meters 

during 1999 and 2001; however, they did not continue their operations after that time and the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 184 

actual harvests cannot be reported here because of data confidentiality policies that prohibit the 

publication of proprietary information unless there are at least three separate operations included 

in the dataset. 

In 1988, the domestic fishing vessel Kilauea used a tangle net dredge (now prohibited) to harvest 

beds at Hancock Seamount. Their catch, however, consisted mostly of dead or low-quality pink 

coral, and the operation was soon discontinued. In the mid-1980s, a company experimented with 

manned submersibles equipped with spotlights, cameras, and a variety of maneuverable tools to 

harvest individual colonies, chosen by size and quality prior to cutting, in a highly controlled and 

efficient manner (Carleton 1987). 

The Western Pacific Region’s gold coral fishery is currently dormant, although research on gold 

coral remains active. Recent research has called into question current assumptions about the 

correlation between linear and axial growth rates of gold coral. Based on recommendations from 

fishery scientists and as a precautionary measure, at its December 21, 2006 meeting, the Council 

took final action to recommend a five-year moratorium to fish for, take, or retain any gold coral 

in any precious coral permit area. This moratorium includes all waters of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone of the Western Pacific Region and is currently in effect through June 30, 2013 

(73 FR 47098). During the moratorium, an associated research program will collect data on the 

age structure, growth rate, and correlations between length and age. 

Between 1990 and 1997, the annual harvest of black coral in Hawaii varied from a low of 864 

pounds to a high of 6,017 pounds, with a yearly average of 3,084 pounds (Table 3-13). Landings 

and ex-vessel values of the black corals recently harvested in Hawaii cannot be presented 

because of the low number of active harvesting operations (fewer than three). 

Because the Precious Corals FMP allows harvest only by selective gear (i.e., with submersibles 

or by hand), Federal precious coral fisheries in Hawaii have no bycatch. 

Table 3-13. Volume and Value of Black Coral Landings in Hawaii 1990 to 1997. 

Year Harvested (lb) Sold (lb) Value ($) 

1990 2,349 2,169 31,575 

1991 2,305 2,250 35,080 

1992 2,398 2,328 46,560 

1993 864 769 15,380 

1994 4,354 4,209 84,180 

1995 6,017 5,912 122,765 

1996 4,865 1,703 41,325 

1997 1,520 415 10,394 

Source: Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources unpublished data. 

Note: Years 1998 to present are not provided due to data confidentiality policies.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 185 

The naming of black coral as the Hawaii state gem in 1987 increased consumer interest in this 

precious coral. However, the quantity of black coral required by jewelry manufacturers in 

Hawaii has dropped considerably because the jewelry items produced are smaller and of higher 

quality and because modern cutting procedures have become much more efficient (Carleton 

1987). In 1976, Grigg estimated a black coral MSY of 5,000 kg/yr (Grigg 1976). Recently, Grigg 

discovered a greater impact to the black coral resource from an invasive soft coral, Carijoa riisei, 

and based on that, coupled with harvesting impacts, estimated a reduced MSY of 3,750 kg/yr 

(Grigg 2004) for this area. 

A worldwide glut of Corallium produced during the boom years of the early 1980s caused the 

market value of pink coral to fall. Consequently, many fishermen dropped out of the fishery and 

the worldwide supply of deepwater precious corals has dwindled. The precious corals jewelry 

industry in Hawaii has been estimated to be worth at least $25 million in annual revenue (Grigg 

1993). 

3.5.4.3.2.Pelagic Fisheries- Hawaii 

Hawaii’s pelagic fisheries, which include the longline, troll and handline, offshore handline, and 

the aku boat (poleline) fisheries are the state’s largest and most valuable (Figures 3-22 and 3-

23). The target species are tunas and billfish, but a variety of other species are also important 

(e.g., mahimahi, ono). Collectively, these pelagic fisheries made approximately 22 million 

pounds of commercial landings with a total ex-vessel value nearly $50 million in 2004 

(WPFMC 2005). 

The largest component of pelagic catch in 2004 was tuna. Bigeye tuna was the largest component 

of the commercial catch, and has increased almost fivefold from its 1987 catch. Swordfish was 

the largest component of the billfish catch from 1990 through 2000, but it was replaced by blue 

marlin in the next years and by striped marlin in 2003. Mahimahi was the largest component of 

the nontuna and nonbillfish catch though ono (wahoo) and moonfish catches have increased to 

comparable levels in recent years (WPFMC 2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 186 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Pounds (Millions)

Longline MHI Troll MHI Handline Offs hore Handline Aku Boat

Figure 3-22. Hawaii Commercial Pelagic Catch by Gear Type, 1987 to 2004. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005; 2004 Pelagic Annual Report. 

Figure 3-23. Hawaii Pelagic Revenue by Gear Type, 1987 to 2004. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005; 2004 Pelagic Annual Report.

The total number of recreational fishers in Hawaii is unknown but there are about 14,300 small 

vessels in Hawaii, of which about 90 percent are registered as ‘pleasure craft.’ McConnell and 

Haab (2001) estimated that 6,600 of these vessels might be used for recreational fishing. Out of a 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Revenue ($Million)

Longline MHI Troll MHI Handline Offshore Handline Aku Boat

I• • □ 

I• • □ ■ ■ 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 187 

sample of 1,008 respondents from these 6,600 vessel owners in a phone survey, 17 percent 

indicated that their vessel was either not being used or was not used for fishing. Based on these 

data it is estimated that Hawaii’s recreational small boat fleet numbers about 5,500 vessels. The 

Hawaii Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey (HMRFS) has been sampling recreational catches 

since 2003. The data indicate that little to no bigeye tuna is caught by recreational fishers, while 

yellowfin landings have been estimated to range between 2,270 and 5,050 tons, with a three year 

mean of 3,295 tons. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting the figures from the 

HMFRS program, which are generated through the product of catch per trip from intercept 

surveys at landing sites, and a random digit dialing phone survey to estimate effort in trips. The 

National Research Council review of the entire NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical 

Survey (MRFSS) has been highly critical of the sampling methods and statistical algorithms 

employed to develop recreational catch totals. As such, this Council has recommended that 

HMRFS catch estimates should not be used for management purposes until these problems have 

been fixed. Nonetheless, Hawaii’s recreational pelagic fishery is believed to catch notable 

amounts of yellowfin tuna, billfish, and other PMUS such as mahimahi and ono (wahoo). 

The Council was notified by letter on December, 15, 2004, that the Secretary of Commerce had 

determined that overfishing of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) was occurring Pacific-wide. As 

indicated in the MSA, and required by the implementing regulations for National Standard 1 (50 

CFR 600.310(e)(3), the Council was requested by the Secretary to take remedial action (i.e.,

recommend to NMFS an amendment to its Pelagics Fishery Management Plan) within one year. 

More recently in August 2005, the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific 

Fisheries Commission reviewed a stock assessment that indicated that yellowfin tuna (Thunnus 

albacares) in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean also appears to being subjected to 

overfishing. 

Pacific bigeye and yellowfin tunas occur in the waters of multiple nations and the high seas and 

are fished by the fleets of other nations in addition to those of the U.S. The capacity for unilateral 

action by the U.S. to prevent overfishing, as required under National Standard 1 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1), is limited as is the capacity for actions taken by 

the Councils to end overfishing, as required under 50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(i)) (69 FR 78397). 

Bigeye tuna catches by commercial fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction in 2004 amounted 

to 5,163 metric tonnes (t), or 2.3 percent of the 2004 total Pacific-wide bigeye catch. Similarly, 

2004 yellowfin tuna catches by commercial fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction amounted 

to 2,383 t or about 0.35 percent of the 2004 total Pacific-wide yellowfin catches, and 0.58 

percent of the yellowfin caught in the WCPO. The Council has recommended management 

action for research, monitoring and management of international and domestic fisheries that 

would end overfishing of Pacific bigeye and WCPO yellowfin tunas in a cost-effective and 

equitable manner. The Council completed Amendment 14 to the Pelagics FMP to address 

overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna on August 23, 2006 and a proposed rule to implement 

its recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14761). The amendment was 

only partially approved; however, the Council’s recommendation for international management 

action to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was approved by NMFS. These 

recommendations were based on the best available science including the most recent stock 

assessments (July 2004 and August 2005 for bigeye and yellowfin tuna respectively), and in light 

of the fact that any unilateral management action on U.S.-based vessels can only have minimal 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 188 

direct impacts on stocks as they harvest only 2.3 percent of the total Pacific bigeye catch and less 

than 1 percent of the total Pacific yellowfin catch. For more information on this issue, please 

visit www.wpcouncil.org or contact the Council51. 

3.5.4.4. Fishing Communities - Hawaii 

The most recent estimate of the contribution of the commercial, charter, and recreational fishing 

sectors to Hawaii’s economy indicated that in 1992, these sectors contributed $118.79 million 

of output (production) and $34.29 million of household income, and employed 1,469 people 

(Sharma et al. 1999). These contributions accounted for 0.25 percent of total state output ($47.4 

billion), 0.17 percent of household income ($20.2 billion), and 0.19 percent of employment 

(757,132 jobs). In contrast to the sharp decline in some traditional mainstays of Hawaii’s 

economy, such as large-scale agriculture, the fishing industry has been fairly stable for the past 

few decades. For example, total revenues in Hawaii’s pelagic, bottomfish, and lobster fisheries 

in 1998 were about 10 percent higher than 1988 revenues (adjusted for inflation) in those 

fisheries. 

The Hawaii longline fishery is by far the most economically important of Hawaii’s commercial 

fisheries, accounting for 77 percent of the estimated ex-vessel value of the total commercial fish 

landings in the state in 2003 (WPRFMC 2004a, 2004b). 

Income generation in Hawaii is dominated by tourism, federal defense spending, and, to a lesser 

extent, agriculture. Tourism is by far the leading industry in Hawaii in terms of generating jobs 

and contributing to gross state product. The World Travel and Tourism Council (1999) 

estimated that tourism in Hawaii directly generated 134,300 jobs in 1999. This figure represents 

22.6 percent of the total workforce. 

For 2002, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (2003) estimated 

that direct and indirect visitor contribution to the state economy was 22.3 percent. A bit less 

than half of that (10.2 %) was generated in Waikiki. Total visitor expenditures in Hawaii were 

$9,993,775,000. Tourism’s direct and indirect contribution to Hawaii’s gross state product in 

2002 was estimated at $7,974,000,000, or 17.3 percent of the total. Directly and indirectly, 

tourism accounted for 22.3 percent of all civilian jobs, and 26.4 percent of all local and state 

taxes. 

Department of Defense expenditures are also important to Hawaii’s economy. Defense 

expenditures in Hawaii are expected to contribute substantially to Hawaii’s economy due to 

ongoing military operations and support. As of late July 2004, Hawaii expected to receive 

$496.7 million in defense-related spending. When combined with funds earmarked for 

construction that are contained in a measure before the Senate, Hawaii stands to receive more 

than $865 million in defense dollars, which do not include funds for day-to-day operations or 

payroll (Inouye 2004). 

 

51 WPRFMC. 1164 Bishop St. Ste. 1400, Honolulu, HI. 96813. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 189 

Agricultural products include sugarcane, pineapples, nursery stock, livestock, and macadamia 

nuts. In 2002, agriculture generated a total of $510,672,000 in sales. Agricultural employment 

decreased from 7,850 workers in 2000 to 6,850 in 2003. 

Table 3-14. Statistical Summary of Hawaii’s Economy: 1995 to 1999, 2002. 

Category Units 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2002

Civilian labor 

force Number 576,400 590,200 592,000 595,000 594,800 582,200

Unemployment Percent 5.9 6.4 6.4 6.2 5.6 4.2

Gross state 

product in 1996 

dollars 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

37,963 37,517 37,996 38,015 38,047 38,839 

(2001) 

Manufacturing 

sales 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

2,045 1,724 1468.8 NA NA NA

Agriculture (all 

crops and 

livestock) 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

492.7 494.6 486.5 492.6 512,992 510,672

Construction 

completed 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

3,153.3 3,196.4 2,864.9 NA NA NA

Retail sales 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

15,693.3 16,565 16,426 NA NA NA

Defense 

expenditures 

Millions 

(in 

dollars) 

3,782.5 3,883.5 4,074.9 4,103.7 4,174.2 4,293,459

Source: Bank of Hawaii, 1999a; Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 1999, 2003. 

Median household income in Hawaii was calculated to be $30,040 (or 97 percent) of the 

national average in 2002. Hawaii per capita income as a percentage of the national average has 

fallen steadily since 1970 (Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 

2003). In 1999, approximately 10 percent of Hawaii’s families were below the poverty level, 

compared with approximately 12 percent nationally, according to data from the 2000 census52. 

Civilian employment decreased from 411,250 in 1991 to 396,050 in 2002, which is a decrease 

from a 98 percent employment rate to a 96 percent rate. 

 

52 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15000.html 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 190 

For several decades, Hawaii benefited from the strength of regional economies around the 

Pacific that supported the state’s dominant economic sector and principal source of external 

receipts—tourism (Bank of Hawaii 1999a). In addition, industries of long-standing importance 

in Hawaii, such as the Federal military sector and plantation agriculture, also experienced 

significant growth. However, Hawaii’s economic situation changed dramatically in the 1990s. 

The state’s main tourist market, Japan, entered a long period of economic malaise that caused 

the tourism industry in Hawaii to stagnate. The post–Cold War era brought military downsizing. 

Tens of thousands of acres of plantation lands, along with downstream processing facilities, 

were idled by the end of the decade because of high production costs. Employment in Hawaii 

sugar production fell by 20 percent between 1990 and 1993 and by an additional 50 percent 

from 1994 to 1995 (Yuen et al. 1997). Net out-migration became the norm in Hawaii, 

notwithstanding the state’s appeal as a place to live. In 1998, the statewide unemployment rate 

was 6.2 percent, and unemployment on the island of Molokai reached 15 percent (Department 

of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 1999). 

As a consequence of the economic upheaval of the 1990s and the extensive bankruptcies, 

foreclosures, and unemployment, Hawaii never entered the period of economic prosperity that 

many U.S. mainland states experienced. Between 1998 and 2000, Hawaii’s tourism industry 

recovered substantially, mainly because the strength of the national economy promoted growth 

in visitor arrivals from the continental United States (Brewbaker 2000). 

By 2002, an improving economy resulted in a statewide unemployment rate of 4.4 percent, with 

Molokai down to 8.6 percent (Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 

2003). Despite downswings in tourism in the past few years because of 9/11, the SARS scare, 

Japanese economic issues, and world political conditions, tourism in Hawaii is improving to the 

point that there were fears that there would not be enough hotel rooms to accommodate all of 

the Japanese tourists who wanted to come for O Bon season53 in August 2004 (Schafers 2004). 

However, efforts to diversify the economy and thereby make it less vulnerable to future 

economic downturns have met with little success. To date, economic development initiatives 

such as promoting Hawaii as a center for high-technology industry have attracted few investors, 

and it seems unlikely that any new major industry will develop in Hawaii in the near future to 

significantly increase employment opportunities and broaden the state’s economy beyond 

tourism, the military, and construction. 

Bank of Hawaii summarized the recent general trends as of August, 2008. At midyear, 2008, 

Hawaii’s economic growth had slowed to a crawl due to higher oil prices, falling tourism, and 

falling residential investment. The decrease in tourism is fueled by both decreased domestic 

demand and a reduction in the number of trans-Pacific flights resulting from the shutdown of 

Aloha Airlines and ATA, which previously represented 15-20 percent of the available seats to 

Hawaii. Hawaii’s unemployment rate rose to 3.5 percent in June 2008 on a seasonally-adjusted 

basis, while job growth slowed to a few tenths of one percent, well below the rate necessary to 

generate enough labor force absorption to prevent the unemployment rate from rising. Since 

then, Hawaii’s unemployment rate has continued to rise and as of September 2008, hit 4.5%. 

Honolulu’s inflation rate was 4.9 percent in first half 2008, up slightly from the 4.8 percent for 

 

53 Festival of Souls, a Japanese cultural event. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 191 

all of 2007. While shelter costs began to moderate, energy costs rose significantly. Household 

fuels and utilities costs rose 36.4 percent. 

3.5.5. Pacific Remote Island Areas 

3.5.5.1. Baker Island 

Baker Island, which is part of the Phoenix Islands Archipelago, is located 13 miles north of the 

equator at 0° 13' N and 176° 38' W and approximately 1,600 nautical miles to the southwest of 

Honolulu. The total amount of emergent land area of Baker Island is 1.4 square kilometers 

(Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book 2005). 

3.5.5.1.1.Coral Reefs – Baker Island 

Within the 10-fathom curve, the potential coral reef area of Baker Island is estimated at 5.2 

square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). At Baker Island, the following numbers of coral reef 

associated organisms are reported to occur: 91 species of corals, 13 genera of algae, and 247 

species of coral reef fishes (Brainard et al. 2005, USFWS 2007a). Although environmental and 

anthropogenic stressors such as climate change and coral bleaching, diseases, tropical storms, 

and marine debris remain, the coral reef ecosystem around Baker Island appears to be healthy 

and productive (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.1.2.Deep Reef Slope – Baker Island 

Baker Island is a seamount surrounded by a narrow-fringing reef that drops steeply very close to 

the shore. To date, data on the habitat of Baker Island’s deep- reef slope and the marine life it 

supports are unavailable. 

3.5.5.1.3.Pelagic Habitat – Baker Island 

Because of its position near the equator, Baker Island lies within the westward-flowing South 

Equatorial Current. Baker Island also experiences an eastward-flowing Equatorial Undercurrent 

that causes upwelling of nutrient and plankton rich waters on the west side of the island 

(Brainard et al. 2005). Sea-surface temperatures of pelagic EEZ waters around Baker Island are 

often near 30° C.54 Although the depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters around Baker 

Island is seasonally variable, average mixed layer depth is around 100 meters (R. Moffitt, 

PIFSC, personal communication, July 2005). 

3.5.5.1.4.Protected Resources – Baker Island 

3.5.5.1.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles have been observed foraging in the nearshore areas 

around Baker Island (USFWS 2007a). However, they have not been observed nesting on the 

 

54 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 192 

island (Beth Flint, USFWS personal communication, July 2005). Other species of sea turtles 

may occur in the EEZ waters around Baker Island, but to date, data on species type or their 

abundance are not available. 

3.5.5.1.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

A resident population of bottlenose dolphins is reported to occur near Howland and Baker 

Islands (Brainard et al. 2005). Although other cetaceans such as sperm whales are believed to 

occur around Baker Island, information on the species and their abundance are currently 

unavailable. In the summer of 2005, researchers from the NMFS’s Southwest Science Center 

conducted a cruise to record the occurrence of marine mammals around the PRIA. The data 

from that research cruise are presently being analyzed. 

3.5.5.1.4.3. Seabirds 

Baker Island provides feeding and resting habitat for large numbers of Pacific migratory 

seabirds and is an important central Pacific migratory shorebird habitat. Eleven species of 

seabirds breed at Baker Island (USFWS 2007a). 

3.5.5.1.5.Social Environment – Baker Island 

In the early nineteenth century, several whaling ships landed on the island, including the Gideon 

Howard for whose captain, Michael Baker, the island is named. Captain Baker later sold his 

rights to the island to the American Guano Company, which extensively mined the island’s 

phosphate deposits from 1859 to 1878. In 1935, American colonists attempted to settle the island 

and built dwellings, a lighthouse, and planted trees and shrubs.55 The settlement was abandoned 

due to World War II. Baker Island was designated a National Wildlife Refuge in 1974, and is 

administered by the FWS for DOI in accordance with Title 50 regulations. Currently, Baker 

Island is uninhabited. 

The Council’s Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP (69 FR 8336) established a no-take MPA from 0 to 

50 fathoms around Baker Island. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Baker Island as a Unit of the Pacific 

Remote Islands Marine National Monument. 

3.5.5.2. Howland Island 

Howland Island, which is also part of the Phoenix Islands Archipelago, is located 48 miles north 

of the equator at 0° 48' N and 176° 38' W, and 36 nautical miles north of Baker Island. The 

island, which is the emergent top of a seamount, is fringed by a relatively flat coral reef that 

drops off sharply. Howland Island is approximately 1.5 miles long and 0.5 miles wide. The 

island is flat and supports some grasses and small shrubs. The total land area is 1.6 square 

kilometers (Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book 2005). 

 

55 http://www.janeresture.com/baker (accessed July 2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 193 

3.5.5.2.1.Coral Reefs – Howland Island 

The potential coral reef area within the 10-fathom curve of Howland is estimated 3.0 square 

kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). At Howland Island, the following numbers of coral reef 

associated organisms are reported to occur: 97 species of corals, nine genera of algae, and 324 

species of coral reef fishes (Brainard et al. 2005, USFWS 2007b). Although environmental and 

anthropogenic stressors such as climate change, coral bleaching, diseases, tropical storms, and 

marine debris remain, the coral reef ecosystem around Howland Island appears healthy and 

productive (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.2.2.Deep Reef Slope – Howland Island 

Howland Island is a seamount surrounded by a narrow-fringing reef that drops steeply very 

close to the shore. To date, data on the habitat of Howland Island’s deep reef slope and the 

marine life it supports are unavailable. 

3.5.5.2.3.Pelagic Habitat – Howland Island 

Because of its position slightly north of the equator, Howland Island lies within the margins of 

the eastward-flowing North Equatorial Counter Current and the margins of the westwardflowing South Equatorial Current. Sea-surface temperatures of pelagic EEZ waters around 

Baker Island are often near 30° C.56 Although the depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters 

around Howland Island is seasonally variable, average mixed layer depth is around 70 meters to 

90 meters (R. Moffitt, PIFSC, personal communication). 

3.5.5.2.4.Protected Resources – Howland Island 

3.5.5.2.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles are reported to occur in the nearshore reef areas of 

Howland Island (USFWS 2007b). However, the abundance and occurrence of other sea turtles 

around Howland Island are currently unknown. 

3.5.5.2.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

A resident population of bottlenose dolphins is reported to occur near Howland and Baker 

Islands (Brainard et al. 2005). Although other cetaceans such as sperm whales are believed to 

occur in the EEZ around Howland Island, information on the species and their abundance are 

currently unknown. In the summer of 2005, researchers from the NMFS’s Southwest Science 

Center conducted a cruise to record the occurrence of marine mammals around the PRIA. The 

data from that research cruise are presently being analyzed. 

 

56 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 194 

3.5.5.2.4.3. Seabirds 

Howland Island provides feeding and resting habitat for large numbers of Pacific migratory 

seabirds and is important central Pacific migratory shorebird habitat. Eleven species of seabirds 

breed at Howland Island (USFWS 2007b). 

3.5.5.2.5.Social Environment – Howland Island 

In 1924, Bishop Museum archaeologist Kenneth Emory discovered several Polynesian 

structures, as well as stone paths and pits, and concluded that Baker Island was known to early 

Polynesians.57 Throughout the whaling era of the early nineteenth century, several ships are 

believed to have landed at Howland Island. In 1857, Howland Island was claimed by the 

American Guano Company, which mined several hundred thousand tons of guano between 

1857 and 1878. American colonists landed on the island in 1935 and later built a runway that 

was planned to be used by Amelia Earhart on her circumnavigation flight in 1937. Earhart was 

supposed to land on Howland on July 2, 1937, as a stopover during her flight from Lau, New 

Guinea, to Oahu, Hawaii. However, Earhart never arrived nor was she heard from again. The 

lighthouse at Howland Island is called Amelia Earhart light.58 In 1942, following attacks on the 

island by Japanese forces, the American colonists were removed. Since that time, the island has 

remained uninhabited. In 1974, management authority of the refuge was transferred to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Howland Island NWR is managed by the FWS for DOI in 

accordance with Title 50 regulations. Currently, Howland Island is uninhabited. There is, 

designated in the Council’s Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP (69 FR 8336), a no-take MPA from 0 

to 50 fathoms around Howland Island. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Howland Island as a Unit of the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Subsequent Secretarial Order 3284 

clarified administrative responsibilities of the Departments of Interior (Fish and Wildlife) and 

Commerce (NMFS) in the Monument. 

3.5.5.3. Jarvis Island 

Jarvis Island, which is part of the Line Island Archipelago, is located at 0° 23' S, 160° 01' W and 

approximately 1,300 miles south of Honolulu and 1,000 miles east of Baker Island. Jarvis Island 

is a relatively flat (15 to 20-ft beach rise), sandy coral island with a total land area of 4.5 square 

kilometers. It features a very dry climate with limited rainfall (Central Intelligence World Fact 

Book 2005). 

3.5.5.3.1.Coral Reefs – Jarvis Island 

Jarvis Island is surrounded by a narrow-fringing reef. The potential coral reef area within the 

10-fathom curve is estimated at 3.0 square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). At Jarvis Island, 

the following numbers of coral reef associated organisms are reported to occur: 50 species of 

 

57 http://www.bishopmuseum.org/exhibits/pastExhibits/1995/hawaiilo/hawbaker.html 

58 http://www.janeresture.com/howland (accessed July 2005) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 195 

corals, 10 genera of algae, and 252 species of coral reef fishes (Brainard et al. 2005, USFWS 

2007c). Although environmental and anthropogenic stressors such as climate change, coral 

bleaching, diseases, tropical storms, and marine debris remain, the coral reef ecosystem around 

Jarvis Island appears healthy and productive (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.3.2.Deep Reef Slope – Jarvis Island 

Jarvis Island is surrounded by a narrow fringing reef that drops steeply very close to the shore. 

To date, data on the habitat of Jarvis Island’s deep reef slope and the marine life it supports are 

unavailable. 

3.5.5.3.3.Pelagic Habitat – Jarvis Island 

Because of its position below the equator, Jarvis Island lies within the South Equatorial Current, 

which runs in a westerly direction. Sea surface temperatures of pelagic EEZ waters around 

Jarvis Island are often 28° to 30° C.59 Although depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters 

around Jarvis Island is seasonally variable, average mixed layer depth is around 80 meters (R. 

Moffitt, PIFSC, personal communication). 

3.5.5.3.4.Protected Resources – Jarvis Island 

3.5.5.3.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles are reported from the nearshore reef areas of Jarvis 

Island (USFWS 2007c). Their abundance as well as the occurrence of other sea turtles around 

Jarvis Island are currently unknown. 

3.5.5.3.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

A resident population of bottlenose dolphins is reported to occur near Jarvis Island (Brainard et 

al. 2005). Although other cetaceans such as sperm whales are believed to occur in the EEZ 

around Jarvis Island, the species and their abundance are currently unknown. In the summer of 

2005, researchers from the NMFS’s Southwest Science Center conducted a cruise to record the 

occurrence of marine mammals around the PRIA. The data from that research cruise are 

currently being analyzed. 

3.5.5.3.4.3. Seabirds 

Jarvis Island provides feeding and resting habitat for large numbers of Pacific migratory 

seabirds and is an important central Pacific migratory shorebird habitat. Eleven species of 

seabirds breed at Jarvis Island, including nearly 3 million pairs of sooty terns (USFWS 2007c). 

 

59 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 196 

3.5.5.3.5.Social Environment – Jarvis Island 

Between 1859 and 1878, Jarvis Island was extensively mined for its rich guano deposits by the 

American Guano Company. In 1889, Great Britain annexed the island and leased it to a British 

mining company, which did not extract large amounts of guano. In 1935, American colonists 

reclaimed Jarvis as an American possession and built a group of buildings that they named 

Millerstown. Jarvis was abandoned by the colonists due to attacks from Japanese forces during 

World War II, and since 1974 it has been a National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Jarvis Island NWR is managed by the FWS for DOI in accordance 

with Title 50 regulations. There is, designated in the Council’s Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP (69 

FR 8336), a no-take MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around Jarvis Island. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Jarvis Island as a Unit of the Pacific 

Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Subsequent Secretarial Order 3284 clarified 

administrative responsibilities of the Departments of Interior (Fish and Wildlife) and Commerce 

(NMFS) in the Monument. 

3.5.5.4. Palmyra Atoll 

Palmyra Atoll comprises approximately 52 islets surrounding three central lagoons. This lowlying coral atoll system is approximately 1,056 nm south of Honolulu and is located at 5° 53' N 

latitude and 162° 05' W longitude. Palmyra Atoll occurs at the northern end of the Line Island 

Archipelago, situated halfway between Hawaii and American Samoa. Palmyra Atoll is located 

in the ITCZ, an area of high rainfall (see Section 3.1.1.1). 

3.5.5.4.1.Coral Reefs – Palmyra Atoll 

Palmyra Atoll is surrounded by extensive reef flats on all sides. The potential coral reef area 

within the 10-fathom curve around Palmyra Atoll is estimated at 47.2 square kilometers 

(Rohmann et al. 2005). At Palmyra Atoll, the following numbers of coral reef associated 

organisms are reported to occur: 170 species of corals, 13 genera of algae, and 343 species of 

coral reef fishes (Brainard et al. 2005). Palmyra Atoll is observed to have a higher diversity of 

corals, anemones, and fishes than other PRIA because it is located within the eastward-flowing 

Equatorial Counter Current which flows from areas in the western Pacific with high levels of 

biodiversity (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.4.2.Deep Reef Slope – Palmyra Atoll 

Data on the deep reef slope around Palmyra and the marine life it supports are unavailable. 

However, the area of deep reef slope is not believed to be extensive. 

3.5.5.4.3.Pelagic Habitat – Palmyra Atoll 

Because of its relative proximity to the equator, Palmyra Atoll is subject to the North Equatorial 

Counter Current, which flows in an eastward direction. Sea surface temperatures of pelagic EEZ 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 197 

waters around Palmyra Atoll are often 27°–30° C.60 Although the depth of the mixed layer in 

the pelagic waters around Palmyra Atoll is seasonally variable, average mixed layer depth is 

around 90 meters (R. Moffitt, PIFSC, personal communication). 

3.5.5.4.4.Protected Resources – Palmyra Atoll 

3.5.5.4.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Both green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles have been observed at Palmyra Atoll, with only 

the green sea turtle observed to nest on Cooper’s Island, which is the largest island within the 

Palmyra Atoll system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

3.5.5.4.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins have been observed in the lagoon of Palmyra (Fefer 1987), 

and the Hawaiian monk seal was sighted in 1990 (Redmond 1990). Melon headed whales, 

which primarily feed on squid, have been observed on the southwestern side of Palmyra Atoll. 

Palmyra’s southwestern side is likely an area of higher productivity because the main channel 

into the lagoon is located there and is believed to be the major output source of nutrient-rich 

lagoon waters (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.4.4.3. Seabirds 

Palmyra Atoll supports 29 species of migratory seabirds and shorebirds and has the largest 

nesting colonies of red-footed boobies and black noddies in the central Pacific (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1998). The islets of the atoll are important habitat for the bristle-thighed 

curlew (Numenius tahitiensis), a shorebird that is considered vulnerable due to declining 

numbers. 

3.5.5.4.5.Social Environment 

Palmyra has had an interesting history involving shipwrecks, pirates, and buried treasure, and a 

double murder in the mid-1970s. Palmyra first became an American possession when it was 

claimed by the American Guano Company in 1859. In 1862, King Kamehameha IV claimed 

Palmyra for the kingdom of Hawaii. In 1898, when the U.S. annexed the Territory of Hawaii, 

President McKinley also included Palmyra Atoll. In 1912, a judge from Honolulu bought all of 

Palmyra Atoll, which he later sold to the Fullard-Leo family. From 1940 to 1946, the U.S. Navy 

took control of Palmyra and used it as a naval aviation facility. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court 

returned ownership of Palmyra to the Fullard-Leo family from the U.S. Navy. In 1961, 

President Kennedy assigned the U.S. Department of Interior to have civil administration over 

Palmyra. In 2000, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) bought Palmyra Atoll from the Fullard-Leo 

family and in July 2004 established the Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium (PARC). Palmyra 

Atoll is managed cooperatively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature 

Conservancy, which owns Cooper Island within the refuge. The USFWS administers the atoll as 

 

60 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 198 

a National Wildlife Refuge for DOI in accordance with Title 50 regulations. The Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP (69 FR 8336) established a low-use MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around 

Palmyra Atoll. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Palmyra Atoll as a Unit of the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Subsequent Secretarial Order 3284 

clarified administrative responsibilities of the Departments of Interior (Fish and Wildlife) and 

Commerce (NMFS) in the Monument. 

3.5.5.5. Kingman Reef 

Kingman Reef, which is located 33 nautical miles northwest of Palmyra Atoll at 6° 23' N and 

162° 24' W, is a series of fringing reefs around a central lagoon. Kingman Reef does not have 

any emergent land that supports vegetation. Small, impermanent islets of coral rubble may be 

found atop the eastern portion of the reef (USFWS 2001a). 

3.5.5.5.1.Coral Reefs – Kingman Reef 

The potential coral reef area within the 10-fathom curve Kingman Reef is estimated at 20.9 

square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). At Kingman Reef, 155 species of corals, 15 genera of 

algae, and 225 species of reef fishes are reported to occur (Brainard et al. 2005). 

3.5.5.5.2.Deep Reef Slope – Kingman Reef 

Data on the deep reef slope around Kingman Reef and the marine life it supports are 

unavailable. However, the area of deep reef slope is not believed to be extensive. 

3.5.5.5.3.Pelagic Habitat – Kingman Reef 

Because of its relative proximity to the equator, Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef lie in the 

North Equatorial Countercurrent, which flows in a west to east direction. Sea-surface 

temperatures of pelagic EEZ waters around Palmyra Atoll are often 27° to 30° C.61 Although 

the depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters around Kingman Reef is seasonally variable, 

average mixed layer depth is around 80 meters (R. Moffitt, PIFSC, personal communication). 

3.5.5.5.4.Protected Resources – Kingman Reef 

3.5.5.5.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles are likely found at Kingman Reef, as both species are 

found at nearby Palmyra Atoll. 

 

61 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov (accessed July 2005) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 199 

3.5.5.5.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Because of its close proximity to Palmyra Atoll, bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, melon 

headed whales, and other cetaceans are likely to occur around Kingman Reef. 

3.5.5.5.4.3. Seabirds 

Some seabirds that nest at Palmyra are likely to forage in waters around Kingman Reef. 

However, there is no permanent emergent land at Kingman Reef and no suitable seabird nesting 

habitat there. There is limited habitat for shorebirds on spits. 

3.5.5.5.5.Social Environment 

In 2001, management authority of Kingman Reef was transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the FWS for DOI in 

accordance with Title 50 regulations. The Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP (69 FR 8336) 

established a low-use MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around Kingman Reef. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Kingman Reef as a Unit of the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Subsequent Secretarial Order 3284 

clarified administrative responsibilities of the Departments of Interior (Fish and Wildlife) and 

Commerce (NMFS) in the Monument. 

3.5.5.6. Johnston Atoll 

Johnston Atoll is located at 16° 44' N latitude and 169° 31' W longitude and approximately 720 

nautical miles southwest of Honolulu. French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI is the nearest land 

mass (approximately 450 nm to the northwest), and because of its proximity to the Hawaiian 

Islands, there is believed to be genetic and larval connectivity between Johnston Atoll and the 

Hawaiian Islands. Johnston Atoll is an egg-shaped coral reef and lagoon complex residing on a 

relatively flat, shallow platform approximately 21 miles in circumference (205 km2). Johnston 

Atoll comprises four small islands totaling 2.8 square kilometers. Johnston Island, the largest and 

main island, is natural in origin, but has been enlarged by dredge and fill operations. Sand Island 

is composed of a naturally formed island (eastern portion) connected by a narrow, man-made 

causeway to a dredged coral island (western portion). The remaining two islands, North Island 

and East Island, are completely manmade from dredged coral (U.S. Air Force 2004). 

3.5.5.6.1.Coral Reefs – Johnston Atoll 

The potential coral reef area within the 10-fathom curve of Johnston Atoll is estimated at 150 

square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). Johnston Atoll, with only 45 Scleractinian and 

Hydrozoan corals present, has fewer coral species than are found in the Hawaiian Islands. The 

reef is composed of alternating sand/loose coral and live coral, with the most dominant coral 

species present being table coral (Acropora). The coral Montipora is also widely found. Johnston 

Atoll supports the deepest reef-building corals (Leptoseris) on record and large populations of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 200 

deepwater hydrozoan corals (U.S. White House 2009). Approximately 300 species of fish have 

been recorded in the nearshore waters and reefs of Johnston Atoll. This number is smaller than 

that of other islands in the Central Pacific, and is likely due to Johnston Atoll’s small size and 

remote location. One species of angelfish, Centropyge nahackyi, is endemic (U.S. Air Force 

2004). 

3.5.5.6.2.Deep Reef Slope – Johnston Atoll 

Data on the deep reef slope around Johnston Atoll and the marine life it supports are limited. 

However, the area of deep reef slope is not believed to be extensive. 

3.5.5.6.3.Pelagic Habitat – Johnston Atoll 

Sea surface temperatures of the EEZ waters around Johnston Atoll are often 27°–30° C.62

Although the depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters around Johnston Atoll is seasonally 

variable, average mixed layer depth is around 80 meters (R. Moffitt, PIFSC, personal 

communication). 

3.5.5.6.4.Protected Resources – Johnston Atoll 

3.5.5.6.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green and hawksbill sea turtles have been observed at Johnston Atoll. It is estimated that nearly 

200 green sea turtles forage near its southern shore. However, it is thought that green sea turtles 

do not nest on Johnston Atoll (U.S. Air Force 2004). 

3.5.5.6.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

The following marine mammals have been observed at Johnston Atoll: Hawaiian monk seal, 

humpback whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, spinner dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin (U.S. Air 

Force 2004). ). Sperm, blue, sei, and North Pacific right whales have been reported from the 

waters of the atoll (U.S. White House 2009). Most marine mammals observed near Johnston 

Atoll occur outside the lagoon, however one Cuvier’s beaked whale has been seen inside the 

lagoon. Nine Hawaiian monk seals were translocated to Johnston Atoll from Laysan Island in 

1984, and one or two of these tagged seals have repeatedly been observed at Johnston Atoll (U.S. 

ACHPPM and Raytheon 2000). 

3.5.5.6.4.3. Seabirds 

The following table provides a list of seabirds observed at Johnston Atoll. 

 

62 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 201 

Table 3-15. Seabirds of Johnston Atoll. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Fregata minor Great frigatebird 

Sula leucogaster Brown booby 

Sula dactylatra Masked booby

Sula sula Red-footed booby 

Phaethon rubricauda Red-tailed tropicbird 

Phaethon lepturus White-tailed tropicbird 

Puffinus nativitatis Christmas shearwater 

Puffinus pacificus Wedge-tailed shearwater 

Bulweria bulwerii Bulwer's petrel 

Sterna fuscata Sooty tern 

Sterna lunata Gray-backed tern 

Gygis alba White tern 

Anous minutus Black noddy 

Anous stolidus Brown noddy 

Winter Residents

Numenius tahitiensis Bristle-thighed curlew

Pluvialis fulva Pacific golden-plover

Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone

Calidris alba Sanderling

Heteroscelus incanus Wandering tattler 

Procelsterna cerulea Blue-gray noddy 

 Source: U.S. Air Force 2004. 

3.5.5.6.5.Social Environment – Johnston Atoll 

Although both the United States and Great Britain annexed Johnston Atoll in the mid-1850s, 

only the United States (American Guano Company) mined phosphates from the island (Central 

Intelligence Agency World Fact Book 2005). President Calvin Coolidge designated Johnston 

Atoll as a Federal bird refuge in 1926, and in 1934, Franklin Roosevelt placed the atoll under 

U.S. Navy administration. In 1948, Johnston Atoll was managed by the U.S. Air Force, which 

in the 1950s and 1960s used the area for high-altitude nuclear tests. Until 2000, Johnston Atoll 

was managed by the U.S. Department of Defense as a storage and disposal site for chemical 

weapons. In 2004, cleanup and closure of the storage and disposal facilities was completed. 

Today, the FWS continues to manage Johnston Atoll as a National Wildlife Refuge for the DOI 

in accordance with Title 50 regulations. There is, designated in the Council’s Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP (69 FR 8336), a low-use MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around Johnston Atoll. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Johnston Island as a Unit of the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Subsequent Secretarial Order 3284 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 202 

clarified administrative responsibilities of the Departments of Interior (Fish and Wildlife) and 

Commerce (NMFS) in the Monument. 

3.5.5.7. Wake Island 

Wake Island is an atoll located at 19° 18' N latitude and 166° 35' E longitude, and is the 

northernmost atoll of the Marshall Islands Archipelago, located approximately 2,100 miles west 

of Hawaii. Wake Island has a total land area of 6.5 square kilometers and comprises three islets: 

Wake, Peale, and Wilkes Islands. 

3.5.5.7.1.Coral Reefs – Wake Island 

The potential coral reef area within the 10-fathom curve around Wake is estimated at 22.9 

square kilometers (Rohmann et al. 2005). Three hundred and twenty three species of reef fish 

have been recorded at Wake, as well as a diverse assemblage of commercially important species 

of tuna, snappers, jacks, and groupers (U.S. White House 2009). Sharks, particularly the gray 

reef, are reportedly abundant. The giant clam (T. maxima) is reported to be abundant in the 

lagoon. Fishing is prohibited within the lagoon. There is, designated in the Council Coral Reef 

Ecosystem FMP (69 FR8336), a low-use MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around Wake Island. 

3.5.5.7.2.Deep Reef Slope – Wake Island 

Data on the deep reef slope around Wake Island and the marine life it supports are unavailable. 

However, the area of deep reef slope is not believed to be extensive because the outer reef slope 

descends sharply to great depth.

3.5.5.7.3.Pelagic Habitat – Wake Island 

Sea surface temperatures of EEZ waters around Wake Island are often 27°–30° C.63 Although 

the depth of the mixed layer in the pelagic waters around Wake Atoll is seasonally variable, 

average mixed layer depth is around 80 meters (R. Moffitt, PIFSC, personal communication). 

3.5.5.7.4.Protected Resources – Wake Island 

3.5.5.7.4.1. Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtles are reported in the nearshore areas around Wake Island. However, their 

abundance and the occurrence of other sea turtles are unknown. 

3.5.5.7.4.2. Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Spinner dolphins, Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), and Cuvier’s beaked whales 

(Ziphius cavirostris) are thought to occur in waters around Wake Island.

 

63 http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov (accessed July 2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 203 

3.5.5.7.4.3. Seabirds 

Wake Island supports 12 species of resident nesting seabirds and 6 species of migratory seabirds 

(U.S. White House 2009). 

3.5.5.7.5.Social Environment – Wake Island 

The written historical record provides no evidence of prehistoric populations on Wake Island, but 

Marshall Islanders are believed to have occasionally visited Wake Island, giving it the name, 

Enenkio. The island was annexed by the United States in 1899. Before the 1930s, the only 

visitors were scientists and survivors of shipwrecks. The U.S. Navy received administrative 

control of Wake in 1934 and established an air base on the atoll in January 1941. Wake Island 

figured prominently in World War II, and the Japanese overtook U.S. forces on Wake in 1941. 

The United States reoccupied the atoll after the war, and administrative authority was held by the 

Federal Aviation Administration until 1962. It was then transferred to the Department of the 

Interior, which in turn assigned authority to the U.S. Air Force. Since 1994, the Department of 

the Army has maintained administrative use of Wake Island. This area is closed to the public and 

permission is needed to enter the area. There is, designated in the Council’s Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP (69 FR 8336), a low-use MPA from 0 to 50 fathoms around Wake Island. 

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush designated Wake Island as a Unit of the Pacific 

Remote Islands Marine National Monument. 

3.5.5.8. PRIA Fisheries 

Most of the PRIA are protected both by their isolation as well as through their status as National 

Wildlife Refuges and Marine National Monuments. Nevertheless, nearshore fishing has occurred 

at Johnston Atoll, Wake Island and Palmyra Atoll. The catch at these locations is primarily 

surgeonfish, goatfish, rudderfish, wrasses, parrotfish, and soldierfish (Irons et al. 1990). Several 

outbreaks of ciguatera have been reported on Johnston that were attributed to dredging 

operations. This has limited the take of fish for food, although catch and release fishing is still 

common. Commercial fishing occurs in the EEZs of Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef. 

3.5.5.8.1.Bottomfish Fisheries - PRIA 

In 1998, two Hawaii-based troll and handline vessels, and one demersal longline vessel targeting 

sharks, fished in the EEZ around Palmyra and Kingman Reef. These vessels targeted both 

pelagic and bottomfish species, including yellowfin and bigeye tuna, wahoo, mahimahi, deep 

slope snappers and sharks (WPRFMC 2000). One vessel made seven trips to these areas in 1999, 

targeting the two-spot snapper, Lutjanus bohar, at Kingman Reef, of which they caught 40,000 

pounds total. The fishermen tested much of the catch for ciguatera without a single positive and 

shipped the catch to New York and Florida. They stopped fishing after results of a single 

specimen submitted for testing to the University of Hawaii’s School of Medicine showed slight 

traces of ciguatera. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 204 

Very little bottomfish research has been conducted in the PRIA to date. An assessment was 

conducted at Johnston Atoll in 1965, looking at the effects of dredging. The Coral Reef Initiative 

of 1995–1996 conducted general assessments of the reefs surrounding the PRIA and a joint coral 

reef assessment investigation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS PIFSC is 

ongoing. Ship-based research trips to Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands, and Palmyra Atoll and 

Kingman Reef were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002. These investigations focused on the 

status of the shallow water habitat including percentage of live reef coverage, biodiversity, and 

reef species stock assessments. As the assessments are being conducted with towed-sled scuba 

techniques, the deepwater habitat, including habitats for many of the commercially valuable 

snappers, is still unexplored. To date, no data have been published from these cruises. No MSY 

values have been estimated for PRIA bottomfish resources. 

3.5.5.8.2.Crustacean Fisheries - PRIA 

A few fishermen have expressed interest in fishing for lobsters in the PRIA, and at least two have 

attempted it. In 1999, one vessel left Hawaii to explore the lobster fishery in Palmyra/Kingman 

waters. However, tropical lobsters (green spiny, P. penicillatus) do not enter traps readily, and 

the lobster harvest was unsuccessful as 800 traps were deployed and no lobsters were caught. 

They also dove on the reef to try to catch lobsters by hand, but were not very successful and 

returned with only 20 lobster tails. This venture was also believed to attempt to target the red 

crab (Chaceon spp.), but no information on that catch was made available. In addition, the vessel 

targeted deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus sp.) and red crab at 300 to 800 meters around Palmyra 

and Kingman. Reportedly, the operation did not lose many traps, and CPUE was very high, at 

approximately 30 kilograms per trap. No MSY values have been estimated for PRIA crustacean 

resources. 

3.5.5.8.3.Precious Corals Fisheries - PRIA 

No precious corals harvester has received a Federal permit to harvest corals from the EEZ 

surrounding the PRIA since the implementation of the Precious Corals FMP in 1980; however, 

this does not preclude any future permit issuance. The U.S. EEZ surrounding the PRIA has been 

defined, for the purposes of precious corals fisheries management, as an Exploratory Precious 

Coral Permit area. 

To prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals, fishing for, taking, or retaining any 

gold coral (live or dead) in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2013. 

This includes all EEZ waters of the Western Pacific Region. Additional research results on gold 

coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations between length and age will be considered by 

the Council and NMFS prior to the expiration of the 5-year moratorium. 

3.5.5.8.4.Pelagic Fisheries - PRIA 

As many tropical pelagic species (e.g., skipjack tuna) are highly migratory, the fishing fleets 

targeting them often travel great distances. Although the EEZ waters around Johnston Atoll and 

Palmyra Atoll are more than 750 nm and 1,000 nm away from Honolulu, respectively, the 

Hawaii longline fleet does seasonally fish in those areas. For example, the EEZ around Palmyra 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 205 

is often visited by Hawaii-based longline vessels targeting yellowfin tuna, whereas at Johnston 

Atoll, albacore tuna is often caught in greater numbers than yellowfin or bigyeye tuna. Similarly, 

the U.S. purse seine fleet also targets pelagic species (primarily skipjack tuna) in the EEZs 

around some PRIA, specifically, the equatorial areas of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands. The 

combined amount of fish harvested from these areas from the U.S. purse seine fleet on average is 

less than 5 percent of their total annual harvest. 

3.6. Administration and Enforcement 

3.6.1. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

As mentioned in Section 1.2, the Council is one of eight regional fisheries management councils 

that provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary through the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NMFS. The fishery management councils are responsible for the preparation and 

transmittal to the Secretary of appropriate, science-based FMPs (and amendments to those plans) 

for fisheries under their jurisdiction. Under the MSA, the Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council has management responsibility for U.S. fisheries in the Pacific Ocean 3 to 200 nm 

offshore of American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and in the Pacific Ocean from 0 to 200 nm 

offshore of the CNMI, and the PRIA (16 U.S.C. §302(a)(H)). The Council has 13 voting 

members, eight of which are knowledgeable about conservation and management, or commercial 

and recreational harvests and are appointed by the Secretary; and five of which are the principal 

Federal, and State, Territory or Commonwealth officials with fishery management responsibility. 

The Council also retains three non-voting members that include: U.S. Department of State, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Council’s office is located in 

Honolulu, HI and is staffed with an Executive Director, 10 staff responsible for various program 

areas, and 5 administrative workers. The Council also maintains island coordinators in American 

Samoa, the CNMI, and Guam. 

3.6.2. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office 

The Pacific Islands Regional Office manages programs that support both domestic and 

international conservation and management of living marine resources within the Pacific. The 

Pacific Islands Region is comprised of American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and other U.S. Pacific islands. The Pacific Islands Regional Office is responsible for 

assisting the Council in the development of fishery management plans and amendments, drafting 

and implementing federal fishery regulations, issuing federal fishing permits, and monitoring 

fisheries through its observer program. Other major responsibilities include the conservation and 

recovery of protected species, the preservation and restoration of marine habitats, and the 

coordination with international organizations to implement and monitor fishery agreements and 

treaties. The Pacific Islands Regional Office has one field office located in Pago Pago, American 

Samoa, and staff located in Guam and the CNMI. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 206 

3.6.3. NMFS Pacific Islands Science Center 

Headquarted in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) 

administers scientific research and monitoring programs that support the domestic and 

international conservation and management of living marine resources. PIFSC has taken a 

leading role in marine research on ecosystems, both in the insular and pelagic environments. It is 

implementing a multidisciplinary research strategy including an ecosystem observation system 

and scientific analysis to support ecosystem approaches to management and restoration of living 

marine resources. The Pacific Islands Science Center conducts a wide range of activities 

including, but not limited to the following: 

• Resource surveys and stock assessments 

• Economic and sociological studies 

• Oceanographic research and monitoring 

• Critical habitat evaluation 

• Life history and ecology studies 

• Advanced oceanographic and ecosystem modeling and simulations 

3.6.4. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division 

Based in Honolulu, Hawaii, NMFS’s Office of Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division (OLE 

PID) conducts investigations of alleged violations of NOAA statutes and regulations, including 

the MSA, the Lacey Act, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

and the ESA, on the basis of case packages forwarded from the U.S. Coast Guard. NMFS OLE 

PID employs around nine enforcement agents and two officers. A fundamental tool utilized by 

NMFS OLE PID is a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), which is an automated real-time, 

satellite-based tracking system that transmits near-continuous position reports from vessels at sea 

with VMS units on board. Vessel monitoring is used in the American Samoa longline, Hawaii 

longline, and NWHI bottomfish fisheries. 

3.6.5. U.S. Coast Guard 

The U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) Fourteenth District (Honolulu) jurisdiction is the U.S. EEZ as 

well as the high seas in the Western and Central Pacific. At over 10 million square miles, its area 

of responsibility is the largest of any USCG District. The USCG patrols the region with 

airplanes, helicopters, and surface vessels, as well as monitors vessels through VMS. The USCG 

also maintains patrol assets on Guam. 

3.7. Fishery Management Plans 

The following is a discussion of the NEPA documents associated with the current species-based 

FMPs. Impacts of the fisheries to the human environment have been analyzed in prior NEPA 

documents associated with the species-based FMPs; each of the original five species-based 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 207 

FMPs has its own associated NEPA documents, which are incorporated herein by reference. This 

section summarizes these prior NEPA analyses to provide a fuller view of the current impacts to 

the fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

FMPs are dynamic and are often amended in response to changes in the fisheries and 

management unit species they are used to manage and conserve, respectively. Impacts of the 

following amendments or regulatory amendments to the FMPs have been analyzed in prior 

NEPA documents. Implementation of future amendments or regulatory amendments to these 

FMPs or FEPs will be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable law at the 

time of their consideration. Several amendments or regulatory amendments to these FMPs are 

currently in development as this Final Programmatic EIS is being prepared. 

3.7.1. Bottomfish FMP 

Bottomfish fisheries in the Federal waters of the State of Hawaii, the Territories of American 

Samoa and Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and several central and 

western Pacific islands/atolls that are U.S. island possessions (referred to in the FMPs as Pacific 

Remote Island Areas or PRIA) are managed under the Bottomfish FMP, established in 1986 

(July 31, 1986; 51 FR 27413; Correction: August 26, 1986; 51 FR 30367). NEPA documents for 

the various amendments and regulatory amendments to the Bottomfish FMP are outlined in 

Table 3-16 and many of these documents are available at the NMFS PIR website 

(http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/), or by contacting NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division in Honolulu 

at telephone: (808) 944-2260. 

An updated analytical review of the impacts of the bottomfish fisheries throughout the region, 

under the Bottomfish FMP, was completed in a 2005 EIS (NMFS 2005c). The 2005 EIS 

provides a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of various alternatives for 

management of Federal bottomfish fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. Major conclusions of 

the 2005 EIS are listed on pages 4 and 5 in the summary and include the following: 

Target Species - Bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) under the Bottomfish 

FMP are not currently overfished64. There are management measures in place to ensure 

overfishing in the MHI does not occur (Brodziak et al. 2009). 

Non-target Species - Bottomfish fishing gear and operational practices are relatively 

selective for target species. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Listed under the Endangered Species Act - Direct 

interaction between the NWHI bottomfish fishery and the endangered Hawaiian monk 

seal is comprised of a rare and accidental hooking event. There has been no interaction 

with the endangered short-tailed albatross that is known to occasionally visit the NWHI. 

Likewise, there have been no interactions between the fishery and threatened green sea 

turtles. Indirect interactions through competition between the bottomfish fishery and the 

 

64 Seamount groundfish managed under the Bottomfish FMP was determined to be overfished in 1986 when the 

Bottomfish FMP was established and the fishery has been closed under a moratorium since that time. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 208 

Hawaiian monk seal for seal prey species are minimal and are unlikely to affect the 

recovery of the monk seal population. 

Other Marine Mammals –Bottlenose dolphins have been observed stealing bait and catch 

from NWHI bottomfish vessels. These interactions are unlikely to harm individuals or 

populations. 

Essential Fish Habitat, Biodiversity and Ecosystems - All alternatives involving 

continued fishing have the potential to affect habitat through anchor damage or vessel 

grounding. Bottomfish fishing has been found not to adversely affect EFH, biodiversity, 

or ecosystems of the NWHI or the MHI. 

Commercial, Recreational and Charter Fishing Sectors – Commercial and recreational 

bottomfishing occurs in the Hawaiian Archipelago and is being managed to end 

overfishing in the Main Hawaiian Islands (WPFMC 2007). Approximately 60 percent of 

the commercial bottomfishing occurs in the MHI, with the rest taking place in the NWHI 

(WPRFMC, 2007; page 3-40). All commercial bottomfishing in the NWHI will end on 

June 15, 2011, due to the establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument. Very little information is available on the relative amount of harvest of 

bottomfish by recreational fishermen in the MHI. Management measures in Amendment 

14 (WPRFMC 2007a) provide for reporting by non-commercial fishermen and will 

provide better tracking of the recreational bottomfishing harvest in the MHI. Some 

charter fishing for bottomfish occurs in the MHI; one estimate found that the charter boat 

fleet earns about $342,675 in a year from bottomfish charter trips (Hamilton and 

Huffman 1997, cited in WPRFMC (2007)). 

WPRFMC (2007a) reported that 222,000 lb of NWHI bottomfish with a value of $851,219 were 

sold in 2003, and 272,569 lb of MHI bottomfish with a value of $1,450,000 were sold in 2003. 

The total economic output from bottomfishing in Hawaii was estimated as $10,780,667 

(WPRFMC 2007a; page 3-104). 

Fishing Communities: The State of Hawaii is a fishing community under the FMP. 

Native Hawaiian Community -a 1995 and 1996 survey of small boat owners who engage 

in Hawaii’s commercial and non-commercial fisheries, including the troll, pelagic 

handline and bottomfish handline fisheries, included people of Japanese, mixed with partHawaiian, and Caucasian ancestry to be the leading participants in these fisheries 

(Hamilton and Huffman (1997), cited in WPRFMC 2007; page 3-107). Part Hawaiians 

made up 16 percent of the MHI small-boat owners surveyed. 

 

Administration and Enforcement - Closure of the NWHI bottomfish fishery in 2011, as required 

by the Marine National Monument designation, will reduce or eliminate most of the 

administrative costs associated with managing the bottomfish fishery in the NWHI. Enforcement 

costs would be less affected because other threats to biological resources and habitats would 

remain. Enforcement costs related to the new fishing regulations to prevent overfishing in the 

MHI have increased. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 209 

At the time this document is being prepared, a Record of Decision has not been issued for the 

2005 EIS (NMFS 2005c). Since the 2005 EIS analysis of the impacts of the fisheries summarized 

above, there have been several developments that may have altered the impact analysis and 

actual impacts of the bottomfish fisheries on the biological environment, and these include recent 

amendments to the Bottomfish FMP. There have been four amendments to the Bottomfish FMP 

since 2005, Amendments 8, 9, 10, and 14 (Table 3-16). These amendments were analyzed for the 

impacts of the bottomfish fisheries on the environment. A discussion of these amendments 

follows. 

Prior to Amendment 8 (September 12, 2006), the Federal waters that encompass the CNMI were 

not included in the FMPs for Bottomfish, Crustaceans, or Precious Corals. Similarly, Federal 

waters that encompass the PRIA were not included in the Bottomfish or Crustaceans FMPs. As 

discussed in Chapter 3, vessels have been known to fish for bottomfish and crustaceans in the 

Federal waters around the CNMI and PRIA, but this fishing typically occurs on a small scale. 

Until recently, there were no bottomfish fisheries operating in the PRIA. Moreover, currently 

there are no precious corals fisheries operating in the CNMI. Amendment 8 to the Bottomfish 

FMP addressed potential bottomfish fisheries operating in these areas. The amendment 

established monitoring systems and management mechanisms to implement specific regulatory 

controls should the need arise. The associated environmental assessments to Amendment 8 

updated the analysis of the impacts of the bottomfish fisheries and management regime on the 

environment in the CNMI and PRIA. 

Amendment 9 (November 2, 2006) to the Bottomfish FMP prohibits large vessels, that is, those 

50 feet (15.2 meters) in length or longer, from fishing for bottomfish in Federal waters within 50 

nautical miles (92.6 kilometers) around Guam, and established Federal permitting and reporting 

requirements for these large bottomfish fishing vessels. The associated environmental 

assessment for Amendment 9 updated the analysis of the impacts of the bottomfish fishery and 

management regime on the environment around Guam. 

As noted earlier, the 2005 EIS also concludes that "[b]ottomfish species managed under the 

Bottomfish FMP are currently not overfished." However, concurrent with the completion of the 

2005 EIS, NMFS informed the Council that the Hawaii archipelagic bottomfish multi-species 

stock complex, which occurs in both Federal and State jurisdictions throughout the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, was determined to be experiencing overfishing. An updated stock assessment 

completed by NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (Moffitt et al. 2006) concluded that 

only the MHI bottomfish stocks were being subject to overfishing. A more recent stock 

assessment of the Hawaii archipelagic bottomfish stocks concluded that the stock complex is not 

subject to overfishing (Brodziak et al. 2009). 

Amendment 14 to the Bottomfish FMP implements the Council's recommendation to end 

overfishing of bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago (WPRFMC 2007a). Effective April 1, 

2008, non-commercial permits and reporting, non-commercial bag limits and a total allowable 

catch (TAC) limit was established for bottomfish fishermen fishing in Federal waters of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands. The 2007-2008 fishery was closed until September 1, 2008 and upon opening, 

Federal non-commercial permits and reporting were required. The associated Supplemental 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 210 

Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 14 (December 19, 2007) updated the analysis 

of the impacts of the bottomfish fisheries and management regime on the environment within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago. The 2007-08 MHI bottomfish fishery reached the TAC of 178,000 lb in 

April, 2008. The 2008-09 MHI bottomfish fishery was closed in July 2009, when the fishery 

reached the 2008-09 TAC of 241,000 lb. 

Bottomfish FMP 1 

Table 3-16. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Bottomfish Fishery Management Plan in the 

Western Pacific Region. 

Bottomfish FMP Amendments and NEPA 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

(FMP)/Amendment

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Bottomfish and 

Seamount 

Groundfish 

Fishery 

Management Plan. 

Establishment of a 

new FMP. 

July 31, 1986; 

51 FR 27413 

Correction: 

August 26, 1986; 

51 FR 30367. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 1 Extension of Plan 

Framework to 

Include EEZs of 

American Samoa and 

Guam; Extension of 

Management Team 

Annual Report 

Deadline. 

October 14, 1987; 

52 FR 38103. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 2 Limited Entry Vessel 

Participation for 

NWHI. 

August 9, 1988; 

53 FR 29907. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 3 Overfishing 

Definition Per Dept. 

of Commerce’s 

Revised FMP 

Guidelines. 

January 23, 1991; 

56 FR 2503. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 4 Vessel Operator 

Requirement to 

Notify NMFS for 

NWHI Trips. 

May 30, 1991; 

56 FR 24351. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 211 

Bottomfish FMP Amendments and NEPA 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

(FMP)/Amendment

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 5 Establishment of 

Limited Entry 

Program for Mau 

Zone of NWHI. 

May 28, 1999; 

64 FR 22810. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 6 Redefinition of 

Overfishing Per MSA 

Re-approval. 

Amendment 6 is 

contained in the 

"Magnuson-Stevens 

Act Definitions and 

Required Provisions."

April 19, 1999; 

64 FR 19067. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 7 This amendment 

prohibits fishing for 

Bottomfish 

Management Unit 

Species in the Coral 

Reef Ecosystems 

(CRE) FMP’s notake areas. 

February 24, 

2004; 

69 FR 8336. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

Notice of 

availability 

published on 

May 10, 2002 

(67 FR 31801). 

Bottomfish and 

Seamount Fishery 

Management Plan 

An updated analytical 

review of the FMP. 

Notice of 

Availability of 

Final EIS 

June 17, 2005; 

70 FR 35275. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement 

Amendment 8 Inclusion of EEZ 

waters around 

Northern Mariana 

Islands and Pacific 

Remote Island Areas 

(PRIA). 

September 12, 

2006; 

71 FR 53605. 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Amendment 9 Limit large vessels in 

Federal waters 

around Guam . 

November 2, 

2006; 

71 FR 64474. 

Environmental 

Assessment 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 212 

Bottomfish FMP Amendments and NEPA 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

(FMP)/Amendment

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 10 CNMI Bottomfish 

fishery closed areas 

for medium and large 

bottomfish vessels 

established within 50 

nm of southern 

CNMI Islands, and 

from 3-10 nm in 

Alamagan Island; 

VMS; reporting 

December 12, 

2008; 73 FR 

75615 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Amendment 11 Reserved by the 

Council for later use. 

[-] [-] 

Amendment 12 Reserved by the 

Council for later use. 

[-] [-] 

Amendment 13 Reserved by the 

Council for later use. 

[-] [-] 

Amendment 14: 

Supplemental 

Bottomfish and 

Seamount Fishery 

Management Plan. 

Measures to end 

Bottomfish 

Overfishing in the 

Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

April 4, 2008; 

73 FR 18450 

Final 

Supplemental 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Federal Requirement 

for Reporting Catch. 

October 25, 1990; 

55 FR 42966. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Extension of Fishing 

Moratorium for 

Hancock Seamount 

Fishery. 

August 27, 1992; 

57 FR 36907. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Protected Species. 

Workshop 

requirement for 

NWHI Operators. 

June 2, 1993; 

58 FR 26255 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 213 

Bottomfish FMP Amendments and NEPA 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

(FMP)/Amendment

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Impose a 2-year 

moratorium on 

issuing new permits 

for harvesting 

bottomfish in the 

Mau Zone of the 

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. 

February 26, 

1997; 

62 FR 8637. 

Categorical 

Exclusion 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Extension of the 

moratorium on 

harvesting seamount 

groundfish from the 

Hancock Seamount in 

the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 

until August 31, 

2004. 

June 29, 1998; 

63 FR 35162. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Extension of the 

moratorium on 

harvesting seamount 

groundfish from the 

Hancock Seamount in 

the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 

until August 31, 2010 

August 19, 2004; 

69 FR 51400 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

1

 Lightly shaded row(s) within each section signify National Environmental Policy Act 

documents on the Fishery Management Plan. 

3.7.2. Precious Corals FMP 

Precious coral fisheries in the Federal waters of the State of Hawaii, the Territories of American 

Samoa and Guam, the CNMI and several central and western Pacific islands/atolls that are U.S. 

island possessions or PRIA, are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Coral 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region (Precious Corals FMP). NEPA documents for the 

various amendments and regulatory amendments to the Precious Corals FMP, which was 

established in 1983, are outlined in Table 3-17. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 214 

An EIS was completed for the approval and implementation of the Precious Corals FMP in 1983. 

The Precious Corals FMP has been amended six times since 1983 (in 1988, 1991, 1998, 1999, 

2004, and 2006). Each NEPA document associated with these amendments primarily focused on 

the Federal action related to the particular amendment (Table 3-17). Recent amendments, 

Amendments 5, 6, and 7, include an updated analysis of the impacts of the precious corals 

fisheries and management regime on the human environment within the affected areas. A 

discussion of these amendments follows. 

Amendment 5 (February 24, 2004) prohibits precious coral harvests in No-take Marine Protected 

Areas as designated by the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. Amendment 6 (September 12, 2006) 

includes the Federal waters that encompass the CNMI and PRIA under the Precious Corals FMP. 

Amendment 6 established monitoring systems and management mechanisms to implement 

specific regulatory controls should the need arise. The associated environmental assessment for 

Amendment 6 updated the analysis of the impacts of the Federal precious corals fisheries and 

management regime on the human environment in the CNMI and PRIA. 

As discussed in Section 3.5, most of the recent precious corals harvest under the Precious Corals 

FMP has been in State of Hawaii waters. In particular, since 1980, virtually all of the black coral 

harvested within the Hawaiian Archipelago has been taken from the Au’au Channel Bed. Even 

though a substantial portion of the Au’au Channel Bed is located in Federal waters and therefore 

is under the jurisdiction of the Precious Corals FMP, all reported harvest has been confined to 

the waters of the State of Hawaii. 

A regulatory amendment to the Precious Corals FMP (Amendment 6) was developed for the 

fisheries in Federal waters of the Au’au Channel Bed (see details Table 3-17). The regulatory 

amendment recommended by the Council permanently remove an exemption that allows for 

harvest of black corals with a minimum base diameter of three-quarters of an inch by persons 

who reported harvest to the State of Hawaii within five years prior to the effective date of March 

18, 2002. An associated environmental assessment to this regulatory amendment was completed 

and it updated the analysis of the impacts of Federal fisheries and the management regime on the 

human environment around the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

Amendment 7 established the Au`au Channel Bed, and implemented a 5 year moratorium on the 

harvest of gold corals in the western Pacific. The moratorium includes all waters of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the Western Pacific Region and is currently in effect through June 

30, 2013 (73 FR 47098). 

It is also noted that the Council announced its intention to prepare an EIS on the Federal 

management of precious corals in the Western Pacific Region on February 9, 2000 (65 FR 6352). 

The scope of the EIS analysis was to include all activities related to the conduct of the precious 

corals fisheries and examine the impacts of precious corals harvesting on, among other things, 

protected species. However, with the elimination of the NWHI precious corals fishery (which is 

discussed later), the need for a comprehensive analysis of Federal fisheries operating under the 

Precious Corals FMP throughout the Western Pacific Region has been diminished substantially. 

As mentioned above, the Council completed Amendment 7, a regulatory amendment to the 

Precious Corals FMP for the Federal precious corals fisheries within the Au’au Channel Bed. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 215 

The associated environmental assessment updated the analysis of the impacts of the only then 

currently active precious corals fisheries within the region. 

Precious Corals FMP 1

Table 3-17. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan in 

the Western Pacific Region. 

Precious Corals FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment 

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal Action 

Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Precious Coral Fishery 

Management Plan 

Establishment of a new 

FMP. 

September 29, 

1983; 

48 FR 39229. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

Amendment 1 Designation of single 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) Exploratory Area. 

July 21, 1988; 

50 FR 27519. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 2 Definition of Precious 

Coral Overfishing. 

January 28, 

1991; 

56 FR 3072. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 3 Establishment of 

Framework Procedures for 

New Management 

Measures. 

October 19, 

1998; 

63 FR 55809. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 4 Overfishing Redefinitions 

and Provisions Following 

MSA Re-approval. 

Amendment 4 is contained 

in the "Magnuson-Stevens 

Act Definitions and 

Required Provisions." 

April 19, 1999; 

64 FR 19067. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 216 

Precious Corals FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment 

/Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal Action 

Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 5 Prohibition of Coral 

Harvest in No-take Marine 

Protected Areas 

Designated by Coral Reef 

Ecosystems (CRE) FMP. 

February 24, 

2004; 

69 FR 8336. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

A notice of 

availability was 

published on 

May 10, 2002 

(67 FR 31801). 

Amendment 6 Inclusion of EEZ Waters 

around Northern Mariana 

Islands and Pacific Remote 

Island Areas (PRIA). 

September 12, 

2006; 

71 FR 53605. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Removes a minimum size 

exemption for Black Coral. 

October 15, 

2007; 

72 FR 48259. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Notification of control date 

of Dec 21, 2006, for Black 

Coral fishing in the Au’au 

Channel near Maui, 

Hawaii. 

March 2, 2007; 

72 FR 9500. 

N/A 

Amendment 7 Designation of the Au’au 

Channel as an Established 

Black Coral Bed, Harvest 

Quota, and Moratorium on 

the Harvest of Gold Corals 

in the Western Pacific 

Region. 

September 12, 

2008; 

73 FR 47098 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

1

 Lightly shaded row(s) within each section signify National Environmental Policy Act 

documents on the Fishery Management Plan. 

3.7.3. Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

On June 14, 2002, NMFS partially approved the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP and parallel 

amendments to the Bottomfish FMP, Pelagics FMP, Precious Corals FMP, and the Crustaceans 

FMP. The Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP was approved by NMFS, with the exception of that 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 217 

portion of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP that applied to fishing in Federal waters around the 

NWHI. NMFS disapproved that portion of the plan because it was inconsistent with, or duplicate 

to, certain provisions of Executive Orders 13178 and 13196, which together established the 

NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. A final rule implementing the Coral Reef Ecosystems 

FMP was published on February 24, 2004 (69 FR 8336). Prior to the implementation of the Coral 

Reef Ecosystem FMP, coral reef ecosystem fisheries in federally managed waters of the western 

Pacific were unregulated under the MSA. 

The Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP applies ecosystem principles to fisheries management to 

conserve and protect coral reef fisheries, their ecosystems, and associated habitats. The Coral 

Reef Ecosystem FMP adopted a precautionary approach by preventing harmful activities and 

adverse impacts to the environment before those impacts could occur. The 2004 Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP established a coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, marine protected areas, 

permitting and reporting requirements, a no-anchoring zone, gear restrictions, and a framework 

regulatory process. 

The Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP established the framework that could institute management 

measures rapidly in response to changes in the coral reef fishery. At the time of its inception, it 

was anticipated that the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP would maintain the sustainability of target 

and non-target species; safeguard against substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats 

and/or EFH; protect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, and critical habitat; 

help ensure public health and safety; prevent the occurrence of cumulative adverse effects that 

could have a substantial effect on the target species or non-target species; promote biodiversity 

and ecosystem function within the affected area; and minimize, if not eliminate, negative social 

or economic impacts. Although state and territorial regulations control most impacts from coral 

reef fisheries in near-shore areas, the establishment of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP allows for 

framework measures to be established to complement state and territorial regulations, as 

appropriate, for adjacent Federal waters. 

The Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP was primarily a precautionary plan, as limited fisheries were 

occurring within the Federal waters. Prior to the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem 

FMP, it was estimated that approximately 1 percent, 8 percent, 11 percent, and 10 percent of the 

total ex-vessel value of the harvest of coral reef resources was taken from Federal waters within 

American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the CNMI, respectively (p. 68 of the Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP). By the definition used in the FMP, this harvest did not include fisheries for 

finfish, crustaceans, and precious corals in benthic environments deeper than 50 fathoms, or in 

the pelagic fisheries. As of February 2006, no permits to participate in the coral reef fisheries 

within Federal waters have been issued. 

An informal consultation under the ESA was concluded for the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP on 

March 7, 2002. As a result of the informal consultation, the NMFS Regional Administrator 

determined that fishing activities conducted under this FMP are not likely to adversely affect 

endangered or threatened species or critical habitat under NMFS's jurisdiction. On May 22, 

2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this determination that the activities 

conducted under the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP are not likely to adversely affect listed species 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 218 

under their exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., seabirds and terrestrial plants) and listed species that are 

under shared jurisdiction with NMFS (i.e., sea turtles). 

The Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP has not been amended to date. 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

Table 3-18. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management 

Plan in the Western Pacific Region.

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment/ 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed 

Federal 

Action 

Analyzed 

Final Rule Associated National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Fishery Management 

Plan 

Establishment 

of a new FMP. 

February 24, 

2004; 

69 FR 8336. 

Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

A notice of 

availability was 

published on May 10, 

2002 67 FR 31801. 

3.7.4. Crustaceans FMP 

Since 1983, the crustacean fisheries within the Federal waters in the Western Pacific Region 

have been managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Crustacean Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region (Crustaceans FMP)65. There have been 12 amendments to the Crustaceans FMP 

since 1983 (Table 3-19). The most recent amendment to the Crustaceans FMP was Amendment 

12 (September 12, 2006; 71 FR 53605). Amendment 12 established new permitting and 

reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting crustacean species within the Federal 

waters of the PRIA (shoreline to 200 miles) and from 3 to 200 miles of the CNMI. 

Similar to the Precious Corals FMP, on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70680), the Council 

announced its intention to prepare an EIS on the Federal management of crustaceans in the 

Western Pacific Region. The scope of the EIS analysis was to include all activities related to the 

conduct of the Federal crustacean fisheries and examine the impacts of crustacean harvest on, 

among other things, protected species. At the time, the only major Federal crustacean fishery for 

the Western Pacific Region was occurring in the NWHI. Of particular concern were the potential 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the crustacean (commercial lobster) fishery in the 

 

65 The initial FMP was for spiny lobsters but later it became Crustaceans FMP when slipper lobsters and kona 

crabs were included as MUS. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 219 

NWHI on Hawaiian monk seals. Although it was determined direct impacts on seals had 

occurred from the crustacean fishery gear, indirect impacts through a reduction of the prey base 

of monk seal were undocumented. 

However, the crustacean fishery in the NWHI has been closed since 2000. This closure was 

reinforced by the President's proclamation establishing the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Proclamation 8031; June 15, 2006). The 

President’s proclamation closed most fisheries within the monument’s boundaries immediately 

(including any potential crustacean fishery) and established that the NWHI bottomfish fishery be 

closed by June 15, 2011. With the elimination of the potential for a NWHI crustacean fishery, 

the need for a comprehensive analysis of the fisheries operating under the Crustaceans FMP was 

diminished substantially. Very few crustacean fisheries currently occur in the Federal waters of 

the Western Pacific Region. 

Crustaceans FMP 1 

Table 3-19. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments, and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Western Pacific Region Crustaceans Fishery 

Management Plan. 

Crustaceans FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental

Policy Act 

Document 

Crustaceans 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

Establishment of a new 

FMP. 

February 7, 

1983; 

48 FR 5560. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement 

(EIS). 

Amendment 1 Coordination of Main 

Hawaii Island (MHI) 

EEZ Commercial 

Lobster Fishery with 

MHI State Regulations.

November 23, 

1983; 

48 FR 52922. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 2 Regulation of Trap 

Opening Measurement. 

January 4, 1984; 

49 FR 407. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 3 Replacement of 

Minimum Carapace 

Length with Minimum 

Tail Length and 

Elimination of 15 

Percent Undersize 

Allowance. 

March 12, 1986; 

51 FR 8506. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 220 

Crustaceans FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 4 Prohibition of Fishing 

in Refuge Areas. 

March 25, 1987; 

52 FR 9496. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 5 Inclusion of Slipper 

Lobster Management. 

December 15, 

1987; 

52 FR 47573. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 6 Adoption of 

Overfishing Definition 

Per MSA Renewal. 

January 28, 

1991; 

56 FR 3071. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 7 Fishery Restrictions in 

Response to Serious 

CPUE Declines. 

April 27, 1992; 

57 FR 10437. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 8 Adjustments to 

Facilitate Monitoring 

and Management. 

[December 12, 

1994; 

59 FR 56004]. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 9 Adoption of Constant 

Harvest Rate Method 

for Quota 

July 5, 1996; 

61 FR 35145. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 10 Redefinition of 

Overfishing Per MSA 

Re-approval. 

Amendment 10 is 

contained in the 

"Magnuson-Stevens 

Act Definitions and 

Required Provisions." 

April 19, 1999; 

64 FR 19067. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 11 Crustaceans 

Amendment for Coral 

Reef Ecosystem Plan. 

February 24, 

2004; 

69 FR 8336. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

A notice of 

availability was 

published on 

May 10, 2002; 

67 FR 31801. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 221 

Crustaceans FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 12 Inclusion of EEZ 

Waters around 

Northern Mariana 

Islands and Pacific 

Remote Island Areas 

(PRIA). 

September 12, 

2006; 

71 FR 53605. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 13 Addition of 

Heterocarpus spp. as 

MUS under the 

Crustaceans FMP. 

November 21, 

2008; 

73 FR 70603 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Revises Amendment 5. December 30, 

1988; 

53 FR 52998. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Implement a vessel 

monitoring system 

(VMS) program in the 

crustaceans fishery of 

the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI). 

July 1, 1997; 

62 FR 35448. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Implement three 

management 

measures, including 

allowing fishing 

vessels in the 

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI) lobster fishery 

with vessel 

monitoring system 

(VMS) units to transit 

the prohibited 

Crustaceans. 

Permit Area 1. 

April 27, 1998; 

63 FR 20539. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 222 

Crustaceans FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental

Policy Act 

Document 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

This rule allocates the 

overall 1998 

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI) harvest 

guideline. 

July 29, 1998; 

63 FR 40377. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Bank-specific harvest 

guidelines for the 

NWHI crustacean 

fisheries. 

July 8, 1999; 

64 FR 36820. 

Environmental 

Assessment 

1

 Lightly shaded row(s) within each section signify National Environmental Policy Act 

documents on the Fishery Management Plan. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 223 

3.7.5. Pelagics FMP 

The Federal pelagic fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are managed under the Pelagics 

FMP, which was established in 1987. NEPA documents for the various amendments and 

regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP are outlined in Table 3-20. It is noted that an 

updated analytical review of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries under the Pelagics FMP, 

throughout the region, was completed in 2001. 

The 2001 EIS provided a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of various 

alternatives for management of U.S. pelagic fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. The 

fisheries analyzed in the 2001 EIS include longline fisheries in Hawaii and American Samoa; 

commercial troll fisheries in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI; charter troll 

fisheries in Hawaii, Guam and CNMI; commercial pelagic handliners in Hawaii; recreational 

troll fishing in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI; and the commercial pole-andline skipjack fishery in Hawaii. 

Based on the 2001 EIS, the associated Record of Decision provides a summary of the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives, along with the rational for the selection of the 

identified Preferred Alternative. In terms of the expected impacts of the selected alternative, the 

most relevant environmental resources were fish stocks, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine 

mammals. Potential impacts on ocean and coastal habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem function 

were also assessed. The Record of Decision for the 2001 EIS found the following for the selected 

alternative, Alternative 4. 

Fish stocks - Fish stocks that would be affected include tunas (bigeye, yellowfin, 

skipjack, albacore), billfishes (swordfish, blue marlin, striped marlin), and sharks. Fishing 

effort by the Hawaii-based longline fishery on these stocks and consequent fishing 

mortality are relatively predictable. The environmental impacts of the pelagic fisheries 

under the Pelagics FMP with respect to target stocks, as well as stocks of other species 

targeted and incidentally caught, are as expected in accordance with established harvest 

limits. This is because the fishing mortality is likely minor compared to total mortality of 

the stocks. 

Sea turtles - The 2001 EIS discusses the anticipated interaction and mortality rates of 

direct impacts of pelagic fishery gear and operations (managed under the Pelagics FMP) 

on sea turtles. The indirect effects of interactions on sea turtle populations are less 

certain. The analyses of these effects were addressed in a 2004 biological opinion that 

concluded that the anticipated interactions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of affected sea turtle species. 

Seabirds - Most seabird interactions in the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are with 

Laysan and blackfooted albatrosses. No interactions with the ESA-listed short-tailed 

albatross have been observed or reported in the pelagic fishery. Albatross interactions 

occur primarily in the relatively high latitudes, mostly between 25° and 40° N. latitude. A 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 224 

2000 biological opinion on the Hawaii-based longline fishery issued by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for the short-tailed albatross concluded that the fishery as managed in 

2000 was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. 

The selected alternative in the 2001 EIS was more restrictive, with respect to seabirds, 

than the management regime in place at that time. 

Marine mammals - A number of marine mammal species, some of them ESA-listed, 

occur in the region where the Hawaii-based longline fishery occurs. However, according 

to the 2001 EIS, the marine mammal interaction rates and resultant adverse impacts are 

not expected to be substantial, in part because marine mammal interactions in the fishery 

are relatively rare. 

Habitat - Given the inert nature of the gear used to longline and the deployment of the 

gear in the epipelagic zone far from coastal waters, the selected alternative was not 

expected to adversely affect coastal or ocean habitat, including EFH and HAPC. 

Biodiversity and ecosystem function - Given that the Hawaii-based longline fishery 

catches a very small fraction of the total international catch and biomass in the tropical 

and subtropical pelagic ecosystems, the selected alternative was not expected to 

significantly adversely affect ecosystem function. 

There have been at least two amendments and one regulatory amendment to the Pelagics FMP 

since the 2001 EIS (Table 3-19). Both of these amendments, Amendments 10 and 11, have 

associated environmental assessments. The regulatory amendment has an associated EIS 

completed in April 2005. A discussion of these amendments and regulatory amendment follows. 

Amendment 10 (February 24, 2004) prohibits pelagic fisheries in No-take Marine Protected 

Areas as designated by the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. Amendment 11 (May 24, 2005) 

established a limited entry system for pelagic longline vessels fishing in the waters of the U.S. 

EEZ around American Samoa. 

Amendment 11 was intended to establish management measures that would stabilize effort in the 

fishery to avoid a ‘‘boom and bust’’ cycle that could disrupt community participation and limit 

opportunity for substantial participation in the fishery by indigenous islanders. An environmental 

assessment associated with Amendment 11 analyzes the impacts of the fisheries and 

management regime on the human environment around American Samoa. 

On November 15, 2005, NMFS issued a final rule (70 FR 69282) for a regulatory amendment to 

the Pelagics FMP to reduce and mitigate interactions between sea turtles and fisheries managed 

under the Pelagics FMP. The regulatory amendment has an associated environmental 

assessment, and included requirements for attending protected species workshops; for handling, 

resuscitating, and releasing sea turtles that are hooked or entangled in fishing gear; and for 

fishing gear configuration. The regulatory amendment was implemented in part to comply with 

the terms and conditions of a 2004 biological opinion on the impacts of pelagic fishery gear and 

operations on sea turtles. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 225 

In the biological opinion issued on February 23, 2004, NMFS concluded that the fisheries 

managed under the Pelagics FMP, with terms and conditions, were not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of sea turtles or other species listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. Among other things, the terms and conditions of the 2004 Biological Opinion require the 

following: 

(1) owners and operators of vessels registered for use under longline general permits to attend 

protected species workshops annually, 

(2) owners and operators of vessels registered for use under longline general permits to carry and 

use dip nets, line clippers, and bolt cutters, and follow handling, resuscitation, and release 

requirements for incidentally hooked or entangled sea turtles, and 

(3) operators of non-longline vessels using hooks to target pelagic management unit species to 

follow sea turtle handling, resuscitation, and release requirements, as well as to remove the 

maximum amount of the gear possible from incidentally hooked or entangled sea turtles. 

In addition to recommending the above three measures, the Council also recommended that 

NMFS include a fourth measure to extend to all longline vessels managed under the Pelagics 

FMP that may shallow-set north of the equator the conservation benefits derived from the use of 

circle hooks, mackerel-type bait, and dehookers. The fourth measure also removes incentives for 

owners of Hawaii-based longline vessels to give up their permits in favor of general permits or 

for the purpose of avoiding the requirement to use circle hooks, mackerel bait, etc., when 

shallow setting north of the equator. 

On December 19, 2005, NMFS issued a final rule (70 FR 75075) for a regulatory amendment to 

implement measures to further reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery. Depending on the fishing method and area where the vessels operate, owners, 

and operators of longline fishing vessels must either side-set (deploy longline gear from the side 

of the vessel rather than from the stern) or use a combination of other seabird mitigation 

measures to prevent seabirds from being accidentally hooked, entangled, and killed during 

fishing operations. The NEPA document for this regulatory amendment was titled ‘‘Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Seabird Interaction Avoidance Methods under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region and Pelagic Squid 

Fishery Management under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region and the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act,’’ dated April, 2005. The associated 

Record of Decision established the selection of the Preferred Alternative of the 2005 EIS (with 

slight modification) to cost-effectively further reduce the potentially harmful effects of the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery on seabirds. 

Regarding bigeye tuna managed under the Pelagics FMP, on December 15, 2004, the Council 

was notified by letter that the Secretary of Commerce had determined on June 14, 2004, that 

overfishing of bigeye tuna was occurring throughout the Pacific Ocean (69 FR 78397). On 

March 16, 2006, the Council was notified by letter that the Secretary of Commerce had 

determined that overfishing is occurring on the yellowfin tuna stock in the western and central 

Pacific Ocean (71 FR 14837). The Council completed Amendment 14 to the Pelagics FMP to 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 226 

address overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna on August 23, 2006 and a proposed rule to 

implement its recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14761). The 

amendment was only partially approved; however, the Council’s recommendation for 

international management action to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was approved 

by NMFS. 

Amendment 15 was implemented in December 2008 (73 FR 70600) and included pelagic squid 

in the Council’s existing Pelagics Fishery Management Plan to ensure monitoring of these 

species, and to establish mechanisms for their management should it become necessary. The 

amendment includes pelagic squid as Management Unit Species and establishes permitting and 

reporting requirements for the Western Pacific Region squid jig fisheries. Permit and reporting 

requirements are currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Pelagics FMP 1 

Table 3-20. Amendments, Regulatory Amendments and the Associated National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents for the Pelagics Fishery Management Plan in the 

Western Pacific Region.

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Pelagics Fishery 

Management Plan 

Establishment of 

new FMP. 

February 27, 1987; 

52 FR 5983 

Correction: 

August 25, 1987; 

52 FR 32015. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 1 Definition of 

Pelagics 

Overfishing. 

March 7, 1991; 

56 FR 9686. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 2 Redefinition of 

FMU, Requirement 

of Longline Fishing 

Permits and 

Observer Coverage 

in NWHI. 

May 31, 1991; 

56 FR 24731. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 227 

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 3 Extension of PSZ for 

Longline Fishery. 

October 18, 1991; 

56 FR 52214. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 4 Extension of 

Longline 

Moratorium. 

October 16, 1991; 

56 FR 51849. 

Environmental 

Assessment (not 

CE). 

Amendment 5 Permanent 

Establishment of 

MHI Area Closures. 

March 2, 1992; 

57 FR 7661. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 6 Inclusion of Tuna in 

FMU and Regulation 

of Consistent 

Foreign and 

Domestic Vessel 

Regulations. 

November 27, 

1992; 

57 FR 48564. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 7 Transformation of 

Moratorium to 

Limited-Entry 

Permit Program. 

June 24, 1994; 

59 FR 26979. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

Amendment 8 Permit and 

Reporting 

Requirement for the 

Pelagic Troll and 

Handline Fishery in 

PRIA. 

April 19, 1999; 

64 FR 19067. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 9 Shark Quota in 

Longline Fishery 

and Prohibition of 

Bottom Longline 

Gear. 

Was never 

submitted for 

Secretarial review 

N/A 

Final 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

Pelagic Fisheries 

of the Western 

Pacific Region, 

March 30, 2001. 

Review of the 

management of 

fisheries governed 

by the Pelagics 

FMP. 

The notice of 

availability of the 

Final EIS was 

published on April 

6, 2001; 

66 FR 18243. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 228 

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 10 Pelagics 

Amendment for 

Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Plan. 

February 24, 2004; 

69 FR 8336. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 11 Measure to Limit 

Pelagic Longline 

Fishing Effort in the 

Exclusive Economic 

Zone around 

American Samoa. 

May 24, 2005 

70 FR 29646 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 12 Reserved for later 

use. 

[-] [-] 

Amendment 13 Reserved for later 

use - Council. 

[-] [-] 

Amendment 14 Bigeye and 

Yellowfin Tuna 

Overfishing - 

Recommendation of 

Management, 

Monitoring, and 

Research Actions for 

International 

Fisheries, Including 

Implementation of 

New Permit and 

Reporting 

Requirements for 

Hawaii-based Nonlongline Vessels

October 12, 2006; 

72 FR 33442. 

(Proposed rule 

withdrawn, partial 

approval of FMP 

Amendment 14). 

Environmental 

Assessment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 229 

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Amendment 15 Includes pelagic 

squid as 

Management Unit 

Species and 

establishes 

permitting and 

reporting 

requirements for the 

Western Pacific 

Region squid jig 

fisheries. 

November 21, 

2008; 

73 FR 70600. 

[permit and 

reporting 

requirements are 

awaiting approval 

by the Office of 

Management and 

Budget] 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Amendment 18 Remove effort 

limits, eliminate set 

certificates, and 

establish updated sea 

turtle interaction 

caps in accordance 

with 2008 Biological 

Opinion. 

Under 

consideration 

FSEIS 

2009 

 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Reporting 

Requirements for 

Catch and Effort to 

State Agencies. 

October 25, 1990; 

55 FR 42967. 

Categorical 

Exclusion 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Revision of 

Regulations 

Governing 

Identification of 

Longline Floats and 

Buoys. 

March 16, 1993; 

58 FR 14170. 

Categorical 

Exclusion 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Removal of 

Regulations 

Governing Exclusive 

Economic Zone off 

the Commonwealth 

of the Northern 

Mariana Islands and 

West Coast of U.S. 

Mainland. 

September 23, 

1993; 

58 FR 49438. 

Categorical 

Exclusion 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 230 

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Requirement for 

Longline Fishery 

Vessel Operators to 

Accommodate 

Observers. 

April 19, 1994; 

59 FR 18499. 

Categorical 

Exclusion 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Implementation of 

Experimental Vessel 

Monitoring Program 

in Pelagic Longline 

Fishery around 

Hawaii. 

November 15, 

1994; 

59 FR 58789. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Sea Turtle Take 

Mitigation Measures 

Including Pelagic 

Longline Gear 

Restrictions and 

Seasonal Area 

Closures. 

67 FR 40232; 

June 12, 2002. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Establishing Permit 

and Reporting 

Requirements for the 

Pelagic Troll and 

Handline Fishery in 

the U.S. Remote 

Island Areas. 

September 4, 2002; 

67 FR 56497. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Management 

Measures to 

Implement New 

Technologies for the 

Western Pacific 

Pelagic Longline 

Fisheries. 

April 2, 2004; 

69 FR 17329. 

Supplemental 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 231 

Pelagics FMP Amendments and NEPA Documents. 

Fishery 

Management 

Plan (FMP)/ 

Amendment / 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Proposed Federal 

Action Analyzed Final Rule 

Associated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

Document 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Sea Turtle 

Mitigation 

Measures, Gear and 

Handling 

Requirements, 

Protected Species 

Workshop 

Attendance, and 

Shallow-Setting 

Restrictions 

November 15, 

2005; 

70 FR 69282. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Additional Measures 

to Reduce the 

Incidental Catch of 

Seabirds in the 

Hawaii-Based 

Longline Fishery. 

December 19, 

2005; 

70 FR 75075. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Remove Delay in 

Closing HawaiiBased Shallow-Set 

Longline Fishery. 

February 26, 2007; 

72 FR 8289. 

Environmental 

Assessment. 

Regulatory 

Amendment 

Allow vessel 

operators to use 

Electronic Logbooks 

for Reporting Catch 

and Effort. 

April 17, 2007; 

72 FR 19123. 

Categorical 

Exclusion. 

1

 Lightly shaded row(s) within each section signify National Environmental Policy Act 

documents on the Fishery Management Plan. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 232

Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1. Introduction 

Chapter 4 presents discussions of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each 

alternative. The chapter is organized by the five action components: 

Component 1. Moving toward ecosystem management by replacing some or all of the existing 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) with Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs). 

Component 2. Consideration of which species would be managed under each FEP. 

Component 3. Council advisory structure. 

Component 4. Regional coordination. 

Component 5. International coordination (Table 4-1). 

The discussion under each component is further organized by alternative. As discussed in 

Chapter 2, Components 1 and 2 are regulatory in nature and considered the Federal action in this 

document. Components 3, 4, and 5 are nonregulatory (i.e., they have no regulatory effect), and 

their consideration is included to assist the Council in identifying an appropriate advisory 

structure and coordination activities under an ecosystem-based fishery management structure. 

Component 2 is contingent upon selecting one of the action alternatives under Component 1 

(Alternatives 1B through 1E). 

Table 4-1. Descriptions of the Components and List of Alternatives Considered in Detail.

Components Alternatives 

Component 1: Moving toward ecosystem 

management, replace all or some FMPs with FEPs 

Alternatives 1B-1E 

(Alternative 1A is the 

No Action alternative) 

Component 2: Species to be managed under each FEP Alternatives 2A-2D 

Component 3: Council Advisory Structure Alternatives 3A-3D 

Component 4: Regional Coordination Alternatives 4A-4D 

Component 5: International Coordination Alternatives 5A-5C 

4.2. Component 1: Replace FMPs with FEPs 

As stated in Chapter 1, the purpose of the proposed Federal action in this EIS is to establish an 

institutional framework that facilitates a shift to an ecosystem approach for fisheries management 

in the Western Pacific Region. The shift would be accomplished, in part, through the approval 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 233

and implementation of place-based FEPs, without any substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations. Component 1 considers the associated reorganization of existing species-based FMP 

regulations into place-based FEP regulations. For each alternative under Component 1 the 

impacts are discussed by area, as follows: American Samoa, Marianas, Hawaii, PRIA, and 

pelagic. For each area the potential impacts on the physical environment, biological 

environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery participants and communities, 

environmental justice populations, and enforcement and administration are discussed. 

The structure of the discussion for Component 1 is intended to allow a reader interested in just 

one alternative and one area to focus on the description of the environmental consequences 

specific to that alternative and area. 

4.2.1. Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Alternative, on the physical environment, the biological environment, essential fish habitat, 

protected species, fishery participants and communities, and enforcement and administration. 

Federal fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are currently managed under five species-based 

FMPs: Bottomfish; Precious Corals; Coral Reef Ecosystems; Crustaceans; and Pelagics. 

Alternative 1A would continue fisheries management under these existing species-based FMPs 

and their corresponding regulations. The existing FMPs would not be changed and the proposed 

FEPs would not be approved or implemented. Under Alternative 1A, Federal fisheries would 

continue to be adaptively managed under each FMP in accordance with the MSA and other 

applicable laws. 

4.2.1.1. American Samoa 

The following sections discuss the current impacts of Alternative 1A on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to American Samoa. 

4.2.1.1.1.Physical Environment 

The physical environment of American Samoa is comprised of its geology and topography as 

well as surrounding ocean layers, ocean depth zones, ocean water circulation, surface currents, 

transition zones, eddies, and deep-ocean currents. Under Alternative 1A, Federal fisheries within 

the American Samoa archipelago would continue to be adaptively managed under the existing 

species-based FMPs. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, and in detail in Section 3.5.1.1, existing fisheries operating under the 

species-based FMPs in the American Samoa archipelago may affect marine ecosystems in a 

variety of ways. Populations of fish and other ecosystem components can be affected by the 

selectivity, magnitude, timing, location, and methods of fish removals. Fisheries can affect 

marine ecosystems through vessel disturbances, bycatch or discards, impacts on nutrient cycling, 

or introduction of exotic species, pollution, and habitat disturbance. The day-to-day operation of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 234

a fishing vessel can produce a number of waste products, including oil, sewage, garbage, and lost 

gear, any of which may have a negative impact on the marine environment. However, no longterm significant impacts on the physical environment from waste products directly related to 

fishery operations conducted under the FMPs, within the American Samoa archipelago, have 

been documented. 

Additionally, the accidental grounding of fishing vessels can adversely affect marine habitat and 

coral reefs. Potential impacts of a vessel striking the bottom include physical harm to the marine 

substrate, and the possible subsequent break-up of the vessel would release fuel and oil that 

could result in pollution of the marine environment and mortality of marine life. However, 

groundings of fishing vessels operating in the Western Pacific Region are infrequent. In the 

occasional cases of vessel groundings in the past, some short-term localized damage to the 

marine substrate did take place, but no long-term impacts on the surrounding marine 

environment have been documented. 

4.2.1.1.2.Biological Environment 

The affected biological environment of the American Samoa archipelago includes the benthic 

environment and the pelagic environment. Alternative 1A would not change the current 

institutional framework of FMPs, the accompanying regulations, or fishery management 

strategies. 

The affected biological environment of the American Samoa archipelago is discussed generally 

in Section 3.2 and in more detail in Section 3.5.1. The Territory of American Samoa manages all 

marine resources and regulated fisheries within the territorial waters 0 to 3 miles from its 

shoreline. Fisheries in the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) of the American Samoa archipelago are 

regulated under the FMPs. Under the authority of the MSA, the Council developed and 

recommended (and the Secretary of Commerce approved) criteria to determine overfishing 

(fishing mortality) and overfished (stock biomass) conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region, including those for American Samoa. Where MSY has been determined for a demersal 

fishery within the American Samoa archipelago, no demersal fishery has been determined to be 

experiencing overfishing or to be overfished. Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of 

target and non-target species stocks would continue to be evaluated annually. 

A discussion of the biological impacts of the demersal fisheries specific to the EEZ of the 

American Samoa archipelago under each of the FMPs follows. 

4.2.1.1.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish 

Biological impacts of the bottomfish fisheries in the EEZ surrounding American Samoa are 

managed under the Bottomfish FMP and were comprehensively addressed in a 2005 EIS (June 

17, 2005; 70 FR 35275), as updated for select areas in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 

3-16). The 2005 EIS contains relevant analysis of the impacts of the American Samoa fisheries 

(see Sections 3.4.3.2 and 3.5.2 and Chapter 4 of the 2005 EIS [June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275]) to 

the biological environment under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 235

As discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.5.1.3, the bottomfish fishery of 

American Samoa currently consists of approximately 19 part-time fishing vessels. Since few 

boats carry ice, the bottomfish fishing fleet typically fishes within 20 miles of shore. In recent 

years, however, a growing number of fishermen in American Samoa have been acquiring larger 

(greater than 35 feet in length) vessels with the capacity for chilling or freezing fish, and as a 

result, these vessels have a much greater fishing range. 

In 2005, a total of 16 boats from American Samoa landed an estimated 21,157 pounds of both 

commercially and recreationally caught bottomfish, and approximately 30 percent of the total 

landing was sold commercially. Revenues from the commercial bottomfish fishery in 2005 were 

estimated at $16,744, including all catch that was sold locally. The percentage of the American 

Samoa bottomfish harvest that comes from the EEZ is not known. Federal permits are not 

required to participate in the bottomfish fisheries in the EEZ that encompasses the American 

Samoa archipelago. However, the current annual commercial and recreational harvest levels 

(21,157 pounds) are well below the estimated MSY for deepwater bottomfish around American 

Samoa of 74,974 pounds. 

Based on the low level of participation in recent years, the current estimates of the harvest being 

well below MSY, and the trend in harvest in this fishery, it is anticipated that future harvest from 

the bottomfish fishery within the American Samoa archipelago would continue to have limited 

biological impacts under the status quo. NMFS and the Council are working closely with the 

Government of American Samoa, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR), on 

cooperative monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any substantial changes in 

participation or harvest in the current bottomfish fisheries originating from American Samoa. 

Under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, federally managed bottomfish fisheries in the 

American Samoa archipelago would continue to be adaptively managed under the Bottomfish 

FMP to provide for sustainable fishing of bottomfish. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the American Samoa fisheries under Alternative 1A. The biological impacts of the 

current Bottomfish FMP on the American Samoa archipelago would continue as discussed in 

Section 3.5.1 and as previously analyzed in the 2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275), as 

updated for select areas in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-16). Implementation of 

future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Bottomfish FMP that may 

affect the American Samoa fisheries would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and 

other applicable law at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.1.2.2. Biological Impacts on Precious Corals 

As discussed in Section 3.5.1, there are no known historical or current precious corals fisheries in 

American Samoa. An estimate of MSY for precious coral around American Samoa has not been 

determined; however, an OY of 1,000 kg (all precious coral species combined) has been set for 

Permit Area X-P-AS, which encompasses the EEZ waters around American Samoa. A Federal 

permit is required to participate in precious corals fisheries in the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) 

that encompasses American Samoa. There is no limit to the number of permits that may be 

issued, however, and the annual harvest for Permit Area XP-AS is 1,000 kg (all precious corals 

species combined). All harvest of precious corals must be done using selective gear such as 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 236

manned or unmanned submersibles. Non-selective fishing gear such as tangle nets is prohibited. 

No exploratory permits have been issued to date. Based on the lack of participation in this 

Federal fishery in recent years and the selective gear requirement, it is anticipated that the 

biological impacts of any future fishery under the Precious Corals FMP within the American 

Samoa archipelago would continue to be very limited or have no biological impact. 

Under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, the precious corals fisheries in the American 

Samoa archipelago would continue to be adaptively managed to provide for sustainability of 

precious corals resources under the Precious Corals FMP. Under this alternative, no changes 

would occur to the federal regulations affecting the American Samoa fisheries. In the event that a 

precious corals fishery occurs within the EEZ of the American Samoa archipelago, the fishery 

would be cooperatively monitored by NMFS, the Council, and the Government of American 

Samoa, DMWR. Implementation of future management plan amendments, or regulatory 

amendments to the Precious Corals FMP affecting the American Samoa fisheries, would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable law at the time of their 

consideration. 

4.2.1.1.2.3. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystems 

Biological impacts on the coral reef fishes and invertebrates of American Samoa under 

Alternative 1A would include current and potential landing levels. Coral reef fishes and 

invertebrates are harvested in American Samoa by various gear types including hook-and-line, 

spear gun, and gillnets. In 2003, approximately 25,000 pounds of coral reef species were 

reported landed by domestic commercial fisheries in American Samoa. Prior to the 

implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, it was estimated that approximately 1 percent 

of the total ex-vessel value of the harvest of coral reef resources is taken from the EEZ (3 to 200 

miles offshore) that encompasses American Samoa (p. 68 of the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP). 

An estimate of MSY for the coral reef fisheries around American Samoa has not been 

determined. A Federal permit is required for participation in the coral reef fisheries in the EEZ 

around American Samoa for "Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa" (see Appendix A). There 

is no limit to the number of permits that may be issued; however, applications are evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis and fishing activities and harvests may be restricted as a permit condition. 

Since the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, no Federal permits have been 

issued. 

Besides permitting requirements, the 2004 Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP established a coral reef 

ecosystem regulatory area, marine protected areas, permit reporting requirements, no-anchoring 

zones, gear restrictions, and a framework regulatory process. In 2002, an EIS (May 10, 2002; 67 

FR 31801) was prepared for the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP. There have been no amendments 

to this FMP to date (see Table 3-17). NMFS and the Council are working closely with the 

American Samoa DMWR on cooperative monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any 

changes in participation or harvest in the current coral reef fisheries within the EEZ. Based on 

the lack of permit participation and limited harvest in this Federal fishery historically, it is 

anticipated that the future harvest from the coral reef fishery under the Coral Reef Ecosystems 

FMP would continue to have a very limited or no effect on the biological environment of the 

American Samoa archipelago. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 237

Under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, Federal coral reef fisheries in the American 

Samoa archipelago would continue to be adaptively managed to provide for sustainability of 

coral reef ecosystem resources under the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. No changes would occur 

to the Federal regulations affecting the American Samoa fisheries under this alternative. The 

biological impacts of the current coral reef fisheries under the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP on the 

American Samoa archipelago would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.1 and as previously 

analyzed in the 2002 EIS (May 10, 2002; 67 FR 31801). Implementation of future management 

plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP affecting 

American Samoa would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at 

the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.1.2.4. Biological Impacts on Crustaceans 

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.3, within the American Samoa archipelago spiny lobster is the 

main crustacean harvested, and is taken primarily by spear at night near the outer slope of the 

reefs by free divers while they are diving for finfish. Total annual commercial landings estimated 

from surveys average 1,271 pounds. Subsistence and recreational catches of lobster in the 

American Samoa archipelago are not known at this time. However, the harvest of lobster 

primarily occurs in the territorial waters of American Samoa (0 to 3 miles offshore). An estimate 

of MSY for the crustacean fisheries around American Samoa has not been determined. A Federal 

permit (Permit Area 3) is required to participate in the lobster fisheries in the EEZ (3 to 200 

miles offshore) that encompasses American Samoa. There is no limit to the number of permits 

that may be issued. There is no harvest limit placed on the lobster fishing permit. Since the 

implementation of the Crustaceans FMP, two permits have been issued for Permit Area 3. There 

are no active permits in the fishery as this FPEIS is being prepared. There also are permit and 

reporting requirements for deepwater shrimp fishing in the American Samoa EEZ. 

Under Alternative 1A no changes would occur to the Federal regulations affecting the American 

Samoa crustacean fisheries. Based on the low level of participation and limited harvest 

historically in this Federal permit fishery, it is anticipated that the impact of future crustacean 

fisheries managed under the Crustaceans FMP on the biological environment of the American 

Samoa archipelago would be limited. Any crustacean fisheries within the EEZ would be 

cooperatively monitored by NMFS, the Council, and the American Samoa DMWR. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

Crustaceans FMP affecting American Samoa would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis 

and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.1.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Under the status quo, the affected essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular 

concern (HAPC) are designated in the existing species-based FMPs. For bottomfish and 

crustaceans, EFH has been designated based on the preferred depth ranges of specific life stages. 

In the case of crustaceans, the designation is further refined based on productivity data. The 

precious corals EFH designation combines depth and bottom type as indicators, but it is further 

refined based on the known distribution of the most productive areas for these organisms. The 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 238

affected EFH and HAPC for the Western Pacific Region are discussed in more detail in Section 

3.3. 

Under Alternative 1A, American Samoa fisheries would continue to be managed under existing 

FMPs. Alternative 1A would not change current Federal fisheries regulations or designations of 

EFH or HAPC within the American Samoa archipelago. Thus, no changes would occur to the 

existing regulations affecting the American Samoa fisheries. The impacts of the current fishing 

activities under existing FMPs on EFH and HAPC within the American Samoa archipelago 

would continue as discussed in Section 3.3 and below. 

Adverse fishing impacts on these habitat areas may include physical or biological alterations to 

the substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, or other 

components of the ecosystems. However, the predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, 

longline, troll, traps, and submersibles) used in the fisheries cause few fishing-related impacts on 

the benthic habitat and other EFH occupied and used by coral reef species, bottomfish, 

crustaceans, or precious corals. In addition, the current management regime prohibits the use of 

bottom trawls, bottom-set nets, explosives, and poisons. 

The following are potential sources of fishery-related impacts on EFH that may occur during 

normal fishing operations: 

• Anchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing 

habitat; 

• heavy weight and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing 

operations; and, 

• lost gear (leaders, hooks, and weights) by fishing vessels. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

current FMPs that may affect the EFH and HAPC within the American Samoa archipelago 

would be subject to appropriate the NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

4.2.1.1.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1A, the American Samoa archipelago fisheries would continue to be managed 

under the existing five species-based FMPs, no changes would occur to the existing regulations 

affecting the fisheries within the American Samoa archipelago, and no additional impacts to 

protected species would be expected. The impacts on protected species from the fisheries 

managed under the existing FMPs within the American Samoa archipelago would continue as 

discussed in Section 3.5.1.2. 

The Council and NMFS must balance the needs of the fishing industries with the need to reduce 

interactions with protected species. NMFS evaluates the potential impact of proposed fishery 

management regulations and future potential fishery actions that may affect species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and considers the impacts to 

marine mammals and seabirds. By law, fishery activities within the U.S. EEZ that affect listed 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 239

species cannot jeopardize the continued existence of that species. All fishery management 

actions are reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the ESA through a Section 7 

consultation, and the impacts to listed species are articulated in the resultant biological opinion 

or other determination. Fishery management actions are also reviewed for compliance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

In a March 18, 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS determined that the American Samoa 

bottomfish fisheries were not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammal and sea turtle 

populations (NMFS 2002a). A March 7, 2002 informal consultation under the ESA determined 

that the American Samoa coral reef fisheries were not likely to adversely affect endangered 

species or their critical habitat (NMFS 2002b). Similarly, NMFS determined that the crustacean 

fisheries are not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species or critical habitat in American 

Samoa (NMFS 2007b). Following consultations under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has 

determined that the precious coral fisheries will not adversely affect any ESA-listed species or 

critical habitat in American Samoa (NMFS 1978, NMFS 2008c). 

Alternative 1A would continue data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the 

American Samoa archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be 

monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated through area 

closures, and gear and handling requirements. Implementation of future management plan 

amendments or regulatory amendments to these FMPs would be reviewed to determine their 

potential to affect protected species within the American Samoa archipelago and would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other statutes, such as the ESA and MMPA, at the 

time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.1.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

American Samoa has been defined as a fishing community under the MSA. Under Alternative 

1A, the fisheries within EEZ waters around the American Samoa archipelago would continue to 

be managed under the five existing FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting 

the American Samoa archipelago fisheries. The impacts of the current FMPs on the fishery 

participants and communities within the American Samoa archipelago would continue as 

discussed in Chapter 3, and in detail in Section 3.5.1.4. Under Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Alternative, federally managed fisheries of American Samoa would continue to be adaptively 

managed to provide for sustainability under the existing species-based FMPs. 

 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to these 

FMPs affecting the fishery participation and communities within American Samoa would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 240

Administration and Enforcement 

In the Western Pacific Region, the management of ocean and coastal activities is conducted by a 

number of agencies and organizations at the Federal, state, county, and village or community 

levels. These groups administer programs and initiatives that address often overlapping and 

sometimes conflicting ocean and coastal issues. 

Numerous research and data collection projects and programs have been undertaken and have 

resulted in the collection of huge volumes of potentially valuable detailed bathymetric and 

biological data, among other data. Some of this information has been processed and analyzed; 

however, much has proven difficult to utilize and integrate due to differences in collection 

methodologies coupled with a lack of metadata or documentation of how the data were collected 

and coded. This has resulted in incompatible datasets, as well as data that are virtually 

inaccessible to anyone except the primary researchers. 

Under Alternative 1A, the fisheries within EEZ waters around the American Samoa archipelago 

would continue to be managed under the five existing FMPs. No changes would occur to the 

regulations affecting the American Samoa archipelago fisheries under this alternative. The 

impacts of the current FMPs on the fishery administration and enforcement within the American 

Samoa archipelago would continue as discussed in Chapter 3, and in detail in Section 3.6. 

Concerns of incompatible or inaccessible datasets as discussed above would continue under this 

alternative. Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments 

to these FMPs on the administration and enforcement affecting American Samoa would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

4.2.1.2. Mariana Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the current impacts of Alternative 1A, the No Action alternative, 

on the physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, 

fishery participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the 

Mariana Archipelago (Guam and CNMI combined). 

4.2.1.2.1.Physical Environment 

The physical environment of the Mariana Archipelago is comprised of its geology and 

topography as well as surrounding ocean layers, ocean depth zones, ocean water circulation, 

surface currents, transition zones, eddies, and deep-ocean currents. Under Alternative 1A, the No 

Action Alternative, federally managed fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago would continue 

to be adaptively managed to provide for sustainability under the existing species-based FMPs. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.5.2.1 for CNMI and Section 3.5.3.1 

for Guam, current fisheries operating under the species-based FMPs in the Mariana Archipelago 

may affect marine ecosystems in a variety of ways. Populations of fish and other ecosystem 

components can be affected by the selectivity, magnitude, timing, location, and methods of fish 

removals. Fisheries can also affect marine ecosystems through vessel disturbance, bycatch or 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 241

discards, impacts on nutrient cycling, or introduction of exotic species, pollution, and habitat 

disturbance. The day-to-day operation of a fishing vessel can produce a number of waste 

products, including oil, sewage, garbage, and lost gear, any of which may have a negative impact 

on the marine environment. However, no long-term significant impacts on the physical 

environment from waste products directly related to fishery operations conducted under the 

FMPs, within the Mariana Archipelago, have been documented. 

Additionally, the accidental grounding of fishing vessels can adversely affect marine habitat and 

coral reefs. Potential impacts of a vessel striking the bottom include physical harm to the marine 

substrate, and the possible subsequent break-up of the vessel would release fuel and oil that 

could result in pollution of the marine environment and mortality of marine life. However, 

groundings of fishing vessels operating in the Western Pacific Region are infrequent. In these 

occasional cases of vessel groundings in the past, some short-term localized damage to the 

marine substrate did take place, but no long-term significant impacts on the surrounding marine 

environment have been documented. 

4.2.1.2.2.Biological Environment 

The affected biological environment of the Mariana Archipelago includes the benthic 

environment and the pelagic environment. Alternative 1A would not change the current 

institutional framework of FMPs, accompanying regulations, or fishery management strategies. 

Thus, this alternative would not introduce additional impacts beyond those impacts on the 

biological environment already analyzed. 

The areas of the Mariana Archipelago managed under the FMPs include the waters of both the 

CNMI and Guam. The affected biological environment of the Mariana Archipelago is discussed 

generally in Section 3.2, in more detail in Section 3.5.1 for CNMI, and in Section 3.5.3 for 

Guam. 

Similar to American Samoa as discussed above, the Territory of Guam has sole management 

authority for submerged lands, marine resources and regulated fisheries within the territorial 

waters from 0 to 3 miles from its shorelines. This is not the same for CNMI where the 

submerged lands from the shoreline (0) to 200 miles offshore of CNMI have all been determined 

to be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Despite this Court ruling, the CNMI 

government retains its authority (and existing fishing regulations) to regulate fishing activities by 

CNMI residents via the issuance of business licenses and landing restrictions. Accordingly, 

existing Federal permitting and reporting requirements apply to fishing activities for those 

fisheries operating in that portion of the EEZ from 3 to 200 miles offshore surrounding the 

CNMI. NMFS and the Council work closely with the marine resource management agencies of 

the CNMI (Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, or DFW) 

and the Territory of Guam (Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources or DAWR) on 

cooperative monitoring and reporting programs for Federal fisheries, including those occurring 

within 0 to 3 miles of the shoreline of the CNMI. 

Where MSY has been estimated for a demersal fishery in the Mariana Archipelago, none has 

been determined to be experiencing overfishing or to be overfished. Under Alternative 1A, the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 242

status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be evaluated annually. A 

discussion of the biological impacts of the demersal fisheries specific to the EEZ of the Mariana 

Archipelago under each of the FMPs follows.. 

4.2.1.2.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish 

Biological impacts of the bottomfish fisheries managed under the Bottomfish FMP throughout 

the region, including those for the fisheries in the EEZ of the Mariana Archipelago, were 

addressed in a 2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275) that was developed by the WPRFMC 

(2005a). This was updated for select areas in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-16) that 

contain relevant analysis of the impacts under Alternative 1A, the No Action alternative. The 

Mariana Archipelago includes the waters that encompass both the CNMI and Guam and each 

will be discussed separately. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

As discussed in Section 3.5.2.3, the CNMI bottomfish fisheries are categorized into two 

segments: deep (greater than 500 feet) and shallow (less than 500 feet) water fisheries. The 

deepwater fishery is primarily commercial, whereas the shallow water fishery includes 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen. The CNMI DFW and Guam DAWR work 

cooperatively with NMFS and the Council to monitor fisheries. In the CNMI bottomfish 

fisheries, there are approximately 150 skiffs used for subsistence and recreational fishing and 8 

vessels, ranging from 29 to 70 feet, used commercially within the EEZ around CNMI. As 

discussed in Chapter 3, this fishery has a high turnover rate of participants as an increasing 

number of local fishermen are focusing more on reef fishes in preference to bottomfish. 

 

In 2004, it is estimated that 54,474 pounds of commercial landings of bottomfish were made, 

with a total ex-vessel value of $142,362 in the CNMI bottomfish fisheries. Recreational and 

subsistence bottomfish harvests for the CNMI are unknown. All of the CNMI bottomfish harvest 

occurs in the EEZ (0 to 200 miles offshore). Federal permits are not required to participate in the 

bottomfish fisheries in the EEZ of CNMI.66 However, the total combined harvest is estimated to 

be under the MSY of 184,254 pounds of bottomfish estimated for the CNMI bottomfish fisheries 

(see Table 3-4). NMFS and the Council are working closely with the CNMI DFW on cooperative 

monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any substantial changes in participation or 

harvest in current fisheries. 

Fishery regulations now prohibit vessels >40’ from fishing for bottomfish closer than 50 nm 

from the southern islands of CNMI, and within 10 nm of Alamagan Island. 

Guam 

Similar to the CNMI, there are two distinct Guam bottomfish fisheries. The shallow water 

component is the larger of the two in terms of participation because of the lower expenditure for 

effort and relative ease of fishing close to shore. Participants in the shallow water component 

 

66 The Council has recommended permit and reporting requirements for all commercial bottomfish fishermen 

operating within the EEZ around CNMI. The regulatory package is currently being processed by NMFS. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 243

seldom sell their catch because they fish mainly for recreational or subsistence purposes. As 

discussed in Section 3.5.3, it is estimated that less than 20 percent of the total shallow water 

marine resources harvested in Guam are taken outside 3 miles from shore, thus in Federal waters. 

The commercially oriented vessels tend to be longer than 25 feet, and their effort is usually 

concentrated on the deepwater bottomfish complex. It is reported that in 2005, 233 domestic 

vessels landed 61,601 pounds of bottomfish in Guam, with an ex-vessel value of $69,186. Of this 

harvest, 35,761 pounds were both deepwater and shallow water Bottomfish MUS (see Table 3-

8), with the remaining harvest made up of non-Bottomfish MUS. Recreational and subsistence 

bottomfish harvests for Guam are unknown. The percentage of the Mariana Archipelago 

bottomfish harvest from Guam that occurs in the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) is not known. 

However, total harvest of deepwater Bottomfish MUS is estimated to be under the MSY 

established for Guam's deepwater bottomfish fishery of 56,863 pounds. An estimate of MSY for 

the shallow water bottomfish fisheries around Guam has not been determined. NMFS and the 

Council are working closely with Guam DAWR on cooperative monitoring and reporting 

programs that will detect any substantial changes in participation and harvest in current 

bottomfish fisheries. 

With the exception of large vessels (50 feet or longer), Federal permits are not required to 

participate in the bottomfish fisheries in the EEZ around Guam. Amendment 9 (November 2, 

2006; 71 FR 64474) to the Bottomfish FMP prohibited large vessels, that is, those 50 feet (15.2 

meters) or longer, from fishing for bottomfish in Federal waters within 50 nautical miles (92.6 

kilometers) around Guam, and established Federal permitting and reporting requirements for 

these large bottomfish fishing vessels. The associated environmental assessments to Amendment 

9 updated the analysis of the impacts of the bottomfish fisheries and management regime on the 

human environment around Guam. 

Mariana Archipelago 

Where MSY has been estimated for demersal fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago (the CNMI 

and Guam), none have been determined to be experiencing overfishing or to be overfished. 

Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be 

evaluated annually. 

Under Alternative 1A, the Mariana Archipelago fisheries within the EEZ would continue to be 

managed under the current framework, regulations, and management strategies and subject to 

adaptive management under the Bottomfish FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the Mariana Archipelago bottomfish fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of the 

current Federal bottomfish fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago on the biological 

environment would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.2 for CNMI and Section 3.5.3 for 

Guam, respectively. Impacts were previously analyzed in the 2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 

35275) and updated for select areas in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-16). 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

Bottomfish FMP that may affect the Mariana Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate 

NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 244

Biological Impacts on Precious Corals 

The Mariana Archipelago includes the waters that encompass both the CNMI and Guam. As 

discussed in Section 3.5.2 for CNMI, there are no known precious corals fisheries that are 

currently operating in the EEZ of CNMI (0 to 200 miles offshore). Furthermore, as discussed in 

Section 3.5.3 for Guam, there is no precious corals fishery currently operating within the 

territorial waters of Guam (0 to 3 miles offshore), nor have there been any reported landings of 

precious corals harvests from the EEZ around Guam (3 to 200 miles offshore). An estimate of 

MSY for precious corals around the Mariana Archipelago has not been determined; however, an 

OY of 1,000 kg (all precious corals species combined) has been set for Permit Areas XP-G (EEZ 

waters around Guam) and XP-CNMI (EEZ waters around the CNMI). Annual harvests for each 

area are limited to 1,000 kg (all precious corals species combined), and the use on non-selective 

gear is prohibited. A Federal permit is required to participate in precious corals fisheries in the 

EEZ of 3 to 200 miles that encompass both the CNMI and Guam. There is no limit to the number 

of permits that may be issued. No Federal permits have been issued to date. 

Amendment 6 (September 12, 2006; 71 FR 53605) to the Precious Corals FMP established new 

permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting precious corals within the 

EEZ, 3 to 200 miles offshore only, of the CNMI (see Table 3-16). The intent of the amendment 

is, in the event a fishery is initiated, to improve the understanding of the ecology of these 

precious corals and the activities and harvests of the vessel operators that may target them. The 

associated environmental assessments to Amendment 6 and Amendment 7 provided an updated 

analysis of the impacts of the potential precious corals fisheries and management regime on the 

biological environment around the CNMI (WPFMC 2007b; 2008b). 

Under Alternative 1A, the Mariana Archipelago precious corals fisheries would continue to be 

managed under the current framework, regulations and management strategies and subject to 

adaptive management under the Precious Corals FMP. No changes would occur to the Federal 

regulations affecting the Mariana Archipelago precious corals fisheries under this alternative. In 

the event that a precious corals fishery were to begin within the Mariana Archipelago, the fishery 

would be cooperatively monitored by NMFS, the Council, CNMI, DFW and the Territory of 

Guam, DAWR. 

Based on the lack of permits issued and no reported harvest in the Federal permit fishery, it is 

anticipated that the future impacts on the biological environment of the Mariana Archipelago by 

Federal fisheries under the Precious Corals FMP would continue to be limited or insignificant. 

NMFS and the Council are working closely with CNMI, DFW and Guam, DAWR on 

cooperative monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any changes in participation or 

harvest in precious corals fisheries. Implementation of future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to the Precious Corals FMP that may affect the Mariana Archipelago 

would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 245

4.2.1.2.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem 

The 2004 Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP established a coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, 

marine protected areas, permitting and reporting requirements, no-anchoring zones, gear 

restrictions, and a framework regulatory process. In 2002, an EIS (May 10, 2002; 67 FR 31801) 

was prepared for the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP. There have been no amendments to this FMP 

to date (see Table 3-18). 

The Mariana Archipelago includes the waters that encompass both the CNMI and Guam and will 

be discussed separately. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

As discussed in Section 3.5.2, in the CNMI commercial landings of coral reef fish were 

approximately 136,000 pounds in 2003 and included harvests of parrotfish, surgeonfish, goatfish, 

snappers, and emperors. The harvest of subsistence or recreational fishermen is unknown. An 

estimate of MSY for the coral reef ecosystem fisheries around the CNMI has not been 

determined. However, coral reef fisheries in the CNMI are believed to be in good condition, but 

local depletion may be occurring in some areas. 

A Federal permit is required to participate in the coral reef fisheries in the CNMI for Potentially 

Harvested CREMUS (see Appendix A) from 3 to 200 miles offshore. There is no limit to the 

number of permits that may be issued, however applications are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis and fishing activities and harvests may be restricted as a permit condition. A Federal permit 

is not required to harvest other CREMUS. Additionally, a Federal permit is not required to 

harvest coral reef fishes or invertebrates within the EEZ from the shoreline (0) to 3 miles 

offshore of the CNMI. No CNMI Federal permits have been issued to date. NMFS and the 

Council are working closely with the CNMI, DFW on cooperative monitoring and reporting 

programs that will detect any changes in participation in coral reef fisheries within the EEZ (0 to 

200 miles offshore). 

Guam 

As discussed in Section 3.5.3, in Guam total coral reef fish landings for 2002 and 2003 were 

estimated at 273,799 pounds and 306,626 pounds, respectively. The harvest of subsistence or 

recreational fishermen is unknown. An estimate of MSY for coral reef fisheries around Guam 

has not been determined. However, coral reef fisheries in Guam are believed to be in good 

condition. 

Prior to the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP, it was estimated that 

approximately 8 percent of the total ex-vessel value of the harvest of coral reef resources was 

taken from the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) surrounding Guam (p. 68 of the Coral Reef 

Ecosystems FMP; May 10, 2002; 67 FR 31801). A Federal permit is required to participate in the 

coral reef fisheries in the EEZ that surrounds Guam (3 to 200 miles offshore) for Potentially 

Harvested Coral Reef Taxa. There is no limit to the number of permits that may be issued, 

however applications are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Fishing activities and harvests may 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 246

be restricted as a permit condition. Since the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

no Federal permits have been issued. NMFS and the Council are working closely with the 

Territory of Guam, DAWR on cooperative monitoring programs that will detect any changes in 

participation or harvest in coral reef fisheries. 

Mariana Archipelago 

Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be 

evaluated annually. Under Alternative 1A, the Mariana Archipelago fisheries would continue to 

be managed under the current framework, regulations, and management strategies and subject to 

adaptive management under the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. No changes would occur to the 

regulations affecting the Mariana Archipelago coral reef fisheries under this alternative. The 

biological impacts of the current Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP on the Mariana Archipelago 

would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.2 for the CNMI and Section 3.5.3 for Guam and as 

previously analyzed in the 2002 EIS (May 10, 2002; 67 FR 31801). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP 

affecting the Mariana Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other 

applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

Biological Impacts on Crustaceans 

The Mariana Archipelago includes the waters around both the CNMI and Guam and are 

discussed separately below. A more detailed discussion of the fisheries managed under the 

Crustaceans FMP within the Mariana Archipelago may be found in Section 3.5.2 for the CNMI 

and Section 3.5.3 for Guam. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

The CNMI crustacean fisheries primarily target spiny lobster in nearshore waters, with reported 

catches taken almost exclusively within the 0 to 3 mile zone of the inhabited southern islands. 

Beyond 3 miles offshore, the topography in most locations drops off steeply. The directed 

commercial fishery is relatively small, with 493 pounds of commercial landings estimated for 

2003. The level of harvest for the subsistence or recreational fisheries is unknown. As mentioned 

earlier, EEZ waters around the CNMI extend from 0 to 200 miles offshore. With regard to the 

crustacean fisheries, a Federal permit is required to participate in the lobster fisheries within 3 to 

200 miles offshore of the CNMI. There is no limit to the number of permits that may be issued. 

No Federal permits have been issued to date. No Federal permit is required to participate in the 

crustacean fisheries from the shoreline to 3 miles offshore of the CNMI. 

Amendment 12 (71 FR 53605; September 12, 2006) to the Crustaceans FMP established 

permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting lobsters within the EEZ, 

from 3 to 200 miles offshore only, of the CNMI (see Table 3-19). The intent of the amendment 

was to improve the understanding of the ecology of these species and of the activities and 

harvests of the vessel operators that may target them. The associated environmental assessment 

to Amendment 6 provided an updated analysis of the impacts of the lobster fisheries and 

management regime on the biological environment around the CNMI. Amendment 13 to the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 247

Crustaceans FMP added deepwater shrimp as MUS and required permits and reporting (73 FR 

70603; November 21, 2008). 

Guam 

Fishing for crustaceans around Guam occurs primarily in territorial waters, usually in the 

subsistence or recreational fisheries. In 2003 it is estimated that a total of 2,225 pounds of spiny 

lobsters with a total ex-vessel value of $7,279 were commercially harvested from the territorial 

waters (0 to 3 miles offshore) around Guam. The level of harvest for the subsistence or 

recreational fisheries is unknown A Federal permit is required to participate in the lobster 

fisheries within the EEZ, 3 to 200 miles offshore of Guam. There is no limit to the number of 

permits that may be issued. In 2004, two such Federal permits were issued to vessels. There is no 

harvest limit placed on the permit. No Federal permits were issued to fish for lobsters in the 

Federal water around Guam in either 2005 or 2006. There is also a permit and reporting 

requirement for deepwater shrimp fishing in the Guam EEZ. 

Mariana Archipelago 

Under Alternative 1A, the Mariana Archipelago crustacean fisheries would continue to be 

managed under the current framework, regulations, and management strategies, and subject to 

adaptive management under the Crustaceans FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the Mariana Archipelago crustacean fisheries under this alternative. An estimate of the 

MSY for the deepwater caridean shrimp, Heterocarpus laevigatus, has been made for the 

Mariana Archipelago (CNMI and Guam combined) Federal fisheries, which is 162 tons per year. 

Mariana Archipelago deepwater caridean shrimp are not experiencing overfishing or nor are they 

being overfished at this time. 

Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be 

evaluated annually. Based on the limited permits issued historically and no reported harvest in 

the Federal permit fishery, it is anticipated that the future impacts on the biological environment 

of the Mariana Archipelago by Federal fisheries under the Crustaceans FMP would continue to 

be limited or insignificant, including impacts from the deepwater caridean shrimp fishery. NMFS 

and the Council are working closely with the Territory of Guam, DAWR on cooperative 

monitoring programs that will detect any changes in participation in crustacean fisheries. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

Crustaceans FMP affecting the Mariana Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.2.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 1A, EFH and HAPC are designated in the existing species-based FMPs. For 

bottomfish and crustaceans, the preferred depth ranges of specific life stages are used to 

designate EFH. In the case of crustaceans, the designation is further refined based on 

productivity data. The precious corals designation combines depth and bottom type as indicators, 

but is further refined based on the known distribution of the most productive areas for these 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 248

organisms. The affected EFH and HAPC for the Western Pacific Region are discussed in 

Chapter 3, and in detail in Section 3.3. 

Under Alternative 1A, Mariana Archipelago fisheries would continue to be managed under 

existing FMPs. Alternative 1A would not change current Federal regulations or designations of 

EFH or HAPC within the Mariana Archipelago. Thus, no changes would occur to the existing 

regulations affecting the Mariana Archipelago fisheries. The impacts of the current activities 

under existing FMPs on EFH and HAPC within the Mariana Archipelago would continue as 

discussed below and in more detail in Section 3.3. 

Adverse fishing impacts on these habitat areas may include physical or biological alterations to 

the substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat or other 

components of the ecosystems. However, the predominant fishing gear types, hook-and-line, 

longline, troll, traps, and submersibles, used in the Mariana Islands fisheries cause few fishingrelated impacts on the benthic habitat and other EFH occupied and used by coral reef species, 

bottomfish, crustaceans, or precious corals. In addition, the current management regime prohibits 

the use of bottom trawls, bottom-set nets, explosives, and poisons. 

The following are potential sources of fishery-related impacts on EFH that may occur during 

normal fishing operations: 

• Anchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing 

habitat; 

• heavy weight and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing 

operations; and, 

• lost gear (leaders, hooks, and weights) by fishing vessels. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

current FMPs that may affect the EFH and HAPC within the Mariana Archipelago would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

4.2.1.2.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1A, the Mariana Archipelago fisheries would continue to be managed under 

the existing five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the existing regulations 

affecting the fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago, and no additional impacts on protected 

species would be expected. The impacts on protected species from the fisheries managed under 

the existing FMPs within the Mariana Archipelago would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.2 

and Section 3.5.3 for the CNMI and Guam, respectively. 

The Council and NMFS must balance the needs of the fishing industries with the need to reduce 

interactions with protected species. NMFS evaluates the potential impact of proposed fishery 

management regulations and future potential fishery actions that may affect species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and considers the impacts to marine mammals and 

seabirds. By law, fishery activities within the U.S. EEZ that affect listed species cannot 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 249

jeopardize the continued existence of that species. All fishery management actions are reviewed 

for compliance with the provisions of the ESA through a Section 7 consultation, and the impacts 

to listed species are articulated in the resultant biological opinion. Fishery management actions 

are also reviewed for compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Biological opinions on FMPs: 

In a March 18, 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS determined that the CNMI and Guam 

bottomfish fisheries were not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammal and sea turtle 

populations. A March 7, 2002 informal consultation under the ESA determined that the CNMI 

and Guam coral reef fisheries were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered 

species or their critical habitat. A May 24, 1996 Biological Opinion determined that the Mariana 

Archipelago's crustacean fisheries will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or 

their critical habitat. Because of the selective methods used to harvest precious coral, an October 

5, 1978 Biological Opinion determined that Guam's precious corals fishery is no threat to 

endangered species or their critical habitat. A July 21, 1988 informal consultation under the ESA 

determined that the CNMI precious corals fishery was not likely to adversely affect listed 

species. 

Alternative 1A would continue the cooperative (NMFS, the Council, CNMI, DFW and Guam, 

DAWR) data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the Mariana Archipelago 

fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS, and 

where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated through area closures, and gear and handling 

requirements. Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory 

amendments to these FMPs would be reviewed to determine their potential to affect protected 

species within the Mariana Archipelago and would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis 

and other statutes such as the ESA or MMPA at the time of their consideration. 

Fishery Participants and Communities 

The CNMI and Guam have each been defined as fishing communities under the MSA. Under 

Alternative 1A Federal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be managed 

under the current five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting 

the Mariana Archipelago fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of the current FMPs on the 

fishery participants and communities within the Mariana Archipelago would continue as 

discussed in Section 3.5.2 and Section 3.5.3 for the CNMI and Guam, respectively. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to these 

FMPs that could impact these communities would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis 

and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

Administration and Enforcement 

In the Western Pacific Region, the management of ocean and coastal activities is conducted by a 

number of agencies and organizations at the Federal, state, county, and village or community 

levels. These groups administer programs and initiatives that address often overlapping and 

sometimes conflicting ocean and coastal issues. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 250

Numerous research and data collection projects and programs have been undertaken and have 

resulted in the collection of huge volumes of potentially valuable detailed bathymetric and 

biological data, among other data. Some of this information has been processed and analyzed by 

fishery scientists and managers; however, much has proven difficult to utilize and integrate due 

to differences in collection methodologies coupled with a lack of metadata or documentation of 

how the data were collected and coded. This has resulted in incompatible datasets, as well as data 

that are virtually inaccessible to anyone except the primary researchers. 

Under Alternative 1A the fisheries within EEZ waters around the Mariana Archipelago would 

continue to be managed under the existing five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to 

the regulations affecting the Mariana Archipelago fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of 

the current FMPs on fishery administration and enforcement within the Mariana Archipelago 

would continue as discussed in Section 3.6. Concerns of incompatible or inaccessible datasets 

would continue as discussed above under this alternative. Implementation of future management 

plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the FMPs on the administration and enforcement 

affecting the Mariana Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other 

applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.3. Hawaiian Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1A on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.1.3.1.Physical Environment 

The physical environment of the Hawaiian Archipelago is comprised of its geology and 

topography as well as surrounding ocean layers, ocean depth zones, ocean water circulation, 

surface currents, transition zones, eddies, and deep-ocean currents. Under Alternative 1A, the No 

Action Alternative, Federal fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be 

adaptively managed under the species-based FMPs. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.5.4.1, existing fisheries operating 

under the current species-based FMPs in the Hawaiian Archipelago may affect marine 

ecosystems in a variety of ways. Populations of fish and other ecosystem components can be 

affected by the selectivity, magnitude, timing, location, and methods of fish removals. Fisheries 

can affect marine ecosystems through vessel disturbance, bycatch or discards, impacts on 

nutrient cycling, or introduction of exotic species, pollution, and habitat disturbance. The day-today operation of a fishing vessel can produce a number of waste products, including oil, sewage, 

garbage, and lost gear which may have a negative impact on the marine environment. However, 

no long-term significant impacts on the physical environment from waste products directly 

related to fishery operations conducted under the FMPs, within the Hawaiian Archipelago, have 

been documented. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 251

Additionally, the accidental grounding of fishing vessels can adversely affect marine habitat and 

coral reefs. Potential impacts of a vessel striking the bottom include physical harm to the marine 

substrate, and the possible subsequent break-up of the vessel would release fuel and oil that 

could result in pollution of the marine environment and mortality of marine life. However, 

groundings of fishing vessels operating in the Western Pacific Region are infrequent. In these 

occasional cases of vessel groundings in the past, some short-term localized damage to the 

marine substrate did take place, but no long-term significant impacts on the surrounding marine 

environment have been documented. 

4.2.1.3.2.Biological Environment 

The affected biological environment of the Hawaiian Archipelago includes the benthic 

environment and the pelagic environment. Alternative 1A would not change the current 

institutional framework of FMPs, accompanying regulations, or fishery management strategies. 

Thus, this alternative would not introduce additional impacts beyond those impacts on the 

biological environment already analyzed. The affected biological environment of the Hawaiian 

Archipelago is discussed generally in Section 3.2 and in more detail in Section 3.5.4. 

A discussion of the impacts of the demersal fisheries on the biological environment specific to 

the Hawaiian Archipelago under each of the FMPs follows. 

4.2.1.3.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish 

Biological impacts of the bottomfish fisheries (managed under the Bottomfish FMP) throughout 

the region, including those for the fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago, were addressed in a 

2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275), as updated for selected areas in subsequent NEPA 

documents (see Table 3-16). One such subsequent NEPA document is the WPRFMC (2007a) 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for Amendment 14. The FSEIS for 

Amendment 14 updated the description of the affected fisheries environment and analysis of the 

impacts of Federal fisheries under the Bottomfish FMP on the biological environment within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago. Additionally, a recent Presidential proclamation (discussed below) also 

impacts the conduct of the Federal bottomfish fishery within the NWHI. 

The Hawaiian Archipelago can be divided in two management areas, the MHI and the NWHI 

(comprised of Mau and Hoomalu Zones). As discussed in Section 3.5.4., based on recent harvest 

data, commercial bottomfish catches in the MHI fishery represent approximately 60 percent of 

the total commercial bottomfish harvest within the Hawaiian Archipelago. The harvest of 

bottomfish from subsistence and recreational fishermen is unknown. Based on recent bottomfish 

surveys, it is estimated that approximately 52 percent of the productive MHI deep-slope 

bottomfish habitat (100-400 m) is within the Federal waters of the EEZ. As of April 1, 2008, 

MHI non-commercial fishermen are required to carry a Federal permit and report their catch to 

NMFS. 

 

The commercial bottomfish harvest in the NWHI occurs in the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) 

and is managed under the Bottomfish FMP. A Federal permit is required to participate in the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 252

bottomfish fisheries within the NWHI. The maximum number of permits that may be issued for 

the Federal NWHI bottomfish fishery is 9. As mentioned earlier, pursuant to the executive 

proclamation on June 15, 2006 establishing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine 

Monument, most fisheries within the NWHI were closed (71 FR 51134; August 29, 2006). The 

proclamation will close the Federal bottomfish fisheries in the NWHI in 2011 and placed the 

fishery on an annual landing limit until that time. 

In 2004, the MHI commercial bottomfish fishery caught 366,358 pounds of bottomfish. 

Commercial bottomfish landings for 2004 in the NWHI (Mau and Hoomalu Zones combined) 

were 264,785 pounds. The total Hawaiian Archipelago bottomfish commercial landings in 2004 

were 627,927 pounds. Limited data exists on subsistence or recreational harvests; however, some 

studies have indicated that the recreational MHI bottomfish catch may be as much as double the 

MHI commercial catch (Zeller et al. 2009). The non-commercial permit and reporting 

requirements implemented by Amendment 14 will allow fisheries scientists to obtain information 

on the non-commercial catch. As described in Chapter 3, the MHI fishery is managed under an 

annual total allowable catch (TAC) specification. The 2009 TAC was 241,000 lb. of Deep 7 

bottomfish, which was reached by the fishery in July 2009. 

The MSA requires the Secretary of Commerce to annually report to Congress on the status of 

fisheries within each regional fishery management council’s geographical area of authority and 

identify those fisheries that are overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished (16 

U.S.C 1854(e)(1)). Based on MSA National Standard 1 guidelines, a stock or population is 

subject to overfishing if the fishing mortality rate exceeds the maximum fishing mortality 

threshold (MFMT) for one year (50 CFR 600.310). The MFMT for Hawaii’s Bottomfish MUS 

complex is specified in Amendment 6 of the Bottomfish FMP. In 2005, NMFS determined that 

overfishing of the bottomfish multi-species complex was occurring within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. On behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the NMFS Regional Administrator for 

the Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) notified the Council of this overfishing determination 

on May 27, 2005 (70 FR 34452; June 14, 2005). 

The Council recommended and prepared Amendment 14 to the Bottomfish FMP to end 

overfishing of the bottomfish complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago. The NEPA analysis for this 

amendment was completed in December 2007, and a Record of Decision was announced on 

January 11, 2008 (73 FR 2027). Amendment 14 established permit and reporting requirements 

for non-commercial fishermen in the MHI, a total allowable catch (TAC), and non-commercial 

bag limits. The intent of these management measures was to end overfishing on the Deep 7 

bottomfish species by reducing fishing mortality by 24% and improve monitoring of the fishery. 

Under Alternative 1A, the Hawaiian Archipelago Federal bottomfish fisheries would continue to 

be managed under the existing framework, regulations, and management strategies, and be 

subject to adaptive management under the Bottomfish FMP. NMFS and the Council work 

closely with the State of Hawaii (specifically Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources) on 

cooperative monitoring and reporting programs for fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago. No 

changes would occur to the regulations affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries under this 

alternative. The impacts of the current Hawaiian Archipelago bottomfish fisheries on the 

biological environment would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.4 and as previously analyzed 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 253

in the 2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275), as updated in the NEPA document for 

Amendment 14 (see Table 3-16). Implementation of future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to the Bottomfish FMP that may affect the Hawaiian Archipelago would 

be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

Biological Impacts on Precious Corals 

As discussed in Section 3.5.4, most of the recent harvest under the Precious Corals FMP has 

come from the waters of the State of Hawaii. Since 1980, virtually all of the black coral 

harvested around the Hawaiian Islands has been taken from the Au’au Channel Bed. The 

reported harvest from this bed has been confined to the waters of the State of Hawaii (0 to 3 

miles offshore). However, the State of Hawaii estimates that approximately 15 percent of the 

black coral harvested from the Au’au Channel Bed is collected from further than 3 miles off the 

shoreline (DLNR 1979). A substantial part of the Au’au Channel Bed is located in the EEZ (3 to 

200 miles offshore) and is under the jurisdiction of the Precious Corals FMP. A Federal permit is 

required to participate in the precious corals fishery within the EEZ waters around the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, including the portion of the Au’au Channel Bed within Federal waters. There is no 

limit to the number of permits that may be issued. Only two Federal permits have ever been 

issued. One permit was issued in 2005 and another in 2006. No harvest of precious corals in the 

EEZ was reported under these permits in either year. 

Under Alternative 1A the impacts of the Federal precious corals fisheries within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, as managed under the Precious Corals FMP, would continue as discussed in 

Section 3.5.4. The Hawaiian Archipelago Federal precious corals fisheries would continue to be 

managed under the current framework, regulations, and management strategies, and be subject to 

adaptive management under the Precious Corals FMP. No changes would occur to the existing 

regulations affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago precious corals fisheries under this alternative. 

The biological impacts of the Hawaiian Archipelago precious corals fisheries would continue as 

discussed in Section 3.5.4. 

Based on the historically low level of participation and the lack of reported harvest in this 

Federal permit fishery, it is anticipated that the future biological impacts of the Federal precious 

corals fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago under the Precious Corals FMP would continue 

to be limited or insignificant. NMFS and the Council are working closely with the State of 

Hawaii HDAR on cooperative monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any changes in 

participation or harvest in the precious corals fisheries. Implementation of future management 

plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Precious Corals FMP affecting the Hawaiian 

Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the 

time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.3.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystems 

The 2004 Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP established a coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, 

marine protected areas, permitting and reporting requirements, no-anchoring zones, gear 

restrictions, and a framework regulatory process. In 2002, an EIS (May 10, 2002; 67 FR 31801) 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 254

was prepared for the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP. There have been no amendments to this FMP 

to date (see Table 3-18). 

Prior to the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, it was estimated that 

approximately 11 percent of the total ex-vessel value of the harvest of coral reef resources is 

taken from the EEZ within the Hawaiian Archipelago (WPFMC 2002). Recreational and 

subsistence catches are unknown, but select creel surveys suggest that these catches are at least 

similar to, if not greater than, the reported commercial catch. An estimate of MSY for the coral 

reef ecosystem fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago has not been determined. A Federal 

permit is required to participate in the coral reef fisheries for Potentially Harvested Coral Reef 

Taxa in the EEZ that encompasses the Hawaiian Archipelago, from 3 to 200 miles offshore. 

There is no limit to the number of permits that may be issued, however applications are 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and fishing activities and harvests may be restricted as a 

permit condition. Since the implementation of the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, no Federal 

permits have been issued. 

The Hawaiian Archipelago coral reef ecosystem fisheries would continue to be adaptively 

managed under the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of 

coral reef species would continue to be evaluated annually. NMFS and the Council are working 

closely with the State of Hawaii HDAR on cooperative monitoring and reporting programs that 

will detect any changes in participation in coral reef fisheries within the EEZ. No changes would 

occur to the regulations affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries under Alternative 1A. The 

impacts of the current Hawaiian Archipelago coral reef fisheries to the biological environment 

would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.4 and as previously analyzed in the 2002 EIS (May 

10, 2002; 67 FR 31801). Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory 

amendments to the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

Biological Impacts on Crustaceans 

The Hawaiian Archipelago can be divided into two management areas, the MHI and the NWHI. 

A Federal permit is required to participate in the lobster fishery in the EEZ, from 3 to 200 miles 

offshore, surrounding the MHI (Crustaceans Permit Area 2). There is no limit to the number of 

permits that may be issued. There is no harvest limit placed on the permit. An estimate of MSY 

for crustacean fisheries in the MHI has not been determined. At the time this FPEIS is being 

prepared, there are no active permit holders for the MHI lobster fishery. There also are permit 

and reporting requirements for deepwater shrimp fishing in the Hawaiian Islands EEZ. 

Recreational and subsistence catches for crustaceans are unknown. Because of uncertainty in the 

lobster stock assessment model, the crustacean fishery in the NWHI has been closed since 2000. 

In addition, the President’s proclamation on June 15, 2006 established an immediate closure of 

most fisheries within the NWHI Marine National Monument, including any potential crustacean 

fishery (71 FR 51134; August 29, 2006). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 255

Under Alternative 1A, the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries would continue to be managed under 

the Crustaceans FMP. The crustacean fishery in the NWHI is closed. Based on the historically 

low level of participation in the Federal MHI crustacean fisheries and associated harvest trends, 

it is anticipated that the future biological impacts of the Federal crustacean fisheries within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago under the Crustaceans FMP would be limited or have no impacts. NMFS 

and the Council are working closely with the State of Hawaii HDAR on cooperative monitoring 

and reporting programs that will detect any changes in participation in the crustacean fisheries. 

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

Crustaceans FMP affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.3.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

As discussed in Section 3.3, EFH and HAPC for the region are designated in the species-based 

FMPs. For bottomfish and crustaceans, the preferred depth ranges of specific life stages are used 

to designate EFH. In the case of crustaceans, the designation is further refined based on 

productivity data. The precious corals designation combines depth and bottom type as indicators, 

but it is further refined based on the known distribution of the most productive areas for these 

organisms. 

Under Alternative 1A, Hawaii fisheries would continue to be managed under existing FMPs. 

Alternative 1A would not change existing Federal fisheries regulations or designations of EFH or 

HAPC within the Hawaiian Archipelago. Thus, no changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the Hawaii fisheries. The impacts of the current activities under existing FMPs on EFH 

and HAPC within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue as discussed below. These impacts 

have also been discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. 

Adverse fishing impacts on these habitat areas may include physical or biological alterations to 

the substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat or other 

components of the ecosystems. However, the predominant fishing gear types—hook-and-line, 

longline, troll, traps, and submersibles—used in the Hawaii fisheries cause few fishing-related 

impacts on the benthic habitat occupied and used by coral reef species, bottomfish, crustaceans, 

or precious corals. The current management regime prohibits the use of bottom trawls, bottomset nets, explosives, and poisons. In addition, the use of non-selective gear to harvest precious 

corals in the MHI is prohibited. 

The following are potential sources of fishery-related impacts on benthic habitat that may occur 

during normal fishing operations: 

• Anchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing 

habitat; 

• heavy weight and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing 

operations; 

• remotely-operated vehicle tether damage to precious corals during harvesting operations; 

and, 

• lost gear (leaders, hooks, and weights) by fishing vessels. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 256

Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the 

current FMPs that may affect the EFH and HAPC within the Hawaiian Archipelago would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

4.2.1.3.4.Protected Species - Hawaii 

Under Alternative 1A, the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries would continue to be managed under 

the existing five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the existing regulations 

affecting the fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago and no additional impacts on protected 

species would be expected. The impacts on protected species from the fisheries managed under 

the current FMPs within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.4 

and below. 

As mentioned earlier, the Hawaiian Archipelago can be divided into two management areas, the 

MHI and the NWHI. Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation on June 15, 2006 establishing the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument, most fisheries within the NWHI 

Monument were closed. Commercial bottomfish operations in the NWHI Monument will cease 

by June 15, 2011. Until that time, all current bottomfish fishing operations in the NWHI must 

comply with limited access permit conditions, vessel size restrictions, landing limits, area 

closures, vessel monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, there is a concern that invasive marine and terrestrial species may be 

introduced into sensitive environments by fishing vessels transiting from populated islands and 

grounding on shallow reef areas. Of most concern is the potential for unintentional introduction 

of rats (Rattus spp.) to the remote islands in the NWHI that harbor endemic land birds and 

indigenous seabirds. However, no invasive species introductions due to activity under FMPs 

have been documented. Additionally, with the establishment of the NWHI monument and the 

associated closures of NWHI fisheries, this concern would be reduced.

The Council and NMFS must balance the needs of the fishing industries with the need to reduce 

interactions with protected species. NMFS evaluates the potential impact of proposed fishery 

management regulations and future potential fishery actions that may affect species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and considers the impacts to marine mammals and 

seabirds. By law, fishery activities within the U.S. EEZ that affect listed species cannot 

jeopardize the continued existence of that species. All fishery management actions are reviewed 

for compliance with the provisions of the ESA through a Section 7 consultation, and the impacts 

to listed species are articulated in the resultant biological opinion. Fishery management actions 

are also reviewed for compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

In a 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS determined that the MHI bottomfish fisheries were not 

likely to adversely affect listed marine mammal and sea turtle populations (NMFS 2002a). A 

2008 Biological Opinion for Amendment 14 to the Bottomfish FMP determined that the Hawaii 

bottomfish fishery would not likely adversely affect monk seals; and may adversely affect green 

sea turtles (through unavoidable collisions with vessels), but is not likely to jeopardize sea turtles 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 257

or adversely affect any other ESA-listed species or critical habitat (NMFS 2008a). A March 7, 

2002 informal consultation under the ESA determined that the Hawaii coral reef fisheries were 

not likely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat 

(NMFS 2002b). A May 24, 1996 Biological Opinion determined that the MHI crustacean 

fisheries will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat 

(NMFS 1996). Because of the selective methods used to harvest precious corals, an October 5, 

1978 Biological Opinion determined that the Hawaii precious corals fishery is no threat to 

endangered species or their habitat. An updated consultation resulted in the finding that the 

conduct of the Hawaii precious corals fisheries under the FMP would not adversely affect any 

ESA listed species (NMFS 2008c). 

With regard to the NWHI, in 2000, NMFS was sued over the management of the bottomfish and 

crustacean fisheries within the NWHI. In the U.S. District Court of Hawaii ruling67 on 

November 15, 2000, the court ruled that the lack of proper analysis of the impacts of the 

bottomfish and crustacean fisheries on the Hawaiian monk seal population violated NEPA and 

Section 7 of the ESA. As a result, the court enjoined the continuation of the bottomfish and 

lobster fishery in the NWHI until a comprehensive EIS and new Section 7 consultation is 

completed. 

The lobster fishery in the NWHI has been closed since 2000. Reinforcing this closure was the 

President’s proclamation on June 15, 2006 that established an immediate closure of most 

fisheries within the NWHI Marine National Monument, including any potential crustacean 

fishery. The 2006 Presidential proclamation also closed the bottomfish fisheries in the NWHI 

Marine National Monument by 2011, and placed the fishery on an annual landing limit until 

then. The biological impacts of the bottomfish fisheries managed under the Bottomfish FMP 

throughout the region, including those for the bottomfish fisheries in the NWHI, were addressed 

in a 2005 EIS (70 FR 35275; June 17, 2005), and updated in subsequent NEPA documents (see 

Table 3-16). These documents contain relevant analysis of the impacts of the fisheries on the 

Hawaiian monk seal population. In a March 18, 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS determined that 

the NWHI bottomfish fisheries were not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammal and sea 

turtle populations. The 2002 Biological Opinion did not contain an Incidental Take Statement for 

any listed species. Until the NWHI bottomfish fishery is closed (in 2011), if a listed species were 

to be taken by the NWHI bottomfish fishery, reconsultation under Section 7 of the ESA would 

be required. 

Alternative 1A would continue data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be 

recorded. If warranted, the implementation of area closures and gear and handling requirements 

through FMP amendments can prevent, reduce, or mitigate potential interactions. Future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to these FMPs would be reviewed to 

determine the potential to affect protected species within the Hawaiian Archipelago and would 

be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other statutes such as the ESA and MMPA at 

the time of their consideration. 

 

67 U.S. District Court of Hawaii, Greenpeace Foundation, et. al. v. Minetta, Civil No 00-00068SPKFIY. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 258

Fishery Participants and Communities 

Within the Hawaiian Archipelago, each of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands (Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, 

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii) has been defined as a fishing community under the MSA. 

Under Alternative 1A Federal fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries under this alternative, and it is expected that the 

Hawaii fisheries would continue to be managed sustainably. The impacts of the FMPs on the 

fishery participants and communities within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue as 

discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.5.4. Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to these FMPs that could impact these 

fishing participants or communities would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other 

applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

Administration and Enforcement 

In the Western Pacific Region, the management of ocean and coastal activities is conducted by a 

number of agencies and organizations at the Federal, state, county, and village or community 

levels. These groups administer programs and initiatives that address often overlapping and 

sometimes conflicting ocean and coastal issues. 

Numerous research and data collection projects and programs have been undertaken and have 

resulted in the collection of huge volumes of potentially valuable detailed bathymetric and 

biological data, among other data. Some of this information has been processed and analyzed by 

fishery scientists and managers; however, much has proven difficult to utilize and integrate due 

to differences in collection methodologies coupled with a lack of metadata or documentation of 

how the data were collected and coded. This has resulted in incompatible datasets as well as data 

that are virtually inaccessible to anyone except the primary researchers. 

Under Alternative 1A the fisheries within the EEZ of the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue 

to be managed under the current five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the 

regulations affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago Federal fisheries under this alternative. The 

impacts of the current FMPs on the fishery administration and enforcement within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago would continue as discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.6. 

Concerns of incompatible or inaccessible datasets would continue. Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FMP on the administration and 

enforcement affecting the Hawaiian Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.4. PRIA 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1A on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the PRIA. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 259

4.2.1.4.1.Physical Environment 

The physical environment of the PRIA is comprised of its geology and topography as well as 

surrounding ocean layers, ocean depth zones, ocean water circulation, surface currents, transition 

zones, eddies, and deep-ocean currents. Under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, 

Federal fisheries within the PRIA would continue to be adaptively managed under the speciesbased FMPs. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, and in more detail in Section 3.5.5, existing fisheries operating under 

the current species-based FMPs in the PRIA may affect marine ecosystems in a variety of ways. 

Populations of fish and other ecosystem components can be affected by the selectivity, 

magnitude, timing, location, and methods of fish removals. Fisheries can also affect marine 

ecosystems through vessel disturbance, bycatch or discards, impacts on nutrient cycling, or 

introduction of exotic species, pollution, and habitat disturbance. The day-to-day operation of a 

fishing vessel can produce a number of waste products, including oil, sewage, garbage, and lost 

gear, any of which may have a negative impact on the marine environment. However, no longterm significant impacts on the physical environment from waste products directly related to 

fishery operations conducted under the FMPs within the PRIA have been documented. 

Additionally, the accidental grounding of fishing vessels can adversely affect marine habitat and 

coral reefs. Potential impacts of a vessel striking the bottom include physical harm to the marine 

substrate, and the possible subsequent break-up of the vessel would release fuel and oil that 

could result in pollution of the marine environment and mortality of marine life. However, 

groundings of fishing vessels operating in the PRIA are rare. In the occasional cases of vessel 

groundings in the past, some short-term localized damage to the marine substrate did take place, 

but no long-term significant impacts on the surrounding marine environment have been 

documented. 

4.2.1.4.2.Biological Environment 

The affected biological environment of the PRIA includes the benthic environment and the 

pelagic environment. Alternative 1A would not change the current institutional framework of 

FMPs, accompanying regulations or management strategies. Thus, this alternative would impact 

the biological environment as discussed in Chapter 3, and in detail in Section 3.5.5. The affected 

biological environment of the PRIA, by island, atoll, or reef, is discussed generally in Section 3.2 

and in more detail in Section 3.5.5. All the submerged lands and marine resources within the 

PRIA from the shoreline (0 miles) to 200 miles offshore are under the jurisdiction of the Federal 

government. 

A discussion of the biological impacts of the demersal fisheries specific to the EEZ of the PRIA 

under each of the FMPs follows. 

4.2.1.4.2.1. Biological Impacts on Bottomfish 

Biological impacts of the bottomfish fisheries managed under the Bottomfish FMP throughout 

the region, including those for Federal fisheries within the PRIA, were addressed in a 2005 EIS 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 260

(70 FR 35275; June 17, 2005), as updated for selected areas in subsequent NEPA documents (see 

Table 3-16). These documents contain relevant analysis of the impacts to PRIA bottomfish 

resources under Alternative 1A. 

A Federal permit is required to participate in the PRIA bottomfish fisheries. Limited bottomfish 

fisheries have occurred under such a Federal permit. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, in 1998, two 

Hawaii-based troll and handline vessels and one demersal longline vessel fished in the EEZ (0 to 

200 miles offshore) around Palmyra and Kingman Reef. These vessels targeted both pelagic and 

bottomfish species. In 1999, one vessel made seven trips to these areas. The vessel stopped 

fishing after results of a single specimen submitted for testing to the University of Hawaii’s 

School of Medicine indicated the presence of ciguatera. No Federal permits were issued in 2000 

through 2006 for the Federal bottomfish fishery within the PRIA. 

An estimate of MSY for the Federal bottomfish fisheries within the PRIA has not been 

determined. All bottomfish fisheries within EEZ waters around the PRIA require a Federal 

permit and are monitored via Federal logbooks. Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of 

target and non-target species would continue to be evaluated annually. 

A renewed interest in this fishery occurred in 2007. As of January 26, 2007, three bottomfish 

permits were issued, with three more in process for the PRIA (W. Ikehara, Permit Specialist, 

NMFS, pers. com., January 26, 2007). These permits were issued in accordance with 

Amendment 8 to the Bottomfish FMP (71 FR 53605; September 12, 2006), which established 

new permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting bottomfish species 

around the PRIA. The intent of the amendment was to improve understanding of the ecology of 

these species and the activities and harvests of the vessel operators that target them. The 

associated Environmental Assessment to Amendment 8 provided an updated analysis of the 

impacts of the Federal bottomfish fisheries and management regime on the biological 

environment around the PRIA. 

Under Alternative 1A, the PRIA fisheries would continue to be managed under the Bottomfish 

FMP’s current framework, regulations, and management strategies, and be subject to adaptive 

management under the Bottomfish FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

PRIA fisheries under this alternative. The biological impacts of the current bottomfish fisheries 

within the PRIA would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.5 and as previously analyzed in the 

2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275), as updated for selected areas in subsequent NEPA 

documents (see Table 3-16). Implementation of future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to the Bottomfish FMP that may affect the PRIA would be subject to the 

appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

Biological Impacts on Precious Corals 

There are no known precious corals fisheries operating in the EEZ of the PRIA (0 to 200 miles 

offshore). An estimate of MSY for precious corals around the PRIA has not been determined; 

however, an OY of 1,000 kg (all precious coral species combined) has been set for Permit Area 

XP-PI, which encompasses the EEZ waters around the PRIA. A Federal permit is required to 

participate in precious corals fisheries in the EEZ that encompass the PRIA and the annual 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 261

harvest for Permit Area XP-PI is 1,000 kg (all precious coral species combined). There is no 

limit to the number of permits that may be issued. 

Amendment 6 (71 53605; September 12, 2006) to the Precious Corals FMP established new 

permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting precious corals in the EEZ 

(0 to 200 miles offshore) of the PRIA. The intent of the amendment was to improve the 

understanding of the ecology of these species and the activities and harvests of the vessel 

operators that target them. No Federal permits for precious corals harvesting in the PRIA have 

been issued to date. The associated Environmental Assessment to Amendment 6 provided an 

updated analysis of the impacts of the potential precious corals fisheries and management regime 

on the biological environment around the PRIA. 

Under Alternative 1A, the PRIA precious corals fisheries would continue to be managed under 

the Precious Corals FMP’s current framework and regulations. No changes would occur to the 

existing regulations affecting the PRIA precious corals fisheries under this alternative. Based on 

the lack of participation and harvest trend in this Federal permit fishery, it is anticipated that the 

future impacts of the precious corals fisheries under the Precious Corals FMP within the PRIA 

would continue to be limited or insignificant. 

Participation in the precious corals fisheries within the EEZ of the PRIA requires a Federal 

permit and logbook, which will be cooperatively monitored by NMFS and the Council. Under 

Alternative 1A, the status and trends of precious coral species would continue to be evaluated 

annually. Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to 

the Precious Corals FMP that may affect the PRIA would be subject to the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.4.2.2. Biological Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem 

There are no known coral reef fisheries operating in the EEZ of the PRIA (0 to 200 miles 

offshore). A Federal permit is required to participate in the coral reef fisheries for all coral reef 

Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa, and for Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in low-use 

marine protected areas (Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island). There is no limit to the 

number of permits that may be issued; however, applications are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis, and fishing activities and harvests may be restricted as a permit condition. No Federal 

permits have been issued to date. An estimate of MSY for the Federal coral reef fisheries within 

the PRIA has not been determined. 

Besides permitting requirements, the 2004 Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP established a coral reef 

ecosystem regulatory area, marine protected areas, permit reporting requirements, no-anchoring 

zones, gear restrictions, and a framework regulatory process. In 2001, an EIS was prepared for 

the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP (WPRFMC 2001). There have been no amendments to this 

FMP to date (see Table 3-18). Based on the lack of participation and the associated harvest trend 

in this Federal permit fishery, it is anticipated that the future impacts of the fisheries under the 

Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, within the PRIA, would continue to be limited. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 262

Under Alternative 1A, the status and trends of coral reef species would continue to be evaluated 

annually. Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to 

the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP that may affect the PRIA would be subject to the appropriate 

NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

Biological Impacts on Crustaceans 

A Federal permit is required to participate in the lobster fisheries in the EEZs around each PRIA 

area. In the past, a few fishermen have expressed interest in fishing for lobsters within the PRIA, 

and at least two have attempted it. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, in 1999, one vessel was 

unsuccessful and no lobsters were caught. In addition, the vessel targeted deepwater shrimp and 

red crab at 300 to 800 meters around Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef. Reportedly, the catchper-unit-effort was considered a good catch rate. There is now a permit and reporting 

requirement for deepwater shrimp fishing in the PRIA EEZs. An estimate of MSY for any of the 

Federal crustacean fisheries within the PRIA has not been determined. 

Amendment 12 (September 12, 2006; 71 53605) to the Crustaceans FMP established permitting 

and reporting requirements for vessel operators engaged in fishing for lobsters in the EEZ (0 to 

200 miles offshore) of the PRIA. The intent of the amendment was to improve the understanding 

of the ecology of these species and the activities and harvests of the vessel operators that target 

them. However, no Federal permit for lobster fishing in the PRIA has been issued since 1999. 

The associated Environmental Assessment to Amendment 12 provided an updated analysis of the 

impacts of the Federal crustacean fisheries and management regime on the biological 

environment around the PRIA. 

Participation in the lobster fisheries within the EEZ of the PRIA requires a Federal permit and 

reporting, which will be cooperatively monitored by NMFS and the Council. Fishing for 

deepwater shrimp in the EEZ also requires a permit and reporting. Based on the historically low 

participation level and associated harvest trend in these federally permitted fisheries, it is 

anticipated that the future biological impacts of the PRIA crustacean fisheries under the 

Crustaceans FMP would continue to be limited or insignificant. Under Alternative 1A, the status 

and trends of crustacean species would continue to be evaluated annually. Implementation of 

future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Crustaceans FMP that 

may affect the PRIA would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable 

laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.4.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

As discussed in Section 3.3, EFH and HAPC for the region are designated by the status quo 

species-based FMPs. For bottomfish and crustaceans, the preferred depth ranges of specific life 

stages are used to designate EFH. In the case of crustaceans, the designation is further refined 

based on productivity data. The precious corals designation combines depth and bottom type as 

indicators, but it is further refined based on the known distribution of the most productive areas 

for these organisms. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 263

Under Alternative 1A, PRIA fisheries would continue to be managed under existing FMPs. 

Alternative 1A would not change current Federal fisheries regulations or designations of EFH or 

HAPC within the PRIA. Thus, no changes would occur to the regulations affecting the PRIA 

fisheries. The impacts of the current activities under existing FMPs on EFH and HAPC within 

the PRIA would continue as discussed below. These impacts also are discussed in Section 3.3. 

Adverse fishing impacts on these habitat areas may include physical or biological alterations to 

the substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat or other 

components of the ecosystems. However, the predominant fishing gear types—hook-and-line, 

longline, troll, and traps, used in the PRIA fisheries cause few fishing-related impacts on the 

benthic habitat occupied and used by coral reef species, bottomfish, crustaceans, or precious 

corals. In addition, the current management regime prohibits the use of bottom trawls, bottom-set 

nets, explosives, and poisons. 

The following are potential sources of fishery-related impacts on benthic habitat that may occur 

during normal fishing operations: 

• Anchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing 

habitat; 

• heavy weight and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing 

operations; and, 

• lost gear (leaders, hooks, and weights) by fishing vessels. 

Most of the physical and biological environment of the PRIA is protected by their isolation, FMP 

regulations, and status as National Wildlife Refuges. Implementation of future management plan 

amendments or regulatory amendments to the current FMPs that may affect the EFH and HAPC 

within the PRIA would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable law at 

the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.4.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1A, the PRIA fisheries would continue to be managed under the existing five 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the fisheries within the 

PRIA, and no additional impacts on protected species would be expected. The impacts on 

protected species from the fisheries managed under the FMPs, within the PRIA, would continue 

as discussed in Section 3.5.5. 

As mentioned earlier, there is a concern that invasive marine and terrestrial species may be 

introduced into sensitive environments by fishing vessels transiting from populated islands and 

grounding on shallow reef areas. Of most concern is the potential for unintentional introduction 

of rats (Rattus spp.) to the remote and largely uninhabited U.S. islands in the central and western 

Pacific, i.e., PRIA that harbor endemic land birds and indigenous sea birds. However, no 

invasive species introductions due to activity under FMPs have been documented. The Council 

and NMFS will continue to educate fishermen on the need to prevent alien species introductions 

to remote areas. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 264

The Council and NMFS must balance the needs of the fishing industries with the need to reduce 

interactions with protected species. NMFS evaluates the potential impact of proposed fishery 

management regulations and future potential fishery actions that may affect species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and considers the impacts to 

marine mammals and seabirds. By law, fishery activities within the U.S. EEZ that affect listed 

species cannot jeopardize the continued existence of that species. All fishery management 

actions are reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the ESA through a Section 7 

consultation, and the impacts to listed species are articulated in the resultant biological opinion. 

Fishery management actions are also reviewed for compliance with the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

In a March 8, 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS determined that the PRIA bottomfish fisheries 

were not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammal and sea turtle populations (NMFS 

2002a). A March 7, 2002 informal consultation under the ESA determined that the PRIA coral 

reef fisheries were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitat 

critical habitat (NMFS 2002b). A 2007 Biological Opinion determined that the PRIA crustacean 

fisheries will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat 

(NMFS 2007a). There is currently no federally-permitted fishing for precious corals MUS in the 

PRIA, therefore, there has been no consultation under the ESA or coordination under the MMPA 

to date. 

Under Alternative 1A, NMFS and the Council would continue to monitor the PRIA fisheries and 

where applicable, prevent, reduce, and mitigate impacts on protected species through area 

closures and gear and handling requirements. Implementation of future fishery management 

amendments or regulatory amendments to these FMPs would be reviewed to determine the 

potential to affect protected species within the PRIA and would be subject to the appropriate 

NEPA analysis and other statutes such as the ESA or MMPA at the time of their consideration. 

Fishery Participants and Communities 

There are no communities within the PRIA defined as a fishing community under the MSA. The 

impacts of the current FMPs on the limited fishery participants within the PRIA would continue 

as discussed in Section 3.5.5. Implementation of future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to FMPs that could impact PRIA fishery participants would be subject to 

the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.4.5.Administration and Enforcement 

Federal fisheries within the PRIA would continue to be managed under the current five FMPs. 

No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the PRIA Federal fisheries under this 

alternative. The impacts of the current FMPs on fishery administration and enforcement within 

the PRIA would continue as discussed in Section 3.6. Implementation of future management 

plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FMP affecting the PRIA would be subject to 

the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 265

4.2.1.5. Pelagic Fisheries 

The U.S. pelagic fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are currently managed under the 

Pelagics FMP, which was established in 1987. A comprehensive analytical review of the impacts 

of the fisheries under the Pelagics FMP was completed in 2001 (April 6, 2001; 

66 FR 18243). Since 2001, the impacts of the Federal actions recommended by the Council in 

amendments or regulatory amendments to this FMP have been analyzed in associated NEPA 

documents (see Table 3-19). 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1A (the No Action 

Alternative) on the physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, 

protected species, fishery participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, 

specific to the fisheries operating under the Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.1.5.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1A, pelagic fisheries would continue to be managed under the Pelagics FMP. 

The Pelagics FMP encompasses all areas of pelagic fishing operations in the waters of the U.S. 

EEZ or on the high seas. The Pelagics FMP also applies to any U.S. domestic vessel authorized 

to do the following: (1) fish for, possess, or transship Pelagic MUS within the waters of the U.S. 

EEZ of the Western Pacific Region; or (2) land Pacific Pelagic MUS within the states, territories, 

commonwealths, or unincorporated U.S. island possessions (i.e., the PRIA) of the Western 

Pacific Region. Alternative 1A would not change the Pelagics FMP’s regulations or management 

measures. Thus, this alternative would not introduce additional impacts beyond those impacts on 

the biological environment already occurring. 

Pelagic species are closely associated with their physical environment. Suitable physical 

environments for these species include temperature, oxygen, or salinity conditions, all of which 

are influenced by oceanic conditions on various scales. In the pelagic environment, physical 

conditions such as isotherm and isohaline boundaries often determine whether the encompassing 

water mass is suitable for pelagic fish, and many of the species are associated with specific 

isothermic regions. Additionally, areas of high trophic transfer as found in fronts and eddies are 

important habitat. 

The physical structure of the Pacific Ocean is, however, far from static. Large-scale 

climatological events such as El Niño and La Niña and longer-term fluctuations, termed regime 

shifts, operating on decadal time scales affect oceanic circulation patterns, upwelling of nutrients 

and ultimately the productivity of the ecosystem. Such fluctuations may have profound impacts 

on fisheries. 

Fisheries may also affect marine ecosystems. Populations of fish and other ecosystem 

components can be affected by the selectivity, magnitude, timing, location, and methods of fish 

removals. Fisheries can affect marine ecosystems through vessel disturbance, bycatch or 

discards, impacts on nutrient cycling, or introduction of exotic species, pollution, and habitat 

disturbance. The day-to-day operation of a fishing vessel can produce a number of waste 

products, including oil, sewage, garbage, and lost gear, any of which may have a negative impact 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 266

on the marine environment. However, no long-term significant impacts on the physical 

environment from waste products directly related to fishery operations conducted under the 

Pelagics FMP have been documented. 

Additionally, the accidental grounding of fishing vessels can adversely affect marine habitat and 

coral reefs. Potential impacts of a vessel striking the bottom include physical harm to the marine 

substrate, and the possible subsequent break-up of the vessel would release fuel and oil that 

could result in pollution of the marine environment and mortality of marine life. However, 

groundings of fishing vessels operating in the Western Pacific Region are infrequent. In the 

occasional cases of vessel groundings in the past, some short-term localized damage to the 

marine substrate did take place, but no long-term impacts on the surrounding marine 

environment have been documented. 

4.2.1.5.2.Biological Environment 

The format for this section, the impacts of the pelagic fisheries on the biological environment 

under Alternative 1A, is slightly different than the format used for the demersal fisheries above. 

This section starts with a general discussion of the impacts on the biological environment. This 

general discussion is followed by specific discussions of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries 

specific to archipelagic region: American Samoa, Mariana (CNMI and Guam will be discussed 

separately), Hawaii, and the PRIA. 

Under Alternative 1A, pelagic fisheries would continue to be managed under the Pelagics FMP. 

No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the Federal pelagic fisheries under this 

alternative. The impacts on the biological environment from fisheries managed under the 

Pelagics FMP would continue as discussed in Section 3.5 and as previously analyzed in NEPA 

documents for the Pelagics FMP (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as updated for selected areas in 

subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). 

Pelagic fishing has a long history in the Pacific Ocean. The fisheries operating under the Pelagics 

FMP target stocks that are Pacific-wide in distribution. However, they account for a very small 

percentage of the total catch of these pelagic species taken in the Pacific Ocean by other 

countries. For example, bigeye tuna catches by commercial fisheries under the Council’s 

jurisdiction in 2004 amounted to 5,163 metric tonnes (t), or just 2.3 percent of the 2004 total 

Pacific-wide bigeye tuna catch. Similarly, 2004 yellowfin tuna catches by commercial fisheries 

under the Council’s jurisdiction amounted to 2,383 t or about 0.35 percent of the 2004 total 

Pacific-wide yellowfin tuna catches, and 0.58 percent of the yellowfin tuna caught in the WCPO. 

Any changes in catch due to changes in fishery regulations under the Pelagics FMP will likely be 

obscured by natural variation and catches made by the much larger non-U.S. sectors of the 

Pacific fleet targeting pelagic species (e.g., foreign purse seiners). Domestic pelagic fisheries are 

highly dependent on the status of the broad, Pacific-wide condition of the Pelagics MUS stocks. 

Under the authority of the MSA, the Council developed and recommended (and the Secretary of 

Commerce approved) criteria to determine overfishing (fishing mortality) and overfished (stock 

biomass) conditions for fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. As noted earlier, NMFS 

determined on June 14, 2004, that overfishing of bigeye tuna was occurring throughout the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 267

Pacific Ocean (69 FR 78397). On March 16, 2006, the Council was notified by letter that the 

Secretary of Commerce had determined that overfishing is occurring on the yellowfin tuna stock 

in the western and central Pacific Ocean (71 FR 14837). Amendment 14 to the Pelagics FMP 

was developed to address this issue. The associated environmental assessment for Amendment 

14 provided an update of the analysis of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and management 

regime on the human environment. A notice of availability for Amendment 14 was published in 

the Federal Register on February 15, 2007 (72 FR 7385) and a proposed rule to implement its 

recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14761). The amendment was only 

partially approved; however, the Council’s recommendation for international management action 

to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was approved by NMFS. These 

recommendations were based on the best available science including the most recent stock 

assessments (July 2004 and August 2005 for bigeye and yellowfin tuna respectively), and in light 

of the fact that any unilateral management action on U.S.-based vessels can only have minimal 

direct impacts on stocks as they harvest only 2.3 percent of the total Pacific bigeye catch and less 

than 1 percent of the total Pacific yellowfin catch. 

Several non-targeted and associated species are caught in the pelagic fisheries of the region. In 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery, the highest discards are of sharks (blue) and oilfish. Current 

reporting methods for bycatch include Federal logbooks, information collected from NMFS 

observer programs and various catch reporting systems that are compiled by the Western Pacific 

Fishery Information Network (WPacFIN). These data are sufficient to provide estimates of the 

amount and type of bycatch in fisheries managed under the Pelagics FMP. Currently there are 

insufficient data for most of these non-targeted species to provide estimates of stock recruitment 

relationships or biological reference points, but none of these species are believed to be depleted 

as a result of fisheries managed under the Pelagics FMP. 

A discussion of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries on the biological environment specific to the 

EEZ waters that surround each of the archipelagos follows. 

American Samoa 

Commercial ventures for pelagic species in American Samoa are diverse, ranging from smallscale vessels having very limited range to large-scale vessels catching tuna in the waters of the 

U.S. EEZ and into the high-seas. Total pelagic landings by American Samoa based longline, 

troll, and handline vessels were approximately 11 million pounds in 2003, with longline landings 

making up nearly 99 percent of this total. 

As discussed in Section 3.5.1, recent and anticipated future growth in this fishery has been 

attributed to the entry of mono-hull vessels larger than 50 feet in length. A Federal limited entry 

permit is required for participation in the pelagic longline fisheries in the EEZ surrounding 

American Samoa (3 to 200 miles offshore). As of August, 2006, a total of 60 American Samoa 

Longline Limited Entry Permits were issued. American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Permits 

are good for three years. No Federal permit is required for smaller troll or handline vessels 

targeting pelagic species in the EEZ of American Samoa. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 268

Amendment 11 (May 24, 2005; 70 FR 29646) to the Pelagics FMP established a limited entry 

system for pelagic longline vessels fishing in waters of the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa. 

Amendment 11 was intended to establish management measures that would stabilize effort in the 

fishery to avoid disruptions to community participation and limitation of opportunities for 

substantial participation in the fishery by indigenous islanders. An associated environmental 

assessment for Amendment 11 updated the analysis of the impacts of the fisheries and 

management regime on the human environment around American Samoa. 

As mentioned earlier, NMFS determined that overfishing of bigeye tuna and on yellowfin tuna 

stock was occurring throughout the Pacific Ocean, which includes the EEZ around American 

Samoa. The associated environmental assessment for Amendment 14 provided an update of the 

analysis of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and management regime on the human 

environment. A proposed rule to implement its recommendations was published on March 29, 

2007 (72 FR 14761). The amendment was only partially approved however; the Council’s 

recommendation for international management action to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin 

stocks was approved by NMFS. 

Additionally it is noted that in 2006, 2007 and in 2008, the American Samoa longline pelagic 

fishery exceeded the sea turtle annual take limits as established in the February 23, 2004 

Biological Opinion. Consequently, consultation under the ESA is under review by NMFS for the 

American Samoa longline pelagic fisheries, as well as for Western Pacific troll, pole and line, 

and handline fisheries, which share the same take limits. 

NMFS and the Council are working closely with the American Samoa DMWR on cooperative 

monitoring and reporting programs that will detect any changes in participation or harvest in the 

pelagic fisheries in American Samoa. Under Alternative 1A, the pelagic fisheries would continue 

to be adaptively managed under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the American Samoa pelagic fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of the current 

Pelagics FMP on the biological environment would continue as discussed in Section 3.5.1, as 

previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), and as updated in subsequent 

NEPA documents that may affect this area (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting 

American Samoa would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at 

the time of their consideration. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

There are three permits that allow the use of longlines to target pelagic species within the EEZ 

surrounding the CNMI: the Hawaii Longline Limited Entry Permit, the American Samoa 

Longline Limited Entry Permit, and the Western Pacific Longline General Permit. These 

Federal permits require the owner/operator of the permit to report the location and harvest of all 

longline sets made under the permit. 

The Hawaii Longline Limited Entry Permit: This permit is required to target pelagic species 

using longline gear in the EEZ waters around Hawaii, or to land or transship longline-caught 

pelagic species shoreward of the outer boundary of the EEZ waters around Hawaii. It may also 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 269

be used to fish for (or land) pelagic species using longline gear in EEZ waters around the CNMI, 

Guam, and the PRIA. A maximum of 164 Hawaii Longline Limited Entry Permits may be issued 

under this limited access program. 

The American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Permit: This permit is required to target pelagic 

species using longline gear in the EEZ waters around American Samoa, or to land those fish 

caught by longline in the EEZ around American Samoa. Holders of Hawaii Longline Limited 

Entry Permits and Western Pacific Longline General Permits may land longline-caught fish in 

American Samoa provided that those fish were not caught in the EEZ waters around American 

Samoa. 

The Western Pacific Longline General Permit: This permit may be used to fish for (or land) 

pelagic species using longline gear in the EEZ waters around the CNMI, Guam, and the PRIA. In 

2006 (as of August 1), a total of 34 Western Pacific Longline General Permits was issued. The 

permits may be renewed annually, and there is no limit to the number of permits that may be 

issued. 

No Federal permit is required for the pelagic fisheries in the EEZ within 3 miles offshore of the 

CNMI or for smaller troll or handline vessels. As mentioned earlier, NMFS determined that 

overfishing of bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna stocks was occurring throughout the Pacific 

Ocean, which includes the EEZ around the CNMI. The associated environmental assessment for 

Amendment 14 provided an update of the analysis of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and 

management regime on the human environment. A proposed rule to implement its 

recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14761). The amendment was only 

partially approved however; the Council’s recommendation for international management action 

to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was approved by NMFS. 

NMFS and the Council are working closely with the CNMI DFW on cooperative monitoring and 

reporting programs that will detect any changes in participation in current pelagic fisheries 

within the EEZ around CNMI (0 to 200 miles offshore) or on the high seas. Under Alternative 

1A, the pelagic fisheries within the EEZ of the CNMI would continue to be adaptively managed 

under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the pelagic 

fisheries under this alternative. The biological impacts of the current Pelagics FMP would 

continue as discussed in Section 3.5.2 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS for the 

Pelagics FMP (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as updated in subsequent NEPA documents for 

affected areas (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP that may affect the biological environment of CNMI 

would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their 

consideration. 

Guam 

As discussed in Section 3.5.3, the pelagic fisheries in the EEZ surrounding Guam consist of 

primarily small, recreational, trolling boats that are either towed to boat launch sites or berthed in 

marinas and fish either within local waters, within EEZ waters around Guam or on some 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 270

occasions in the adjacent U.S. EEZ waters around CNMI. Domestic annual pelagic landings in 

Guam have varied widely. The 2004 total pelagic landings were approximately 691,366 pounds, 

an increase of 36 percent over the 2003 landings. Of this total, it is estimated that 285,545 

pounds were sold for total ex-vessel revenues of $433,911. The number of boats involved in 

Guam’s pelagic fishery has gradually increased from 193 in 1983 to a peak of 469 in 1998. There 

were 401 vessels active in Guam’s pelagic fishery in 2004. A Federal permit is required to 

participate in the pelagic longline fisheries in the EEZ (3 to 200 miles offshore) surrounding 

Guam. 

As described above, there are three permits that allow the use of longlines to target pelagic 

species within the EEZ surrounding Guam: the Hawaii Longline Limited Entry Permit, Western 

Pacific Longline General Permit, and American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Permit. These 

Federal permits require the owner/operator of the permit to report the location and harvest of all 

sets made under the permit. 

As mentioned earlier, NMFS determined that overfishing of bigeye tuna and on yellowfin tuna 

stock was occurring throughout the Pacific Ocean, which includes the EEZ waters around Guam. 

The associated environmental assessment for Amendment 14 provided an update of the analysis 

of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and management regime on the human environment. A 

proposed rule to implement its recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 

14761). The amendment was only partially approved however; the Council’s recommendation 

for international management action to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was 

approved by NMFS. 

NMFS and the Council are working closely with the Guam DAWR on cooperative monitoring 

and reporting programs that will detect any changes in participation in pelagic fisheries within 

the EEZ of Guam (3 to 200 miles offshore). Under Alternative 1A, the pelagic fisheries within 

the EEZ surrounding Guam would continue to be adaptively managed under the Pelagics FMP. 

No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the pelagic fisheries under this alternative. 

The impacts of the current Pelagics FMP on the biological environment would continue as 

discussed in Section 3.5.3 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 

18243), as updated in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP that may affect 

Guam would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time 

of their consideration. 

Hawaii 

As discussed in Section 3.5.4, Hawaii’s pelagic fisheries, which include the longline, troll and 

handline, offshore handline, and the aku boat (pole and line) fisheries, are the State’s largest and 

most valuable. The largest component of pelagic catch in 2004 was tuna, and bigeye tuna was the 

largest component of this commercial tuna catch. Approximately 11 million pounds of pelagic 

fish were harvested by the Hawaii-based longline fishery (see Figure 3-22). The total number of 

recreational fishermen in Hawaii is unknown, but there are about 14,300 small vessels in Hawaii, 

and it is estimated that 6,600 of these vessels may be used for recreational fishing. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 271

A Federal permit is required to participate in the pelagic longline fisheries in the EEZ (3 to 200 

miles offshore) of the Hawaiian Archipelago. A maximum of 164 Hawaii Longline Limited 

Entry Permits may be issued. No Federal permit is required for smaller troll or handline vessels. 

As mentioned earlier, NMFS had determined that overfishing of bigeye tuna and on yellowfin 

tuna stocks was occurring throughout the Pacific Ocean, which includes the EEZ of Hawaii. The 

associated environmental assessment for Amendment 14 provided an update of the analysis of 

the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and management regime on the human environment. A 

proposed rule to implement its recommendations was published on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 

14761). The amendment was only partially approved however; the Council’s recommendation 

for international management action to end overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin stocks was 

approved by NMFS. 

NMFS and the Council are working closely with the State of Hawaii HDAR on cooperative 

monitoring programs that will detect any changes in participation in pelagic fisheries within the 

EEZ of Hawaii (3 to 200 miles offshore) or on the high seas. Under Alternative 1A, the pelagic 

fisheries within the EEZ of Hawaii would continue to be adaptively managed under the Pelagics 

FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the pelagic fisheries under this 

alternative. The biological impacts of the current Pelagics FMP would continue as discussed in 

Section 3.5.4 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as 

updated in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting the 

Hawaiian Archipelago would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable 

laws at the time of their consideration. 

Pacific Remote Island Areas 

A Federal permit is required to participate in the pelagic longline fisheries in EEZ waters (3 to 

200 miles offshore) around the PRIA. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, some fishermen from the 

Hawaii longline fleet do seasonally fish in the EEZ around some of the PRIA (e.g., Palmyra 

Atoll). 

There are three Federal permits that allow the use of longlines to target pelagic species within the 

EEZ waters around the PRIA: the Hawaii Longline Limited Entry Permit, the American Samoa 

Longline Limited Entry Permit, and the Western Pacific Longline General Permit. All permits 

require the permit holder to report the location and harvest of all sets made under the permit 

through Federal logbooks. 

In addition, a Federal permit is also required for troll or handline vessels targeting pelagic 

species within EEZ waters around the PRIA. No Federal permits were issued for the PRIA from 

2000 through 2006. As of January 26, 2007, three PRIA pelagic troll and handline permits have 

been issued, with three more applications being processed by NMFS. 

As mentioned earlier, NMFS determined that overfishing of bigeye tuna and on yellowfin tuna 

stocks was occurring throughout the Pacific Ocean, which includes the EEZ around the PRIA of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 272

the central Pacific. The associated environmental assessment for Amendment 14 provided an 

update of the analysis of the impacts of the pelagic fisheries and management regime on the 

human environment. A proposed rule to implement its recommendations was published on 

March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14761). The amendment was only partially approved however; the 

Council’s recommendation for international management action to end overfishing of bigeye and 

yellowfin stocks was approved by NMFS. 

Under Alternative 1A, the pelagic fisheries within the EEZ of the PRIA would continue to be 

adaptively managed under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting the pelagic fisheries under this alternative. Most of the physical and biological 

environment of the PRIA is protected by their isolation, FMP regulations, and their status as 

National Wildlife Refuges. The biological impacts of the current Pelagics FMP would continue 

as discussed in Section 3.5.5 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 

18243), as updated in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting the 

PRIA would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time of 

their consideration. 

4.2.1.6. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 1A, the pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region would continue to be 

managed under the existing Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting 

the pelagic fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of the fisheries managed under the 

Pelagics FMP on EFH or HAPC would continue as discussed in Section 3.3 as previously 

analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), and as updated in subsequent NEPA 

documents (see Table 3-20). 

A large amount of information exists on the effects of environmental fluctuations on the 

productivity and distribution of pelagic species. At the present time, these environmental 

influences are thought to be the major factors affecting the essential habitat for pelagic species. 

No data currently exist that indicate that the pelagic fisheries managed under the Pelagics FMP 

have a discernable effect on the pelagic environment, or the essential habitat for pelagic species, 

that could be detectable against the background of cyclical large-scale oceanographic events that 

drive the pelagic ecosystem. 

EFH is considered those waters and substrate necessary to a species or species group or complex, 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. As discussed in Section 3.3, the 

designated habitat of pelagic species is the open-ocean water column, and managed fisheries 

employ variants of mid-water seine nets and hook-and-line gear that have a low incidence of 

gear loss. As a result, there is little impact to EFH from fisheries managed under the Pelagics 

FMP. Although certain amounts of gear loss may be a hazard to some species due to 

entanglement, there is a limited direct impact on pelagic habitat. Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting EFH or 

HAPC would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at the time 

of their consideration. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 273

4.2.1.6.1.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1A the pelagic fisheries would continue to be managed under the Pelagics 

FMP. No changes would occur to the existing regulations affecting the pelagic fisheries under 

this alternative. 

As discussed in Section 3.4, all Pacific sea turtles are designated under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) as either threatened or endangered. These species of sea turtles are highly migratory, 

or have a highly migratory phase in their life history, and therefore, are susceptible to being 

incidentally caught by fisheries operating in the Pacific Ocean. Cetaceans listed as endangered 

under the ESA and that have been observed in the Western Pacific Region include the following: 

the humpback whale, sperm whale, blue whale, fin whale, and sei whale. In addition, one 

endangered pinniped, the Hawaiian monk seal, occurs in the region. Regulations under the 

Pelagics FMP require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types and fishing methods to 

reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. 

The Council and NMFS must balance the needs of the fishing industries with the need to reduce 

interactions with protected species. NMFS evaluates the potential impact of all proposed fishery 

management regulations and subsequent potential fishery actions that may affect species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and considers the impacts to marine mammals and 

seabirds. By law, fishery activities within the U.S. EEZ that affect listed species cannot 

jeopardize the continued existence of that species. All fishery management actions are reviewed 

for compliance with the provisions of the ESA through a Section 7 consultation, and the impacts 

to listed species are articulated in the resultant biological opinion or other determination. Fishery 

management actions are also reviewed for compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Biological opinions for pelagic fishery management proposals include: 

On November 18, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued an ESA biological 

opinion on the potential impacts of the entire Hawaii-based domestic longline fishery on the 

short-tailed albatross. The FWS concluded that the fishery is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. 

NMFS issued an ESA biological opinion on February 23, 2004, following a consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA on the ongoing operation of the Western Pacific Region’s pelagic 

fisheries as managed under the Pelagics FMP. With terms and conditions, NMFS concluded 

that the fisheries were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or 

endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat that had been designated for them. However, the American Samoa longline pelagic 

fisheries in 2006 exceeded the annual sea turtle take limit as established in the February 23, 

2004 Biological Opinion. Consequently, consultation under the ESA will be reinitiated by 

NMFS for the pelagic fisheries of American Samoa. 

On October 8, 2004, the FWS issued an ESA biological opinion on the potential impacts of 

the shallow-set sector of the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery on the short-tailed 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 274

albatross. The FWS concluded that the shallow-set sector is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. 

On October 4, 2005, NMFS issued an ESA biological opinion on the ongoing operations of 

the deep-set sector of the Hawaii-based longline fishery. The opinion concluded that the 

deep-set sector was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of humpback whales, or 

green, leatherback, loggerhead, or olive ridley sea turtles in the area. 

On July 16, 2008, NMFS concluded in an informal consultation that the addition of three 

pelagic deepwater squid species as MUS and permit and reporting requirements for the squid 

jig fishery would not adversely affect ESA-listed marine species. 

On October 15, 2008, a Biological Opinion was issued that concluded that the proposed 

Amendment 18 to the Pelagics FMP, which would remove annual set limits, eliminate setcertificates and change the annual loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle interaction “hard 

caps” to 46 and 19 interactions, respectively, is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of ESA-listed species or affect critical habitat. 

Alternative 1A would continue pelagic fishing operations in compliance with existing ESA 

biological opinions, and the current level of interactions with protected species would not be 

expected to change. Implementation of future management plan amendments or regulatory 

amendments to this FMP would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other 

applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.6.2.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Each of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands (Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 

Hawaii) has been defined as a fishing community under the MSA. Also defined as fishing 

communities are American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI. Under Alternative 1A, the region’s 

pelagic fisheries would continue to be managed under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would 

occur to the regulations affecting the fisheries under this alternative. The impacts of the Pelagics 

FMP on the fishery participants and communities within the region would continue as discussed 

in Section 3.5 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as 

updated in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting the 

fishery participants and communities of the region would be subject to the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and other applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.1.6.3.Administration and Enforcement 

In the Western Pacific Region, the management of ocean and coastal activities is conducted by a 

number of agencies and organizations at the Federal, state, territorial, county, and village levels. 

These groups administer programs and initiatives that address often overlapping and sometimes 

conflicting ocean and coastal issues. Management of pelagic fisheries is complicated because it 

targets highly migratory species that often travel through jurisdictional boundaries.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 275

Numerous research and data collection projects and programs have been undertaken in the 

Western Pacific Region and have resulted in the collection of huge volumes of potentially 

valuable detailed bathymetric and biological data, among other data. Some of this information 

has been processed and analyzed; however, much has proven difficult to utilize and integrate due 

to differences in collection methodologies coupled with a lack of metadata or documentation of 

how the data were collected and coded. This has resulted in incompatible datasets as well as data 

that are virtually inaccessible to anyone except the primary researchers. 

Under Alternative 1A, the abovementioned concerns would continue. The fisheries targeting 

pelagic species would continue to be managed under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur 

to the existing regulations affecting these pelagic fisheries. The impacts of the Pelagics FMP on 

the fishery administration and enforcement within the region would continue as discussed in 

Section 3.6 and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as updated 

in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). Implementation of future management plan 

amendments or regulatory amendments to the Pelagics FMP affecting the fishery administration 

and enforcement within the region would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis and other 

applicable laws at the time of their consideration. 

4.2.2. Alternative 1B, Implement One FEP (Mariana Archipelago FEP) 

Under Alternative 1B, the demersal fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and CNMI) 

would be managed under one FEP, the Mariana FEP. The pelagic fisheries within the Mariana 

Archipelago and the Federal fisheries in the remaining areas of the Western Pacific Region 

would continue to be managed under the existing five species-based FMPs. Under Alternative 

1B, existing regulations relevant to the demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago would 

be reorganized into ecosystem-based regulations specific to that area. Although the regulations 

would be reorganized under Alternative 1B, no substantive changes would occur to current 

fishing regulations. 

4.2.2.1. American Samoa Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1B on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the American 

Samoa Archipelago. 

4.2.2.1.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the fisheries in the American Samoa Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting these fisheries. When compared to Alternative 1A (the status quo), establishing the 

Mariana FEP under this alternative would not alter the impacts on the physical environment by 

any fisheries in the American Samoa Archipelago operating under these FMPs. Thus, the 

impacts of Alternative 1B to the American Samoa Archipelago physical environment would be 

similar to impacts of Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 276

4.2.2.1.2.Biological Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the American Samoa Archipelago would continue 

to be managed under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting these fisheries under this alternative. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the 

American Samoa Archipelago biological environment would be similar to the impacts of 

Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.1.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

In comparison to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1B would not be expected to cause 

any additional adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in American Samoa. 

Implementation of the Mariana FEP under Alternative 1B would not be expected to affect the 

fishing operations or harvest of any fisheries in American Samoa; rather it would simply 

reorganize the four species-based FMPs for demersal fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago into a 

geographically-defined ecosystem plan for this one area, the Mariana Archipelago. This FEP 

would not likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal 

habitat, or result in any alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey in American Samoa. Implementing 

Alternative 1B would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy in American Samoa, 

therefore, EFH and HAPC impacts would be as described for Alternative 1A. 

4.2.2.1.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1B, impacts on protected species would continue in American Samoa as 

described in Alternative 1A and in Section 3.5.1. Listed species would continue to be given 

protection in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, and other applicable laws. Under 

Alternative 1B, the fisheries in American Samoa would continue to be managed under the five 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries under 

this alternative. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the protected species in American Samoa 

would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.1.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Under Alternative 1B, the fisheries in American Samoa would continue to be managed under the 

five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries 

under this alternative. Thus, the impact of Alternative 1B to fishery participants and communities 

in American Samoa would be similar to the impacts of Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Alternative. 

Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in American Samoa would continue to be managed 

under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 277

fisheries under this alternative. However, under Alternative 1B, scientists and managers would 

need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed Mariana FEP. 

Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the 

Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities, on the marine environment. 

Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would be asked to 

consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

Many of these managers and scientists involved with the Mariana FEP would likely be involved 

in the fisheries associated with American Samoa. However, the impacts of Alternative 1B on 

managers and scientists are not expected to be large as they increasingly are taking into account 

ecosystem characteristics and functions when making research and management 

recommendations and decisions. The impacts on enforcement under this alternative are also not 

expected to be large as no substantive changes to current fishing regulations, boundaries, or 

fishing operations would occur in American Samoa. 

4.2.2.2. Mariana Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1B on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Mariana 

Archipelago. 

4.2.2.2.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago, currently managed 

by the species-based FMPs, would be managed under the proposed Mariana FEP. The pelagic 

fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago and the domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of 

the U.S. EEZ of the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be managed under the existing 

Pelagics FMP. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEP are not physically apparent. The 

boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEP are strictly geographic 

representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything structural in the 

water or physical environment. In the short-term, establishing the Mariana FEP under this 

alternative would not alter the impacts on the physical environment by any fisheries in the 

Mariana Archipelago. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on the physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an 

ecosystem management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the 

physical environment. 

Alternative 1B also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into 

place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations 

would occur in Alternative 1B. Thus, with regard to the physical environment, there would be no 

substantial differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts 

of the No Action Alternative to the Mariana Archipelago. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 278

4.2.2.2.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Mariana FEP to manage Federal demersal fisheries in the Mariana 

Archipelago would continue to have potential positive and negative impacts on target and nontarget species. Negative impacts would be the impact of fishing on target and non-target stocks, 

which would continue to be managed for sustainability. Positive impacts would be an anticipated 

improvement in fishery ecosystem management. However, implementation of the archipelagicbased FEP for demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago is not expected to affect the 

population of target and non-target stocks nor the fishing operations or harvest of any Federal 

fisheries operating under the current species-based FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the Mariana FEP 

for Federal demersal fisheries would be similar to the impacts under Alternative 1A. The status 

and trends of target and non-target species within the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be 

evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and 

“overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1B would also replace the current FMP’s regulation structure for demersal fisheries 

within the Mariana Archipelago with a FEP regulation structure. No substantive changes are 

proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. Thus, with 

regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no significant differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve the management of these 

resources. The implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions 

through future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be 

subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis at the time any substantial changes are proposed. 

4.2.2.2.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Alternative 1B would not cause additional impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the Mariana 

Archipelago. Implementation of the Mariana FEP for demersal fisheries is not expected to affect 

the fishing operations or harvest of any Federal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago; rather 

it would simply reorganize the current species-based FMPs for demersal fisheries into a 

geographically-defined ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, similar to the No Action 

Alternative, the implementation of the Mariana FEP would not lead to substantial physical or 

biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters or 

substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species or their 

prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the Mariana Archipelago. The current management regime under the 

FMPs protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1B would not result in a change in fishing 

gear or management measures, therefore, impacts to EFH and HAPC would be similar to those 

under Alternative 1A. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 279

4.2.2.2.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based Mariana FEP under this alternative would not 

affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Under 

Alternative 1B, current FMP regulations requiring fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species would not 

change. Existing, previous ESA biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating 

under the current FMPs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed 

species or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in substantive changes to fishing regulations, it would 

maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, 

observers) within the Mariana Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. 

Finally, future management action proposals under Alternative 1B would include consideration 

of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with the ESA, MMPA, and other 

applicable laws. 

4.2.2.2.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1B would replace the current FMPs for Mariana demersal fisheries with an 

archipelagic-based Mariana FEP. No substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries 

would occur under the proposed Mariana FEP. However, one of the objectives of the Mariana 

FEP would be to recognize and increase inclusion of local expertise in the management and 

conservation of marine resources, which may consequently help reduce the effects of some 

exogenous factors (i.e., factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants 

and communities. When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the 

Mariana FEP under this alternative would be beneficial, as over time it would integrate scientific 

information and human needs in a manner that increases the involvement of local communities in 

the management and conservation of marine resources. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create an FEP for 

demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago only. The remainder of the Western Pacific 

Region would continue to operate under existing species-based FMPs, as would the pelagic 

fisheries based in the Mariana Archipelago. This alternative could cause some confusion to 

Mariana Archipelago fisheries participants and others as they switch to ecosystem management 

for Mariana demersal fisheries and remain with a species-based FMP for the pelagic fisheries. 

For example, those fishing regulations applicable to the Mariana Archipelago demersal fisheries 

would be grouped together in one subpart of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while those 

applicable to other areas would remain in their respective species-based CFR subparts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 280

4.2.2.2.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1B, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

Federal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1B, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed 

Mariana FEP and increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the 

Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. 

Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would be asked to 

consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. However, 

fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem characteristics and 

functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and this heightened 

attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1B. 

Impacts of Alternative 1B on enforcement and management agencies would not be expected to 

be adverse as the fishery boundaries, fishery operations, and associated regulations would not 

change. However, in the long-term, under Alternative 1B, voluntary compliance with regulations 

could be enhanced as fishery participants become more involved in the fishery management 

process. Additionally, the increased inclusion of community members with local expertise and 

knowledge about the conservation of marine resources, which would be encouraged by an 

ecosystem-based approach, would be expected to enhance management of the Mariana 

archipelagic fisheries. 

4.2.2.3. Hawaiian Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1B on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.2.3.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be managed 

under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations or management 

strategy affecting these Federal fisheries. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago physical environment would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.3.2.Biological Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the five species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations 

affecting these fisheries under this alternative. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the 

Hawaiian Archipelago physical environment would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the 

No Action Alternative. As in Alternative 1A, all stock status and trends would continue to be 

evaluated annually, with changes to the management of these fisheries considered as new 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 281

information becomes available. Also, as in Alternative 1A, regardless of the geographic 

categorization of stocks, issues of local depletion could be considered for management response 

as necessary. 

4.2.2.3.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

In comparison to Alternative 1A, approving and implementing Alternative 1B would not be 

expected to cause any additional adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. Implementation of the Mariana FEP, under Alternative 1B, would not affect the 

fishing operations or harvest of any Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago; rather it 

would simply reorganize the species-based FMPs for demersal fisheries in the Mariana 

Archipelago into a geographically-defined ecosystem plan for that one area, the Mariana 

Archipelago. This alternative would not lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to 

the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters or substrate necessary for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. Implementing Alternative 1B would not result in any substantive change in fishing 

regulations for the Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago, therefore, EFH and HAPC 

impacts would not change from those under Alternative 1A. 

4.2.2.3.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to existing regulations that 

require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types and fishing methods to reduce and 

mitigate interactions with protected species. Under Alternative 1B, impacts on protected species 

would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. Under Alternative 1B, listed species would 

continue to be given protection in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, and other applicable 

laws. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the protected species in the Hawaiian Archipelago 

would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.3.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Each of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands (Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 

Hawaii) has been defined as a fishing community under the MSA. Under Alternative 1B, the 

Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be managed under the speciesbased FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries under this 

alternative. The impacts of Alternative 1B to fishery participants and communities in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Alternative. 

Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting 

these fisheries under this alternative. Under Alternative 1B, managers and scientists would need 

to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed Mariana FEP. Scientists and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 282

managers increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the Mariana 

Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Many of 

these managers and scientists involved with the Mariana FEP would likely be involved in the 

Federal fisheries associated with the Hawaiian Archipelago. However, the impacts of Alternative 

1B on managers and scientists are not expected to be significant as they increasingly are taking 

into account ecosystem characteristics and functions when making research and management 

recommendations and decisions. The impacts on enforcement under this alternative are also not 

expected to be adverse as no changes to current fishing regulations, boundaries, or fishing 

operations and associated regulations for the Federal fisheries would occur in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.2.4. PRIA 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1B on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the PRIA. 

4.2.2.4.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the PRIA would continue to be managed under the 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries. Thus, 

the impacts of Alternative 1B to the physical environment of the PRIA would be similar to those 

under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.4.2.Biological Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the PRIA would continue to be managed under the 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries under 

this alternative. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to the PRIA’s physical environment would 

be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. As in Alternative 1A, all 

stock status and trends would continue to be evaluated annually, with changes to the 

management of these fisheries considered as new information becomes available. 

4.2.2.4.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

In comparison to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1B would not be expected to cause 

any additional impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the PRIA. Implementation of the Mariana 

FEP, under Alternative 1B, would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries in 

the PRIA; rather it would simply reorganize the species-based FMPs for demersal fisheries into a 

geographically-defined ecosystem plan for this one area, the Mariana Archipelago. This one FEP 

would not likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations of the oceanic and coastal 

habitat, or result in any alteration of waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey in the PRIA. Implementing Alternative 1B 

would not result in any substantive change in fishing regulations in the PRIA, therefore, EFH 

and HAPC would receive the same level of protection as under Alternative 1A. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 283

4.2.2.4.4.Protected Species 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal fisheries in the PRIA would continue to be managed under the 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to existing regulations that require fishing vessels 

to employ a range of gear types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species. Under Alternative 1B, impacts on protected species in the PRIA would be 

similar to those under Alternative 1A. Under Alternative 1B, listed species would continue to be 

given protection in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, and other applicable laws. 

4.2.2.4.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

There are no communities within the PRIA that are defined as a fishing community under the 

MSA. Under Alternative 1B, the fisheries in the PRIA would continue to be managed under the 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries under 

this alternative. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 1B to fishery participants in the PRIA would be 

similar to those under Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.4.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1B, the fisheries in the PRIA would continue to be managed under the 

species-based FMPs. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting these fisheries under 

this alternative. Under Alternative 1B, managers and scientists would need to adapt to the placebased and multi-species nature of the proposed Mariana FEP. Managers and scientists 

increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the Mariana Archipelago, as 

well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Many of these managers 

and scientists involved with the Mariana FEP will likely be involved in the Federal fisheries 

associated with the PRIA. However, the impacts of Alternative 1B on managers and scientists 

are not expected to be adverse as they increasingly are taking into account ecosystem 

characteristics and functions when making research and management recommendations and 

decisions. The impacts on enforcement under this alternative are also not expected to be adverse 

as no substantive changes to current fishing regulations, boundaries, or fishing operations would 

occur in the PRIA. 

4.2.2.5. Pelagics 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1B on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the fisheries 

operating under the existing Pelagics FMP. 

Under Alternative 1B, the Federal demersal fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago would be 

managed under one FEP, the Mariana FEP. The pelagic fisheries based in the Mariana 

Archipelago would continue to be managed under the existing Pelagics FMP. Thus, spatially, the 

pelagic fisheries within the EEZ of the Mariana Archipelago would continue to overlap with the 

demersal fisheries under the proposed Mariana Archipelago FEP. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 284

4.2.2.5.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1B, the pelagic fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be 

managed under the Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations or management 

measures affecting the pelagic fisheries. When compared to Alternative 1A, establishing the 

Mariana FEP for demersal fisheries under this alternative would not alter the impacts on the 

physical environment by any Federal pelagic fisheries operating in the Mariana Archipelago or 

on the high-seas. Thus, the impacts of the Federal pelagic fisheries under Alternative 1B to the 

Mariana Archipelago physical environment would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, the 

No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.5.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Mariana FEP for the demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago 

would not affect the fishing operations or harvest of any pelagic fisheries operating under the 

current Pelagics FMP. Thus, the impacts of operating the pelagic fisheries under Alternative 1B 

would be similar to those under Alternative 1A and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS 

(April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as updated in subsequent NEPA documents of affected areas (see 

Table 3-20). The status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be 

evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and 

“overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1B would also replace the current species-based regulation structure for the demersal 

fisheries of the Mariana Archipelago with a regulation structure of an archipelagic-based FEP. 

No substantive changes are proposed under Alternative 1B to the regulations or to the demersal 

fisheries of the Mariana Archipelago through this structural reorganization. Thus, with regard to 

the biological environment for pelagic species, there would be no differences between the direct 

and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative. In the longterm, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on target and 

nontarget species would be expected to improve management of these resources. However, 

implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to the 

appropriate NEPA analysis and other applicable laws at that time. 

4.2.2.5.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1B would not be 

expected to cause any additional impacts on EFH or HAPC for species currently managed under 

the Pelagics FMP. Furthermore, this FEP for demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago 

would not likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal 

habitat, or result in any alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey. This alternative would not result in any 

substantive change in fishing regulations, therefore, under this alternative the EFH and HAPC 

for the pelagic fisheries would experience the same level of impacts as under the No Action 

Alternative. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 285

4.2.2.5.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based FEP for demersal fisheries within the Mariana 

Archipelago would not change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to 

employ a range of gear types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species. Thus, under Alternative 1B impacts would be similar to those under the No 

Action Alternative and impacts to protected species would continue as discussed in Section 3.5 

and as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243). Existing ESA 

biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in substantive changes to fishing regulations, it would 

maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, 

observers) within the Mariana Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS, and prevented, reduced, or mitigated, where applicable. 

Finally, future management action proposals under Alternative 1B would include consideration 

of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with the ESA, MMPA, and other 

applicable laws. 

4.2.2.5.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Replacing the current demersal species-based FMPs within the Mariana Archipelago with an 

FEP would not change regulations under the current Pelagics FMP. However, an objective of the 

FEP approach is the explicit recognition and increased inclusion of local expertise in the 

management and conservation of marine resources, which consequently may help reduce the 

effects of some exogenous factors (i.e., factors outside the control of fishery managers) on 

fishery participants and communities. When compared to Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Alternative, the implementation of the one FEP for demersal fisheries under this alternative 

would be anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and communities in the Mariana 

Archipelago. The long-term impacts of implementing this one FEP would also be positive as it 

would integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that increases the 

involvement of local communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create an FEP for 

demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago only. The remainder of the Western Pacific 

Region would continue to operate under existing species-based FMPs, as would the pelagic 

fisheries based in the Mariana Archipelago. This alternative could cause some confusion to 

participants in the fisheries as they switch to ecosystem management for the Mariana demersal 

fisheries and remain with a species-based FMP for the pelagic fisheries. For example, those 

fishing regulations applicable to the Mariana Archipelago demersal fisheries would be grouped 

together in one subpart of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while those applicable to 

other areas would remain in their respective species-based CFR subparts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 286

4.2.2.5.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1B, the pelagic fisheries throughout the region would continue to be managed 

under the species-based Pelagics FMP. No changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

pelagic fisheries under this alternative. However, under Alternative 1B, managers and scientists 

would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed Mariana FEP. 

Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the 

Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. 

Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups would be asked to consider 

these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. However, fisheries 

managers and scientists increasingly have been considering ecosystem characteristics and 

functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and this heightened 

attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1B. The 

impacts on enforcement under this alternative would not be expected to be adverse as no 

substantive changes to current fishing regulations, boundaries, or fishing operations would occur 

for the pelagic fisheries. 

4.2.3. Alternative 1C, Implement Four FEPs 

Under Alternative 1C, existing FMPs would be replaced by four FEPs that include EEZ waters 

around each archipelagic area; the Pelagics FMP would be retained but would apply to domestic 

pelagic vessels operating on the surrounding high seas. Thus, individual FEPs would be 

implemented for the Marianas, Hawaii, and American Samoa, and the PRIA. The boundary of 

each FEP would encompass all Federal waters from 3 to 200 miles offshore from the seaward 

boundary for each of the Western Pacific Region’s archipelagic areas, except the CNMI and the 

PRIA. For those areas, the FEPs would encompass waters 0 to 200 miles offshore. Within the 

FEP boundaries, both the demersal and pelagic fisheries would be managed under the proposed 

FEPs (Table 2-4). The management of the domestic pacific pelagic fisheries operating outside of 

the Western Pacific Region’s archipelagic areas, as defined in Table 2-3, would remain under the 

Pelagics FMP; however, the Pelagics FMP would be renamed the Pacific Pelagics FMP. Existing 

regulations relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the boundaries under 

each FEP. Although the regulations would be reorganized under Alternative 1C, no substantive 

changes would occur to current fishing regulations. 

4.2.3.1. American Samoa Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1C on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the American 

Samoa Archipelago FEP area. 

4.2.3.1.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1C, all fisheries, both demersal and pelagic species, within the American 

Samoa Archipelago area that are currently managed by the five species-based FMPs would be 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 287

managed under the proposed American Samoa FEP. The domestic pelagic fisheries operating 

outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pacific Pelagics FMP. However, 

these boundaries are not physically apparent. The boundaries under the FMPs and the proposed 

FEP are strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing 

anything structural in the water or physical environment. Alternative 1C also includes the 

reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations; 

however, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations would occur under Alternative 

1C. Thus, with regard to the impacts on the physical environment of the American Samoa 

Archipelago in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect 

impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative. In the long-term, 

increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical 

environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management 

approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.3.1.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the American Samoa FEP to manage fisheries in the U.S. EEZ around 

American Samoa, in combination with the Pacific Pelagics FMP, would have potential positive 

and negative impacts on target and non-target species. Negative impacts would be reduction of 

target and non-target stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. Positive 

impacts would be an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. However, 

implementation of the place-based American Samoa FEP under this alternative would not affect 

the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the 

impacts of the American Samoa FEP on the biological environment would be similar to those 

under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and non-target species within the American 

Samoa area would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for 

defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or 

stock complexes. 

Alternative 1C would replace the current species-based FMPs’ regulation structure with an FEP 

regulation structure for the American Samoa area. No substantive changes are proposed to the 

regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization under Alternative 1C. Thus, 

with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no significant 

differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No 

Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on target and nontarget species is expected to improve management of these 

resources. Implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through 

future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to 

the appropriate NEPA analysis at the time changes are proposed. 

4.2.3.1.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1C would not cause any additional 

adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the American Samoa FEP. Implementation of 

the FEP would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; rather it would simply 

reorganize the current species-based FMPs into one geographically-defined ecosystem 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 288

management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No Action Alternative, the 

implementation of the American Samoa FEP would not likely lead to any substantial additional 

physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in detrimental 

alterations to waters or substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of 

harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in American Samoa. The current management regime, under the 

FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1C would not result in any substantial change 

to fishing regulations, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of impacts as 

described for Alternative 1A. 

4.2.3.1.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the American Samoa FEP under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantive change to fishing regulations in fishing 

gear or strategy, this alternative would maintain the same level of protection for protected 

species as under the No Action Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection 

programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the American Samoa fisheries through which 

interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS, and, where applicable, 

prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Future management action proposed under Alternative 1C 

would include consideration of impacts on protected species, as appropriate, in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations at the time that changes are proposed. 

4.2.3.1.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1C would replace the current FMPs with a place-based American Samoa FEP. No 

substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the proposed FEP. 

However, one of the objectives of the American Samoa FEP would be increased recognition and 

inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of marine resources, which 

consequently may help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors on fishery participants and 

communities. When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the American 

Samoa FEP under this alternative would positively impact fishery participants and communities 

in American Samoa. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the American Samoa 

FEP would also be positive as the FEP would integrate scientific information and human needs 

in a manner that would increase the involvement of local communities in the management and 

conservation of marine resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 289

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create an American 

Samoa FEP, which would include both demersal and pelagic species. The domestic pelagic 

fisheries operating in the high seas of the Western Pacific Region would continue to operate 

under the existing species-based Pelagics FMP. 

As noted earlier, pelagic species are highly migratory. It is anticipated that this alternative could 

cause some confusion to participants targeting these highly migratory species as they switch 

from the high seas Pacific Pelagics FMP to the proposed place-based FEP. This would especially 

be true if regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become inconsistent, or overly specific, 

between the proposed place-based FEP and the domestic pelagic fisheries on the high seas. Thus, 

Alternative 1C poses a potential negative impact on fishery participants targeting pelagic species 

under the American Samoa FEP and the Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.1.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1C, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries in American Samoa. However, under Alternative 1C, managers and scientists would 

need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed American Samoa FEP. 

Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions in the 

American Samoa fisheries, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine 

environment. Management plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would be asked to 

consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. However, 

fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem characteristics and 

functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and this heightened 

attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1C. 

Alternative 1C could produce adverse effects on enforcement agencies if future regulations 

developed for the pelagic fisheries become overly specific or inconsistent with the proposed 

American Samoa FEP and the domestic pelagic fisheries operating on the high seas, managed 

under the Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.2. Mariana Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1C on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Mariana 

Archipelago. 

4.2.3.2.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1C, all fisheries, for both demersal and pelagic species, within the Mariana 

Archipelago currently managed by the five species-based FMPs would be managed under the 

proposed Mariana Archipelago FEP. The domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 290

U.S. EEZ (i.e., on the high seas) would be managed under the Pacific Pelagics FMP. However, 

these boundaries are not physically apparent. The boundaries under the FMPs or the proposed 

FEP are strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing 

anything structural in the water or physical environment. Alternative 1C also includes the 

reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations; 

however, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations would occur under Alternative 

1C. Thus, with regard to the physical environment of the Mariana Archipelago in the short-term, 

there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the 

impacts of the No Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery 

interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment associated with the successful 

implementation of an ecosystem management approach would improve our understanding and 

conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.3.2.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Mariana FEP, in combination with the Pacific Pelagics FMP, would have 

potential impacts on target and non-target species. However, implementation of the archipelagicbased Mariana FEP under this alternative would not affect the fishing operations or catches of 

any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of approving and 

implementing the Mariana FEP would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The status and 

trends of target and non-target species within the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be 

evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and 

“overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1C would replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with an FEP 

regulation structure for the Mariana Archipelago. No substantive changes are proposed to the 

regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization under Alternative 1C. Thus, 

with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would improve management of these resources. 

Implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA 

and other applicable laws. 

4.2.3.2.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1C would not cause impacts on 

EFH or HAPC for species in the Mariana FEP. Implementation of the FEP would not be 

expected to affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; rather it would simply 

reorganize the current species-based FMPs into one geographically-defined ecosystem 

management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No Action Alternative, the 

implementation of the Mariana FEP would not likely lead to substantial physical or biological 

alterations of the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration of waters and substrate 

necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 291

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed Mariana FEP. The current management regime, under 

the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1C would not result in any substantive 

change to fishing regulations, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of 

impacts as described for Alternative 1A. 

4.2.3.2.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based Mariana FEP under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations, including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of 

gear types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. 

Existing ESA biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current 

FMPs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered 

species or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantial change to fishing regulations it would 

maintain the same level of protection for protected species as under the No Action Alternative. In 

addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within 

the Mariana Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be 

monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Future 

management actions proposed under Alternative 1C would include consideration of impacts on 

protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.3.2.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1C would replace the current FMPs with an archipelagic-based Mariana Archipelago 

FEP. No substantive change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the 

proposed FEP. However, one of the objectives of the Council in promoting a Mariana 

Archipelagic FEP is to increase recognition and inclusion of local expertise in the management 

and conservation of marine resources, which may consequently help reduce the effects of some 

exogenous factors (i.e., factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants 

and communities. When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the 

Mariana FEP under this alternative would positively impact fishery participants and communities 

in the Mariana Archipelago by increasing the availability of local knowledge in the fishery 

management decisionmaking process. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the 

Mariana FEP would also be positive as the FEP would integrate scientific information and 

human needs in a manner that would increase the involvement of local communities in the 

management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create a Mariana FEP, 

which would include both demersal and pelagic species. The domestic pelagic fisheries operating 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 292

in the high seas of the Western Pacific Region would continue to operate under the existing 

species-based Pelagics FMP. 

As noted earlier, pelagic species are highly migratory. It is anticipated that this alternative could 

cause some confusion to participants targeting these highly migratory species as they switch 

from the high seas Pacific Pelagics FMP to the proposed archipelagic-based FEP. This would 

especially be true if regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or 

inconsistent with the proposed archipelagic-based FEP. Thus, Alternative 1C poses a potential 

negative impact on fishery participants targeting pelagic species under the Mariana FEP and the 

Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.2.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1C, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1C, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed 

Mariana FEP. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery 

interactions within the Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on 

the marine environment. Management plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would 

be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem 

characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management decisions, 

respectively. This current heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain 

unchanged under Alternative 1C. 

Alternative 1C could produce adverse affects on enforcement agencies if future regulations 

developed for the pelagic fisheries become overly specific or inconsistent with the proposed 

Mariana FEP. 

4.2.3.3. Hawaiian Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1C on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.3.3.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1C, all fisheries, for both demersal and pelagic species, within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago currently managed by the five species-based FMPs would be managed under the 

proposed Hawaii FEP. The domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would 

be managed under the Pacific Pelagics FMP. However, these boundaries are not physically 

apparent. The boundaries under FMPs or proposed FEP are strictly geographic representations 

designated on maps and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical 

environment. Alternative 1C also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP 

regulations into place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive changes to current fishing 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 293

regulations would occur in Alternative 1C. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the 

short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this 

alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the Hawaiian Archipelago. In the 

long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the 

physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem 

management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical 

environment. 

4.2.3.3.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Hawaii FEP to manage fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago, in 

combination with the Pacific Pelagics FMP, would have potential positive and negative impacts 

on target and non-target species. However, implementation of the archipelagic-based Hawaii 

FEP under this alternative would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries 

operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of approving and implementing the Hawaii 

FEP would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and nontarget species within the Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be evaluated annually using 

existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1C would replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with an FEP 

regulation structure for the Hawaiian Archipelago. No substantive changes are proposed to the 

regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization under Alternative 1C. Thus, 

with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve management of these 

resources. Implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through 

future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to 

the appropriate NEPA analysis at the time changes are proposed. 

4.2.3.3.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1C would not cause impacts on 

EFH or HAPC for species in the Hawaii FEP. Implementation of the FEP would not affect the 

fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; rather, it would simply reorganize the current 

species-based FMPs into one geographically-defined ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, 

when compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the Hawaii FEP would not 

likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or 

result in any alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth of harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed Hawaii FEP. The current management regime, under 

the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 294

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1C would not result in any substantive 

change to fishing regulations, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of 

impacts as described for Alternative 1A. 

4.2.3.3.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based Hawaii FEP under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or 

adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any changes to fishing regulations, it would maintain 

the same level of protection and impacts for protected species as under the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, 

observers) within the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. 

Future management actions proposed under Alternative 1C would include consideration of 

impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.3.3.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1C would replace the current FMPs with an archipelagic-based Hawaii FEP. No 

substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the proposed FEP. 

However, one of the objectives of the Hawaii FEP would be to increase recognition and 

inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of marine resources, which 

consequently may help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors (i.e., factors outside the 

control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. When compared to the No 

Action Alternative, the implementation of the Hawaii FEP under this alternative would 

positively impact fishery participants and communities in the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 

anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the Hawaii FEP would also be positive as the 

FEP may integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that increases the 

involvement of local communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create a Hawaii FEP, 

which would include both demersal and pelagic species. The domestic pelagic fisheries operating 

in the high seas of the Western Pacific Region would continue to operate under the existing 

species-based Pelagics FMP. 

As noted earlier, pelagic species are highly migratory. It is anticipated that this alternative could 

cause some confusion to participants targeting these highly migratory species as they switch 

from the high seas Pacific Pelagics FMP to the proposed archipelagic-based FEP. This would 

especially be true if regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 295

inconsistent with the proposed archipelagic-based FEP and the domestic pelagic fisheries on the 

high seas. Thus, Alternative 1C would pose a potential negative impact on fishery participants 

targeting pelagic species under the Hawaii FEP and the Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.3.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1C, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1C, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed 

Hawaii FEP. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery 

interactions within the Hawaiian Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on 

the marine environment. Management plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would 

be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem 

characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management decisions, 

respectively; this current heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain 

unchanged under Alternative 1C. 

Alternative 1C could produce adverse affects on enforcement agencies if future regulations 

developed for the pelagic fisheries become overly specific or inconsistent with the proposed 

Hawaii FEP and the domestic pelagic fisheries on the high seas, managed under the Pacific 

Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.4. PRIA 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1C on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the PRIA. 

4.2.3.4.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1C, all fisheries, for both demersal and pelagic species, within the PRIA 

currently managed by the five species-based FMPs would be managed under the proposed PRIA 

FEP. The domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under 

the Pacific Pelagics FMP. However, these boundaries are not physically apparent. The 

boundaries under the FMPs or the proposed FEP are strictly geographic representations 

designated on maps and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical 

environment. Alternative 1C also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP 

regulations into place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations would occur under Alternative 1C. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in 

the short-term, there would be no significant differences between the direct and indirect impacts 

of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the PRIA. In the long-term, 

increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical 

environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 296

approach would be expected to improve our understanding and conservation of the physical 

environment. 

4.2.3.4.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the PRIA FEP to manage fisheries in the PRIA, in combination with the 

Pacific Pelagics FMP, would have potential positive and negative impacts on target and nontarget species. However, implementation of the archipelagic-based PRIA FEP under this 

alternative would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the 

current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of approving and implementing the PRIA FEP would be similar 

to those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and non-target species within the 

PRIA would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining 

“overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock 

complexes. 

Alternative 1C would replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with an FEP 

regulation structure for the PRIA. No substantive changes are proposed to the regulations or to 

the fisheries through this structural reorganization under Alternative 1C. Thus, with regard to the 

biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and 

indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative. In the longterm, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on target and 

nontarget species would improve management of these resources. Implementation of ecosystem 

science, principles, and management actions through future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis at the 

time amendments are proposed. 

4.2.3.4.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1C would not be expected to 

impact EFH or HAPC for species in the PRIA FEP. Implementation of the FEP would not affect 

the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; rather it would simply reorganize the current 

species-based FMPs into one geographically-defined ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, 

when compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the PRIA FEP would not 

likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or 

result in any alteration to waters or substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth of harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed PRIA FEP. The current management regime, under the 

FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1C would not result in any substantive 

change in fishing regulations; therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of 

impacts as under the No Action alternative. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 297

4.2.3.4.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based PRIA FEP under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantive changes to fishing regulations, this 

alternative would maintain the same level of protection and impacts for protected species as 

under the No Action Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection programs 

(e.g., logbooks, observers) within the PRIA fisheries through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS, and, where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. 

Future management actions proposed under Alternative 1C would include consideration of 

impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.3.4.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1C would replace the current FMPs with an archipelagic-based PRIA FEP. No 

substantive change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the proposed FEP. 

Under the MSA, there are no identified fishing communities within the PRIA, and fishermen 

engaged in fisheries in the PRIA would continue to have opportunities to have input on fishery 

management decisions affecting PRIA areas. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the PRIA FEP under this 

alternative would be anticipated to positively impact fishery participants in the PRIA. The 

anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the PRIA FEP would also be positive as the FEP 

may integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that increases the involvement 

of participants in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create a PRIA FEP, 

which would include both demersal and pelagic species. The domestic pelagic fisheries operating 

in the high seas of the Western Pacific Region would continue to operate under the existing 

species-based Pelagics FMP. 

As noted earlier, pelagic species are highly migratory. It is anticipated that this alternative could 

cause some confusion to participants targeting these highly migratory species as they switch 

from the high seas Pacific Pelagics FMP to the proposed archipelagic-based FEP. This would 

especially be true if regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or 

inconsistent with the proposed archipelagic-based FEP. Thus, Alternative 1C would pose a 

potential negative impact on fishery participants targeting pelagic species under the PRIA FEP 

and the Pacific Pelagics FMP. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 298

4.2.3.4.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1C, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the PRIA. However, under Alternative 1C, managers and scientists would need 

to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed PRIA FEP. Managers and 

scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the PRIA, as well 

as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and 

other advisory groups would be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when 

making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are 

considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making 

management decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably 

remain unchanged under Alternative 1C. 

Alternative 1C could produce adverse affects on enforcement agencies if future regulations 

developed for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the 

proposed PRIA FEP. 

4.2.3.5. Pelagics 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1C on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the fisheries 

operating under the current Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.3.5.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1C, all fisheries taking place in the U.S. EEZ, involving both demersal and 

pelagic species, would be managed by the proposed archipelagic-based FEPs. The domestic 

pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pacific 

Pelagics FMP. When compared to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1A) as a baseline, 

replacing the species-based FMPs with the four archipelagic-based FEPs and one Pacific 

Pelagics FMP would not impact the physical environment of marine ecosystems under any of the 

action alternatives. The boundaries are not physically apparent as established under either the 

current FMPs or the proposed archipelagic-based FEPs in this alternative. The boundaries under 

species-based FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on 

maps and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. No 

substantive changes to current fishing regulations or operations would occur in any of the 

alternatives. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the short-term, there are no 

differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No 

Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on the physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an 

ecosystem management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the 

physical environment. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 299

4.2.3.5.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the archipelagic-based FEPs, for both demersal and pelagic species, and the 

one Pacific Pelagics FMP would have potential positive and negative impacts on targeted pelagic 

species and non-target species. Negative impacts would be the impact of fishing on target and 

non-target stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. Positive impacts 

would be an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. However, 

implementation of Alternative 1C would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any 

fisheries operating under the current Pacific Pelagics FMP. Thus, the impacts of pelagic fisheries 

under Alternative 1C would be similar to those under Alternative 1A, which has been previously 

analyzed in the 2001 EIS (April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243), as updated in subsequent NEPA 

documents (see Table 3-20). The status and trends of target and non-target species would 

continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining 

“overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock 

complexes. 

Alternative 1C also would replace the current structure of the regulations under the species-based 

Pelagics FMP with a regulation structure of four archipelagic-based FEPs and a Pacific Pelagics 

FMP. Thus, with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no 

differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No 

Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve management 

of these resources. Implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions 

through future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be 

subject to NEPA and other applicable laws at the time changes were being considered. 

4.2.3.5.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, none of the action alternatives would impact EFH 

or HAPC for species currently managed under the Pacific Pelagics FMP. Furthermore, the four 

archipelagic-based FEPs, as proposed under this alternative, would not lead to substantial 

physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to 

waters or substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species 

or their prey. This alternative would not result in any substantive change in fishing regulations, 

therefore, under this alternative the EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of impacts as 

under the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.3.5.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based FEPs under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 300

Since this alternative would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, this alternative 

would maintain the same level of protection and impacts for protected species as under the No 

Action Alternative. In addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., 

logbooks, observers) for pelagic fisheries, through which interactions with protected species can 

be monitored by NMFS, and, where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Future 

management actions under Alternative 1C would receive consideration of impacts on protected 

species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.3.5.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1C would replace the current FMPs with four archipelagic-based FEPs and one 

Pacific Pelagics FMP. No substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur 

under the proposed FEPs. However, one of the objectives of each of the archipelagic-based FEPs 

is the increased recognition and inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation 

of marine resources, which consequently may help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors 

(i.e., factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the archipelagic-based FEP 

under this alternative is anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and communities in 

the region. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the FEPs would also be positive 

as the FEPs would integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that increases 

the involvement of local communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create four archipelagicbased FEPs, which would include both demersal and pelagic species. The domestic pelagic 

fisheries operating in the high seas but that are based within the Western Pacific Region would 

continue to operate under a Pacific Pelagics FMP. 

As noted earlier, pelagic species are highly migratory. It is anticipated that this alternative could 

cause some confusion to participants targeting these highly migratory species as fishermen 

switch from the high seas Pacific Pelagics FMP to the proposed archipelagic-based FEPs. This 

would especially be true if regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or 

inconsistent with the proposed archipelagic-based FEPs. Thus, Alternative 1C would pose a 

potential negative impact on fishery participants targeting pelagic species. 

4.2.3.5.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1C, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

pelagic fisheries. However, under Alternative 1C, managers and scientists would need to adapt to 

the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed FEPs. Managers and scientists would 

increasingly be asked to consider fishery interactions within the Hawaiian Archipelago, as well 

as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and 

other advisory groups would also be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts 

when making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 301

considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making 

management decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably 

remain unchanged under Alternative 1C. 

Pelagic species are highly migratory species. Alternative 1C could produce adverse affects on 

enforcement agencies if future regulations developed for the pelagic fisheries were to become 

overly specific or inconsistent with the proposed archipelagic-based FEP.

4.2.4. Alternative 1D - Implement Five FEPs (Preferred) 

Under Alternative 1D, the Preferred Alternative, the boundaries of the four archipelagic 

ecosystems (American Samoa, Hawaii, Mariana, and PRIA) as described in Alternative 1C, 

would be defined and four FEPs for demersal fisheries would be approved and implemented. 

Additionally, a fifth FEP, the Pelagic FEP, would also be approved and implemented. The 

Pelagic FEP would include the marine resources associated with pelagic species within all U.S. 

EEZs and the management of the U.S. domestic pelagic fisheries on the high seas of the Western 

Pacific Region. Alternative 1C and Alternative 1D are very similar, with the following 

exceptions: (1) Alternative 1D would establish a Pelagic FEP, which would replace the current 

Pelagics FMP, and (2) under Alternative 1D, the management of the pelagic fisheries within the 

boundaries of the four archipelagic-based FEPs would remain with the Pelagic FEP, and 

archipelagic FEPs would cover management of all demersal fisheries in each archipelagic area. 

The boundary of the Pelagic FEP would overlap with the boundaries of the four FEPs for 

demersal fisheries; however, the Pelagic FEP would specifically manage those resources and 

habitats associated with the pelagic ecosystem (see Table 2–5). In addition, under Alternative 

1D, existing regulations relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the 

boundaries of the FEPs (see Table 2–6). Although the existing fishery regulations would be 

reorganized, no substantive changes would be made to them. 

The Draft FEPs, as proposed under Alternative 1D, are available from the Council's website at 

www.wpcouncil.org or by mail68 from the Council. Additionally, a Compact Disc containing 

electronic copies of the draft FEPs is included with this FPEIS. 

4.2.4.1. American Samoa Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1D on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the American 

Samoa area. 

 

68 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 302

4.2.4.1.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1D, the demersal fisheries within the American Samoa Archipelago, currently 

managed by the four demersal species-based FMPs, would be managed under the proposed 

American Samoa FEP. The pelagic fisheries within the American Samoa Archipelago and the 

domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the 

Pelagic FEP. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically apparent. The 

boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic 

representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything structural in the 

water or physical environment. Alternative 1D also includes the reorganization of existing 

species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive 

changes to current fishing regulations would occur under Alternative 1D. Thus, with regard to 

the physical environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and 

indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the physical 

environment of the American Samoa marine ecosystem. In the long-term, increased 

consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment 

associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management approach would 

improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.4.1.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the American Samoa FEP, in combination with the Pelagic FEP, would have 

potential positive and negative impacts on target and non-target species. Negative impacts would 

include reduction of target and non-target stocks, which would continue to be managed for 

sustainability. Positive impacts would include an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem 

management. However, implementation of the archipelagic-based FEP for demersal fisheries 

within the American Samoa Archipelago under this alternative would not affect the fishing 

operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the 

demersal American Samoa FEP and the associated Pelagic FEP would be no different from those 

of Alternative 1A, the No Action alternative. The status and trends of target and non-target 

species within the American Samoa Archipelago would continue to be evaluated annually using 

existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1D would also replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure for 

demersal fisheries with an FEP regulation structure within the American Samoa Archipelago. No 

substantive changes are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural 

reorganization. Thus, with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be 

no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the 

No Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on target and nontarget species would improve the management of these 

resources. However, the implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management 

actions through future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP 

would be subject to the appropriate NEPA analysis at the time amendments are proposed. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 303

4.2.4.1.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1D would not impact EFH or 

HAPC for species in the American Samoa FEP. Implementation of the American Samoa FEP 

would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries within the American Samoa 

Archipelago; rather it would simply reorganize the current demersal species-based FMPs into a 

geographically-defined ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No 

Action Alternative, the implementation of the American Samoa FEP would not lead to 

substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any 

alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of 

harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed American Samoa FEP. The current management 

regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, 

bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1D would not result in 

substantive changes in fishing regulations, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same 

level of impacts as described for Alternative 1A. 

4.2.4.1.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based American Samoa FEP under the preferred 

alternative would not change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to 

employ a range of gear types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species. Existing ESA biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating 

under the current FMPs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in substantive changes to fishing regulations, it would 

maintain the same level of impacts to protected species as under the No Action alternative. In 

addition, it would continue current data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) for 

pelagic fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS, 

and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Future management actions under 

Alternative 1D would receive consideration of impacts on protected species as appropriate in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.4.1.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1D would replace the current FMPs with an archipelagic-based American Samoa 

FEP. No substantive change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the 

proposed American Samoa FEP. However, one of the objectives of the American Samoa FEP is 

to increase recognition and inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of 

marine resources, which may consequently help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors 

(i.e., factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the American Samoa FEP 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 304

under this alternative would be beneficial as it would integrate scientific information and human 

needs in a manner that increases the involvement of local communities in the management and 

conservation of marine resources. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. When compared to the other Action 

Alternatives, it is anticipated that this alternative would cause the least amount of confusion to 

participants in the fisheries, as the entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to 

placed-based FEPs, with no substantive changes in the regulations. 

4.2.4.1.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1D, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the American Samoa Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1D, managers 

and scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed 

American Samoa FEP. Managers and scientists would be asked to increasingly consider fishery 

interactions within the American Samoa Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery 

activities on the marine environment. Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory 

groups would be asked more and more often to consider these indirect and often complex 

impacts when making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists are already 

frequently considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and 

making management decisions, respectively, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ 

ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1D. 

With regard to the fisheries within the American Samoa Archipelago in the short-term, impacts 

of Alternative 1D on enforcement and management agencies would not be adverse as the fishery 

boundaries, fishery operations, and regulations would not change. However, in the long-term, 

under Alternative 1D, compliance with regulation could be increased in the communities of 

American Samoa as the participants voluntarily become more involved in fishery management. 

Additionally, the increased inclusion of community members with local expertise and knowledge 

about the conservation of the marine resources, which would be encouraged by an ecosystembased approach, would be expected to enhance management of American Samoa fisheries. 

4.2.4.2. Mariana Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1D on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Mariana 

Archipelago. 

4.2.4.2.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1D, the demersal fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago, currently managed 

under the four demersal species-based FMPs, would be managed under the proposed Mariana 

FEP. The pelagic fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago and the domestic pelagic fisheries 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 305

outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pelagic FEP. However, the 

boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the 

current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on maps 

and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1D also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into 

place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations 

would occur under Alternative 1D. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the shortterm, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative 

and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the Mariana Archipelago. In the long-term, 

increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical 

environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management 

approach would improve information available for understanding and conserving the physical 

environment. 

4.2.4.2.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Mariana FEP to manage fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago, in 

combination with the Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and negative impacts on target 

and non-target species. Negative impacts would be the impact of fishing on target and non-target 

stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. Positive impacts would include 

an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. However, implementation of the 

archipelagic-based FEP for demersal species within the Mariana Archipelago under this 

alternative would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the 

current FMPs. The status and trends of target and non-target species within the Mariana 

Archipelago would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for 

defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or 

stock complexes. 

Alternative 1D would replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure for demersal 

fisheries with an FEP regulation structure for the Mariana Archipelago. No substantive changes 

are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. Thus, 

with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve the management of these 

resources. However, the implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management 

actions through future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP 

would be subject to NEPA and other applicable laws at the time that amendments are proposed. 

4.2.4.2.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1D would not impact EFH or 

HAPC for species in the Mariana Archipelago. Implementation of the Mariana FEP would not 

affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago; rather it 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 306

would simply reorganize the current demersal species-based FMPs into a geographically-defined 

ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No Action alternative, the 

implementation of the Mariana Archipelago FEP would not lead to substantial physical or 

biological alterations of the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration of waters and 

substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed American Samoa FEP. The current management 

regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, 

bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1D would not result in 

substantive change in fishing regulations; therefore, there would be no change to impacts on 

EFH and HAPC. 

4.2.4.2.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based Mariana FEP under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or 

adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, this alternative 

would result in no substantial change in impacts to listed species. Implementing the Mariana FEP 

would allow for the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within 

the Mariana Archipelago fisheries, which would help managers to monitor interactions with 

protected species. Future management actions proposed under Alternative 1D would include 

consideration of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations. 

4.2.4.2.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1D would replace the current FMPs with an archipelagic-based Mariana FEP. No 

substantive change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the proposed 

Mariana FEP. However, one of the objectives of the Mariana FEP would be to increase 

recognition and inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of marine 

resources, which consequently may help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors (i.e., 

factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. When 

compared to the No Action alternative, the implementation of the Mariana FEP under this 

alternative is anticipated to be beneficial as it would integrate scientific information and human 

needs in a manner that increases the involvement of local communities in the management and 

conservation of marine resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 307

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. When compared to the other action 

alternatives, it is anticipated that this alternative would cause the least amount of confusion to 

participants in the fisheries, as the entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to 

placed-based FEPs, with no substantive changes in the regulations. 

4.2.4.2.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1D, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1D, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multispecies nature of the proposed 

Mariana FEP. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery 

interactions within the Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on 

the marine environment. Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups would 

be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem 

characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and 

this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would continue under Alternative 1D. 

With regard to the fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago, in the short-term, impacts of 

Alternative 1D on enforcement agencies would not be adverse as the fishery boundaries, fishery 

operations, and management and regulations would not change. However, in the long-term under 

Alternative 1D, compliance with regulations could be increased in the communities of the 

Mariana area as the participants voluntarily become more involved in fishery management. 

Additionally, the increased inclusion of community members with local expertise and knowledge 

about the conservation of marine resources, which would be encouraged by an ecosystem-based 

approach, is expected to enhance management of the Mariana fisheries. 

4.2.4.3. Hawaiian Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1D on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.4.3.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1D, the demersal fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago, currently 

managed by the four demersal species-based FMPs, would be managed under the proposed 

Hawaii FEP. The pelagic fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago and the domestic pelagic 

fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pelagic FEP. However, 

the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the 

current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on maps 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 308

and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1D also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into 

place-based FEP regulations; however, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations 

would occur in Alternative 1D. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the short-term, 

there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the 

impacts of the No Action alternative on the Hawaiian Archipelago. In the long-term, increased 

consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment 

associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management approach would be 

expected to improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.4.3.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the Hawaii FEP to manage fisheries in the Hawaiian Archipelago, in 

combination with the Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and negative impacts on target 

and non-target species. However, implementation of the archipelagic-based FEP for demersal 

species within the Hawaiian Archipelago under this alternative would not affect the fishing 

operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the 

demersal Hawaii FEP and the associated Pelagic FEP would be similar to those under 

Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and non-target species within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago would continue to be evaluated as in the current Annual Report to Congress series, 

using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1D would also replace the current species-based FMP regulatory structure for 

demersal fisheries with an FEP regulatory structure for the Hawaiian Archipelago. No 

substantive changes are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural 

reorganization. Thus, in regards to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be 

no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the 

No Action alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on target and nontarget species would improve the management of these 

resources. However, the implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management 

actions through future amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to 

NEPA and other applicable laws at that time. 

4.2.4.3.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Similar to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1D would not cause adverse impacts on 

EFH or HAPC for species in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Implementation of the Hawaii FEP 

would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago; rather it would simply reorganize the current demersal species-based FMPs into a 

geographically-defined ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, similar to the No Action 

alternative, the implementation of the Hawaii FEP would not likely lead to substantial physical 

or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters 

and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of harvested species or their 

prey. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 309

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed Hawaii FEP. The current management regime, under 

the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1D would not result in any substantive 

changes to fishing regulations; therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of 

impacts as under the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.4.3.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based Hawaii FEP under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, this alternative 

would maintain the same level of protection for protected species as under the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, implementing the Hawaii FEP would allow for the continuation of data 

collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries 

through which interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS. Future 

management actions under Alternative 1D would consider impacts on protected species as 

appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.4.3.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1D would replace the current FMPs for demersal fisheries with an archipelagic-based 

Hawaii FEP. No substantive change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the 

proposed Hawaii FEP. However, one of the objectives of the Hawaii FEP is to increase 

recognition and inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of marine 

resources, which consequently may help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors (i.e., 

factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. Similar 

to the No Action alternative, the implementation of the Hawaii FEP under this alternative is 

anticipated to be beneficial, as it would integrate scientific information and human needs in a 

manner that increases the involvement of local communities in the management and conservation 

of marine resources. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. When compared to the other action 

alternatives, it is anticipated that this alternative would cause the least amount of confusion to 

participants in the fisheries, as the entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to 

placed-based FEPs, with no substantial changes in the regulations. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 310

4.2.4.3.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1D, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1D, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed 

Hawaii FEP. Managers and scientists would be asked to increasingly consider fishery 

interactions within the Hawaiian Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on 

the marine environment. Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups would 

be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

However, fisheries managers and scientists are increasingly considering ecosystem 

characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and 

this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under 

Alternative 1D. 

With regard to the fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago, in the short-term, impacts of 

Alternative 1D on enforcement agencies are not expected to be significant as the fishery 

boundaries, fishery operations, and regulations would not change. However, in the long-term 

under Alternative 1D, compliance with regulation could be increased in the communities of 

Hawaii as the participants voluntarily become more involved in fishery management. 

Additionally, the increased inclusion of community members with local expertise and knowledge 

about the conservation of marine resources, which would be encouraged by an ecosystem-based 

approach, is expected to enhance management of Hawaii’s fisheries. 

4.2.4.4. PRIA 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1D on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the PRIA. 

4.2.4.4.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1D, the demersal fisheries within the PRIA, currently managed under the four 

demersal species-based FMPs, would be managed under the proposed PRIA FEP. The pelagic 

fisheries within the PRIA and the domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ 

would be managed under the Pelagic FEP. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are 

not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are 

strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything 

structural in the water or physical environment. Alternative 1D also includes the reorganization 

of existing species-based FMP regulations into place-based FEP regulations; however, no 

substantive changes to current fishing regulations would occur in Alternative 1D. Thus, with 

regard to the physical environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the 

direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the 

PRIA. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts 

on the physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 311

management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical 

environment. 

4.2.4.4.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the PRIA FEP to manage fisheries in the PRIA, in combination with the 

Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and negative impacts on target and non-target 

species. However, implementation of the archipelagic-based FEP for demersal fisheries within 

the PRIA under this alternative would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries 

operating under the current FMPs. The status and trends of target and non-target species within 

the PRIA would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and thresholds for 

defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or 

stock complexes. 

Alternative 1D would replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure for demersal 

fisheries with an FEP regulation structure for the PRIA. No substantive changes are proposed to 

the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. Thus, with regard to the 

biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and 

indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative. In the longterm, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on target and 

nontarget species would be expected to improve the management of these resources. However, 

the implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA 

and other applicable laws. 

4.2.4.4.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Similar to Alternative 1A, Alternative 1D would not cause adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for 

species managed under the PRIA FEP. Implementation of the PRIA FEP would not affect the 

fishing operations or catches of any fisheries within the PRIA; rather it would simply reorganize 

the current demersal species-based FMPs into a geographically-defined ecosystem management 

plan. Furthermore, similar to the No Action alternative, the PRIA FEP would not likely lead to 

substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any 

alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of 

harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed PRIA FEP. The current management regime under the 

FMPs protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, 

explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1D would not result in any substantive 

change to fishing regulations; therefore, EFH and HAPC would experience the same level of 

protection as currently occurs under the species-based FMPs. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 312

4.2.4.4.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based PRIA FEP under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, this alternative 

would maintain the same level of protection for protected species as under the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, implementing the PRIA FEP would allow for the continuation of data 

collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the PRIA fisheries through which 

interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, 

reduced, or mitigated. Future management actions under Alternative 1D would receive 

consideration of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations. 

4.2.4.4.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1D would replace the current FMPs for demersal fisheries with an archipelagic-based 

PRIA FEP. No substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the 

proposed PRIA FEP. There are no fishing communities as defined under MSA within the PRIA. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the PRIA FEP under this 

alternative is anticipated to be beneficial as it may integrate scientific information and human 

needs in a manner that increases the involvement of participants in the management and 

conservation of marine resources. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. When compared to the other Action 

Alternatives, it is anticipated that this alternative would cause the least amount of confusion to 

participants in the fisheries, as the entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to 

placed-based FEPs, with no substantial changes in the regulations. 

4.2.4.4.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1D, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the PRIA. However, under Alternative 1D, managers and scientists would need 

to adapt to the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed PRIA FEP. Managers and 

scientists would be asked to increasingly consider fishery interactions within the PRIA, as well 

as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Additionally, management 

plan teams and other advisory groups would be asked to increasingly consider these indirect and 

often complex impacts when making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and 

scientists are increasingly considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 313

research and making management decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ 

ecosystems would probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1D. 

With regard to the fisheries within the PRIA, in the short-term, impacts of Alternative 1D on 

enforcement agencies would not be significant as the fishery boundaries, fishery operations, and 

regulations would not change. However, in the long-term under Alternative 1D, compliance with 

regulations could be increased as PRIA fishery participants become more involved in fishery 

management. 

4.2.4.5. Pelagic 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1D on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the fisheries 

operating under the current Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.4.5.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1D, the demersal fisheries would be managed under the four proposed 

archipelagic-based FEPs. The pelagic fisheries within the boundaries of these archipelagic-based 

FEPs and the domestic pelagic fisheries operating outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be 

managed under the Pelagic FEP. When compared to the No Action Alternative as a baseline, 

replacing the five species-based FMPs with the five FEPs would not impact the physical 

environment of marine ecosystems under any of the Action Alternatives. The boundaries are not 

physically apparent as established under either the current FMPs or boundaries established under 

the proposed FEPs in this alternative. The boundaries under species-based FMPs or the proposed 

FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing 

anything structural in the water or physical environment. No substantive changes to current 

fishing regulations or operations would occur. Thus, with regard to the physical environment for 

the pelagic fisheries in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and 

indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action alternative. In the long-term, 

increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical 

environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management 

approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.4.5.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five FEPs would have potential positive and negative impacts on targeted 

pelagic species and non-target species. However, implementation of Alternative 1D is not 

expected to affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current 

Pelagics FMP. No substantive changes to the regulations or the fisheries are proposed under 

Alternative 1D. Thus, the impacts of operating the pelagic fisheries under Alternative 1D would 

be similar to impacts under Alternative 1A, which has previously been analyzed in the 2001 EIS 

(April 6, 2001; 66 FR 18243) and in subsequent NEPA documents (see Table 3-20). The status 

and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be evaluated annually using 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 314

existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Thus, in regards to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would improve the management of the pelagic resources. 

However, implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through 

future management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to the proposed Pelagic FEP 

would be subject to NEPA and other applicable laws. 

4.2.4.5.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

Similar to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1D would not impact EFH or HAPC for 

species managed currently under the Pelagics FMP. Furthermore, the five FEPs that are proposed 

under this alternative would not likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the 

oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters and substrate necessary for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species or their prey. Alternative 1D 

would not result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, therefore, under this alternative the EFH 

and HAPC would maintain the same level of protection as under the No Action alternative. 

4.2.4.5.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the archipelagic-based FEPs under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations, including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in a substantive change to fishing regulations, this 

alternative would maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as under 

the No Action Alternative. In addition, implementing the FEPs would allow for the continuation 

of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS and, where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. 

Finally, future management actions under Alternative 1D would receive consideration of impacts 

on protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.4.5.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 1D would replace the current five species-based FMPs with five FEPs. No 

substantial change to the current regulations or fisheries would occur under the proposed FEPs. 

However, one of the objectives of the Pelagic FEP is the recognition and increased inclusion of 

local expertise in the management and conservation of marine resources, which may 

consequently help reduce the effects of some exogenous factors (i.e., factors outside the control 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 315

of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. When compared to the No Action 

Alternative, implementing the Pelagic FEP would be beneficial as it may integrate scientific 

information and human needs in a manner that increases the involvement of local communities in 

the management and conservation of marine resources. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward placed-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. When compared to the other Action 

Alternatives, it is anticipated that this alternative would cause the least amount of confusion to 

participants in the fisheries, as the entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to 

placed-based FEPs, with no substantial changes in the regulations. 

4.2.4.5.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1D, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

pelagic fisheries. However, under Alternative 1D, managers and scientists would need to adapt to 

the place-based and multi-species nature of the proposed Pelagic FEP. Managers and scientists 

would be asked to increasingly consider fishery interactions with other species, as well as the 

impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Additionally, management plan 

teams and other advisory groups would also be asked to consider these indirect and often 

complex impacts when making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists 

are increasingly considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research 

and making management decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would 

probably remain unchanged under Alternative 1D. 

With regard to the pelagic fisheries, in the short-term, impacts of Alternative 1D on enforcement 

and management agencies are not expected to be significant as the pelagic fisheries boundaries, 

fishery operations, and regulations would not change. Under Alternative 1D in the long-term, 

compliance with regulations could be increased as communities and participants voluntary 

become more involved in fishery management. Additionally, the increased inclusion of 

community members with local expertise and knowledge about the conservation of marine 

resources, which would be encouraged by an ecosystem-based approach, would enhance 

management of the pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

4.2.5. Alternative 1E - Approve and Implement FEPs for Each 

Biogeographic and Pelagic Zone Which Would Replace Existing FMPs 

Under Alternative 1E, major biogeographic zones for each island jurisdiction and all marine 

resources and habitats associated with those not necessarily contiguous zones would be 

delineated as distinct ecosystems and the fisheries associated with them would be managed under 

separate FEPs. Specifically, within each archipelagic area, the coral reef ecosystem, the deepreef benthic ecosystem, the seamount ecosystem, and the pelagic environment would be 

delineated as separate and distinct ecosystems and managed under separate FEPs. 

For example, in the Hawaiian Archipelago, five biogeographic-based FEPs would be established: 

the Hawaii Coral Reef; the Hawaii Bank and Seamount; the Hawaii Deep Reef Slope; the Hawaii 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 316

Deep Ocean Floor; and the Hawaii Pelagics. Under Alternative 1E, existing fishery regulations 

relating to the current FMPs would be reorganized to reflect the boundaries of these FEPs (Table 

2-7). Although the regulations would be reorganized, no substantive changes would occur to 

current fishing regulations. 

4.2.5.1. American Samoa Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1E on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the American 

Samoa Archipelago. 

4.2.5.1.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1E, there would be five biogeographic-based FEPs approved and implemented 

for the American Samoa Archipelago. These would include: the American Samoa Coral Reef 

FEP, the American Samoa Bank and Seamount FEP, the American Samoa Deep Reef Slope 

FEP, the American Samoa Deep Ocean Floor FEP, and the American Samoa Pelagic FEP (see 

Table 2-7). In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would 

be managed under the Pacific Pelagic FEP. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are 

not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are 

strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything 

structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1E would also reorganize the existing species-based FMP regulations into 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations. However, no substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations would occur in Alternative 1E. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the 

short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this 

alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the American Samoa Archipelago. In 

the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the 

physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem 

management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical 

environment. 

4.2.5.1.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs to manage fisheries in the American 

Samoa Archipelago, in combination with the Pacific Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive 

and negative impacts on target and non-target species. Negative impacts would be the impact of 

fishing on target and non-target stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. 

Positive impacts would be an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. 

However, implementation of these biogeographic-based FEPs for the American Samoa 

Archipelago would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under 

the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the five biogeographic-based American Samoa FEPs and 

the associated Pacific Pelagic FEP on the biological environment of the American Samoa 

Archipelago would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 317

non-target species within the American Samoa Archipelago would continue to be evaluated 

annually using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” 

conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1E would also replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with a 

biogeographic-based FEP regulation structure for the American Samoa Archipelago. No 

substantive changes are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural 

reorganization. Thus, with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be 

no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the 

No Action Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve management 

of these resources. 

However, the smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management of the 

biological environment that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller 

ecosystems within the larger archipelagic or pelagic environment. Implementation of ecosystem 

science, principles, and management actions through future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA and other applicable laws at the 

time changes are proposed. 

4.2.5.1.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1E would not cause 

any adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the American Samoa Archipelago. 

Implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs would not be expected to affect the fishing 

operations or catches of any fisheries; rather it would simply reorganize the current speciesbased FMPs into a biogeographic-based ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, similar to 

the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEP would not 

likely lead to substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or 

result in any alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth of harvested species or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause few fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, coral 

reefs, and precious corals in the proposed five biogeographic-based American Samoa FEPs. The 

current management regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of 

bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1E would not 

result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same 

level of protection as currently under the FMPs. 

4.2.5.1.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the biogeographic-based American Samoa FEPs under this alternative 

would not change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a 

range of gear types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected 

species. Existing ESA biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 318

interactions with protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the 

current FMPs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantive changes in fishing regulations, this 

alternative would maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as under 

the No Action Alternative. In addition, implementing the biogeographic-based American Samoa 

FEPs would allow for the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) 

within the American Samoa Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected 

species can be monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated 

through area closures. Future management actions under Alternative 1E would receive 

consideration of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with ESA and other 

laws and regulations. 

4.2.5.1.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the five biogeographicbased American Samoa FEPs is anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and 

communities in the American Samoa Archipelago by increasing their participation in fishery 

management decisionmaking; thereby better utilizing local knowledge. The anticipated longterm impacts of implementing the biogeographic-based American Samoa FEPs would also be 

beneficial as it would integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that would 

increase the involvement of local communities in the management and conservation of marine 

resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create five 

biogeographic-based American Samoa FEPs. In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries 

operating in the high seas of the Western Pacific Region would operate under a Pacific Pelagic 

FEP. 

Under this alternative, fishery participants would be responsible for determining which of these 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations pertain to the areas in which their fishing operations occur. 

If a fishing operation spans a number of biogeography-based FEPs that encompass the American 

Samoa Archipelago, the participant would need to be familiar with regulations (e.g., specifying 

gear or bait type, targeting, or allowable catch) that may differ for each of these biogeographicbased FEPs. 

Alternative 1E would be the most confusing of all of the alternatives in Component 1 to fishery 

participants and would increase their regulatory burden. This especially would be true if 

regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the 

proposed biogeographic-based FEPs. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 319

4.2.5.1.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1E, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the American Samoa Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1E, managers 

and scientists would need to adapt to the biogeographic-based and multi-species nature of the 

proposed five American Samoa FEPs. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to 

consider fishery interactions within the American Samoa Archipelago, as well as the impacts of 

nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and other advisory 

groups would be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making 

recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering 

ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management 

decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would probably remain 

unchanged under Alternative 1D. 

With regard to enforcement, whereas current fishery regulations for fishing operations in the 

American Samoa Archipelago would remain unchanged, future regulations would have the 

potential for being complicated. Enforcement and management agencies would need to adapt to 

regulating five biogeographic-based FEPs within the American Samoa Archipelago, and 

consider the consistency and practicality of these regulations, as participants often would be 

subject to multiple regulations. For instance, pelagic species are highly migratory and would be 

managed and regulated under the Hawaii Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, Mariana 

Pelagics, American Samoa Pelagics, and Pacific Pelagic FEPs. Enforcement agencies would 

potentially be burdened to adapt to the multiplicity of regulations that pertain to pelagic species. 

The smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management that fails to fully 

consider the interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems within the larger archipelagic or 

pelagic environment. Furthermore, this alternative would create 26 FEPs, of which 5 FEPs would 

be within the American Samoa Archipelago. Each FEP would have separate regulations, which 

would require separate amendments whenever regulations are modified. Additionally, each FEP 

would require annual stock assessments. When compared to the other alternatives, including the 

No Action alternative, the additional administrative costs needed to manage Western Pacific 

Regional fisheries under Alternative 1E would be high. 

4.2.5.2. Mariana Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1E on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Mariana 

Archipelago. 

4.2.5.2.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1E, there would be five biogeographic-based FEPs approved and implemented 

for the Mariana Archipelago. These would include: the Mariana Coral Reef FEP, the Mariana 

Bank and Seamount FEP, the Mariana Deep Reef Slope FEP, the Mariana Deep Ocean Floor 

FEP, and the Mariana Pelagic FEP (see Table 2-7). In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries 

outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pacific Pelagic FEP. However, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 320

the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the 

current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on maps 

and would not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1E would also reorganize the existing species-based FMP regulations into 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations. However, no substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations would occur under Alternative 1E. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in 

the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this 

alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the Mariana Archipelago. In the longterm, increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical 

environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management 

approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.5.2.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs to manage fisheries in the Mariana 

Archipelago, in combination with the Pacific Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and 

negative impacts on target and non-target species. However, implementation of these 

biogeographic-based FEPs for the Mariana Archipelago would not affect the fishing operations 

or catches of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the five 

biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs and the associated Pacific Pelagic FEP on the biological 

environment would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and 

non-target species within the Mariana Archipelago would continue to be evaluated annually 

using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1E would also replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with a 

biogeographic-based FEP regulation structure for the Mariana Archipelago. No substantive 

changes are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. 

Thus, with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would be expected to improve management of these 

resources. However, the smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management of 

the biological environment that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller 

ecosystems within in the larger archipelagic or pelagic environment. Implementation of 

ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through future management plan 

amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA and other 

applicable laws at the time that changes are proposed. 

4.2.5.2.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1E would not be expected to cause 

adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the Mariana Archipelago. Implementation of 

the five biogeographic-based FEPs would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any 

fisheries; rather it would simply reorganize the current species-based FMPs into a biogeographic-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 321

based ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No Action alternative, 

the implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEP would not lead to substantial physical 

or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters 

and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of harvested species or their 

prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause negligible fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, 

coral reefs, and precious corals in the proposed five biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs. The 

current management regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of 

bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1E would not 

result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same 

level of protection that is currently provided under the FMPs. 

4.2.5.2.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in a change in fishing regulations, this alternative would 

maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as under the No Action 

alternative. In addition, implementing the biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs would allow for 

the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within the Mariana 

Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be monitored by 

NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Finally, future management 

actions proposed under Alternative 1E would include consideration of impacts on protected 

species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.5.2.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

When compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the five biogeographicbased Mariana FEPs would positively impact fishery participants and communities in the 

Mariana Archipelago by increasing their participation in fishery management decisionmaking; 

thereby better utilizing local knowledge. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the 

biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs would also be beneficial as the FEPs would integrate 

scientific information and human needs in a manner that would increase the involvement of local 

communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create five 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 322

biogeographic-based Mariana FEPs. In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries operating in the 

high seas of the Western Pacific Region would operate under a Pacific Pelagic FEP. 

Under this alternative fishery participants would be responsible for determining which of these 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations pertain to the areas in which their fishing operations occur. 

If a fishing operation spans a number of biogeography-based FEPs that encompass Mariana 

Archipelago, the participant would need to be familiar with regulations (e.g., specifying gear or 

bait type, targeting, or allowable catch) that may differ for each of these biogeographic-based 

FEPs. 

Alternative 1E would be the most confusing of all of Component 1’s alternatives to fishery 

participants and would increase their regulatory burden. This especially would be true if 

regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the 

proposed biogeographic-based FEPs. 

4.2.5.2.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1E, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Mariana Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1E, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the biogeographic-based and multi-species nature of the 

proposed five Mariana FEPs. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider 

fishery interactions within the Mariana Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery 

activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and other advisory groups 

increasingly would be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making 

recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering 

ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management 

decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems would remain unchanged under 

Alternative 1E. 

With regard to enforcement, whereas current fishery regulations for fishing operations in the 

Mariana Archipelago would remain unchanged, future regulations would have the potential to 

become overly complicated. Enforcement and management agencies would need to adapt to 

regulating five biogeographic-based FEPs within the Mariana Archipelago and consider the 

consistency and practicality of these regulations, as participants often would be subject to 

multiple regulations. For instance, pelagic species are highly migratory and would be managed 

and regulated under the Hawaii Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, Mariana Pelagics, 

American Samoa Pelagics, and Pacific Pelagic FEPs. Enforcement agencies would potentially be 

burdened to adapt to the multiplicity of regulations that pertain to pelagic species. The existence 

of so many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management that 

fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems within the larger 

archipelagic or pelagic environment. Furthermore, this alternative would create 26 FEPs, of 

which 5 FEPs would be within the Mariana Archipelago. Each FEP would have separate 

regulations, which would require separate amendments whenever regulations are modified. 

Additionally, each FEP would require annual stock assessments. When compared to the other 

alternatives, including the No Action alternative, the additional administrative costs to manage 

fisheries in such a complicated manner would be high. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 323

4.2.5.3. Hawaiian Archipelago 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1E on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

4.2.5.3.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1E, there would be five biogeographic-based FEPs approved and implemented 

for the Hawaiian Archipelago. These would include: the Hawaii Coral Reef FEP, the Hawaii 

Bank and Seamount FEP, the Hawaii Deep Reef Slope FEP, the Hawaii Deep Ocean Floor FEP, 

and the Hawaii Pelagic FEP (see Table 2-7). In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries outside 

the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed under the Pacific Pelagic FEP, consistent with 

international agreements. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically 

apparent. The boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly 

geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything 

structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1E would also reorganize the existing species-based FMP regulations into 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations. However, no substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations would occur under Alternative 1E. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in 

the short-term, there would be no significant differences between the direct and indirect impacts 

of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the Hawaiian Archipelago. In 

the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the 

physical environment associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem 

management approach would improve our understanding and conservation of the physical 

environment. 

4.2.5.3.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs to manage fisheries in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, in combination with the Pacific Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and 

negative impacts on target and non-target species. Negative impacts would be the impact of 

fishing on target and non-target stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. 

Positive impacts would include an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. 

However, implementation of these biogeographic-based FEPs for the Hawaiian Archipelago 

would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current 

FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the five biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs and the associated Pacific 

Pelagic FEP on the biological environment of the Hawaiian Archipelago would be similar to 

those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and non-target species within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria and 

thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to 

individual stocks or stock complexes. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 324

Alternative 1E would also replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with a 

biogeographic-based FEP regulation structure for the Hawaiian Archipelago. No substantive 

changes are proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. 

Thus, with regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences 

between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative. In the long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery 

impacts on target and nontarget species would improve management of these resources. 

However, the existence of so many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result 

in management of the biological environment that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness 

of these smaller ecosystems within in the larger archipelagic or pelagic environment. 

Implementation of ecosystem science, principles, and management actions through future 

management plan amendments or regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA 

and other applicable laws at the time changes are proposed. 

4.2.5.3.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1E would not cause adverse 

impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Implementation of the five 

biogeographic-based FEPs would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; 

rather it would simply reorganize the current species-based FMPs into a biogeographic-based 

ecosystem management plan. Furthermore, similar to the No Action Alternative, the 

implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs would not likely lead to substantial 

physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to 

waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of harvested species 

or their prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause negligible fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, 

coral reefs, and precious corals in the proposed five biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs. The 

current management regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of 

bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1E would not 

result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same 

level of protection as that currently provided under the FMPs. 

4.2.5.3.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantive changes in fishing regulations, this 

alternative would maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as under 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 325

the No Action alternative. In addition, implementing the biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs 

would allow for the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) within 

the Hawaiian Archipelago fisheries through which interactions with protected species can be 

monitored by NMFS, and, where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Finally, future 

management actions proposed under Alternative 1E would include consideration of impacts on 

protected species as appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.5.3.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

When compared to the No Action alternative, the implementation of the five biogeographicbased Hawaii FEPs is anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and communities in 

the Hawaiian Archipelago by increasing their participation in fishery management 

decisionmaking; thereby better utilizing local knowledge. The anticipated long-term impacts of 

implementing the biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs would also be beneficial as the FEPs may 

integrate scientific information and human needs in a manner that would increase the 

involvement of local communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create five 

biogeographic-based Hawaii FEPs. In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries operating in the 

high seas of the Western Pacific Region would operate under a Pacific Pelagic FEP. 

Under this alternative fishery participants would be responsible for determining which of these 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations pertain to the areas in which their fishing operations occur. 

If a fishing operation spans a number of biogeography-based FEPs that encompass the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, the participant would need to be familiar with regulations (e.g., specifying gear or 

bait type, targeting, or allowable catch) that may differ for each of these biogeographic-based 

FEPs. 

Alternative 1E would be the most confusing of all of Component 1’s alternatives to fishery 

participants and would increase their regulatory burden. This would especially be true if 

regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the 

proposed biogeographic-based FEPs. 

4.2.5.3.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1E, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the Hawaiian Archipelago. However, under Alternative 1E, managers and 

scientists would need to adapt to the biogeographic-based and multi-species nature of the 

proposed five Hawaii FEPs. Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider 

fishery interactions within the Hawaiian Archipelago, as well as the impacts of nonfishery 

activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and other advisory groups would 

be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making recommendations. 

However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 326

characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management decisions, and 

this heightened attention to fishery ecosystems would remain unchanged under Alternative 1E. 

With regard to enforcement, whereas current fishery regulations for fishing operations in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago would remain unchanged, future regulations would have the potential to 

become overly complicated. Enforcement and management agencies would need to adapt to 

regulating five biogeographic-based FEPs within the Hawaiian Archipelago, and consider the 

consistency and practicality of these regulations, as participants often would be subject to 

multiple regulations. For instance, pelagic species are highly migratory and would be managed 

and regulated under the Hawaii Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, Mariana Pelagics, 

American Samoa Pelagics, and Pacific Pelagic FEPs. Enforcement agencies would potentially be 

burdened to adapt to the multiplicity of regulations that pertain to pelagic species. The existence 

of so many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management that 

fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems within in the larger 

archipelagic or pelagic environment. Furthermore, this alternative would create 26 FEPs, of 

which 5 FEPs would be within the Hawaiian Archipelago. Each FEP would have separate 

regulations, which would require separate amendments whenever regulations are modified. 

Additionally, each FEP would require annual stock assessments. When compared to the other 

alternatives, including the No Action alternative, the additional administrative costs to manage 

fisheries in such a complicated manner would be high. 

4.2.5.4. PRIA 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1E on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the PRIA. 

4.2.5.4.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1E, there would be five biogeographic-based FEPs approved and implemented 

for the PRIA: the PRIA Coral Reef FEP, the PRIA Bank and Seamount FEP, the PRIA Deep 

Reef Slope FEP, the PRIA Deep Ocean Floor FEP, and the PRIA Pelagic FEP (see Table 2-7). In 

addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries outside the waters of the U.S. EEZ would be managed 

under the Pacific Pelagic FEP. However, the boundaries of the proposed FEPs are not physically 

apparent. The boundaries under either the current FMPs or the proposed FEPs are strictly 

geographic representations designated on maps and would not involve placing anything 

structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1E would also reorganize the existing species-based FMP regulations into 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations. However, no substantive changes to current fishing 

regulations would occur under Alternative 1E. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in 

the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this 

alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative to the PRIA. In the long-term, increased 

consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment 

associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management approach would 

improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 327

4.2.5.4.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs to manage fisheries in the PRIA, in 

combination with the Pacific Pelagic FEP, would have potential positive and negative impacts on 

target and non-target species. Negative impacts would be the impact of fishing on target and nontarget stocks, which would continue to be managed for sustainability. Positive impacts would be 

an anticipated improvement in fishery ecosystem management. However, implementation of 

these biogeographic-based FEPs for the PRIA would not affect the fishing operations or catches 

of any fisheries operating under the current FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the five biogeographicbased PRIA FEPs and the associated Pacific Pelagic FEP on the biological environment of the 

PRIA would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The status and trends of target and nontarget species within the PRIA would continue to be evaluated annually using existing criteria 

and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as currently applied to 

individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1E would also replace the current species-based FMP regulation structure with a 

biogeographic-based FEP regulation structure for the PRIA. No substantive changes are 

proposed to the regulations or to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. Thus, with 

regard to the biological environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the 

direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action alternative. In the 

long-term, increased consideration of fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on target and 

nontarget species would improve management of these resources. However, the existence of so 

many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management of the 

biological environment that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller 

ecosystems within the larger archipelagic or pelagic environment. Implementation of ecosystem 

science, principles, and management actions through future management plan amendments or 

regulatory amendments to this FEP would be subject to NEPA and other applicable laws at that 

time. 

4.2.5.4.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A, implementing Alternative 1E would not cause adverse 

impacts on EFH or HAPC for species in the PRIA. Implementation of the five biogeographicbased FEPs would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries; rather it would 

simply reorganize the current species-based FMPs into a biogeographic-based ecosystem 

management plan. Furthermore, when compared to the No Action alternative, the 

implementation of the five biogeographic-based FEPs would not lead to substantial physical or 

biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any alteration to waters and 

substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of harvested species or their 

prey. 

The predominant fishing gear types (hook-and-line, troll, traps) used in the Western Pacific 

Region cause negligible fishing-related impacts on the benthic habitat of bottomfish, crustaceans, 

coral reefs, and precious corals in the proposed five biogeographic-based PRIA FEPs. The 

current management regime, under the FMPs, protects habitat through prohibitions on the use of 

bottom-set nets, bottom trawls, explosives, and poisons. Implementing Alternative 1E would not 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 328

result in a change in fishing gear or strategy, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same 

level of impacts as the No Action alternative. 

4.2.5.4.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the biogeographic-based PRIA FEPs under this alternative would not 

change existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear 

types and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing 

ESA biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

This alternative would not result in any substantive changes in fishing regulations and would 

maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species that is currently provided 

under the No Action alternative. Additionally, implementing the biogeographic-based PRIA 

FEPs would allow for the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) for 

fisheries operating in the PRIA through which interactions with protected species can be 

monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, reduced, or mitigated. Finally, future 

management actions under Alternative 1E would continue to have impacts on protected species 

evaluated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.5.4.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

When compared to the No Action alternative, the implementation of the five biogeographicbased PRIA FEPs would positively impact fishery participants in the PRIA by allowing the 

management of fisheries on an ecosystem-basis. There is no fishing community defined under 

MSA for the PRIA. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing the biogeographic-based 

PRIA FEPs would also be beneficial as it may integrate scientific information and human needs 

in a manner that increases the involvement of participants in the management and conservation 

of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create five 

biogeographic-based PRIA FEPs. In addition, the domestic pelagic fisheries operating in the high 

seas of the Western Pacific Region would operate under a Pacific Pelagic FEP. 

Under this alternative fishery participants would be responsible for determining which of these 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations pertain to the areas in which their fishing operations occur. 

If a fishing operation spans a number of biogeography-based FEPs that encompass the PRIA, the 

participant would need to be familiar with regulations (e.g., specifying gear or bait type, 

targeting, or allowable catch) that may differ for each of these biogeographic-based FEPs. 

Alternative 1E would be the most confusing of all of Component 1’s alternatives to fishery 

participants and would increase their regulatory burden. This would especially be true if 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 329

regulations for the pelagic fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the 

proposed biogeographic-based FEPs. 

4.2.5.4.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1E, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

fisheries within the PRIA. However, under Alternative 1E, managers and scientists would need 

to adapt to the biogeographic-based and multi-species nature of the proposed five PRIA FEPs. 

Managers and scientists increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions within the 

PRIA, as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Management 

plan teams and other advisory groups increasingly would be asked to consider these indirect and 

often complex impacts when making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and 

scientists increasingly are considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting 

research and making management decisions, and this heightened attention to fisheries’ 

ecosystems would remain unchanged under Alternative 1E. 

With regard to enforcement, whereas current fishery regulations for fishing operations in the 

PRIA would remain unchanged, future regulations would have the potential to become overly 

complicated. Enforcement and management agencies would need to adapt to regulating five 

biogeographic-based FEPs within the PRIA and consider the consistency and practicality of 

these regulations, as participants often would be subject to multiple regulations. For instance, 

pelagic species are highly migratory and would be managed and regulated under the Hawaii 

Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, Mariana Pelagics, American Samoa Pelagics, and 

Pacific Pelagic FEPs. Enforcement agencies would potentially be burdened to adapt to the 

multiplicity of regulations that pertain to pelagic species. The existence of so many FEPs for 

smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in management that fails to fully consider the 

interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems within in the larger archipelagic or pelagic 

environment. Furthermore, this alternative would create 26 FEPs, of which 5 FEPs would be 

within the PRIA. Each FEP would have separate regulations, which would require separate 

amendments whenever regulations are modified. Additionally, each FEP would require annual 

stock assessments. When compared to the other alternatives, including the No Action alternative, 

the additional administrative costs to manage fisheries in such a complicated manner would be 

high. 

4.2.5.5. Pelagic 

The following sections discuss the potential impacts of Alternative 1A on the physical 

environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration, specific to the fisheries 

operating under the current Pelagics FMP. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 330

4.2.5.5.1.Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 1E, there would be five FEPs approved and implemented to manage the 

pelagic fisheries: the Hawaii Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, Mariana Pelagics, 

American Samoa Pelagics, and Pacific Pelagic FEPs (see Table 2-7). However, the boundaries of 

the proposed FEPs are not physically apparent. The boundaries under either the current Pelagics 

FMP or the proposed FEPs are strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would 

not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. 

Alternative 1E would also reorganize the existing species-based FMP regulations into these FEP 

regulations. However, no substantive changes to current fishing regulations would occur under 

Alternative 1E. Thus, with regard to the physical environment in the short-term, there would be 

no differences between the direct and indirect impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the 

No Action Alternative to the pelagic environment. In the long-term, increased consideration of 

fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment associated with the 

successful implementation of an ecosystem management approach would improve our 

understanding and conservation of the physical environment. 

4.2.5.5.2.Biological Environment 

Implementation of the five FEPs to manage the pelagic fisheries in the Western Pacific Region 

would have potential positive and negative impacts on target and non-target species. Negative 

impacts would include reduction of target and non-target stocks, which would continue to be 

managed for sustainability. Positive impacts would include an anticipated improvement in 

fishery ecosystem management. However, implementation of these FEPs under this alternative 

would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any fisheries operating under the current 

FMPs. Thus, the impacts of the five FEPs would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. The 

status and trends of target and non-target species would continue to be evaluated annually using 

existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and “overfished” conditions as 

currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. 

Alternative 1E would also replace the current species-based FMP regulatory structure with 

biogeographic-based FEP regulations. No substantive changes are proposed to the regulations or 

to the fisheries through this structural reorganization. Thus, with regard to the biological 

environment in the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct and indirect 

impacts of this alternative and the impacts of the No Action Alternative. Since implementing this 

alternative would not alter the regulatory nature of the current pelagic fisheries, the impacts of 

this alternative would be similar to those under Alternative 1A. In the long-term, increased 

consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the physical environment 

associated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem management approach would 

improve our understanding and conservation of the physical environment. However, the 

existence of so many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result in 

management of the biological environment that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of 

these smaller ecosystems within in the larger pelagic environment. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 331

4.2.5.5.3.Essential Fish Habitat 

When compared to Alternative 1A implementing Alternative 1E would not cause adverse 

impacts on EFH or HAPC for pelagic species. Implementation of the five FEPs for pelagic 

species would not affect the fishing operations or catches of any current pelagic fishery; rather 

the action would simply reorganize the current Pelagics FMP into five FEPs. Furthermore, when 

compared to the No Action Alternative, the implementation of the five FEPs would not lead to 

substantial physical or biological alterations to the oceanic and coastal habitat, or result in any 

alteration to waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth of 

harvested species or their prey. Implementing Alternative 1E would not result in a change in 

fishing gear or strategy, therefore, EFH and HAPC would maintain the same level of protection 

as currently afforded under the Pelagics FMP. 

4.2.5.5.4.Protected Species 

The implementation of the biogeographic-based FEPs under this alternative would not change 

existing regulations including those that require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types 

and fishing methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Existing ESA 

biological opinions imposed terms and conditions to reduce and mitigate interactions with 

protected species and have concluded that the fisheries operating under the current FMPs are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely 

modify critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

Since this alternative would not result in any substantive change in fishing regulations, this 

alternative would maintain the same level of protection and impacts to protected species as under 

the No Action Alternative. In addition, implementing the biogeographic-based FEPs would allow 

for the continuation of data collection programs (e.g., logbooks, observers) through which 

interactions with protected species can be monitored by NMFS, and where applicable, prevented, 

reduced, or mitigated. Finally, future management actions proposed under Alternative 1E would 

include consideration of impacts on protected species as appropriate in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations. 

4.2.5.5.5.Fishery Participants and Communities 

When compared to the No Action alternative, the implementation of the five FEPs for pelagic 

species under this alternative is anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and 

communities in the Hawaiian Archipelago by increasing their participation in fishery 

management decisionmaking; thereby better utilizing local knowledge. The anticipated longterm impacts of implementing the FEPs would also be positive as the FEPs may integrate 

scientific information and human needs in a manner that increases the involvement of local 

communities in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, a consideration of the Federal action is that this shift 

toward ecosystem-based FEPs should be done in a manner that is understandable to fishery 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 332

participants and with minimal regulatory burden. This alternative would create five FEPs for 

pelagic species. Under this alternative fishery participants would be responsible for determining 

which of these five FEPs for pelagic species regulations pertain to the areas in which their 

fishing operations occur. This would add an unnecessary burden to the pelagic fishermen 

targeting these highly migratory species. This would especially be true if regulations for the 

pelagic fisheries in the future were to become overly specific or inconsistent with the proposed 

archipelagic-based FEPs. 

4.2.5.5.6.Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1E, no substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the 

pelagic fisheries within the Western Pacific Region. However, under Alternative 1E, scientists 

increasingly would be asked to consider fishery interactions with other species, as well as the 

impacts of nonfishery activities on the marine environment. Management plan teams and other 

advisory groups would be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when 

making recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are 

considering ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making 

management decisions, and this heightened attention to fishery ecosystems would probably 

remain unchanged under Alternative 1E. 

With regard to enforcement, whereas current fishery regulations for pelagic fishing operations 

would remain unchanged, future regulations would have the potential to become overly 

complicated. Enforcement and management agencies would need to adapt to regulating five 

FEPs for pelagic species, and consider the consistency and practicality of these regulations, as 

participants often would be subject to multiple regulations. Under Alternative 1E, pelagic species 

would be managed and regulated under the Hawaii Pelagics, Guam Pelagics, CNMI Pelagics, 

Mariana Pelagics, American Samoa Pelagics, and Pacific Pelagic FEPs. Enforcement agencies 

would potentially be burdened to adapt to the multiplicity of regulations that pertain to pelagic 

species. The existence of so many FEPs for smaller ecosystems, semi-unique units, could result 

in management that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems 

within in the larger pelagic environment. Furthermore, this alternative would create 26 FEPs, of 

which 5 FEPs would be associated with the pelagic fisheries. Each FEP would have separate 

regulations, which would require separate amendments whenever regulations are modified. 

Additionally, each FEP would require annual stock assessments. When compared to the other 

alternatives, including the No Action alternative, the additional administrative costs to manage 

fisheries in such a complicated manner would be high. 

4.3. Component 2: Species to Be Managed Under Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

Component 2 is regulatory in nature and considered part of the Federal action in this document. 

Component 2 is contingent upon selecting one of the action alternatives under Component 1. For 

each alterative under Component 2 the potential impacts on the physical environment, biological 

environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery participants and communities, and 

enforcement and administration are discussed. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 333

4.3.1. Alternative 2A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current MUS Lists 

4.3.1.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 2A, the current lists of MUS contained in the four existing demersal FMPs 

would be combined and used in each of the demersal FEPs. The species currently managed under 

the Pelagics FMP would not change and that MUS list would apply to the Pelagic FEP. The 

MUS lists currently contained in the existing FMPs include those species that are caught in 

quantities sufficient to warrant management or specific monitoring by NMFS and the Council. 

Species caught in lesser amounts are also monitored; however, they are not generally included in 

the annual evaluations of stocks that are currently required for MUS under the MSA. The 

primary impact of inclusion of species in an MUS list is that the species (i.e., the fishery 

targeting that species) can be directly managed. Impacts on the physical environment of fisheries 

on non-MUS species are regulated through NMFS’s list of allowable gears for each fishery. In 

the short term, current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to 

be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3-1. In the 

long term, management changes would continue to be considered via the MSA process or 

through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. 

4.3.1.2. Biological Environment 

Impacts on target and nontarget stocks under Alternative 2A are anticipated to be the same as 

those described in Chapter 3. Again, the MUS lists currently contained in the Council’s existing 

FMPs are based on those species that are caught in quantities sufficient to warrant management 

or specific monitoring and the primary impact of inclusion of species in an MUS list is that the 

species (i.e., the fishery targeting that species) can be directly managed. Under this alternative, 

changes to the MUS list would continue to be considered as a part of the existing adaptive 

approach to management. 

4.3.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 2A, the existing fishery regulations would remain unchanged, and designated 

EFH and HAPC in the Western Pacific Region would remain the same. Impacts of current 

fisheries’ activities on EFH and HAPC would be similar to those described in Chapter 3 and the 

No Action alternative, as described in Chapter 4. Under Alternative 2A, EFH and HAPC 

designations would not be affected because the current list of MUS would remain unchanged. 

4.3.1.4. Protected Species 

In the short term, impacts on protected species are anticipated to be the same as those described 

in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 for the No Action alternative. Current regulations and MUS lists 

would remain unchanged, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, and full 

consideration of impacts on protected species would continue to be given in accordance with the 

MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, and other applicable laws. In the long term, consideration of 

expanded MUS lists could result in increased monitoring and management of resources of 

importance to protected species. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 334

4.3.1.5. Impacts on Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities, as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. If the decision is made to implement FEPs, the 

inclusion of some demersal MUS in FEPs for areas in which they are not actually present could 

be confusing to fishery participants, local communities, and other stakeholders. 

4.3.1.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would not have any immediate impacts on management, administration, or 

enforcement, which would continue as described in Chapter 3. Because not all MUS are present 

throughout the region, this alternative would result in the inclusion of some species that are not 

actually present in some FEP areas. Although unlikely to have any management impacts, their 

inclusion could be confusing to fishery scientists, managers, and enforcement personnel. In 

addition, as discussed previously, current MSA requirements specify that annual evaluations be 

prepared for stocks managed by the Council. It is not clear how these evaluations would account 

for the inclusion of species that are not present within a given FEP area. 

4.3.2. Alternative 2B: Define FEP MUS as Those Existing MUS That Are 

Known to Occur Within Each FEP Boundary (Preferred) 

4.3.2.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 2B, those MUS currently listed under the existing five FMPs and known to 

occur within each selected FEP area would be combined to form the MUS list for each FEP. In 

the short term, impacts on the physical environment would be anticipated to be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2A and in Chapter 3, as the removal from the MUS list of species not 

physically present does not change the effectiveness of existing management measures for a 

given area. Current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be 

prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3-1. In the 

long term, management changes would continue to be considered via the MSA process, which 

would apply to fisheries targeting the refined MUS list or through changes to NMFS’s list of 

allowable gears. 

4.3.2.2. Biological Environment 

Impacts on target and nontarget stocks under Alternative 2B would be anticipated to be the same

as those described in Alternative 2A and Chapter 3. Again, the removal from the MUS list of 

species not physically present would not change the effectiveness of existing management 

measures for a given area. Under this alternative, changes to the MUS list would continue to be 

considered as a part of the existing adaptive approach to management under the MSA. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 335

4.3.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 2B, the existing fishery regulations and designations of EFH or HAPC in the 

Western Pacific Region would remain unchanged. Impacts of current fisheries’ activities on EFH 

and HAPC would be similar to those under the No Action alternative. Under Alternative 2B, 

EFH and HAPC designations would not be affected because the current list of MUS known to be 

present in the current FMPs would remain unchanged. 

4.3.2.4. Protected Species 

Impacts on protected species would be anticipated to be the same as those described under 

Alternative 2A and in Chapter 3, as the removal from the MUS list of species not physically 

present would not change the effectiveness of existing management measures for a given area. 

Current regulations would remain unchanged, fisheries would be adaptively managed, and full 

consideration of impacts on protected species would continue to be given in accordance with the 

MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, and other applicable laws. 

4.3.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, it would eliminate the confusion that 

could result from the inclusion on the MUS list of species not physically present in a given FEP 

area. 

4.3.2.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would slightly reduce impacts on management, administration, and enforcement 

as compared with Alternative 2A because it would avoid the confusion that could result from the 

inclusion on the MUS list of species not physically present and would eliminate the issue of how 

to address them in the annual evaluations required under the MSA. 

4.3.3. Alternative 2C: Define FEP MUS as the Existing MUS Plus 

Incidentally Caught and Associated Species That Are Known to Occur Within 

Each FEP Boundary 

4.3.3.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 2C, each FEP would include as MUS those target, incidentally caught, and 

associated species (species that occupy the same or a similar niche such as prey competitors or 

habitat competitors) that are known to occur within each FEP boundary. In the short term, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 336

impacts on the physical environment would be the same as those described for Alternative 2A 

and in Chapter 3, as the removal from the MUS lists of species not physically present would not 

change the effectiveness of existing management measures for a given area. Current regulations 

would remain unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions 

of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3-1. In the long term, management 

changes would continue to be considered via the MSA process, which would apply to fisheries 

targeting the expanded MUS list or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. 

4.3.3.2. Biological Environment 

Because fishery managers’ direct management authority is limited to operations affecting listed 

MUS, this alternative would allow fishery operations to be more easily constrained if found to 

impact any fishery-related species known to occur within the FEP boundary. However, because 

incidentally caught and associated species are not currently subject to significant harvest levels 

and the impact on them of reducing (or increasing) harvests of target species is unknown, it is 

uncertain at this time what fishery management actions would be appropriate for their 

management. 

4.3.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 2C, the existing fishery regulations would remain unchanged, as would 

designations of EFH or HAPC in the Western Pacific Region. Impacts of current fishing 

activities on EFH and HAPC would be similar to those under the No Action alternative. Under 

Alternative 2C, EFH and HAPC designations would not be affected because the current list of 

MUS known to be present would remain unchanged. Also, those species that are incidentally 

caught would also be listed as MUS under Alternative 2C; however, potential additions to the 

listed MUS are not expected to adversely affect the EFH or HAPC under currently managed 

areas. 

4.3.3.4. Protected Species 

Impacts on protected species would be the same as those described under Alternative 2A and in 

Chapter 3, as the removal from the MUS list of species not physically present would not change 

the effectiveness of existing management measures for a given area. The addition of incidentally 

caught and associated species to the MUS lists would not have any impact on protected species 

as they are not the target of fishery operations and are not harvested in significant numbers. 

Current regulations would remain unchanged, fisheries would continue to be adaptively 

managed, and full consideration of impacts on protected species would continue to be given in 

accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, and other applicable laws. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 337

4.3.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, it would eliminate the confusion that 

could result from the inclusion of species not physically present in a given FEP area. 

4.3.3.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would increase impacts on management, administration, and enforcement as 

compared with Alternative 2A because it would add species to the MUS lists that would require 

monitoring and annual evaluation. The number of additional species would vary depending on 

the location and the definition of FEP boundaries; however, there could potentially be several 

thousand species. 

4.3.4. Alternative 2D: Define FEP MUS as the Existing MUS Plus 

Incidentally Caught and Associated Species That Are Believed to Potentially 

Occur Within Each FEP Boundary 

4.3.4.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 2D, each FEP would include as MUS those target, incidentally caught, and 

associated species (species that occupy the same or a similar niche such as prey competitors or 

habitat competitors) that are believed to potentially occur within each FEP boundary. In the short 

term, impacts on the physical environment would be the same as those described for Alternative 

2A and in Chapter 3, as the removal from MUS of species not physically present would not 

change the effectiveness of existing management measures for a given area. Current regulations 

would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of 

EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3-1. In the long term, management changes 

would continue to be considered via the MSA process, which would apply to fisheries targeting 

the expanded MUS list or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. 

4.3.4.2. Biological Environment 

Because fishery managers’ direct management authority is limited to operations affecting listed 

MUS, this alternative would allow fishery operations to be more easily constrained if found to 

affect any fishery-associated species believed to potentially occur in each FEP boundary. 

However, because incidentally caught and associated species are not currently subject to 

significant harvest levels and the impact on them of reducing (or increasing) harvests of target 

species is unknown, additional research would be needed in many cases to determine what 

fishery management actions would be appropriate for their management. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 338

4.3.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 2D, the existing fishery regulations and designations of EFH or HAPC in the 

Western Pacific Region would remain unchanged. Impacts of current fisheries’ activities on EFH 

and HAPC would be similar to the 2A alternative. Under Alternative 2D, EFH and HAPC 

designations would be adaptively managed according to the existing definitions for the current 

MUS believed to potentially occur, incidentally caught, and associated species believed to 

potentially occur within each FEP boundary. 

4.3.4.4. Protected Species 

Impacts on protected species would be the same as those described under Alternative 2A and in 

Chapter 3, as the removal from MUS of species not physically present would not change the 

effectiveness of existing management measures for a given area. The addition of incidentally 

caught and associated species to the MUS lists would not have any impact on protected species 

as these species are not the target of fishery operations and are not harvested in significant 

numbers. Current regulations would remain unchanged, fisheries would continue to be 

adaptively managed, and full consideration of impacts on protected species would continue to be 

given in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, and other applicable laws. 

4.3.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, it may cause some confusion if there 

were a large number of species “believed” to be within a given FEP area. 

4.3.4.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would significantly increase impacts on management, administration, and 

enforcement as compared with Alternative 2A because it would add species to the MUS lists that 

would require monitoring and annual evaluation. The number of additional species would vary 

depending on the location and the definition of FEP boundaries; however, there could potentially 

be several thousand species. 

4.4. Component 3: Council Advisory Process 

The Council’s current advisory process follows the MSA and includes the general public, fishery 

participants and support sectors, social and biological scientists, and local and Federal resource 

managers in the development of Federal fishery management recommendations. The existing 

structure for these advisory bodies is based on a combination of species and stakeholder interest 

groupings. Given the place-based nature of ecosystem management, several alternatives for 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 339

modifying the existing structure toward a more geographic orientation are considered under 

Component 3. 

Component 3 is nonregulatory (i.e., has no regulatory effect) and is included in this EIS to assist 

the Council in identifying an appropriate advisory process under an ecosystem-based fishery 

management structure. For each alterative under Component 3 the potential impacts on the 

physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration are discussed. 

4.4.1. Alternative 3A: No Action—Do Not Change the Current Advisory 

Structure 

4.4.1.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 3A, the Council’s current advisory structure would not change to one 

reflecting the geographical orientation of ecosystem management and the need for increased 

participation by land-based interests. The Council would continue to utilize its existing speciesbased Plan Teams, Advisory Panels, Standing Committees, and the SSC to provide scientific and 

management recommendations to the Council. This alternative would not have any impact on the 

physical environment as current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would 

continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 

3-1. In the long term, management changes would continue to be considered via the MSA 

process or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. 

4.4.1.2. Biological Environment 

Under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on target and 

nontarget stocks would be the same as those described in Chapter 3. 

4.4.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 3A, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential Fish Habitat and HAPC would continue to be designated and adaptively managed 

under the MSA process. 

4.4.1.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 3A, impacts on protected species would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, with full consideration of impacts on 

protected species given in accordance with all applicable laws. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 340

4.4.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, the misalignment of species-based Plan 

Teams and place-based FEPs could result in some confusion for those who participate in the 

fishery management process. 

4.4.1.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration could be significant under Alternative 3A, 

depending on the FEP boundaries selected. If archipelagic or other place-based FEP boundaries 

were implemented, an ecosystem-based approach would require that the existing species-based 

Plan Teams meet together to discuss each FEP’s ecosystem and the impacts of all active fisheries 

on each ecosystem. Given that there are currently five Plan Teams and potentially five or more 

FEPs, the cost of these large meetings in time and money could be high. In addition, this 

alternative would result in a misalignment between the species-based Plan Teams and Standing 

Committees and the place-based FEPs that could result in fragmented stock assessments, annual 

reports, and management recommendations. Impacts on enforcement would be anticipated to be 

unchanged as current regulations would remain in place. 

4.4.2. Alternative 3B: Add a Single FEP Plan Team to the Current Advisory 

Structure 

4.4.2.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the existing Advisory Panels, species-based Plan Teams, SSC, and 

Standing Committees would be maintained, and one new FEP Plan Team would be established 

to monitor the development and implementation of FEP(s) for the Western Pacific Region. In the 

short term, this alternative would not have any impact on the physical environment as current 

regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and 

definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes 

would continue to be considered via fishery regulations or through changes to NMFS’s list of 

allowable gears. In the long term, the addition of an FEP Plan Team that would oversee all of the 

FEPs would improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on the physical 

environment; however, it is not clear whether a single plan team could effectively monitor all 

FEPs to completely achieve this result. 

4.4.2.2. Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be anticipated to be the same as those described in Chapter 3. 

In the long term, the addition of an FEP Plan Team that would oversee all of the FEPs would 

improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on target and nontarget stocks; 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 341

however, it is not clear whether a single plan team could effectively monitor all FEPs to 

completely achieve this result. 

4.4.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 3B, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

EFH and HAPC would continue to be designated and adaptively managed under the existing 

regulations. 

4.4.2.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 3B, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, with full 

consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with all applicable laws. In the 

long term, the addition of an FEP Plan Team that would oversee all of the FEPs would be 

anticipated to improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on protected 

species; however, it is not clear whether a single plan team could effectively monitor all FEPs to 

completely achieve this result. 

4.4.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, the addition of a single FEP Plan Team

could either clarify the FEP management process for those who wish to participate in it or could 

lead to confusion by overlaying the existing species-based Plan Teams and creating unclear lines 

of communication. 

4.4.2.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration would be anticipated to be moderate under 

Alternative 3B. In the short term, the establishment and implementation of a single additional 

FEP Plan Team would not represent a major cost. In the long term, the addition of an FEP Plan 

Team that would oversee all of the FEPs would be anticipated to improve our understanding and 

management of fisheries in the Western Pacific Region; however, it is not clear whether a single 

plan team could effectively monitor all FEPs to achieve this result. Impacts on enforcement 

would be anticipated to be unchanged as current regulations would remain in place. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 342

4.4.3. Alternative 3C: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan 

Teams, and Five Standing Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP Plan 

Teams, and FEP Standing Committees 

4.4.3.1. Physical Environment 

Under Alternative 3C, the existing Advisory Panels, FMP Plan Teams, and five Standing 

Committees (Pelagics, Crustaceans, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Precious Corals, and 

Ecosystems and Habitat) would be replaced with FEP Advisory Panels and FEP Plan Teams 

based on each FEP’s boundaries (e.g., a Hawaii FEP Plan Team, a Mariana Archipelago 

Advisory Panel). The single SSC would continue to function as at present. The FEP Advisory 

Panels, Plan Teams, and Standing Committees would assume all of the duties and 

responsibilities of the existing groups, including the review of fisheries catch-and-effort data and 

the preliminary development of appropriate management measures based on ecosystem 

principles. 

Each FEP Plan Team would develop annual reports for all fisheries within the FEP boundaries 

for which they are responsible, and all groups would provide advice to the Council as under the 

current process described in Alternative 3A and Chapter 3. In the short term, this alternative 

would not have any impact on the physical environment as current regulations would be 

unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and 

HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes would continue to be 

considered via fishery regulations or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. In the 

long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned with the FEPs would be 

anticipated to substantially improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on 

the physical environment through the holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by 

each FEP advisory group. 

4.4.3.2. Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be anticipated to be the same as those described in Alternative 

3A and Chapter 3. In the long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned 

with the FEPs would improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on target 

and nontarget species through the holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by 

each FEP advisory group. 

4.4.3.3. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 3C, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Alternative 3A and Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the 

MSA, with full consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with all 

applicable laws. In the long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned 

with the FEPs would improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 343

protected species through the holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by each 

FEP advisory group. 

4.4.3.4. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, the implementation of a place-based 

advisory structure that is aligned with the FEPs would be anticipated to enhance opportunities for 

participation in the management process by fishery participants and communities as there would 

be clearly defined advisory groups with responsibility for each FEP area with which to interact. 

The alignment of the advisory groups with the geographic locations of fisheries and communities 

would also be anticipated to increase the sense of shared ownership and investment in the 

management of marine resources by both residents and managers as FEP advisory bodies would 

have responsibility for a place rather than a species or stakeholder interest. 

4.4.3.5. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration are anticipated to be negative under Alternative 3C. 

The transition to a place-based advisory structure would entail significant and ongoing costs, as 

to be successful each FEP Plan Team would need to include members with local expertise in 

each of the five species groups managed by the Council. Because of the remoteness of the 

Pacific Islands region and limited number of major universities or other research institutions, 

finding a sufficient number of members to participate in each of the FEP Plan Teams would be 

difficult and would likely require recruitment from other areas. These recruits may or may not 

have training or knowledge of local conditions, and their participation would entail significant 

travel time and costs. If the FEP Plan Teams were comprised of only the limited number of 

available local experts (i.e., current FMP Plan Team members), then each member would likely 

have to serve on numerous FEP Plan Teams. This would represent a significant increase in their 

responsibilities and time commitments. Impacts on enforcement would be anticipated to be 

unchanged as current regulations would remain in place. 

4.4.4. Alternative 3D: Replace the Current FMP Advisory Panels, Plan 

Teams, and Five Standing Committees With FEP Advisory Panels, FEP 

Standing Committees, and Two FEP Plan Teams (Preferred) 

4.4.4.1. Physical Environment 

As in Alternative 3C, this alternative would replace the existing Advisory Panels and five of the 

Standing Committees with FEP Advisory Panels and FEP Standing Committees. However, this 

alternative would replace the existing five FMP Plan Teams with a single Demersal FEP Plan 

Team and a single Pelagic FEP Plan Team that would each be responsible for overseeing the 

development and implementation of all demersal and pelagic FEPs, respectively. All groups 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 344

would provide advice to the Council as under the current process described in Chapter 3. In the 

short term this alternative would not have any impact on the physical environment as current 

regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and 

definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes 

would continue to be considered via the MSA or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable 

gears. In the long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned with the 

FEPs would improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on the physical 

environment through the holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by each FEP 

advisory group. 

4.4.4.2. Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be anticipated to be the same as those described in Chapter 3. 

In the long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned with the FEPs 

would improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on target and nontarget 

species through the holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by each FEP 

advisory group. 

4.4.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 3D, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

EFH and HAPC would continue to be designated and adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.4.4.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 3D, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, with full 

consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with applicable laws. In the 

long term, the change to a place-based advisory structure that is aligned with the FEPs would 

improve our understanding and management of fishery impacts on protected species through the 

holistic consideration of all impacts within a given area by each FEP advisory group. 

4.4.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. The increased alignment of the advisory groups 

with interrelated fisheries would also be anticipated to increase the sense of shared ownership 

and investment in the management of marine resources by both residents and managers as FEP 

advisory bodies would now be tasked with a broad range of fisheries (e.g., all demersal fisheries) 

rather than a single species or interest. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 345

4.4.4.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration are not anticipated to be substantial under 

Alternative 3D; however, the short-term transition to a place-based advisory structure would 

entail some costs. This alternative would result in the combination of current demersal Plan 

Teams (Bottomfish, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems) to make up the 

single Demersal Plan Team that would be responsible for all FEPs for demersal fisheries. The 

current Pelagics FMP Plan Team would become the Pelagic FEP Plan Team with no changes. 

Long-term positive impacts are expected under this alternative as additional costs are anticipated 

to be minimal and could even be reduced as the Council staff would only have to staff and brief 

two Plan Teams on current issues as opposed to the existing five. In addition, the utilization of 

the same FEP Plan Team across all demersal FEPs would be anticipated to increase the transfer 

of experience and knowledge between FEP areas while maintaining the holistic consideration of 

all impacts within a given area. Similarly, the continued utilization of a single Pelagics Plan 

Team would be anticipated to maintain the current broad and integrated approach to the 

management of migratory species that range across the Western Pacific Region. Impacts on 

enforcement would be anticipated to be unchanged as current regulations would remain in place. 

4.5. Component 4: Regional Coordination 

In the Western Pacific Region, management of ocean and coastal activities is administered by a 

number of agencies at the Federal, state, county, and village level. Many individual agencies 

administer programs and initiatives that address sometimes overlapping ocean and coastal 

components. A primary reason for including regional coordination as a component for 

consideration in the establishment of FEPs is its ability to address nonfishing impacts on marine 

ecosystems. 

Component 4 is nonregulatory (i.e., has no regulatory effect) and is included in this EIS to assist 

the Council in identifying appropriate coordination activities under an ecosystem-based fishery 

management structure. For each alterative under Component 4 the potential impacts on the 

physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, fishery 

participants and communities, and enforcement and administration are discussed. 

4.5.1. Alternative 4A: No Action—Do Not Establish Ocean Council Type 

Groups 

4.5.1.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council would not establish or support additional Ocean Council type 

groups (composed of multiple agencies, community groups, NGOs, and private business) but 

would continue to provide information regarding the impacts of land-based and nonfishing 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 346

activities through its membership on the existing Hawaii Ocean and Coastal Committee and as 

requested on an ad hoc basis. This alternative would not have any impact on the physical 

environment as current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue 

to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. 

However, not considering the full range of impacts of nonfishing activities on marine ecosystems 

could result in habitat damage or loss of marine resources. Management changes would continue 

to be considered via the MSA process or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. 

4.5.1.2. Biological Environment 

Under Alternative 4A, current regulations would be unchanged, and impacts on target and 

nontarget stocks would be the same as those described in Chapter 3. However, not considering 

the full range of impacts of nonfishing activities on marine ecosystems could result in habitat 

damage or loss of marine resources. 

4.5.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 4A, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.5.1.4. Protected Species 

Under this alternative, impacts on protected species would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, with full consideration of impacts on 

protected species given in accordance with other applicable laws. 

4.5.1.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. However, not considering the full range of impacts 

of nonfishing activities on marine ecosystems could result in stock depletion, habitat damage, 

and the degradation or loss of marine resources on which fishery participants and communities 

depend. 

4.5.1.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would not have any impacts on management, administration, or enforcement, 

which would continue as described in Chapter 3. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 347

4.5.2. Alternative 4B: Establish Regional Ecosystem Council Committees 

(Preferred) 

4.5.2.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council would establish Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committees 

made up of executive-level representatives from Federal, state, and local government agencies, 

businesses, and nongovernmental organizations that have responsibility or interest in land-based 

and nonfishing activities that potentially affect the marine environment. Committee membership 

would be by invitation and would provide a mechanism for the Council and member agencies to 

share information on programs and activities and to coordinate management efforts or resources 

to address nonfishing-related issues that could affect ocean and coastal resources within and 

beyond the jurisdiction of the Council. These committees would be considered advisory panels 

under the MSA. Committee meetings would coincide with regularly scheduled Council 

meetings, and recommendations made by the committee to the Council would be advisory, as 

would recommendations made by the Council to member agencies. In the short term, this 

alternative would not have any impact on the physical environment as current regulations would 

be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH 

and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes would continue to be 

considered via the MSA or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. In the long term, 

the establishment of Regional Ecosystem Committees would enhance the Council’s ability to 

coordinate with member management agencies to address non–fishing-related issues that could 

impact the physical environment. 

4.5.2.2. Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be anticipated to be the same as those described in Chapter 3. 

In the long term, the establishment of Regional Ecosystem Committees would enhance the 

Council’s ability to coordinate with member management agencies to address nonfishing-related 

issues that could impact target and nontarget stocks. 

4.5.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 4B, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.5.2.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 4B, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the FEPs, with full 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 348

consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, 

NEPA, and other applicable laws. In the long term, the establishment of Regional Ecosystem 

Committees would enhance the Council’s ability to coordinate with member management 

agencies to address nonfishing-related issues that could impact protected species. 

4.5.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. The establishment of Regional Ecosystem 

Committees would provide additional venues for engagement in the management process and 

may attract new participants who would bring additional expertise and local perspectives to that 

process, thus further improving the status and management of marine fisheries. 

4.5.2.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration would be significant under Alternative 4B. The 

creation of one or more Regional Ecosystem Committees would entail some ongoing travel and 

time costs related to hosting and staffing committee meetings. These would vary according to the 

size and number of the committees. More significantly, the establishment of Regional Ecosystem 

Committees would enhance the Council’s ability to coordinate with member management 

agencies in efforts to address nonfishing-related issues and would improve our understanding 

and management of fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. There may be jurisdictional (local 

vs. Federal governance) issues that may arise; however, it would be the Council’s role to provide 

clarification on mandated responsibilities for committee participants to preclude jurisdictional 

contentions. Impacts on enforcement would be anticipated to be unchanged as current 

regulations would remain in place. 

4.5.3. Alternative 4C: Participate in and Support Ocean Council Type Groups 

4.5.3.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council would not establish any new committees or other groups but 

would instead participate in and support the establishment of Ocean Council type groups 

established by the governor of each inhabited island area served by the Council (i.e., American 

Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the CNMI). Such a group has been established by the Governor of 

Hawaii (the Hawaii Ocean and Coastal Committee) and is made up primarily of local and county 

agencies with oversight of development, ocean recreation, tourism, and natural resource 

management. In the short term, this alternative would not have any impact on the physical 

environment as current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would continue 

to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. 

Management changes would continue to be considered via the MSA or through changes to 

NMFS’s list of allowable gears. In the long term, participation in Ocean Council type groups 

throughout the Western Pacific Region would enhance the Council’s ability to positively 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 349

influence and coordinate management efforts or resources to address nonfishing-related issues 

that could impact the physical environment. However, it is uncertain if or when the region’s nonHawaii governors would establish such Ocean Council type groups. If they are not established, 

the non-Hawaii regions would not see these benefits under this alternative. 

4.5.3.2. Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be the same as those described in Chapter 3. In the long term, 

participation in Ocean Council type groups throughout the Western Pacific Region would 

enhance the Council’s ability to positively influence and coordinate management efforts or 

resources to address nonfishing-related issues that could impact target and nontarget stocks. 

However, it is uncertain if or when the region’s non-Hawaii governors would establish such 

Ocean Council type groups. If they are not established, the non-Hawaii regions would not see 

these benefits under this alternative. 

4.5.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 4C, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.5.3.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 4C, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA, with full 

consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with the MSA, MMPA, ESA, 

NEPA, and other applicable laws. In the long term, participation in Ocean Council type groups 

throughout the Western Pacific Region would enhance the Council’s ability to positively 

influence and coordinate management efforts or resources to address nonfishing-related issues 

that could impact protected species. However, it is uncertain if or when the region’s non-Hawaii 

governors would establish such Ocean Council type groups. If they are not established, the nonHawaii regions would not see these benefits under this alternative. 

4.5.3.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. Support and participation by the Council in Ocean 

Council type groups throughout the Western Pacific Region could encourage their development 

in the non-Hawaii areas. If successful, this would provide additional venues for engagement in 

the management process and may attract new participants who would bring additional expertise 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 350

and local perspectives to that process, thus further improving the status and management of 

marine fisheries. 

4.5.3.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration would be moderate to uncertain under Alternative 

4C. Involvement in Ocean Council type groups would entail some travel and time costs related to 

group meetings. These would vary according to the number of groups and meetings, but would 

generally be low as the meetings would not be hosted or staffed by the Council or NOAA. In the 

long term, participation in Ocean Council type groups would enhance the Council’s ability to 

positively influence and coordinate management efforts or resources to address nonfishingrelated issues in a manner that would improve the status and management of marine fisheries. 

However, it is uncertain if or when the region’s governors (excluding Hawaii) would establish 

such Ocean Council type groups. If they are not established, these areas would not see these 

benefits under this alternative. Impacts on enforcement would be unchanged as current 

regulations would remain in place under this alternative. 

4.5.4. Alternative 4D: Establish Independent Regional Ecosystem Councils 

4.5.4.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council, NOAA, and NMFS would establish and administer 

independent Regional Ecosystem Councils to supplement the existing decision-making process. 

These Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils would be made up of executive-level 

representatives from Federal, state, and local government agencies, businesses, and 

nongovernmental organizations that have responsibility for or other interest in land-based and 

nonfishing activities that affect the marine environment. In the short term, this alternative would 

not have any impact on the physical environment as current regulations would be unchanged, 

destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would 

remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes would continue to be considered 

through the MSA regulatory process or through changes to NMFS’s list of allowable gears. In 

the long term, participation in independent Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils would 

enhance the Council’s ability to positively influence and coordinate management efforts or 

resources to address nonfishing-related issues that could impact the physical environment. 

However, it is uncertain if or when NOAA and NMFS would establish such Regional Ecosystem 

Advisory Councils. If they are not established, the short-term impacts of this alternative would 

be the same as those described for Alternative 4A, but over the long-term, the failure to consider 

the full range of impacts of nonfishing activities on marine ecosystems could result in 

degradation of the physical environment. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 351

4.5.4.2.Biological Environment 

In the short term under this alternative, current regulations would be unchanged and impacts on 

target and nontarget stocks would be the same as those described in Chapter 3. In the long term, 

participation in independent Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils would enhance the 

Council’s ability to positively influence and coordinate management efforts or resources to 

address nonfishing-related activities that could impact target and nontarget stocks. However, it is 

uncertain if or when NOAA and NMFS would establish such Regional Ecosystem Advisory 

Councils. If they are not established, the impacts of this alternative would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 4A. 

4.5.4.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 4D, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.5.4.4. Protected Species 

Under Alternative 4D, short-term impacts on protected species would remain as described in 

Chapter 3. In the long term, fisheries would be adaptively managed under the MSA with full 

consideration of impacts on protected species given in accordance with all other applicable laws. 

In the long term, participation in independent Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils would 

enhance the Council’s ability to positively influence and coordinate management efforts or 

resources to address nonfishing-related issues that could impact protected species. However, it is 

uncertain if or when NOAA and NMFS would establish such Regional Ecosystem Advisory 

Councils. If they are not established, the impacts of this alternative would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 4A. 

4.5.4.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

This alternative would not have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as it 

would not change current fishery regulations. Support and participation by the Council in 

independent Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils could facilitate development of such 

groups. If successful, this would provide additional venues for engagement in the management 

process and may attract new participants who would bring additional expertise and local 

perspectives to that process, thus further improving the status and management of marine 

fisheries. However, it is uncertain if or when NOAA and NMFS would establish such Regional 

Ecosystem Advisory Councils. If they are not established over time, the failure to consider the 

full range of impacts of nonfishing activities on marine ecosystems could result in stock 

depletion, habitat damage, and the degradation or loss of marine resources on which fishery 

participants and communities depend. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 352

4.5.4.6. Administration and Enforcement 

Impacts on management and administration would be anticipated to be moderate to uncertain 

under Alternative 4D. Involvement in independent Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils 

would entail some travel and time costs related to group meetings. These would vary according 

to the number of groups and meetings. In the long term, participation in independent Regional 

Ecosystem Advisory Councils would enhance the Council’s ability to positively influence and 

coordinate management efforts or resources to address non–fishing-related issues that could 

impact the physical environment. However, it is uncertain if or when NOAA and NMFS would 

establish such Regional Ecosystem Advisory Councils. If they are not established, the impacts of 

this alternative would be the same as those described for Alternative 4A (no action). No impacts 

on enforcement would be anticipated as current regulations would remain in place under this 

alternative. 

4.6. Component 5: International Coordination 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Council is an active participant in the development and 

implementation of international agreements regarding marine resources. The Council also 

participates in and promotes the formation of regional and international arrangements for 

assessing and conserving all marine resources throughout their range, including the ecosystems 

and habitats that they depend on. As marine ecosystems are generally considered “open” 

systems, and large-scale impacts can be observed within smaller units, international coordination 

would be a necessary component of successful implementation of an ecosystem-based approach 

within the Western Pacific Region. 

Component 5 is nonregulatory (i.e., has no regulatory effect) and is included in this EIS to assist 

the Council in identifying appropriate coordination activities under an ecosystem-based fishery 

management structure. The alternatives under Component 5 represent a range of nonregulatory 

actions that the Council has considered in relation to its participation in discussions and meetings 

that are international in scope. For each alterative under Component 5 the potential impacts on 

the physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, protected species, 

fishery participants and communities, and enforcement and administration are discussed. 

4.6.1. Alternative 5A—No Action 

4.6.1.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council would continue to participate in international management 

fora such as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, as well as workshops and 

seminars (e.g., International Fishers Forums). This alternative would not have any impact on the 

physical environment as current regulations would be unchanged, destructive gear types would 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 353

continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described in Table 

3–1. Management changes would continue to be considered under the MSA process. 

4.6.1.2. Biological Environment 

The Council’s current level of participation and involvement in international management fora 

positively impacts target and nontarget species through shared stock management coordination 

among nations. In 2000, for example, the Council played an integral role in the development of 

the Multilateral High Level Conference to establish the Convention on the Conservation and 

Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Central and Western Pacific Region. The 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, as well as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission, meet annually, and the Council plays a critical role in advising the U.S. delegation 

at these meetings on issues relating to the conservation and management of highly migratory 

pelagic stocks that occur in the Western Pacific Region. Issues considered at such meetings 

include stock assessments, data and information collections, and enforcement. Under Alternative 

5A, the Council would continue its involvement in these fora. 

4.6.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 5A, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.6.1.4. Protected Species 

The Council’s continued participation in international management fora under Alternative 5A 

would positively impact protected species. Currently, the Council actively participates in 

international meetings and workshops aimed at reducing bycatch of protected species in 

fisheries. For example, the Council has played an integral role in each of the International 

Fishers’ Forums (2000, 2002, and 2005) that bring together fishers from all over the world to 

discuss and share methods on ways to reduce protected species bycatch. Through cooperative 

research and conservation efforts, the Council also participates in international programs aimed 

at reducing sea turtle interactions with fisheries through gear modifications (e.g., circle hooks). It 

also supports sea turtle conservation work by local communities (e.g., work in Papua New 

Guinea to protect sea turtle nesting sites). 

4.6.1.5. Fisheries Participants and Communities 

The Council’s current level of participation in international management fora beneficially 

impacts fisheries participants and communities by representing Western Pacific Region fisheries 

participants and communities that may be affected by international management decisions. The 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 354

Council’s international work on protected species bycatch reduction and conservation also 

beneficially impacts fishery participants by exporting effective gear methods to other fishing 

nations to help the recovery of threatened and endangered species populations. Increasing the 

populations of rare species indirectly benefits fishery participants and communities that would 

otherwise be affected by regulations/closures of fisheries that could result from interactions with 

protected species with critically low populations. The Council represents various constituencies 

(i.e., commercial, recreational, and subsistence sectors), and Council meetings provide a 

mechanism for the general public to be involved in fishery management decisions. Therefore, the 

Council’s participation in international fora also benefits fishery participants and communities by 

keeping them aware of international management issues (e.g., stock assessments, gear methods) 

that may affect them locally. These benefits would continue under this alternative. 

4.6.1.6. Administration and Enforcement 

The Council’s current level of participation in international management fora requires staff time 

to help plan international meetings, write papers, and travel to and from various locations. The 

amount of resources or staff time dedicated to international management fora make up a small 

percentage of the resources or staff time dedicated to domestic fishery issues. These costs would 

remain unchanged under this alternative. 

4.6.2. Alternative 5B—Increase Level of Participation in International 

Management Fora and Establish Meetings/Workshops With Neighboring 

Nations of Western Pacific Region Island Areas (Preferred) 

4.6.2.1. Physical Environment 

This alternative is not expected to impact the physical environment as destructive gear types 

would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and HAPC would remain as described 

in Table 3–1. Management changes as a result of informational exchange or requirements from 

international commissions would continue to be considered under the MSA process, as 

appropriate. 

4.6.2.2. Biological Environment 

Increasing the Council’s participation and involvement in international management fora and 

establishing meetings/workshops with neighboring nations is expected to positively impact target 

and nontarget species through informational exchange regarding shared stock management and 

coordination among nations. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 355

4.6.2.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 5B, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concern would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.6.2.4. Protected Species 

Increasing the Council’s participation and involvement in international management fora and 

establishing meetings/workshops with neighboring nations would positively impact protected 

species through informational exchange and shared strategies on reducing interactions between 

fisheries and protected species. The Council has already initiated programs to export to various 

countries gear methods that have been successful in reducing protected species interactions (e.g., 

circle hooks in the Ecuador small boat longline fleet). The Council is also working with 

community groups to establish and improve on sea turtle conservation efforts (e.g., Papua New 

Guinea leatherback sea turtle nesting beach conservation). Similarly, establishing meetings and 

workshops between neighboring island nations in the Western Pacific Region would positively 

impact protected species through the sharing of information regarding the management of 

protected species that are in both the U.S. EEZ and the neighboring EEZs. 

4.6.2.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

Alternative 5B’s increased level of Council participation in international management fora and 

the establishment of meetings/workshops with neighboring nations would beneficially impact 

fisheries participants and communities by keeping them aware of international management 

issues (e.g., stock assessments, gear methods) as well as the current status of fisheries in 

neighboring nations. 

4.6.2.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative is anticipated to impact management and administration by increasing Council 

staff time to prepare reports, coordinate meetings, and travel to and from meeting locations. 

Administrative costs would increase under this alternative to pay for meeting travel. 

Coordination of meetings/workshops between Western Pacific Region island areas and 

neighboring nations would also likely involve staff time. Enforcement costs are not expected to 

increase over current levels. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 356

4.6.3. Alternative 5C—Do Not Participate in International Management Fora and 

Establish Meetings/Workshops with Neighboring Nations of Western Pacific 

Region Island Areas 

4.6.3.1. Physical Environment 

Under this alternative, the Council would stop participating in international management fora 

such as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter-America Tropical 

Tuna Commission, and would stop holding, sponsoring, or participating in international 

workshops and meetings (e.g., International Fishers Forums). This alternative would not directly 

impact the Western Pacific Region’s physical environment as current regulations would be 

unchanged, destructive gear types would continue to be prohibited, and definitions of EFH and 

HAPC would remain as described in Table 3–1. Management changes would continue to be 

considered under the MSA. However, efforts by the Council to educate other nations and 

fishermen as to the importance of prohibiting the use of destructive gear types or fishing methods 

such as dynamite, bleach, and poisons would cease under this alternative. 

4.6.3.2. Biological Environment 

Alternative 5C could have negative impacts on target and nontarget species, as ending the 

Council’s input to and participation in international management fora, meetings, and workshops 

would represent a reduction in the information and management recommendations available to 

these groups. The Council represents a wide range of fishery managers, scientists, and 

participants with many years of experience and expertise. The loss of their participation could 

result in suboptimal management, conservation, and science regimes that would lead to negative 

impacts on target and nontarget species. 

4.6.3.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

Under Alternative 5C, impacts on essential fish habitat would remain as described in Chapter 3. 

Essential fish habitat and habitat areas of concerns would continue to be designated and 

adaptively managed under the MSA. 

4.6.3.4. Protected Species 

This alternative could have negative impacts on protected species. The Council represents a wide 

range of fishery managers, scientists, and participants with many years of experience and 

expertise. The loss of the Council’s input to and participation in international management fora, 

meetings, and workshops (e.g., International Fishers’ Forums) would reduce the information and 

management recommendations available to these groups. That loss could result in suboptimal 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 357

management, conservation, and scientific regimes that would lead to negative impacts on 

protected species. 

4.6.3.5. Fisheries Participants and Communities 

This alternative would reduce the Council’s ability to represent or engage fishery participants in 

international management fora, meetings, and workshops. It would also reduce the availability of 

information generated from these meetings that is currently provided by the Council to fishery 

participants and communities, as well as to the general public. In addition, the cessation of the 

Council’s international work on protected species bycatch reduction and conservation would 

negatively impact protected species, which in turn could lead to additional fishery regulations or 

closures. 

4.6.3.6. Administration and Enforcement 

This alternative would reduce administrative costs for travel and associated staff time 

requirements. On the other hand, management, administration, and enforcement costs would all 

potentially increase as the loss of the Council’s input could result in suboptimal management, 

conservation, and science regimes that would lead to increased costs due to a loss of efficiency 

or cost-effectiveness in the domestic implementation of these regimes. 

4.7. Economic Effects 

4.7.1. Baseline to Determine Economic Effects 

The no-action alternatives were used as a baseline for the discussion of economic impacts 

resulting from the replacement of species-based fishery management under the current FMPs 

with ecosystems management under the proposed FEPs. All no-action alternatives described 

above would yield no change from those economic impacts that would occur under the current 

fishery management regime, i.e., the status quo. 

4.7.2. Direct Economic Impacts to the Fishing Sector 

Only the alternatives under Components 1 and 2 could have regulatory effects resulting in 

economic gains or losses to directed fisheries. The short term economic impacts of this proposed 

action on the directed fisheries, based on the preferred alternatives 1D and 2B, are zero since 

there would be no new restrictions or additional requirements in terms of regulatory compliance. 

The permitting and reporting requirements that currently exist under the FMPs are 

species/archipelago-based and would continue unaltered under the FEPs’ management regime. 

There would be no short term requirements to revise fisheries regulations associated with MUS 

since the FEPs would incorporate identical MUS as are found in the current FMPs. The longer-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 358

term economic impacts to directed fisheries are indeterminate. Those impacts would depend on 

specific management measures implemented for the various FEPs. However, the requirements 

for fisheries management under the currently reauthorized MSA would continue to be a 

dominant factor affecting the economics of all directed fisheries associated with the various 

MUS. In addition to the MSA, the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act 

could also affect the economic returns from the directed fisheries depending upon fishing 

restrictions. A good example of ESA influence on directed fisheries is the turtle cap that has been 

put on the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery. 

 

The implementation of either Alternatives 1B or 1C would also result in zero impact in the short 

term. However, the implementation of Alternative 1E, which would implement several FEPs 

associated with each biogeographic and pelagic zone, could result in the requirement for fish 

harvesting vessels to obtain new permits and perform associated recordkeeping for harvesting 

MUS resulting in additional compliance costs for those affected entities. This alternative could 

result in additional regulations and not a simple reorganization of the regulations as would the 

preferred. The implementation of alternatives 2C or 2D could also directly and indirectly result 

in additional requirements in terms of an expansion of management responsibilities for 

designated ecosystems and the resulting economic impacts of increased management. 

4.7.3. Indirect Economic Effects 

In the short term, there would be no indirect economic impacts to the economy from 

implementation of the preferred alternatives. However, implementation of Alternatives 1E, 2C, 

or 2D could result in additional economic impacts to other sectors of the economy indirectly 

attributable to additional economic impacts to the directed fisheries. There could also be a 

commensurate increase in government costs depending upon the type and scope of management 

measures required under these non-preferred alternatives. In the longer term, indirect economic 

impacts resulting from changes in directed fishing activity and other ecosystem services resulting 

from revisions to FEPs are indeterminate. Those long-term impacts would depend upon specific 

management measures and how those measures would impact the directed fisheries, the 

ecosystem, and other sectors of the economy. 

4.7.4. Economic Impacts of Required Institutional Changes 

Components 3, 4, and 5 and associated alternatives represent initial institutional changes required 

as part of the reorganized management structure. These changes would result in reorganized plan 

teams and a revised committee structure, which are all related to Council functions. Most of 

these requirements could be met with existing staff and resources. However, there may be 

additional costs in meeting the obligations set out in the proposed action. Conceivably, additional 

staff or consulting services may be required to assure that forthcoming FEPs are consistent with 

applicable statues and executive orders. There would be no additional costs to NMFS at this time 

since available staff would be adequate to meet the requirements presented by the proposed 

action. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 359

4.7.5. Overall Economic Effects 

Economic impacts from implementation of this proposed action would be minimal, reflecting 

only minor additional costs associated with institutional changes required to implement the new 

management structure. The potential impacts of longer term institutional requirements are 

discussed below. 

4.7.6. Future Economic Considerations 

By initiating FEPs, the Council has taken the first step toward the greater goal of comprehensive 

ecosystem management by developing a more efficient vehicle which could be utilized to 

enumerate distinctions between fisheries specific management and the holistic approach 

identified with ecosystems management. Recognizing that the reorganization of the management 

structure is only an initial step toward ecosystems management, many proponents of ecosystembased approaches to marine resource management envision future management regimes with 

ecosystems as the central management focus as opposed to a narrower focus on individual 

fisheries. Under this scenario, the economic impact to an ecosystem from regulation could be 

measured by estimating the changes in the aggregate value of the various components or 

services, including directed commercial fisheries, associated with specific rulemaking. 

 

If the FEP type of management leads to better management and uses of the marine resources, 

then there might be long term direct and indirect benefit to the fisheries. Meanwhile, there would 

be costs associated with required institutional changes for any possible changes in regulations. 

However, measurements of these benefits are a complex task. While the value of directed 

fisheries may be measured in dollars per pound or the potential to earn dollars per pound, many 

ecosystem indicators or factors are not readily measurable. For instance, there are use values 

associated with swimming, surfing, recreational fisheries, etc. that are quite difficult to measure 

even with available data. There are also non-use (existence) values associated with the protection 

of endangered species and option and quasi-option values associated with the preservation of 

natural habitats. In addition to the requirements to develop more precise and timely models to 

monitor and predict social and economic value produced by a given ecosystem, there would also 

be a need to enhance our understanding of marine and coastal systems to develop predictive 

models that depend on endogenous ecological relationships between and among the indicators or 

factors present in the ecosystem. 

 

Furthermore, there would also be issues with developing and implementing the appropriate 

institutional organizations required to manage marine-based ecosystems. As a starting point, 

adequate ecosystems management would most likely require agreements among those 

institutions– federal, state, or local, that currently hold management authorities over some 

portion of the marine or human environment. However, management by agreement could create 

inefficiencies associated with timeliness of regulations and costs of repetitive use of identical 

resources, especially labor. 

 

Nonetheless, it is also clear that while laying the foundation for future ecosystems management 

by implementing FEPs may not result in immediate changes to net benefits, there will be a 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 360

requirement to estimate net benefits in the form of net present values for each suite of 

management measures implemented under the FEPs based on changes to the values of 

ecosystems as well as individual fisheries. 

4.7.7. Summary 

No foreseeable economic gains or losses to direct fisheries are expected to result from 

implementing either of the preferred alternatives 1D and 2B since the FEPs do not call for any 

new restrictions or additional requirements in terms of regulatory compliance. Short term 

economic impacts based on alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D and 2B can be regarded as zero for reasons 

discussed in the direct and indirect economic impacts sections above (Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3). 

No Action alternatives 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A, by definition, represent the status quo or 

baseline condition and are included for informational and comparative purposes. 

 

NMFS recognizes that the pursuit of a more holistic approach to ecosystems management for the 

U.S. Western Pacific Region may affect the long-term net benefits at the institutional level once 

the FEPs are implemented. Net benefits of ecosystem management are indeterminate at present, 

and it could take years or even decades before impacts could be truly measured. It would seem 

on the surface that optimal economic returns from an ecosystem would be more likely if the 

ecosystem were managed by one institution. However, some economists argue that 

decentralization of present institutions to community-type management would eliminate the 

requirement to attempt a one-size-fits-all solution that lacks the flexibility to manage ecosystems 

efficiently recognizing that each ecosystem is unique and contains its own dynamics. No matter 

which institutional organization prevails in the future, it is clear that there will be social costs 

associated with institutional reorganization. In theory, institutional transaction costs may even be 

lowered if decentralized, cooperative ecosystem management structures evolve within the 

Western Pacific Region. 

Short-term economic impacts resulting from this particular action under the preferred 

alternatives may be negligible in terms of net national benefits. Longer-term impacts are 

indeterminate although stability and sustainability of ecosystems is currently seen as the platform 

for long term benefits both socially and economically. 

4.8. Environmental Justice 

On February 11, 1994, President William J. Clinton issued Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, 

“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations.” The Order provides that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations.” E.O. 12898 also provides for agencies to 

collect, maintain, and analyze information on patterns of subsistence consumption of fish, 

vegetation, or wildlife to determine whether that agency action may also affect subsistence 

patterns of consumption and indicate the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 361

health or environmental effects on subsistence patterns of consumption by low-income 

populations and minority populations. A memorandum by President Clinton that accompanied 

E.O. 12898 made it clear that environmental justice should be considered when conducting 

NEPA analyses by stating the following: “Each Federal agency should analyze the 

environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects of Federal actions, 

including effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes, when such 

analysis is required by NEPA.”69

As described in Chapter 3, the inhabited island areas of the Western Pacific Region are home to 

indigenous people of Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, or Hawaiian ancestry. In addition, each 

inhabited island of the Western Pacific Region has been defined as a fishing community in 

accordance with provisions of the MSA. The PRIA are not inhabited and do not have fishing 

communities as defined under the MSA. As described in Chapter 3, the economic conditions of 

the Western Pacific Region are such that there is relatively little diversification within 

economies, with tourism being the most important contributor. However, many indigenous, as 

well as nonindigenous people of Western Pacific Region islands depend on healthy ecosystems 

for subsistence as well as for social and economic benefits. 

In addition to indigenous populations within communities, the fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region have participants of different ethnicities, some of whom require consideration under the 

minority provisions of the Executive Order. For example, the Hawaii-based longline fleet 

includes sizable proportions of Korean-Americans and Vietnamese-Americans, as well as 

individuals of a variety of other ethnicities. Previous FMPs and research have identified 

environmental justice issues among minority members of a commercial fleet. Subsequent 

monitoring of these fishermen and their families was conducted to describe the range of social 

and cultural effects of pelagic fishery management changes at the individual, family, community, 

and industry levels (Allen and Gough 2006). Allen and Gough’s 2006 study described the 

economic, social, and cultural impacts of a fishery closure (in this case, the Hawaii-based 

swordfish fishery) on minority fishers and family members. The study identified 5 interrelated 

categories of environmental justice issues that resulted from the swordfish fishery closure: (1) 

changes in household income, (2) changes in psychological well-being, (3) effects on family 

cohesion, (4) fragmentation of the community, and (5) cumulative impacts. 

Similar issues for all minority and low-income fishery participants were considered in the 

context of the current proposed action. Because none of the alternatives include changes to 

management measures that would significantly or adversely affect fishery participants or their 

fishing activities, and because in the future, ecosystem management would enhance fisheries 

management, a determination was made that restructuring species-based FMPs into place-based 

FEPs and reorganizing MUS species are largely administrative actions that would not affect 

household income. No alternative would result in changes to psychological well-being, family 

cohesion, fragmentation of the community, or have significant cumulative adverse impacts on 

environmental justice communities. None of the alternatives includes management measures or 

administrative outcomes that would significantly adversely affect current subsistence activities. 

 

69 Memorandum from the President to the Heads of Departments and Agencies. Comprehensive Presidential 

Documents No. 279 (February 11, 1994). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 362

The Federal actions contemplated in this FPEIS are designed to enhance fisheries management 

by allowing the consideration of fisheries management within an ecosystem context. As Chapters 

1 and 4 describe, an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management would initially involve 

shifting from species management to place-based management. In the long term, the role of 

indigenous peoples, fishery participants, and community members in fisheries management 

would be strengthened by the change to place-based ecosystem management. Traditional and 

accumulated knowledge of local island fishermen is especially rich (Johannes 1981) and the 

Council’s transition to an ecosystem and place-based approach is designed to access their 

understanding of the marine environment. The place-based approach would facilitate and 

strengthen the role of communities in fishery management decisions. 

In conclusion, the proposed actions are primarily administrative and would reorganize existing 

species-based FMPs into place-based FEPs, and include appropriate MUS species in the FEPs. 

The ecosystem approach to management would eventually allow for enhanced participation by 

members of the community and is expected to result in better fisheries management over time. 

None of the alternatives is expected to result in adverse environmental impacts that would 

disproportionately or adversely affect low income or minority populations, nor would any of the 

alternatives significantly adversely affect subsistence activities. In both the long and short term, 

the reorganization of fishery management plans into place-based fishery ecosystem plans is 

expected to enhance management of the nation’s fishery resources to ensure long-term 

sustainability of the fisheries throughout the Western Pacific Region, which would have positive 

benefits for all members of the fishing community including those considered under provisions 

of E.O. 12898. 

4.9. Cumulative Effects 

NEPA requires that the potential cumulative effects of a proposed action, as well as the 

cumulative effects of the alternatives to the proposed action, be analyzed in an EIS. Cumulative 

effects are defined as those combined effects on the human environment that result from the 

incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless what Federal or nonfederal agency or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 CFR 150.8.7). The following cumulative effects analysis is organized by 

the following issues: the physical environment, biological environment, essential fish habitat, 

protected species, fishery participants and communities, and enforcement and administration. 

The geographic scope of this analysis is the Western Pacific Region. For the purposes of this 

analysis, past management actions refer to previous Council/NMFS actions. External factors or 

actions are not considered Council/NMFS actions. This analysis does not specifically take into 

account ecosystem variability (e.g., Pacific Decadal Oscillation), which significantly influences 

the distribution and abundance of marine species and their habitats. Large scale ecosystem 

variability is part of the environment that the Council continually considers in managing the 

fisheries of the Region. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 363

4.9.1. Physical Environment – Cumulative Effects 

4.9.1.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions 

The existing Western Pacific FMPs prohibit the use of destructive fishing methods (e.g., bottom 

trawl nets, explosives, fish poisons, etc.) that were used in the past. In 1999, the Council 

designated essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for each 

management unit species in the region (64 FR 19068). In accordance with the MSA, the Council 

and NMFS must ensure that any activities do not adversely affect, to the extent possible, EFH or 

HAPC for any MUS. By prohibiting destructive fishing methods and ensuring that activities do 

not adversely affect EFH and HAPC, negative impacts on the physical environment from 

authorized fishing activities are negligible. 

4.9.1.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Council/NMFS Actions 

There are no reasonably foreseeable Council/NMFS actions that would significantly affect the 

physical environment or EFH or HAPC for any Western Pacific MUS. 

4.9.1.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting the Physical Environment 

External factors potentially impacting the physical environment in the U.S. EEZ include landbased pollution and runoff, harbor dredging, ocean drilling and mining, ocean dumping, shipping 

activities, marine debris including derelict fishing gear, mariculture, military exercises, other 

recreational and commercial maritime activities, as well as research vessel activities. The effects 

of such factors are observable in site specific areas and are highly variable within the Western 

Pacific Region. All of these factors are part of the environmental background that affects fishery 

resources and fisheries and that are continually considered by the Council in managing the 

fisheries of the Region and will continue to be considered in the future, regardless of which 

alternative is selected for implementation. With the exception of land based pollution and runoff 

as well as harbor dredging, the impacts of these factors on the physical habitat are believed to be 

negligible. 

4.9.1.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Physical Environment 

4.9.1.4.1.Alternatives for FEP Boundaries 

As described in Section 4.1, the delineation of fishery management boundaries would not impact 

the physical environment of marine ecosystems. The boundaries established under the FMPs 

(Alternative 1A) or as proposed for the FEPs (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E) do not exist as 

tangible boundaries, but are strictly geographic representations designated on maps and would 

not involve placing anything structural in the water or physical environment. The continuation of 

FMPs or the implementation of FEPs, which in essence would manage marine resources by 

controlling fishing impacts (human activities), partially regulate the use of vessels and regulate 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 364

specific gear types that may be used in the conduct of a particular fishery. While potential 

impacts on the physical environment exist under normal fishing vessel operations—groundings 

resulting in spilled fuel/oil, garbage and wastes, and habitat damage through anchoring—the 

occurrence of such events is rare and the vessels authorized to fish under FMP permits must 

comply with national and international maritime law (e.g., U.S. Clean Water Act, MARPOL70). 

The implementation of the FEPs (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E) would not change any 

regulations that prohibit destructive fishing practices and non-selective gear types. 

4.9.1.4.2.Alternatives for Species Managed Under 

FEPs 

The current lists of MUS under existing FMPs (Alternative 2A) do not impact the physical 

environment, nor would the designation of MUS lists specific to place-based FEPs (Alternatives 

2B, 2C, and 2D) have any impact on the physical environment. 

4.9.1.4.3.Alternatives for Council Advisory 

Structure 

Alternatives to modify the Council advisory structure to be in line with FEPs would have no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the physical environment. 

4.9.1.4.4.Alternatives for Regional Coordination 

Regional coordination on ecosystem issues among the Council, Federal, state, and local agencies 

as well as nongovernment groups could potentially have positive impacts on the physical 

environment because of enhanced communication and understanding between agencies and 

stakeholder groups that is expected under the ecosystem approach to fishery management. Such 

coordination would improve the information available to consider potential cumulative impacts 

of future fishery management decisions. 

4.9.1.4.5.Alternatives for International 

Coordination 

Increasing the Council’s level of participation in international management fora in partnership 

and coordination with NMFS, as well as establishing meetings between neighboring nations 

could have positive impacts on the physical environment because of enhanced communication 

and understanding between agencies and stakeholder groups 

 

70 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 365

4.9.1.5. Potential Cumulative Effects on the Physical Environment 

The potential cumulative effects on the physical environment from the designation of: 1) FEP 

management boundaries, 2) species managed under each FEP, 3) Council advisory structure, 4) 

regional coordination, and 5) international coordination, are anticipated to be positive in terms of 

improving fishery management to provide for sustainable fishing in the Western Pacific Region. 

The designation of place-based FEPs coupled with appropriate Council advisory groups and 

regional and international coordination mechanisms are expected to have long term positive 

effects on the physical environment. 

4.9.2. Biological Environment – Potential Cumulative Effects 

4.9.2.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions 

As described in Chapter 1, FMPs have been established and implemented for coral reef 

ecosystems, bottomfish and seamount groundfish, precious corals, crustaceans, and pelagics. The 

FMPs require permits and catch reporting for the majority of managed fisheries. Annual stock 

assessments are conducted by NMFS for target species, and bycatch of nontarget species is 

monitored by NMFS through catch reports as well as data collected by fishery observers. Fishing 

effort and capacity for several fisheries have been regulated through limited access programs as 

well as maximum vessel length regulations. Fishing methods such as trawls and drift nets which 

indiscriminately capture marine organisms are prohibited in the Western Pacific Region. 

4.9.2.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions 

The MSA fishery management process is an adaptive management process. As needs for 

management actions arise, appropriate measures will be developed by the Council and, as 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce, implemented by NMFS. The shift towards ecosystem 

fisheries management would likely include future actions that would consider the dynamic 

variability of ocean ecosystems and could include the use of physical or biological indicators. As 

greater scientific information becomes available, future management actions could also include 

expanding MUS lists to include food web linkages such as predator-prey relationships. 

4.9.2.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting the Biological Environment 

The external factors or actions that have impacted, may be impacting, or may have impacts on 

marine biota in the future include habitat degradation from land-based pollution and runoff, 

dredging of harbors and other coastal areas, ocean tourism activities, ocean drilling and mining, 

shipping activities, research vessel activities, marine debris, and derelict fishing gear (i.e., ghost 

fishing). The effects of the human activities listed above are largely unquantifiable and unknown; 

however, habitat degradation due to land run-off is believed to be adversely affecting the 

biological environment in some areas. In accordance with the MSA, fisheries are managed to be 

sustainable, and that management continually considers external factors. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 366

4.9.2.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on the Biological Environment 

4.9.2.4.1.Alternatives for Approving and 

Implementing FEPs 

As described in Section 4.1, the continuation of existing fishery management measures and FMP 

boundaries (Alternative 1A) or the boundaries of FEPs (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E) would 

not have any direct effects on the biological environment as these boundaries are simply 

geographic representations on maps. However, the continuation of FMPs or implementation of 

FEPs to manage fisheries would have potential positive impacts on target and nontarget species. 

Although FMPs and FEPs would allow the harvest of target and nontarget species, positive 

impacts on the biological environment from FMPs or FEPs under all the alternatives would result 

from data collection (e.g., logbooks, observers) as well as controls on fishing gears and fishing 

effort (e.g., limited entry, maximum vessel lengths, closed areas) that otherwise would not be in 

place. 

Under all of the alternatives, the status and trends of target and nontarget species stocks would 

continue to be evaluated using existing criteria and thresholds for defining “overfishing” and 

“overfished” conditions as currently applied to individual stocks or stock complexes. Under the 

FEP alternatives (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), management of the existing stock complexes 

would be unchanged; however, as more information becomes available regarding intra-species 

and inter-specific linkages within FEP areas, increased consideration of fishery interactions and 

nonfishery impacts on the biological environment would improve management of these 

resources. It would be more difficult to manage the inter- and intra-species linkages within the 

FEP areas under Alternative 1E because the number of plans would increase the management 

complexity. Therefore Alternative 1E would result in a reduced level of positive impacts on the 

biological environment as compared with the other Component 1 alternatives. 

4.9.2.4.2.Alternatives for Species Managed Under 

FEPs 

MUS lists currently contained under existing FMPs include those species that are caught in 

quantities sufficient to warrant management or specific monitoring, and the primary impact of 

inclusion of species is that the species (i.e., the fishery targeting that species) can be directly 

managed. Continued reliance on existing MUS lists (Alternative 2A) would have no impact on 

the biological environment as all major species and species groups are included in those lists. 

Alternative 2B would not affect the biological environment as the MUS lists would include those 

current MUS known to be present within each FEP area. Alternatives 2C and 2D, however, 

would add incidentally caught species that are not currently MUS. Although information is 

collected on nontarget species through data collection programs (i.e., mandatory logbooks, 

voluntary creel surveys), the inclusion of these species on MUS lists would require that MSY, 

EFH, and HAPC be designated for each new MUS, and their harvests included in annual reports. 

For this reason, adding new species to the MUS lists could result in positive impacts on those 

species because of increased monitoring, stock assessments, and potentially new management 

measures. However, because these species are not targeted or harvested in appreciable quantities, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 367

nor have they been identified as keystone species, the necessity of related management measures 

is difficult to ascertain. 

4.9.2.4.3.Alternatives for Council Advisory 

Structure 

Alternatives to continue or modify the Council’s current advisory structure would have no direct 

impacts on the biological environment as these would be administrative changes only. Indirect 

positive effects would occur from Alternative 3D as the Council’s advisory structure would be 

appropriately aligned under a place-based approach and increased emphasis would be placed on 

local management issues regarding the biological environment. 

4.9.2.4.4.Alternatives for Regional Coordination 

A lack of regional coordination (Alternative 4A) on ecosystem issues among the Council, 

Federal, state, and local agencies as well as nonbusiness and nongovernment groups would 

potentially have negative impacts on the biological environment because of poor communication 

and understanding between agencies and stakeholder groups. On the other hand, increased 

regional coordination (Alternatives 4B, 4C, and 4D) would enhance communication and 

understanding amongst agencies and stakeholder groups, thereby having positive impacts on the 

biological environment. 

4.9.2.4.5.Alternatives for International 

Coordination 

Continued (Alternative 5A) or increased (Alternative 5B) Council participation in international 

management fora as well as establishing meetings between neighboring nations would 

potentially have positive impacts on the biological environment because of the enhanced 

communication and understanding between agencies and stakeholder groups that could result. 

Decreased or no (Alternative 5C) Council participation would have negative impacts on the 

biological environment as communication between domestic and international fishery managers 

would be difficult. 

4.9.2.4.6.Potential Cumulative Effects on the 

Biological Environment 

None of the alternatives considered within the five components would result in negative 

cumulative effects on the biological environment. The implementation of FMPs and FEPs allow 

managers to control fishery harvests, establish data collection programs, and evaluate stocks on 

an annual basis. The cumulative effects of implementing FEPs, reorganizing MUS lists, 

modifying the Council’s advisory structure, enhancing regional coordination, and increasing 

international coordination, when added to the effect of exogenous factors, are not anticipated to 

result in adverse affects to the biological environment. In fact the contrary is anticipated to occur 

under the preferred alternatives, that is, positive cumulative effects for target and nontarget 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 368

species are expected due to the shift towards place-based fisheries ecosystem management that 

enhances understanding and results in improved management of marine ecosystems. 

4.9.3. Essential Fish Habitat 

4.9.3.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions 

As described in Chapter 1, FMPs have been established and implemented for coral reef 

ecosystems, bottomfish and seamount groundfish, precious corals, crustaceans, and pelagics. The 

FMPs require permits and catch reporting for the majority of managed fisheries. Annual stock 

assessments are conducted by NMFS for target species, and catch of nontarget species is 

monitored through catch reports as well as through data collected by fishery observers. Fishing 

effort and capacity for several fisheries have been regulated through limited access programs as 

well as maximum vessel length regulations. Destructive fishing methods such as bottomtrawls, 

poisons, and explosives which may damage EFH and HAPC are prohibited in the Western 

Pacific Region. 

4.9.3.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions

The MSA fishery management process is inherently an adaptive management process. As needs 

for management actions arise, appropriate measures will be developed by the Council and, as 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce, implemented by NMFS. The shift towards ecosystem 

fisheries management will likely include actions that will consider the dynamic variability of 

ocean ecosystems and may include the use of physical or biological indicators. 

4.9.3.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting EFH 

The external factors or actions that have impacted, may be impacting, or may have impacts in the 

future include habitat degradation from land-based pollution and runoff, dredging of harbors and 

other coastal areas, ocean tourism activities, ocean drilling and mining, shipping activities, 

research vessel activities, marine debris, and derelict fishing gear (i.e., ghost fishing). The effects 

of the human activities listed above are largely unquantifiable and unknown; however, habitat 

degradation due to runoff is believed to adversely affect nearshore EFH and/or HAPC. 

4.9.3.4. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on EFH 

4.9.3.4.1.Alternatives for Approving and 

Implementing FEPs 

As described in Section 4.1, the continuation of existing management measures and FMP 

boundaries (Alternative 1A) or the delineation FEP boundaries (Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D) 

would not have any direct effects on EFH or HAPC as these boundaries are simply geographic 

representations on maps. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 369

4.9.3.4.2.Alternatives for Species Managed Under 

FEPs 

MUS lists currently contained under existing FMPs include those species that are caught in 

quantities sufficient to warrant management or specific monitoring, and the primary impact of 

inclusion of species is that the species (i.e., the fishery targeting that species) can be directly 

managed. Continued reliance on existing MUS lists (Alternative 2A) would have no impact on 

EFH or HAPC as all major species and species groups are included in those lists. 

4.9.3.4.3.Alternatives for Council Advisory Process 

Alternatives to continue or modify the Council’s current advisory structure would have no direct 

impacts on EFH or HAPC as these would be administrative changes. Indirect positive effects 

would occur from Alternative 3D as the Council’s advisory structure would be appropriately 

aligned under a place-based approach and increased emphasis would be placed on local 

management issues regarding EFH and HAPC. 

4.9.3.4.4.Alternatives for Regional Coordination 

A lack of regional coordination (Alternative 4A) on ecosystem issues among the Council, 

Federal, state, and local agencies as well as nonbusiness and nongovernment groups would 

potentially have negative impacts on EFH and HAPC because of poor communication and 

understanding between agencies and stakeholder groups. On the other hand, increased regional 

coordination (Alternatives 4B, 4C, and 4D) would enhance communication and understanding 

amongst agencies and stakeholder groups, thereby having positive impacts on EFH and HAPC. 

4.9.3.4.5.Alternatives for International 

Coordination 

Continued (Alternative 5A) or increased (Alternative 5B) Council participation in international 

management fora, as well as establishing meetings between neighboring nations, would 

potentially have positive impacts on EFH or HAPC because of enhanced communication and 

understanding between agencies and stakeholder groups. Decreased or no (Alternative 5C) 

Council participation would potentially have negative impacts on EFH and HAPC as 

communication between domestic and international fishery managers would be difficult. 

4.9.3.5. Potential Cumulative Effects on EFH and HAPC 

None of the alternatives considered within the five components would result in negative 

cumulative effects on EFH or HAPC. FMPs and FEPs both contain provisions that allow 

managers to control fishery harvests, establish data collection programs, and evaluate stocks on 

an annual basis. The cumulative effects of implementing FEPs, reorganizing MUS lists, 

modifying the Council’s advisory structure, enhancing regional coordination, and increasing 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 370

international coordination, when added to the effect of exogenous factors, are not anticipated to 

result in adverse affects to EFH or HAPC. In fact the contrary is anticipated; under the preferred 

alternatives, positive cumulative effects for EFH and HAPC are expected as a shift toward placebased fisheries ecosystem management would enhance understanding and improve management 

of marine ecosystems. 

4.9.4. Protected Species 

4.9.4.1. Past Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Sea Turtles 

As discussed in Section 3.4.1, all fisheries managed under the existing FMPs have undergone 

reviews for their impacts on protected species. All sea turtles in the Western Pacific Region are 

listed either as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Biological Opinions are prepared by 

NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA to determine whether or not fisheries are likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any ESA-listed species. No fishery managed by the Council under the 

existing FMPs has been found likely to jeopardize the continued existence or critical habitat of 

any sea turtle populations in the Western Pacific Region. 

The Hawaii-based longline fishery interacts with sea turtles, and the Council and NMFS have 

taken measures to significantly reduce sea turtle interactions in that fishery. In 2004, NMFS 

implemented Council-recommended regulations to require the use of circle hooks and mackereltype bait in the Hawaii-based longline shallow-set sector. These measures have significantly 

reduced sea turtle interactions. Additionally, hard limits of 16 leatherback interactions and 17 

loggerhead interactions, and mandatory 100 percent observer coverage were implemented for 

this sector. Under the hard limits, the shallow-set sector is closed immediately when either hard 

limit is reached. If neither is reached, the shallow-set sector is closed annually after the 

completion of the total allowable sets (2,120). In March 2006, the shallow-set sector of the 

longline fleet reached the hard limit for loggerhead sea turtle interactions and was closed for the 

remainder of the calendar year. In addition, all Hawaii-based longline vessels must carry and use 

mitigation gear to properly release sea turtles as well as attend annual protected species 

workshops. More detailed discussions on the impacts of Council-managed fisheries on sea turtles 

can be found in the additional NEPA and ESA analyses listed in Section 3.4.1. 

4.9.4.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Sea Turtles 

Through data collected from observer programs and other sources, the Council and NMFS will 

continue to monitor interactions between fisheries and sea turtles. NMFS will continue to 

evaluate sea turtle populations under the ESA and will require mitigation measures as 

appropriate. The Council and NMFS will continue to conduct sea turtle conservation activities 

both domestically and internationally. The Council will continue to support sea turtle nesting 

beach conservation (e.g., Papua New Guinea, Japan) as well as continue to help coordinate 

International Fishers Forums with the objective of reducing bycatch in fisheries. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 371

4.9.4.3. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting Sea Turtles 

The Recovery Plans for Pacific sea turtles (NMFS and FWS, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 

1998e, 1998f) describe over 26 factors that impact sea turtles, which can be generalized into five 

categories: 

• Direct take of eggs and female adult turtles at nesting sites; 

• degradation of nesting habitat; 

• pollution of marine habitat (including marine debris); 

• vessel collisions; and 

• incidental capture in fisheries not managed by the Council. 

Despite efforts by government agencies, nongovernment organizations, and community groups 

to mitigate the effects of several of the external factors, the prognosis for the future survival and 

recovery of some sea turtle populations remains bleak. A multi-national, holistic (covering all 

turtle life phases) framework for sea turtle conservation is considered essential to their recovery 

(Bellagio Conference 2004). 

Throughout much of the Pacific, the impacts of fisheries are being reduced because of the 

international transfer of gear types and management measures that reduce and mitigate 

interactions with sea turtles. However, incidental sea turtle catch continues to be largely 

unabated in Asian pelagic longline fisheries operating in the North Pacific. For example, at a 

bycatch working group meeting of the IATTC, held in Kobe, Japan on January 14–16, 2004, a 

member of the Japanese delegation stated that, based on preliminary data from 2000, the 

Japanese tuna longline fishery has been estimated to interact with approximately 6,000 sea 

turtles, with a 50 percent mortality rate (NMFS 2005a). As the average turtle interaction rate is 

approximately 10 times higher in shallow-set longline sets than in deep-set longlines sets, 

incidental sea turtle catches are likely even higher in Taiwanese and Chinese pelagic shallow-set 

longline fisheries than in the Japanese deep-set fishery (NMFS 2005a). 

International codes of conduct, regional memoranda of understanding and voluntary plans of 

action to reduce sea turtle bycatch on the high seas need to be supported by the active 

engagement of longline industries at the fishermen’s level (Simonds 2003). In practical terms, 

this means continuing to verify the effectiveness of specific longline gear modifications and 

transferring this technology through fishing associations and industry working relationships 

(Simonds 2003). 

4.9.4.4. Past Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Marine Mammals 

As discussed in Chapter 3, the MMPA requires that all commercial FMP fisheries be evaluated 

by NMFS for impacts on marine mammals and be designated Category I, II, or III (with 

Category III having the lowest impact). The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, 

stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine 

mammal stock, and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. Under 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 372

existing regulations, all fishers participating in Category I or II fisheries must register under the 

MMPA, obtain an Authorization Certificate, pay a fee of $25, and report any interactions with 

marine mammals. Additionally for Category I fisheries, fishers may be subject to a take 

reduction plan and requested to carry an observer (68 FR 20941). 

In the Western Pacific Region, the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery is listed as a Category 

I fishery, primarily due to concerns over interactions between the fishery and false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens) within EEZ waters around the Hawaiian Islands. Both the deep-set and 

shallow-set sectors of the Hawaii-based longline fishery are in compliance with the MMPA in 

that the fisheries are subject to observer coverage and participants must obtain an Authorization 

Certificate and report any interactions. The Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery is listed as 

a Category II fishery. All other fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are classified as Category 

III fisheries (see 68 FR 20941 for further information about fisheries classifications under the 

MMPA). 

Some marine mammals (e.g., Hawaiian monk seals and humpback whales) occurring in the 

Western Pacific Region are also protected under the ESA, and NMFS must ensure that fisheries 

managed by the Council are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or result in adverse impacts on the critical habitat of such species. Biological 

opinions prepared by NMFS have concluded that no fisheries managed by the Council are likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence or critical habitat of any ESA-listed marine mammal 

populations in the Western Pacific Region. 

4.9.4.5. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions Impacting Marine 

Mammals 

Through data collected from observer programs and other sources, the Council and NMFS will 

continue to monitor interactions between managed fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS 

scientists in association with other researchers will continue to collect biological samples to 

refine stock definitions as well as conduct surveys to monitor populations. The Council and 

NMFS will continue to conduct workshops with participation from fishermen to develop 

mitigation methods as appropriate, and NMFS will continue to conduct mandatory annual 

protected species workshops for all longline permit holders that teach how to identify marine 

mammals and how to reduce and mitigate interactions. 

4.9.4.6. External Factors/Actions Potentially Impacting Marine Mammals 

A comprehensive discussion of the external factors affecting Hawaiian monk seals is provided in 

the 2005 EIS (June 17, 2005; 70 FR 35275). These factors include natural occurrences such as 

male aggression and mobbing, shark predation, disease, and ecosystem productivity regime 

shifts, as well as anthropogenic impacts such as sea wall entrapments, hookings, research 

activities, marine debris, and vessel groundings. 

External factors affecting other marine mammals such as whales and dolphins include the 

following: (a) incidental take in fisheries; (b) collisions with ship traffic, ship disturbance, and 

ship noise; and (c) marine debris and waste disposal. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 373

4.9.4.7. Potential Marine Mammal Interactions with Fisheries 

Nearshore gillnet fisheries in Hawaii have been reported to interact with some dolphin species 

(e.g., bottlenose dolphins); however, the rate of interactions or severity of interactions is not well 

known (Forney 2004). Dolphins and false killer whales are also known to strip bait and catches 

from fishing lines without becoming hooked or entangled. Additionally, monk seal drownings in 

nearshore (reef) nets have been documented in Hawaii. 

4.9.4.8. Ship Traffic, Disturbance, and Anthropogenic Noise Potentially Impacting 

Marine Mammals 

Collisions with vessels and disturbance from low-frequency noise are potential threats to 

cetaceans and other marine mammals. Increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the world’s 

oceans may have an adverse effect on marine mammals. The Marine Mammal Commission is 

currently assessing the acoustic impact of underwater sound on marine mammals. 

4.9.4.9. Marine Debris and Waste Disposal Potentially Impacting Marine Mammals 

External activities that may have adverse effects on marine mammal habitat include the dispersal 

of marine debris, large oil spills, and other types of marine pollution. Petroleum has the potential 

to be toxic to marine mammals if it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin, mucous 

membranes, or eyes, or if it inhibits feeding by fouling the baleen plates of whales. 

Hydrocarbons can also bioaccumulate in zooplankton and fish eaten by marine mammals and 

other wildlife. Any detrimental effects of marine pollution on their prey species would also affect 

marine mammals. Aside from large, catastrophic spills, the long-term effects of low levels of 

petroleum exposure are unknown. 

Marine debris can be toxic to marine mammals if ingested, or it can entangle them, leading to 

decreased ability to breathe, feed, breed, swim, or haul out. The animals affected may be more 

vulnerable to predators or diseases, thereby reducing their ability to survive, care for their young, 

and reproduce. These factors can have significance in local areas where there are high 

concentrations of marine debris, thus contributing to cumulative effects on marine mammals. 

4.9.4.10. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Council/NMFS Actions Affecting 

Seabirds 

The birds that have most interacted with fisheries managed under the FMPs have been boobies 

and albatrosses. From 1990 to 1993 and from 2003 to the present, the NWHI bottomfish fishery 

has been observed by NMFS’s observer program. A main objective of NMFS’s observer 

program is to monitor fisheries for interactions with protected species. Prior to 1999, the Hawaiibased pelagic longline fisheries managed under the Council’s Pelagics FMP were estimated to 

interact with around 2,000 albatross (black-footed and Laysan), primarily in the shallow-set 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 374

fishery that targets swordfish. The short-tailed albatross, which is listed as endangered under the 

ESA, is thought to forage in areas where the Hawaii-based longline vessels fish. However, no 

interactions between the short-tailed albatross and the Hawaii-based longline fleet have ever 

been reported or observed. In 2002, the Council amended the Pelagics FMP to require Hawaiibased longline vessels to use known seabird mitigation measures that are expected to reduce 

seabird interaction rates significantly. In 2005 the Council amended the Pelagics FMP to allow 

longline vessels to side-set in lieu of most required alternative measures. Side-setting has been 

proven to nearly eliminate seabird interactions with longline vessels. 

The Council and NMFS will continue to monitor seabird interactions with managed fisheries, 

and if a management need arises, will recommend/implement appropriate measures. 

4.9.4.11. External Actions Potentially Impacting Seabirds 

Exogenous factors known to impact seabird populations include the following: a) degradation of 

nesting habitats that include lead and other toxins (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls) left over from 

military activities in the NWHI, as well as invasive species such as rats that consume seabird 

eggs, and b) marine debris and plastics—albatross often consume floating plastics and pass the 

objects on to chicks while feeding. Non-U.S. pelagic longline fisheries are also likely to be an 

external factor impacting seabird populations. However, detailed impacts are unknown. 

4.9.4.12. Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Protected Species 

4.9.4.12.1. Alternatives for Approving and 

Implementing FEP 

As described in Section 4.1, the delineation of FMP (Alternative 1A) or FEP boundaries 

(Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 1D) would not have any direct effects on protected species as FMP or 

FEP boundaries are simply geographic representations on maps. Although continuing the FMPs 

or implementing FEPs does allow for low-level interactions between fisheries and protected 

species, existing regulations require fishing vessels to employ a range of gear types and fishing 

methods to reduce and mitigate interactions with protected species. Data collection programs 

(e.g., logbooks, observers) under which interactions with protected species can be monitored 

would be maintained under all of Component 1’s alternatives. 

4.9.4.12.2. Alternatives for Management Unit 

Species 

Maintaining the current lists of MUS (Alternative 2A), reorganizing the current lists based on 

FEP boundaries (Alternative 2B), or adding incidentally caught species to MUS lists 

(Alternatives 2C and 2D) would have no direct impacts on protected species. The benefit of 

MUS lists is that management measures can be adopted to reduce or increase harvests of such 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 375

species. However, expanded MUS lists could result in the increased monitoring and management 

of resources important to protected species. The proposed reorganization would not add or delete 

MUS species from MUS lists. The reorganization would require refinement of MUS lists within 

an FEP to ensure only known (or believed) occurrences are included, depending on the 

alternative selected. Future changes to the MUS lists would undergo additional coordination and 

review. 

4.9.4.12.3. Alternatives for Council Advisory 

Structure 

Alternatives that would modify the Council advisory structure to be in line with FEPs would 

have no direct impacts on protected species as the alternatives address administrative topics. 

4.9.4.12.4. Alternatives for Regional 

Coordination 

Regional coordination on ecosystem issues between the Council, Federal, state, territorial, and 

local agencies, as well as nongovernment groups, could potentially have positive impacts on 

protected species because of enhanced communication and understanding between agencies and 

stakeholder groups. 

4.9.4.12.5. Alternatives for International 

Coordination 

Increasing the Council’s level of participation in international management fora as well as 

establishing meetings between neighboring nations could have positive impacts on protected 

species because of enhanced communication and understanding between agencies and 

stakeholder groups. 

4.9.4.13. Potential Cumulative Effects on Protected Species 

Exogenous factors that impact protected species include habitat degradation from land-based 

pollution and runoff, direct harvests outside the control of U.S. jurisdiction, ocean tourism 

activities, ocean drilling and mining, shipping activities, research activities, and marine debris 

and derelict fishing gear (i.e., entanglements). Currently, all operating fisheries managed under 

Western Pacific FMPs are in compliance with MSA, ESA, MMPA, as well as NEPA, and the 

level of interactions between protected species and Western Pacific fisheries have been found to 

not jeopardize the continued existence of any protected species or result in any adverse impact to 

the critical habitat of such species. The transition to place-based FEPs would be the Council’s 

first step towards an ecosystem management approach, and the current regulations would be 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 376

unchanged. However, subsequent actions would be developed under an adaptive management 

strategy for the relevant FEPs. 

There are no anticipated adverse cumulative effects on protected species as a result of the 

Council establishing FEPs and associated MUS lists as well as reorganizing its advisory structure 

and developing mechanisms for regional and international coordination. A major objective of 

shifting toward place-based FEPs is to allow greater focus on the ecosystem and the species and 

communities of which it is comprised. Broader understanding of a particular ecosystem by all 

stakeholders will likely provide benefits to protected species. 

4.9.5. Fishery Participants and Communities 

4.9.5.1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council/NMFS Actions 

Impacting Fishery Participants and Communities 

Soon after the MSA was promulgated in 1976, the Council began developing FMPs for fisheries 

of the Western Pacific Region. In 1983, the Precious Corals and Crustaceans FMPs were 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce, with FMPs for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, 

Pelagics, and Coral Reef Ecosystems approved in later years. FMPs do not “open” fisheries, but 

on the contrary, serve as mechanisms for the Council and NMFS to respond to management 

issues. Before FMPs, fishery participants were subject to little to no regulation, whereas through 

the FMPs and subsequent amendments, fishery participants have become subject to increasing 

regulation. Such regulations include but are not limited to permit and reporting requirements, 

gear requirements, maximum vessel lengths, limited entry programs, observers, VMS, and 

protected species mitigation measures. See section 1.2.3 for a description of the Council’s FMPs 

and management measures. 

The 1996 reauthorization of the MSA required that the Council identify fishing communities 

under its jurisdiction. A fishing community, as defined by the MSA, means “a community which 

is substantially dependent or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery 

resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes vessel owners, operators, and crew 

and Unites States fish processors that are based in such a community” (16 U.S.C. § 1802). The 

Council has identified American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, and each of the inhabited Hawaiian 

Islands, respectively, as fishing communities. The MSA requires that the Council or Secretary of 

Commerce describe the likely effects, if any, of conservation and management measures on 

fishing communities when developing FMPs or FMP amendments (16 U.S.C. §1853).The 

impacts of Council/NMFS actions on fishery participants are often transferred to fishing 

communities. For example, restricting access to a fishery through a limited entry program could 

have socio-economic effects on fishermen that do not qualify for a limited entry permit. 

Observable effects on fishing communities from the regulation of fishery participants depend on 

the number of fishery participants affected and to what degree they are affected. 

Fishery management measures implemented under the FMPs have impacted fishing participants 

and fishing communities on various levels. The Council and NMFS will continue to assess the 

impact of management actions on fishery participants and fishing communities, and where 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 377

possible, minimize negative effects while developing appropriate measures for the conservation 

and management of fishery resources. 

4.9.5.2. External Factors Affecting Fishery Participants and Communities 

There are wide-ranging factors (that change over time) that affect fishing participants as well as 

fishing communities. Current factors include high fuel costs, increased seafood imports, and 

restricted access to traditional fishing grounds. High fuel costs affect fishing participants in that 

it is simply increasingly expensive to go fishing. The effect is that fishery participants reduce 

fishing trips, switch to less fuel-intensive fisheries, or simply do not go fishing at all. The amount 

of imported seafood is also increasing, and the U.S. now imports nearly 70 percent of consumed 

seafood.71 Increased seafood imports are significant as it relates to market competition, where a 

glut of fish products can flood the market and lower ex-vessel prices. Once market channels are 

lost to imported seafood products it may also be hard for fishery participants to regain those 

channels. 

Another factor affecting fishery participants is that the establishment of no-take marine protected 

areas is on the rise in the Western Pacific Region. The effect of these no-take areas is that they 

often eliminate access to traditional fishing grounds. Therefore, if a fishery participant wants to 

fish, and their traditional area is closed, then they must find new fishing areas which could mean 

increased travel times and result in higher associated costs as well as increased competition 

between other fishery participants as effort increases in available fishing areas. Increased travel 

distances from home to fishing locations in some cases also pose safety risks as fishermen may 

travel to unfamiliar areas or to areas prone to adverse weather and sea conditions. 

Regional economies also have the ability to affect fishery participants and communities. For 

example, in recent years Hawaii has seen a boom in development projects on islands such as 

Maui and Hawaii. Increased construction jobs are believed to have lead to decreased 

participation in some fisheries (e.g., MHI bottomfish). Reduced participation in fisheries can 

affect fishing communities or jobs that depend on fisheries, leading to increased seafood imports 

to supply demand. This is observed in the MHI bottomfish example, where in 2001, bottomfish 

imports surpassed local bottomfish landings for the first time, a trend that continues today. 

4.9.5.3. The Effects of the Alternatives on Fishery Participants and Communities 

4.9.5.3.1.Alternatives for Approving and 

Implementing FEPs 

As the alternatives for FEP boundaries (other than Alternative 1A, the No Action alternative) 

focus on establishing a new institutional structure for implementing practical steps toward an 

ecosystem approach and current FMP regulations would not be changed, but simply reorganized 

dependent on the FEP boundaries, no short-term impacts on fishery participants or communities 

 

71 http://www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/Fish-Circular/Market_News/IATR_Seafood_Imports.pdf 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 378

are expected. The anticipated long-term impacts of implementing FEPs (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 

and 1D) could be positive as an ecosystem approach would integrate scientific information and 

human needs in a manner that would substantially increase the involvement of local communities 

in the management and conservation of marine resources. 

4.9.5.3.2.Alternatives for Managed Species 

Because Alternative 2A would maintain the current MUS list and Alternative 2B would maintain 

the current list, but organize it in a manner to be specific to the FEPs, these alternatives would 

have no direct or indirect effects on fishery participants or communities. Alternatives 2C and 2D, 

which would add a substantial number of new species to the MUS lists, might result in indirect 

effects on fishery participants and community members by leading them to believe that the ocean 

and its marine resources are overregulated and that they no longer have the freedom or right to 

fish. Such feelings could result in reduced participation, which in turn could affect the 

availability of locally caught fish to community members. 

4.9.5.3.3.Alternatives for Council Advisory 

Structure 

None of the alternatives would have any direct impacts on fishery participants or communities as 

they would not change current fishery regulations. The alignment of the advisory groups with 

place-based fisheries management (Alternative 3D) would be anticipated to increase the sense of 

shared ownership and investment in the management of marine resources by both residents and 

managers.

 

Because the implementation of FEPS is anticipated to positively impact fishery participants and 

communities, their additive impacts are not expected to adversely affect local fishery participants 

and communities. On the contrary, one objective of the FEP approach is the explicit recognition 

and increased inclusion of local expertise in the management and conservation of marine 

resources, which in turn may help reduce the effects of some adverse exogenous factors (i.e., 

factors outside the control of fishery managers) on fishery participants and communities. 

4.9.5.3.4.Alternatives for Regional Coordination 

Alternatives that would lead to increased regional coordination (Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D) would 

be expected to improve the status of marine ecosystems through enhanced understanding of a 

wider range of impacts on fishery resources and habitat and the potential implementation of 

measures to mitigate such impacts. Alternative 4A (no action) would not provide such 

mechanisms to enhance understanding of the ecosystem impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 379

4.9.5.3.5.Alternatives for International 

Coordination 

Increasing the Council’s level of participation in international management fora as well as 

establishing meetings between neighboring nations (Alternative 5B) would provide additional 

venues for fishery participants and international managers to exchange scientific and 

management information. This may attract new contributors who would bring additional 

expertise and perspectives to that process, thus further improving the status and management of 

marine fisheries throughout the Western Pacific Region. 

4.9.5.4. Potential Cumulative Effects on Fishery Participants and Communities 

The exogenous factors that fisheries participants and communities face include rising fuel costs, 

competition from seafood imports, loss of access to traditional fishing areas, and changes in the 

regional economy. Shifting from species-based FMPs to place-based FEPs as well as enhancing 

regional and international coordination is expected to improve fisheries management by 

incorporating ecosystem considerations. One objective of moving towards ecosystem based 

management under a place-based FEP management regime is to maintain fishing opportunities 

for fishery participants and associated benefits to fishing communities while not disrupting the 

function of the ecosystem. The cumulative effects on fishing participants and communities are 

unknown, but anticipated to be beneficial. 

4.9.6. Administration and Enforcement 

No substantive changes would occur to the regulations affecting the Federal fisheries under any 

of the alternatives. However, managers and scientists would need to adapt to the place-based and 

multi-species nature of the proposed FEP. Managers and scientists would be able to more 

rigorously consider fishery interactions as well as the impacts of nonfishery activities on the 

marine environment. Additionally, management plan teams and other advisory groups 

increasingly would be asked to consider these indirect and often complex impacts when making 

recommendations. However, fisheries managers and scientists increasingly are considering 

ecosystem characteristics and functions when conducting research and making management 

decisions. This current heightened attention to fisheries’ ecosystems is expected to persist under 

each of the alternatives. 

Enforcement agencies currently operate throughout the Western Pacific Region. The need for 

enforcement and management may decrease as participants voluntarily become more involved in 

fishery management. Additionally, the increased inclusion of local expertise and knowledge in 

the conservation of the marine resources would improve the success of the management of the 

fisheries. Thus, the cumulative effects of a shift toward ecosystem-based fisheries management 

on administration and enforcement are unknown, but are expected to be beneficial. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 380

4.10. Reasons for Choosing the Preferred Alternatives 

The U.S. Pacific island-based pelagic fisheries and the four demersal fisheries (bottomfish, 

crustaceans, precious corals, and coral reef resources) are currently managed under FMPs. While 

the 1996 Sustainable Fishery Act amendments to the MSA require consideration of fishery 

impacts on species not explicitly managed under FMPs (e.g., bycatch reduction), there are 

several limitations to the current management framework (i.e., species-based FMPs) that appear 

to constrain the Council in developing holistic conservation and management measures for a 

wider range of marine resources and marine ecosystems. 

Current stock assessments generally do not explicitly recognize the significant natural variability 

in marine resources and habitats, although some models do incorporate spatial and temporal 

environmental effects. Under place-based FEPs, stock assessments increasingly and explicitly 

would separate environmentally-driven resource variability (e.g., inter-annual, decadal, longterm ocean regime shifts) from fishery-driven and habitat-driven effects on target stocks and 

other components of ecosystems, and thus would be expected to improve the fishery science that 

is applied to fisheries management in the region. 

In addition, the majority of current monitoring under the FMPs accounts for major resource 

removals by fishing, but not by other sources such as coastal development which has destroyed 

or severely degraded inshore fish habitat and associated stocks around the more heavily 

populated islands of the U.S. Pacific. Through regional coordination efforts under place-based 

FEPs, consideration of all sources of resource removal would be simplified, including those 

related to shoreline modification, waste discharge, watershed erosion, storm runoff and other 

terrestrial activities. FEP monitoring would ultimately include ecosystem indicators and models 

which take into account non-fishing uses, their impacts on resources, and even the tradeoffs 

among different user groups who depend on the same resource. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose of the proposed Federal action in this EIS is to establish 

an institutional framework that will facilitate a shift to an ecosystem approach for fisheries 

management in the Western Pacific Region. This will be accomplished, in part, through the 

approval and implementation of place-based FEPs, Component 1 of the proposed Federal action. 

Component 1 also includes the reorganization of existing species-based FMP regulations into 

place-based FEP regulations. 

With respect to the alternatives under Component 1 (Alternatives 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E), 

Alternatives 1C and 1D are most similar in their impacts (Table 4-2). Both of these alternatives 

would facilitate a practical ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Western Pacific 

Region so that the full range of fisheries’ impacts and other activities on marine ecosystems 

would be addressed in a manner that coherently considers each archipelago’s biological 

resources, physical conditions, socioeconomic needs and cultural traditions. However, 

Alternative 1D recognizes the highly mobile and often migratory nature of pelagic stocks and 

fisheries. Alternative 1D would establish a single Pelagic FEP that would span the entire 

Western Pacific Region. Alternatives 1B and 1E are not preferred because of their negative 

impacts on management, administration, enforcement, fishery participants, and communities. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 381

Component 2 is also regulatory in nature and considered part of the Federal action in this 

document. Component 2 is contingent upon selecting one of the action alternatives under 

Component 1. All alternatives under Component 2 (Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D), consider 

changes to the MUS list. Alternative 2A is not preferred because of its negative impacts on 

management, administration, enforcement, fishery participants and communities. In particular, 

under Alternative 2A, there would be some demersal species identified as MUS in an FEP for an 

area in which they are not actually present. Under Alternative 2B, the Preferred Alternative, the 

MUS list for each archipelagic FEP would consist of all MUS currently on any of the four 

existing demersal FMP MUS lists and that are known to occur within the range of that particular 

FEP. The MUS list for the pelagic FEP would be identical to the Pelagics FMP MUS list. 

Alternative 2B is similar to Alternative 2A but would eliminate the confusion that could result 

from the inclusion on the MUS list of species not physically present in a given FEP area. 

Alternatives 2C and 2D were rejected primarily because of their impacts on management, 

administration, and enforcement, and because they would add species to the MUS lists that 

would require potentially expensive monitoring and annual evaluation with no apparent benefit. 

The Preferred Alternative for both components would promote a holistic view of marine 

resources through increased examination of metapopulation resource dynamics (interactions 

among spatially separated populations of the same species) and linkages between upland 

watershed activities, coastal habitats, and nearshore waters. This, in turn, would lead to an 

enhanced understanding and improved management of the relationships between different fish 

stocks and users of those stocks. In general, species-based FMPs focus on individual stocks of 

fish or related species and the people who harvest them. However, fish and fishermen do not act 

in isolation, and fishermen may be active in several fisheries targeting different resources over 

years or even seasonally. 

Furthermore, the harvests of one species often influence the dynamics of fish markets (and 

subsequent fishing effort) for others. The Preferred Alternatives would provide fishery managers 

with comprehensive information on all fishery impacts within a given area and allow improved 

decision making with fewer unintended consequences due to poorly understood connections. By 

operating within an ecosystem context, fishery scientists and managers would also be better 

positioned to anticipate likely physical and biological responses to changing environmental 

conditions and to determine appropriate management actions to forestall adverse impacts on 

marine ecosystems, rather than reacting to changes after they occur. In addition, greater stability 

and predictability is more likely when resources are considered in aggregate rather than as 

independent units. 

The ecosystem approach under the Preferred Alternative is expected to improve the management 

of coastal resources at both Federal and local levels through changes in the structure of resource 

management plans and the process by which these plans are developed and implemented. There 

is potential for jurisdictional disputes. However, it is the Council’s role to provide guidance and 

clarification on mandated responsibilities and management authorities to preclude governance 

issues from occurring. Because the organizational structure for developing and implementing 

FEPs is broader than for FMPs, and incorporates more local community input, it is likely to 

make better use of local knowledge and experience in management strategies and tactics. This 

will strengthen cooperation and voluntary compliance with management measures, which is 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 382

especially important in the Western Pacific Region where enforcement capabilities are often 

limited. 

The southern and western Pacific Ocean is dotted with thousands of islands governed by several 

nations. American Samoa, for example, is surrounded by the EEZs of five independent nations 

and several of the PRIA are part of larger archipelagic island chains. Several targeted pelagic 

species are considered highly migratory and management of these resources is increasingly 

becoming an international issue. As marine ecosystems are generally considered “open” systems 

and large scale changes can be observed within smaller units, international coordination as well 

as cooperation among the Council, RFMOs, the U.S. Department of State, NMFS, and 

neighboring nations in the Western Pacific Region will be necessary for the successful 

implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management under the Preferred 

Alternatives.
Chapter 4: En

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page Table 4-2. Comparison of the Potential Impacts of the Action Alternatives to Alternative 1A, the No Action 

Issue Area Alternative 1A - No Action (Baseline) Alternative 1B Alternative 1C Alternative 1D (Preferred) 

Brief 

Description 

Continue 5 FMPs. 

Do not develop 

place-based FEPs. 

Develop 1 FEP, 

continue 5 FMPs 

Develop 4 FEPs, 

continue 1 FMP 

Transition to 5 

FEPs 

Number of 

FMP(s) and 

FEP(s) 

5 FMPs 

0 FEPs 

5 FMPs 

1 FEP 

1 FMP 

4 FEPs 

0 FMPs 

5 FEPs 

Impacts to the 

Physical 

Environment

AmSamoa 

Mariana 

Hawaii 

PRIA 

Pelagic 

As described in 

Chapter 3 

In the short-term, establishing the FEP(s) under these alternatives wimpacts to the physical environment by any Federal fisheries. In the consideration of fishery interactions and non-fishery impacts on the passociated with the successful implementation of an ecosystem manwould improve our understanding and conservation of the physical e

Impacts to the 

Biological 

Environment 

American 

Samoa 

Mariana 

Hawaii 

PRIA 

Pelagic 

As described in 

Chapter 3 

In the short-term, there would be no differences between the direct aof these alternatives on the biological environment and the impacts o

Alternative. In the long-term, place-based plans would allow for increof fishery interactions and nonfishery impacts on target and nontargetherefore, would improve management of these resources. 

Impacts to 

Essential 

Fish 

Habitat or 

HAPC 

American 

Samoa 

Mariana 

Hawaii 

PRIA 

Pelagic 

As described in 

Chapter 3 

The implementation of the FEP(s) under the action alternatives woulFederal fisheries regulations or designations of EFH or HAPC. Thereno impacts to EFH and HAPC as a result of implementing any of the 

The current EFH and HAPC for the Western Pacific Region would be respective FEPs. 
Chapter 4: En

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

Issue Area Alternative 1A - No Action (Baseline) Alternative 1B Alternative 1C Alternative 1D (Preferred) 

Brief 

Description 

Continue 5 FMPs. 

Do not develop 

place-based FEPs. 

Develop 1 FEP, 

continue 5 FMPs 

Develop 4 FEPs, 

continue 1 FMP 

Transition to 5 

FEPs 

Impacts to 

Protected 

Species

American 

Samoa 

Mariana 

Hawaii 

PRIA 

Pelagic 

As described in 

Chapter 3 

The implementation of the FEP(s) under these alternatives would no

regulations (including those that reduce and mitigate interactions witThus, it is expected that the same low level of interactions with protecontinue. Protected species would continue to receive the same leveunder the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to 

fishery 

participants 

and 

communities 

American 

Samoa No difference 

between this 

alternative and the 

No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnotes 

1 and 3. 

Impacts to 

fishery 

participants 

and 

communities 

Mariana 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnotes 

1 and 3. 

Impacts to 

fishery 

participants 

and 

communities 

Hawaii 

No difference 

between this 

alternative and the 

No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnotes 

1 and 3. 
Chapter 4: En

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

Issue Area Alternative 1A - No Action (Baseline) Alternative 1B Alternative 1C Alternative 1D (Preferred) 

Brief 

Description 

Continue 5 FMPs. 

Do not develop 

place-based FEPs. 

Develop 1 FEP, 

continue 5 FMPs 

Develop 4 FEPs, 

continue 1 FMP 

Transition to 5 

FEPs 

Impacts to 

fishery 

participants 

and 

communities 

PRIA 

No difference 

between this 

alternative and the 

No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnotes 

1 and 3. 

Impacts to 

fishery 

participants 

and 

communities 

Pelagic 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

 see Footnote 1. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 2. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnotes 

1 and 3. 

Administration 

and 

Enforcement

American 

Samoa No significant 

difference between 

this alternative and 

the No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

P

s

Administration 

and 

Enforcement 

Mariana 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

s
Chapter 4: En

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 

Issue Area Alternative 1A - No Action (Baseline) Alternative 1B Alternative 1C Alternative 1D (Preferred) 

Brief 

Description 

Continue 5 FMPs. 

Do not develop 

place-based FEPs. 

Develop 1 FEP, 

continue 5 FMPs 

Develop 4 FEPs, 

continue 1 FMP 

Transition to 5 

FEPs 

Administration 

and 

Enforcement 

Hawaii 

No significant 

difference between 

this alternative and 

the No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. P

s

Administration 

and 

Enforcement 

PRIA 

No significant 

difference between 

this alternative and 

the No Action 

Alternative. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Ps

s

Administration 

and 

Enforcement

Pelagic 

Positive impacts 

(see Footnote 5) 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

Negative impacts – 

see Footnote 8. 

Positive impacts – 

see Footnote 5. 

s

Footnote 1: Impacts are anticipated to be beneficial as the alternative would allow fisheries managers to integra

information and human needs in a manner that would substantially increase the involvement of locmanagement and conservation of marine resources. 

Footnote 2: May cause some confusion to participants in the fisheries as they switch to ecosystem manageme

and pelagic fisheries within each archipelago and remain with a species-based FMP for the high-se
Chapter 4: En

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page Footnote 3: When compared to Alternatives 1B and 1C, the alternative would cause less confusion to the partic

entire Western Pacific Region would switch from FMPs to placed-based FEPs. 

Footnote 4: Participants would be responsible for determining which of the 26 FEP regulations pertain to the ar

fishing operations occur and for which species. Therefore, this alternative may have a negative impregulations for the fisheries were to become overly specific or inconsistent among the 26 FEPs. 

Footnote 5: In the short term, impacts on enforcement and management agencies are not expected to be adve

boundaries, fishery operations, and regulations would not change. In the long-term, voluntary compexpected to increase as community-based participants become more involved in fishery managem

long term impacts of this alternative on enforcement would be expected to be positive. 

Footnote 6: Enforcement personnel would be responsible for knowing which of the 26 FEP regulations pertain 

species. May have a negative impact in the long-term if regulations for the fisheries were to becom

inconsistent, given that there would be 26 FEPs to administer. 

Footnote 7: The smaller ecosystems and semi-unique management units called for by this alternative could res

that fails to fully consider the interconnectedness of these smaller ecosystems within the larger arcenvironment. 

Footnote 8: Implementing the alternative may have a negative impact in the long-term if regulations for the pela

become overly specific or inconsistent between the proposed demersal and pelagic archipelagic-ba
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 388 

Chapter 5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

5.1. Introduction 

This chapter summarizes an analysis of certain environmental management issues. These issues 

include effective use or conservation of some types of resources, consistency with other planning 

efforts, and mitigation of unavoidable impacts. 

5.2. Short-Term Uses versus Long-Term Productivity 

Short-term uses are generally those that determine the present quality of life for the public. The 

quality of life for future generations depends on long-term productivity—the capability of the 

environment to provide ecosystem benefits on a sustainable basis. As described in Chapter 1, the 

purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries “is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a 

manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the 

options for future generations to benefit from a full range of goods and services provided by 

marine ecosystems” (Garcia et al. 2003). As the actions considered in this FPEIS represent the 

first phase of the Council’s incremental shift toward an ecosystem approach, the very nature of 

this shift is to plan and manage fisheries to meet the needs of today’s communities while 

ensuring that sustainable fishery resources are available to future generations. By design, the 

essence of an ecosystem approach is to balance today’s needs with the needs of future 

generations; that is, achieve a balance between short-term uses while ensuring long-term 

productivity. 

5.3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are actions that disturb either a nonrenewable resource or 

a renewable resource to the point that it can only be renewed over a long period of time (decades, 

for example). Loss of biodiversity may be viewed as an irreversible resource commitment. An 

irretrievable commitment is the loss of opportunities for production or use of a renewable 

resource for a short-to-medium period of time (years). 

None of the actions considered in this FPEIS would result in irreversible commitments or 

irretrievable commitments of resources. The actions considered represent the first phase of the 

Council’s incremental shift toward an ecosystem approach, which by design, would plan for and 

enable fishery managers to manage fisheries in a way that would avoid irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources. 

5.4. Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives 

Section 1502.16 (e) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that 

environmental consequences be considered with respect to energy requirements and conservation 

potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 389 

Since the proposed shift to ecosystem management would not directly affect fish harvesting or 

processing efforts nor indirectly impact energy consumption in managed ecosystems or any other 

sectors of the economy, there would be no change to energy consumption as a result of 

reorganizing the FMPs into FEPs, or reorganizing MUS species lists. 

However, future actions that could be implemented under the various FEPs could result in 

longer-term and cumulative impacts on energy consumption, especially the consumption of fossil 

fuels, depending upon specific ecosystems-based management measures and resulting energy 

requirements for the directed fisheries, ecosystems, and other sectors of the economy. Catch 

restrictions or area closures for specific fisheries based on fish stock abundance and availability 

would certainly impact energy requirements for directed fisheries in terms of fuel consumption 

and indirectly impact energy requirements in those sectors of the economy that rely on the 

availability of fish (e.g., processors, retail fish outlets, and restaurants). Future changes to 

management measures would consider impacts on energy requirements, as needed. 

It is important to recognize that energy requirements associated with fisheries and other 

segments of the ecosystem are also dependent to a great extent upon exogenous factors such as 

fuel price and availability and general technological gains. Increases in fuel prices could limit the 

rents available to a fishery and, in turn, cause reductions in fishing effort resulting in lower fuel 

consumption. Advancements in fish finding technology or other acoustic technologies could 

achieve reductions in energy costs per unit of effort to produce fish or other resources from a 

desired ecosystem. In addition, technological improvements in fishing gear could result in 

decreased energy costs per unit of fishing effort while supporting other ecosystem goals. 

While this management action does not directly impact energy use, it is important to note that as 

FEPs are developed and ecosystem-based management measures are introduced, the energy 

requirements of each management action would be analyzed for their impacts to the consumption 

of fossil fuels and other forms of energy consistent with NEPA requirements. 

5.5. Urban Quality, Historic Resources, and Design of the Built Environment, 

Including Reuse and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives 

Because the actions considered in this FPEIS are strictly administrative and do not involve 

actions involving material construction of any type, the alternatives would not affect urban 

quality, historic resources, or design of the built environment. 

5.6. Cultural Resources and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives 

None of the proposed alternatives would result in changes to the impacts of Federal fisheries on 

cultural artifacts or historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Sites. As Chapters 1 and 4 describe, an ecosystem approach to fisheries management 

involves shifting from species-based management to place-based management. In doing so, the 

role within fisheries management of indigenous peoples, fishery participants, and community 

members would likely be strengthened. Traditional and accumulated knowledge of local island 

fishermen is especially rich (Johannes 1981), and the Council’s transition to an ecosystem 

approach would be designed to access their understanding of the marine environment. 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 390 

5.7. Possible Conflicts Between the Alternatives and Other Plans 

There are no known potential conflicts between the alternatives and other plans as this would be 

the first phase of the Council’s incremental shift toward an ecosystem approach and no new 

management measures are being proposed. There are ongoing fishery management actions being 

considered, but they would not hinder or be affected by the reorganization to place-based fishery 

management, or by a change in MUS species. Moving toward an ecosystem approach would 

involve intra- and interagency coordination and there are no known plans by any of the affected 

agencies that might conflict with the Council’s shift toward an ecosystem approach. 

5.8.Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided 

Because the proposed alternatives would not result in changes to fishing operations of the 

Western Pacific Region, there are no known adverse effects that cannot be avoided. However, 

adverse effects of conducting the fisheries have already been considered and provisions are in 

place to avoid or reduce the severity of impacts. Future fishery management actions would 

undergo separate environmental effects analysis at such time as the actions are proposed. 

5.9.Possible Mitigation Methods for Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects and therefore, there are no mitigation methods required 

or proposed. 

5.10. Consideration of Climate Change 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region take place in coastal, nearshore, and open ocean 

environments that are dynamic and subject to the impacts of climate change as well as existing 

large scale and long term environmental variability as described in Chapter 3. Since 2007, as 

fishery management plan amendments were developed, the potential impacts of climate change 

on the effectiveness of the species-based fishery management measures have been considered. 

Overall, there has been little specific research done for species managed in the Western Pacific 

Region. A general summary is provided here. 

5.10.1. Overview of climate change concerns 

In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that warming 

of the global climate system is occurring. This is shown by observations of marked increases in 

global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 

average sea level (IPCC 2007). In the time period between 1850–1899 and 2001–2005, the total 

global temperature increase was 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. However, the linear warming trend 

observed during the last 50 years was nearly twice that observed over the last 100 years (IPCC 

2007). 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 391 

Considerable evidence shows that these recent climatic changes have affected a large range of 

organisms with diverse geographical distributions (Walther et al. 2002). There is a high 

confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine systems are 

associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, 

oxygen levels, and circulation. These changes include shifts in ranges and changes in algal, 

plankton, and fish abundance (IPPC 2007b). Between 1961 and 2003, global ocean temperatures 

have risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m (Bindoff et al. 2007). Observations 

have shown the ocean is absorbing up to 80% of the heat added to the climate system, increasing 

average temperatures to a depth of 3000 m (IPCC 2007). This heat absorption has caused a 

thermal expansion contribution to sea level rise of 1.6 ± 0.5 mm/year from 1993-2003; which 

when combined with loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice 

Sheets accounts for 2.8 ± 0.7 mm/year (Bindoff et al. 2007). This does not, however, account for 

all of the total observed sea level rise (3.1 ± 0.7 mm/year) during that same period (Bindoff et al. 

2007). 

Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of midand high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters (IPCC 2007). 

While there is evidence that key oceanic water masses are changing, it is not clear whether ocean 

circulation is experiencing similar changes. The Pacific Ocean, in particular, has been warming 

and freshening overall, with the exception of salinity increases in the subtropical upper ocean, 

where strong evaporation dominates (Bindoff et al. 2007). 

Between 1750 and 1994, the oceans absorbed about 42% of all emitted carbon dioxide 

(CO2) (IPCC 2007). As a result, the total inorganic carbon content of the oceans increased by 

118 ±19 gigatons72 of carbon over this period and is continuing to increase. 

The increase in oceanic carbon content causes calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to dissolve at greater 

depths and led to a 0.1 unit decrease in surface ocean pH from 1750–1994 (IPCC 2007). The rate 

of decrease in pH over the past 20 years accelerated to 0.02 units per decade (IPCC 2007). A 

decline in pH, along with the concomitant decreased depth at which calcium carbonate dissolves, 

will likely impair the ability of marine organisms to use carbonate ions to build their shells or 

other hard parts (The Royal Society 2005, Caldeira and Wickett 2005, Doney 2006, Kleypas et 

al., 2006). 

In general, it has been shown that large scale climate cycles can impact winds, currents, ocean 

mixing, temperature regimes, nutrient recharge, and affect the productivity of all trophic levels in 

the North Pacific Ocean (Polovina et al. 1994). These impacts are expressed as variability in 

stock size, recruitment, growth rates, or other factors. 

5.10.2. Potential climate change impacts on coral reef ecosystems 

It is difficult to distinguish between the effects of global climate and local nonclimate influences 

on reef condition and vulnerability. Stresses associated with climate change, such as hightemperature episodes that promote coral bleaching, reduced calcification, and changes in ocean 

 

72 A gigaton is equal to one billion tons of elemental carbon. One gigaton is approximately 12% of the entire carbon 

emissions of the planet (http://www.holisticmanagement.org/n7/Carbon_Calculator/Gigaton_Carbon2.html) 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 392 

and atmospheric circulation, both present a set of challenges for coral reef health and may 

exacerbate other stresses not directly related to climate. These stresses can be disease, predation, 

and the cumulative effects of other nonclimate stresses (Buddenmeier et al. 2004). Anomalies of 

less than 1°C may exceed physiological tolerances and result in large-scale coral bleaching 

(Walther et al. 2002). This is in part due to physiological dysfunction and loss of crucial 

dinoflagellate symbionts. 

Furthermore, changes in the CO2 concentration of seawater through well-known processes of air 

sea gas exchange alter the pH (an index of acidity) and the concentrations of carbonate and 

bicarbonate ions. The oceans currently absorb about a third of the anthropogenic CO2 inputs to 

the atmosphere, resulting in significant changes in seawater chemistry that affect the ability of 

reef organisms to calcify (Houghton et al. 2001). Due to the great depths at which they live, 

precious corals will likely be insulated from short term changes in the physical environment. 

5.10.3. Potential climate change impacts on pelagic fish species 

The seasonal north-south movements of many large pelagics in the NPTZ appear to track the 

similar peak migration of primary productivity. Using remotely-sensed chlorophyll73

concentrations from satellite observations, Polovina et al. (2008) have found that over the past 

decade primary productivity in the subtropical and transition zone has declined an average of 

1.5% per year with about a 3% per year decline occurring at the southern limit of the NPTZ. The 

expansion of the low chlorophyll waters is consistent with global warming scenarios based on 

increased vertical stratification in the mid-latitudes. Expanding oligotrophic74 portions of the 

subtropical gyres in the world’s oceans in time will lead to a reduction in chlorophyll density and 

carrying capacity in the larger subtropical gyres, thus impacting the abundance of pelagic 

species. For example, a recent scientific study using an enhanced version of the spatial 

ecosystem and population dynamics model (SEAPODYM75) suggests that by the end of this 

century, ocean temperatures in the WCPO will increase to levels that will not support bigeye 

populations in the WCPO (J. Sibert, PFRP, pers. comm. July 2008). Participants in an 

international program called CLIOTOP (climate impacts on oceanic top predators) are currently 

gathering information on climate change and its effects on pelagic ecosystems. Within this 

group, the SEAPODYM model is being applied to investigate the future management of tuna 

stocks and other highly migratory species in the context of climate and ecosystem variability, as 

well as to investigate potential changes due to greenhouse warming. 

 

73 Chlorophyll is the green pigment found in phytoplankton that absorbs light energy to intiate the process 

of photsynthesis. 

74 Meaning waters where relatively little plant life or nutrients occur, but are rich in dissolved oxygen. 75 The model based on advection-diffusion-reaction equations explicitly predicts spatial 

dynamics of large pelagic predators, while taking into account data on several mid-trophic level 

components, oceanic primary productivity and physical environment. 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 393 

5.10.4. Potential climate change impacts on bottomfish and precious coral 

fisheries 

Not much is known about the impacts of climate change on bottomfish and precious coral 

resources. These deepwater organisms may not be impacted due to sea level rise, but changes in 

ocean circulation patterns, ocean water acidity, and temperature changes would affect these 

resources directly and indirectly, though there is no specific information regarding what the 

impacts could be. If deep water temperatures rise, there could be a change in growth rates or the 

occurrence of precious corals. Changes in water quality or currents could affect not only the 

target resources, but predators, parasites, and reproductive rates. 

5.10.5. Potential climate change impacts on crustacean fisheries 

The impact of climate change on crustacean fisheries (e.g., deepwater shrimp, lobsters) of the 

western Pacific region has not been well studied. Crustatacean stocks will continue to be 

monitored as part of crustacean fishery management. 

5.10.6. Potential impacts of climate change on sea turtles 

As highly migratory, wide-ranging organisms that are biologically tied to temperature regimes, 

sea turtles are vulnerable to the effects of global climate change in various aspects of their 

physiology and behavior. As migratory species, the effects of climate change are amplified since 

changes in foraging grounds, breeding grounds, and migratory pathways may occur at different 

rates and produce varied challenges (Robinson et al. 2008). These effects must be considered in 

addition to all other anthropogenic impacts on sea turtle populations. The major ways climate 

change is expected to affect sea turtles are: 1) changes in hatchling sex ratios as a result of these 

species’ temperature-dependent sex determination; 2) loss of nesting beach habitat due to sea 

level rise; 3) alterations to foraging habitats and prey resources; 4) changes in phenology and 

reproductive capacity that correlate with fluctuations in sea surface temperature (SST), and 5) 

potential changes in migratory pathways and range expansion. 

5.10.7. Potential impacts of climate change on seabirds 

The largest colonies of nesting seabirds in U.S. Pacific EEZ of the Western Pacific Region are 

found on low atolls. Sea level rise has the potential to adversely impact seabird colonies by 

reducing suitable nesting and roosting habitat. Other impacts of climate change on migratory 

birds include potential changes in the location and abundance of prey species. Without 

information about the magnitude of sea level rise or other large scale oceanographic changes, 

actual impacts are difficult to accurately forecast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives 

on the Council and other scientists involved in the fishery management process will continue to 

provide information about the status of seabirds and advise the Council about potential 

cumulative impacts of fishery management actions being considered. 
Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 394 

5.10.8. Climate change and fisheries ecosystem management 

Climate change would not affect the Council’s ability to manage any of the fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region under any of the proposed alternatives. Future impacts of climate change 

have been considered in view of the potential cumulative impacts on fishery target and nontarget species and protected resources. Continuing research, improved fishery data collection 

and analysis, required coordination with NMFS on the impact of fisheries on protected resources, 

and adaptive fishery ecosystem management will help ensure the long-term sustainability of the 

fisheries and ecosystem, even in light of occurring and potential climate changes. Ongoing 

research on fish stocks and protected species including sea turtles, marine mammals, and 

seabirds will continue and will help scientists and fishery managers to detect changes in the 

status, distribution, and interactions between the fisheries and resources of management concern. 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Response to Public Comments 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 395 

Chapter 6. PREPARERS, DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS, AND 

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

6.1. Preparers of the EIS 

This FPEIS was prepared by: 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Staff 

Joshua DeMello, Fishery Analyst 

 Education: B.S. University of Hawaii (UH), Hilo 

Marcia Hamilton Economist 

 Education: B.S. UH-Hilo, 

 M.S. UH, Manoa 

Eric Kingma NEPA Coordinator 

 Education: B.A. Lewis and Clark College, 

 M.P.A. UH, Manoa 

Jarad Makaiau Former Habitat Coordinator 

 Education: B.S. UH, Manoa 

National Marine Fisheries Service Staff 

Frances Ajo Former NEPA Technical Writer, Sustainable Fisheries, 

 Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) 

 Education: B.A. Washington University, St. Louis 

 M.A. UH, Manoa 

Ethan Brown Compliance Associate, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

 Education: B.A. Western Washington University 

Karla Gore Former Fishery Management Specialist, PIRO 

 Education: B.S. Western Washington University 

 M.M.A. University of Washington, Seattle 

Phyllis Ha NEPA Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

 Education: B.A., M.S., UH, Manoa 

Jarad Makaiau Fishery Policy Analyst, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

 Education: B.S. UH, Manoa 

Myles Raizin Fishery Economist, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

 Education: B.S. University of Massachusetts, Lowell 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Response to Public Comments 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 396 

 M.S. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Keith Schultz Former NEPA Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

Education: B.S. University of Minnesota, St. Paul 

 Brett Wiedoff Fishery Policy Analyst, Sustainable Fisheries, PIRO 

Education: B.S. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point 

Other Preparers 

Dr. Charles Fletcher, III, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, UH, Manoa, assisted in drafting 

Section 3.1.2. 

Kim Maison, Sea Turtle Biologist, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, 

provided a report on climate change impacts to sea turtles and the overview of climate change 

section. 

Other Reviewers: 

The preparers acknowledge the reviews of many colleagues on the Council staff; NMFS Pacific 

Islands Fishery Science Center; NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration; and NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office for review and input on the PEIS. George Krasnick, TEC, Inc., 

also reviewed the FPEIS. 

6.2. Distribution of EIS 

The following is a partial list of agencies and other organizations that were provided copies of 

the Draft PEIS. 

Federal Agencies

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, CA 

 U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Office of General Counsel, Pacific Islands Region, NOAA, Honolulu, HI 

NOAA Endangered Species Division, Silver Spring, MD 

NOAA Enforcement Division, Silver Spring, MD 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Law Enforcement, Pacific Islands 

 Division, Honolulu, HI 

 NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI 

 NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Response to Public Comments 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 397 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard (14th District), Honolulu, HI 

 

U.S. Dept. of Interior

 Office of Environmental Affairs, Washington, D.C. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR 

U.S. Dept. of State

 Office of Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Congressional Delegates 

Congressional Delegate American Samoa 

Representative Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Senators Hawaii 

Representatives Hawaii 

Congressional Delegate Guam 

State, Territorial, and Commonwealth Leaders, Executive Agencies, and Programs 

American Samoa

Governor American Samoa 

Director American Samoa, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 

Director Feleti Barstow Public Library

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Governor CNMI 

Director CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Director CNMI Division of Environmental Quality 

Director CNMI State Library, Joeten-Kiya Public Library 

Guam

Governor Guam 

Director Guam Dept. of Agriculture 

Director Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

Director Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans 

Director Guam Public Library System: Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library 

Hawaii

Governor Hawaii 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Response to Public Comments 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 398 

Director Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program 

Director Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 

Director Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, DLNR 

Director Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control 

Administrator Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

Director Hawaii State Main Library 

Council Groups 

Executive Directors Regional Fishery Management Councils 

Council Members Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, 

HI 

Advisory Groups 

Executive Director Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD 

Executive Director NOAA Fisheries, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

Media 

News Editor Associated Press, Hawaii 

Editor Environment Hawaii 

Editor Hawaii Fishing News 

Editor Hawaii Tribune-Herald 

Editor Honolulu Advertiser 

Editor Honolulu Star Bulletin 

Editor Honolulu Weekly 

Editor Kauai Times 

Editor Maui News 

Editor Molokai Advertiser-News 

Editor The Garden Island, Kauai 

Editor Marianas Variety 

Editor Samoa News 

Editor Pacific Daily News 

Others

KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance 

‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition 

Environmental Defense 

Marine Conservation Biology Institute 

The Ocean Conservancy, Director of Ecosystems Protection 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Response to Public Comments 

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 399 

6.2 Summary of Public Comments, Responses and Associated Actions

This section presents a summary of the public comments received on two Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statements (DPEISs) entitled, “Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Place-based Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans.” The ecosystem-based fishery management project was first announced to the 

public in 2005 through a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (69 FR 61351, October 18, 2004). 

Public scoping meetings provided early opportunities for public involvement. 

The first draft PEIS, dated October 27, 2005, was made available for a 45-day public review and 

comment period in 2005 (70 FR 68443, November 10, 2005). A total of 770 comments was 

received. Seven of these were unique letters, 242 were signed copies of one letter (“Hold Wespac 

Accountable”), and 521 were signed copies of a second letter (“I Support Strong NWHI 

Protection”). Appendix F contains a copy of the unique letters and one copy of the two form 

letters along with a summary table with comments and NMFS’ responses to the comments. 

Public comments on the initial draft were considered and changes incorporated into a revised 

Draft PEIS dated March 30, 2007. This revised DPEIS was distributed for a 45-day public 

review and comment period in April 2007 (72 FR 18644; April 13, 2007). NMFS received five 

letters of comment on the 2007 draft. Copies of the comment letters are provided in Appendix E, 

and responses to the most recent public comments are provided in Table 6-1 below. 

All comments were considered in preparing this final PEIS. This FPEIS includes updated 

information from recently authorized fishery management actions (which underwent separate 

compliance review), minor typographic corrections and text clarifications, and responses to 

comments that are summarized in Table 6-1. None of the comments on the 2007 draft resulted in 

a substantial change to the range of alternatives considered, the environmental impact analysis, 

or a change to the preferred alternative for either the two Federal action components or to the 

Council’s three proposed actions. 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 400 

Table 6–1 presents a summary of public comments received on the 2007 Draft Programmatic Environmental Imp

“Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery Management PlaFishery Ecosystem Plans,” dated March 30, 200776. The response and action taken are also summarized. Five com

received and are provided in Appendix E. Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses to Comments on the 2007 Draft Program

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

1 Letter, public 

comment period May 29, 2007 Paul Bassler Territory of Guam, Department of Agriculture 

Issue 1 Data collection methodology 

Council jurisdiction of Guam does not begin until three (3) miles from Guam shores, while the Council's jurisdiction begins at the shoreline of the Northern Mariana Islands. Data comparison, analysis, and results may not be comparable between Guam and the CNMI using the existing data collecting methodology. 

The resource management agencies on collect fisheries information through boasurveys. Existing creel survey data progby the proposed action. Likewise, there collection methods as a result of implemactions. Data on marine fisheries would both the local government and NMFS. The Council and NMFS will continue woTerritory of Guam to improve fisheries duse by the Council, and Federal and locmaking future fishery conservation and Future data collection programs can be comparisons between areas with differeThe comment was noted and considereto the Final Programmatic EIS (FPEIS) 

76 A previous Draft Programmatic EIS (Draft PEIS) dated October 27, 2005, was circulated for public review and comment from Novem

2005 (70 FR 68443). After considering public comments on the 2005 draft the Council and NMFS decided to expand the document whDraft PEIS dated March 30, 2007. Public comments received, responses, and associated actions on the previous Draft PEIS (October 20Appendix F and are not included in this table.
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 401 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

2 Letter, public 

comment period May 29, 2007 Paul Bassler Territory of Guam, Department of Agriculture 

Issue 2 

History and 

management 

of Marine 

Protected 

Areas 

(MPAs) on 

Guam 

Page 4-53 correctly states that community involvement in the reduction of exogenous factors (e.g., improperly placed marine preserves) is a goal to achieve. The Guam DAR requests the wording of this statement be amended. The agency requests clarification that the selection of Guam's marine preserves involved input from fishery experts (longtime shore-based fishermen), data analysis from years of creel data, and was a response to decreasing fishery CPUE. The preserve establishment proposal was presented at three (3) public meetings, and garnered more support from local fishermen than what the Draft PEIS seems to imply. Guam DAR notes that it implemented these five marine preserves as a response from local experts (e.g., longtime fishermen). In addition, these marine preserves fall outside the jurisdiction of the Council and should be deleted from this document. 

“Exogenous factors” are processes that outside the jurisdiction of the Council, Nmanagement agency’s purview. The woMPAs” was used as a general possible intended to refer to or disparage MPAs Guam’s waters or elsewhere. This was of exogenous factors. The FEP process exogenous factors in order to promote hThe inclusion of Guam DAR’s comment background on the substantial planning undertook in conjunction with the estabA definition of “exogenous factors” was Chapter 8. The parenthetical example w

3 Letter, public 

comment period May 29, 2007 Paul Bassler Territory of Guam, Department of 

Issue 3 

Management 

of landbased 

impacts on 

fisheries 

Related to the previous comment, is the effect of land-based impacts on coral reef degradation. However, the Department of Agriculture has no authority to regulate these activities (e.g., sedimentation from fires and runoff, clearing activities authorized by other agencies, pollutants entering the marine environment by storm drainage pipes, nonfishing activities, fishing pressure, etc.). The 

success of an ecosystem-based approach must 

Ecosystem-based approaches must invgovernment agencies and stakeholdershas created regional ecosystem advisothe primary objective of bringing issues impacts and management authorities to action. The REACs play a very importansuccess of FEPs. See Sections 2.4.1 anon the Council’s REACs. The comment and concerns were noted
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 402 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Agriculture not merely identify these effects as they are 

well-documented. These effects must have plans in place to eliminate their impacts if an ecosystem-based plan has any chance of success. 

Council organization does provide a meconcerns in the future, and because the of the scope of the proposed action, no PEIS as a result of this comment. 

4 Letter, public 

comment period May 29, 2007 Paul Bassler Territory of Guam, Department of Agriculture 

Issue 4. Data collection - limitations of existing voluntary fish catch and fish sales data 

One significant challenge for Guam's data collection efforts is ensuring that enough data is collected in order to give an accurate picture of Guam's fisheries. However, since data collected from fishermen and establishments are strictly voluntary, fishermen and commercial dealers have opted to withhold fishery data, despite the number of fishermen that represent Guam on various levels of the Council family. A strong effort to go beyond "encouraging" these representatives to increase fishermen and fish vendor participation should be done. An example is a letter from one of Guam's members to the 16 member Council of his intent to no longer provide Agriculture with data necessary to evaluate Guam's local fishery. This response appears to be clearly contradictory to this ecosystem-based approach, which is dependent on "Best Available Data." 

There are data collection procedures ththese reporting requirements will not chinitial steps to implement an ecosystem management. Fishery management depfuture, as a separate action, there may reporting requirements if data are not bunder the current programs. The Councexisting fisheries data collection system the problematic nature of voluntary data place-based ecosystem management aimprove voluntary data reporting particicommunity participation in decision makwould be enhanced. Because changes to data collection proscope of the proposed action, no chang

5 Letter, public 

comment period May 29, 2007 

Issue 5 Funding for fisheryrelated law 

DAR is constrained by funding in order to adequately enforce fishery laws. The agency continues to seek Federal funds to fund fishing law enforcement. An ecosystem-based management plan may be of no use if law 

The Council and NMFS support the Terenhance its fisheries enforcement capafaces funding challenges. Law enforcemfishery management, and all fisheries mchallenges in obtaining adequate fundin
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 403 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Paul Bassler Territory of Guam, Department of Agriculture 

enforcement enforcement is inadequate. Since Guam is 

currently in a state of fiscal austerity, a creative source of funding acquired from federal sources is necessary. 

and territories the opportunity to enter inenforcement agreements (JEAs) that prenforcement agencies. JEAs can be a uthe Territory of Guam. The Council and continued collaboration with the Territorenforcement strategies. The need for law enforcement, the efficactions, and funding sources would not implementing the proposed action. Theto the FPEIS as a result of this commen

6 Letter, public 

comment period 5/23/07 Anne Miller, Director Office of Federal Activities U.S. EPA 

Comment EPA supports the ecosystem approach to 

fisheries management and agrees with the preferred FEP Boundary alternative (Issue I: Fishery Ecosystem Boundaries: Alternative 1D). This approach should provide significant positive long-term impacts to the fisheries. Overall rating by EPA is LO – Lack of Objection to the proposed action. 

The support for the FEP approach to mAlternative 1D and the LO rating were nthe preferred FEP boundary alternativeNo changes were made to the FPEIS a

7 Letter, public 

comment period 5/23/07 Anne Miller, Director Office of Federal Activities 

Issue 1. Trophic interactions (predatorprey relationships) 

It would be helpful if the FPEIS discussed in greater detail how fishery interactions (i.e., predator-prey relationships) will be factored into the decision making process to add or remove species to the list of management unit species in FEPs. 

Changes to the species that are includespecies (MUS) list are made through thfurther coordinated with the public by Nconsider when adding fish species to an during the Council’s public process. In aexpertise, the Council relies on input froStatistical Committee, Council staff, NM

determine the best means of considerinspecies should be included in the MUS 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 404 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

U.S. EPA Under the proposed action, there would 

status quo concerning how fishery interfishery management decision making pwhat species are considered when manThe Council will continue to rely on the information in making its decisions. Whto understand complex environmental indecisions, the Council will continue to sMethodologies for modeling marine ecohave progressed from simple mathemaparameterized simulations. These advaimprove fisheries management under thThe FPEIS was changed by adding a sexplaining that no changes are being prgeneral process whereby changes are m

8 letter, public 

comment period 5/23/07 Anne Miller, Director Office of Federal Activities U.S. EPA 

Issue 2. Environmental Justice evaluation elaboration. 

The Draft PEIS mentions Environmental Justice (EJ) issues and cites Allen and Gough 2006, but it is unclear whether EJ communities would or would not be adversely impacted by proposed actions. EPA recommends that the FPEIS explain in greater detail what the specific EJ issues were that were identified by the Allen and provide a summary of the overall findings of that study. It would be helpful if the FPEIS further supported the statement that the proposed action [would] “facilitate and strengthen the role of such groups [minority ethnicity fishing communities] within the fishery management process.” 

Section 4.8 provides an analysis of envThe section documents that many commparticipants which may be affected by fmay be subject to additional consideratExecutive Order 12898. The 2006 Allen the economic, social, and cultural impacbased swordfish fishery on Vietnamesefamilies. Their study identified five interrenvironmental justice issues that resulte(1) changes in household income, (2) cbeing, (3) effects on family cohesion, (4community, and (5) cumulative impactsconsidered in the context of the current 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 405 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

The proposed restructuring of the specimanagement plans into place-based FEto management measures. The change management system would not affect hnot result in changes to psychological wfragmentation of the community, or havaffected environmental justice communadded to section 4.8. Section 4.8 acknowledges that traditionby indigenous communities of the Westconsidered through the proposed placeprocess. As stated in section 4.8, the traapproach is designed to access the tradknowledge of local island fishermen. Mafishermen belong to minority populationexpected to improve community involvedecisions. Minor changes were made to clarify Se

9 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

1 

Comment is on the following statement, which is stated under Alternative 1C and implicit in 1B, 1D, and 1E “The Federal waters around CNMI and the PRIA are recognized as 0 to 200 miles from shore. Within these boundaries, both the demersal and pelagic fisheries would be managed under the proposed FEPs” (p. 2-8 Draft PEIS). 

The extent of CNMI’s interest in submeCommonwealth is well established by N

U.S., 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005) / cerIslands v. U.S., 547 U.S. 1018 (2006). T

court’s finding that the “United States poand powers over the waters extending swater mark of the Commonwealth coasother things of value underlying such wfound that “laws of the Commonwealth rights are preempted by federal law and Thus, with regard to Federal conservati
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 406 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

With regards to the CNMI, this statement is problematic in that it proposes potential conflict with current Commonwealth laws and regulatory measures for marine resource management. The implementation of either Alternative 1C or 1D (or even 1B and 1E) will significantly impact the management efforts of the various natural resource agencies in the Commonwealth, given the aforementioned statement. Although the legal status of the CNMI EEZ has currently been interpreted to be Federal waters for the purposes of submerged lands, the issue regarding marine resources is not so clear. It has been legally interpreted that Federal ownership of the CNMI EEZ does not pertain to marine resources, and a recent court case in the CNMI regarding the management authority of the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), given the Federal interpretation of ownership of the EEZ, was resolved in favor of the DFW. Therefore, the inclusion of alternatives that emphatically state that marine resources in the CNMI EEZ from 0-200 will be managed under the proposed FEP may be inappropriate. 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conserthe authority of the United States within Zone (EEZ) surrounding the CNMI extewith the low water mark of the Commonnautical miles. At the same time, the inner boundary of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservatioamended (16 U.S.C. Section 1802 (11))the seaward boundary of CNMI. CNMI does not have exclusive jurisdicti(including conservation) of fishery resouCommerce has the authority to manage resources throughout the U.S. EEZ. In pGovernment attempts to defer to local juauthority to include these resources in iClarifying language was added to the Fthe extent of the EEZ from 0-200 m in thwithin the description of the alternatives “In practice, although the CNMI has no jmanagement (including conservation) oFederal government coordinates with thmanagement programs.” 

10 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

2. Does this statement make sense? “For 

example, the Atlantic Ocean has higher salinity 

levels than the Pacific Ocean because of input from the Mediterranean Sea (several large rivers flow into the Mediterranean)” (p. 3-4). 

The FPEIS was revised at section 3.2.4 Atlantic Ocean has higher salinity than to the saline input of the Mediterranean exceeds both precipitation and fresh wa
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 407 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

11 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 It is widely recognized that Dr. Steven Hare, 

presently of International Pacific Halibut Commission coined the term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” Revision of top paragraph on p. 3-12 and additional paragraph to follow provided. 

Revisions were made to section 3.2.11 and the information provided by the comthe glossary in Chapter 8. 

12 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 As this section (p. 3-30) deals with bottomfish 

habitat requirements, perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the tagging work of Henry Okamoto that demonstrated that bottomfish species do and may move between islands and banks as adults. 

Information on Okamoto’s bottomfish tabeen added to the Final PEIS in the sechabitat and range (section 3.3.2.8.3.1). 

13 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

The island of Uracas is located north of 20 degrees so the latitudinal range should be extended to 210 N. Only the islands of Uracas, 

Maug, Ascunsion and Guguan are wildlife conservation areas (p. 3-71). 

The first sentence of Section 3.5.2 in th“Located between 14 ̊ and 21 ̊ N, the C

Mariana Islands (CNMI) encompasses banks....” Another revision in the same islands north of Saipan are called the nthese have been designated as wildlife the islands of Uracas, Maug, Ascunsion

14 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 On p. 3-71 and 3-72: Bank A, Pathfinder Reef, 

Bank D, Bank C and Arakane Reef are part of the West Mariana Ridge (WMR) that also includes Stingray Shoals. They are located ~110-120 miles west of the main island chain and are no closer to the northern islands than they are to the southern islands. In fact, some of those banks are closer to the southern island chain. In this section it should also be mentioned that extensions of the northern and southern islands include, for the northern islands; Uracas Bank north of Uracas, Pakapaka Reef, Malakis Reef, 300 Reef, Dump 

The paragraph is revised to read: “SeamRidge include Pathfinder Reef, Bank D, “The northern islands also include the foof Uracas, Pakapaka Reef, Malakis ReeBank, and Zealandia Banks–all south o
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 408 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Coke Bank, Zealandia Banks all south of Anatahan. For the southern islands; White Tuna Reef, ESE Reef and Sonome Reefs all north of FDM. Most of these, with the possible exception of Pakapaka Reef, all contain habitat that falls within the Coral Reef Ecosystem. On p. 3-72, The Tropic of Cancer begins at 23°30' (23.5°) N latitude. All of the islands and shallow reefs/banks of the CNMI fall within the tropical zone. 

“The southern islands include White TuSonome Reefs, all north of Farallon de The passage was amended to read, “Thtropical zone.” 

15 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 On p. 3-72, in the CNMI the eastern island 

aspect is the windward side and the western island aspect the leeward side, and therefore the reefs are much better developed on the western (leeward) side of the island. It is backwards in the DEIS, and if the source you cite actually has it stated incorrectly, another source should be cited. Off the SW side of FDM there is a well developed extensive reef platform from ~30 to 100 feet. Also, the nearshore coastline of FDM is comprised of wall features, some with welldeveloped reef structures. 

The sentence was revised to read, “GenTinian are more developed on the westhave greater species diversity than thoscoast which receive more force from breRegarding reefs at Farallon de Medinillaread, “In general, there is no fringing rebecause deep water surrounds much of submarine slope appears to be very stecoral reef platform approximately 30 to side of the island and some well-develonearshore areas of Farallon de Medinill

16 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 On p. 3-73, The last sentence of the paragraph 

at the top of the page states “Farallon de Medinilla is near a large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island (about 18 meters).” It is not 

This last sentence was removed from th
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 409 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

clear what this means. There is a shallow reef north of the island that rises to ~18 feet, but there is no “large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island” that is implied to be 18 meters deep? A very large bank surrounds FDM that falls within the 100-meter contour line. To the north the 100-meter contour line is about 15 kilometers away. The depth range is mostly about 50-80 meters. A “large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island” at about 18 meters depth does not make sense. The reference to the crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) as “pernicious” is misleading. The COTS is a natural predator of corals. It has evolved within the context of the coral reef ecosystem and to call it “pernicious” implies that its natural behavior is somehow ‘bad’. The study of COTS has thus far been limited to a narrow time scale (the advent of scuba as a scientific tool) from a direct cause-effect perspective. In fact, long-term benefits COTS are to the corals they feed upon and the coral reef ecosystem as a whole has not been addressed. The cause(s) of COTS outbreaks is poorly understood, although outbreaks seem to exhibit a partly cyclic pattern. Although other species that feed on live coral such as the Humphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) are held in high esteem and have attained a protected status in some regions, there is a distinct double-standard that is 

The sentence was revised by removing clarified by adding “coral-eating starfish
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 410 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

applied to COTS that is not improved by the implications contained in the term “pernicious”. 

17 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 On p. 3-75 The pan-tropical whitebelly spinner 

dolphin (Stenella longirostris longirostris) is the only known cetacean in the CNMI that forms resident pods amongst the main island chains. It has also frequently stranded on occasion see: Trianni MS and CK Kessler. 2002. Incidence and strandings of the Spinner Dolphin, Stenella 

longirostris, in Saipan Lagoon. Micronesica 

34(2) 249-260. 

In the FPEIS, the discussion on cetaceaCNMI was revised to read as follows: “In waters around the CNMI, the pan-trodolphin (Stenella longirostris longirostris

and forms resident pods among the mastranded on occasion (Trianni and Kess

18 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 Section 3.4.1 appears to refer to sea turtles, 

and does not have any additional information on CNMI fisheries? 

The FPEIS includes a general discussioaffected environment (Pacific Ocean EEdiscussion of sea turtles in waters arou3.5.2 of the FPEIS. A discussion of CNM3.5.2. NMFS and the Council added the locatiwhich archipelagic areas were being dis

19 Email 

5/23/07 Michael Trianni, 

 On p. 3-77, the sea cucumber harvest 

moratorium is for all sea cucumbers, and not just Actinopyga mauritiana. This section appears rather short in comparison to other sections that follow. To have a very small 

paragraph on CNMI Coral Reef Fisheries in a Coral Reef Ecosystem DEIS seemsunfortunate, but I am no expert on DEIS protocols. 

The sentence was revised to state that sea cucumbers. The descriptions of fishsummaries of information that are availapublished FEPs and other documents wThe scope of the FPEIS is not limited to therefore a brief summary of CNMI’s coand no additional changes were made t

20 Letter 

6/22/07, Sean P. Lynch, 

1 The CNMI ASSISTANT Attorney General 

(CNMI AAG) commented on what the CNMI believes is a fundamental defect in the 

The extent of CNMI’s interest in submeCommonwealth is well established by 

U.S., 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005) / ce
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 411 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Assistant Attorney General, CNMI Office of the Attorney General 

jurisdictional analysis within the Draft PEIS. The matter of jurisdiction was found to be pervasive throughout WESPAC documents and the CNMI AAG believes a correction is in order. 1. Generally, CNMI objects to the characterization of NOAA’s jurisdiction under the MSA as extending from the shoreline. The CNMI AG asserts that the CNMI government has exclusive jurisdiction from the coastline out to 12 miles from the coastline. [Note that the CNMI AG qualifies the “coastline” to include “all waters, submerged lands, and natural resources to a depth of at least 10 fathoms and include[ing] certain coastal features.”] 2. The CNMI further asserts that this 12 mile exclusive state or territorial jurisdiction is the same for Hawaii, Guam, and American Samoa. 3. Finally, the CNMI AG requests that the agency comply with its duties under Executive Order 13132 with regard to the federalism implications associated with the proposed action. 

Islands v. U.S., 547 U.S. 1018 (2006). 

court’s finding that the “United States pand powers over the waters extending water mark of the Commonwealth coasand other things of value underlying sufurther found that “laws of the Commonthese rights are preempted by federal effect.” Thus, with regard to Federal counder the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act, the authority of the UExclusive Economic Zone surrounding that is coterminous with the low water coast seaward to 200 nautical miles. 

At the same time, the inner boundary of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservatioamended (16 U.S.C. Section 1802 (11))the seaward boundary of CNMI. To the extent the Draft PEIS suggested does not have jurisdiction over internal and inaccurate. While the precise extennot been established (e.g., the coastline plotted or legally described with any accdispute over the ownership of the lands waters, and CNMI retains jurisdiction ovinstances, include areas beyond the ordCNMI does not have jurisdiction over thconservation) of fishery resources. The the authority to manage the nation’s fishEEZ. In practice, although the CNMI ha
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 412 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

management (including conservation) oFederal government coordinates with thmanagement programs. The document has been edited to indica(See Chapter 2, description of Alternativclarification language was added to the “The Secretary of Commerce has the anation’s fishery resources throughout thZone (EEZ). With the exception of the wPRIA, the boundaries of the FEPs woulwaters from 3 to 200 miles from shore fPacific Region’s archipelagic areas. The around CNMI and the PRIA are recognithe shore. In practice, although CNMI hmanagement (including conservation) oFederal government coordinates with thmanagement programs.” 

1. As to Hawaii, American Samoa, and established their respective jurisdictionthe shoreline. These are not exclusive terms of fishery resources managemenand overlaps with the Secretary of Comadminister fishery management and cothroughout the U.S. EEZ. In practice, tattempts to defer to local jurisdiction, winclude the resources in its manageme

2. The Federal Government will comply obligations, including Executive Order 1
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 413 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

analyzed in the FPEIS makes no substathe existing fisheries management regimshift from a fishery-based management ecosystem based management approaaffect the existing jurisdictional boundarSection 2.2 (Description of the alternativthat:  “The EEZ around the CNMI, the PRIA, Samoa is established by international lanautical miles from the shoreline. The Mof Commerce to manage and regulate tstates, territories and possessions of thFederal waters of the EEZ.” 

21 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Issue 1. Measures to account for other species occupying the same niche as the target species and that interact with the target species. 

From an ecosystem management perspective it may be more appropriate to include an alternative that accounts for other species occupying the same niche as the target species and that interact with the target species. Hence, adaptive management measures should be specified to ensure that all ecosystem-important species will be included in the FEPs and measures to include species that prove important to managing species within each FEP. 

The proposed action would only establiand foundation for future fishery ecosysproposed action contains no new mana

substantive changes to the existing fishadded). With respect to adaptive management mconservation and management mandatCouncil to ensure that the impacts of fisspecies and other affected species and considered appropriately. As a result, mmanagement measures are built into alprograms, whether under FMPs or propwith fishery but may include limits in tercatch, gear-season-area restrictions, anconserve the fishery resource, including 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 414 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

occur in proximity to management unit sthat some monitoring measures are oblvoluntary – such as reporting. Refinememeasures are constantly being developconsidered under the proposed action. In the future, under the framework of thenvisioned that trophic interactions (e.gand other secondary effects of a fishery as impacts on protected marine wildlife accidentally) will be considered in the cmanagement based on an increase in ounderstanding of managed ecosystemsthe proposed action to reorganize the Fstep (Section 1.5) and in the future addavailable to fishery managers including to be managed in the FEP. 

22 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Issue 2. Detailed monitoring plans. 

Monitoring plans need to be developed and implemented; potential ways how the information from the plans will impact the ecosystem management approach need to be identified. 

The proposed action would only establiand foundation for future fishery ecosysmanagement measures, including the eplans, are proposed at this time. Howevthe proposed FEPs, as fisheries scientimanagers increase their knowledge and managed ecosystems in the western Paconsider the development of monitoring information collection needs for effectivBecause new monitoring plans and infoare outside the scope of the proposed amade to the FPEIS after considering th

23 Letter, public 

comment period 

Issue 3. Funding for 

Some level of detail should be provided on how NMFS and the Council would provide sustained 

The proposed action would only establiand foundation for future fishery ecosys
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 415 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

monitoring plans should be detailed. 

funding to ensure that species managed under the FEPs will be adequately monitored and that the adaptive management approach is working to a sufficient degree to protect managed species and ecosystem. 

management measures, including the eplans, are considered in the proposed afunding monitoring plans under the propIn the future, when changes are proposmeasures, provisions for ensuring monof the detailed disclosures. Because a new monitoring activity is ouproposed action, no changes were madthis comment. 

24 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Issue 4. Implementation of ecosystem management 

Ecosystem management is generally viewed as moving in the right direction. This approach is different from species-based management and could well be beneficial to fisheries and marine ecosystems in and around the Pacific Islands National Park Service units. However, care is advised with respect to the complete ramifications and potential implementation of this or related documents. Further consultation and discussion is needed in the DPEIS with respect to addressing the implementation of ecosystem management within the applicable terrestrial and marine jurisdictional framework. 

The FPEIS describes the Councils exisadvisory structure alternatives. The Couregional input from a variety of scientificmembers of the general public through proposed advisory structure. A shift from species-based FMPs to placontinue to allow input on fisheries manbroad spectrum of interested parties. Ecfor resource management must involve agencies and stakeholders. For this rearegional ecosystem advisory committeeobjective of bringing issues that involve management authorities to the table for REACs would play a crucial role in the dof the FEPs. See Section 2.4.1 and Secinformation on the Council’s REACs. Othave ample opportunities to participate process through the open public venues various stages in the planning process. 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 416 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

The FPEIS includes several discussionto consult with others when implementin

The Council’s processes are quite inclufrom local, state, Federal agencies and proposal is an initial step toward ecosysthe reorganization of FMPs into place-bno new fishery management measures proposed reorganized Council process involvement from interested parties, and ecosystem management would permit efisheries management, no additional chmade as a result of this comment. 

25 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Issue 5. The DPEIS does not acknowledge previous 

comments provided by DOI on December 27, 2005, on an earlier version of the DPEIS. Nor does the DPEIS reflect changes that address the management issues identified by the FWS. The issues relate to a lack of adequate NEPA analyses of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources managed by the FWS, as mandated, in submerged lands and waters within the 10 NWRs in the central Pacific Ocean. Also, the DPEIS fails to explain why consultation with FWS to resolve these issues did not occur. 

NMFS and the Council reviewed the NEregarding anticipated impacts of the initmanagement on fish and wildlife resour10 central Pacific Ocean NWRs. The coproposed shift in the fisheries managemPacific Region from species-based FMPprimarily an administrative change (i.e., institutional framework). Existing fishery unchanged. Because there are no new measures being proposed, NMFS and tnone of the alternatives would have an resources in the 10 central Pacific OceaNMFS is committed to ensuring that comoperating in the PRIA are informed of fithe FWS inform permittees of regulationnational wildlife refuges in the PRIA, NMto contact the FWS and also provide the 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 417 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

contact information to the FWS. In the long term, agencies involved in fiPRIAs would have enhanced opportunimanagement decisions. The following text was added to section 1D) to explain the FWS authority in the “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWregulate activities within the PRIA NatioNOAA has exclusive jurisdiction to manresources throughout the PRIA EEZs. 

26 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Issue 6. The Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), which include the U.S. coral reefs, submerged lands, and territorial seas, are administered by FWS for DOI, under general regulations at Title 50 for the National Wildlife Refuge system. Although these are significant facts relevant to the proposed action, they are not fully considered in the analysis of impacts associated with the proposed action presented in the DPEIS. 

The proposed PRIA FEP covers the conof fisheries resources within the U.S. EEinner boundary of the EEZ is defined in coterminous with the seaward boundary States.” (MSA (16 U.S.C. 1802) section The PRIA “Social Environment” section3.5.5) were modified to indicate that the by the FWS for DOI in accordance with Regulations of the PRIA NWRs are proand are actions beyond the scope of the the PEIS, including the preferred alternachange to the current management actithe Council as a result of the proposed 

species-based FMPs with place-based 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 418 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

NMFS will continue to implement fishery 

that are currently in effect throughout thwill continue to manage its Refuges in aregulations they promulgate. The proposed reorganization of existing would not change impacts on DOI areaRefuge System, so no changes were mconsidering this comment. 

27 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Issue 7 The DPEIS does not evaluate the potential 

cumulative effects of the proposed action in relation to past, present, and potential actions of the FWS in managing six NWRs in the PRIA. 

NMFS and the Council re-evaluated the of the proposed action in relation to the reasonably foreseeable potential actionNWRs in the PRIA as contained in the dConservation Plans for Howland, Baker Wildlife Refuges, and the Conceptual MPalmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef NWRs http://www.fws.gov). The proposed change in fisheries manafrom species-based FMPs to place-baschange and current fishery regulations wBecause there are no new fishery manaproposed, NMFS and the Council deteralternatives would have cumulative effethe PRIA NWRs, and no changes were considering this comment. 

28 Letter, public 

comment period 

Issue 8. Refuge closed to 

Waters within the boundaries of the NWRs in the PRIA are closed to commercial fishing. The commenter wrote, “If implemented, the 

The shift in fisheries management apprfrom species-based FMPs to place-basadministrative change, and existing fish
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 419 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

commercial fishing; and potential cumulative effects on existing management programs. 

proposed action would result in establishment of a governmental process that would require public and private resources and effort to pursue authorization of actions that are not compatible with the purposes for which the NWRs were established, in accordance with National Wildlife Refuge System requirements found at 50 CFR 29. Clearly, the proposed action has potential to result in significant cumulative effects on existing management of federally protected resources of national importance. By not analyzing cumulative effects 

of such potential significance, the DPEIS falls short of being a document that would foster good decisions...” 

continue unchanged. The Council and NMFS recognize the amanages all national wildlife refuges, inThe proposed action would not change its mandate; therefore the proposed actthe management programs of the FWSThe shift to FEPs would continue to foscoordination among NMFS, the Council there are refuges established. FWS wothe management actions and proposals under the place-based FEPs, just as therepresented on the Council as a non-voto all management actions proposed by The Council and NMFS analyzed the pothe institutional and framework shift to Fnone of the Federal action alternatives wadverse effects on the existing manageand therefore, no changes were made t

29 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Issue 9. Shared management; relation to other laws; consultations with FWS 

It is recommended that the following section be added to the FPEIS, Record of Decision, and related implementing regulations: Relation to other laws. “To ensure consistency between management regime of different regimes of different Federal agencies with shared management responsibilities of fishery resources within the PRIA regulatory area, 

fishing is not allowed in any waters withdrawn 

as a National Wildlife Refuge by the President 

The Council and NMFS recognize the aNational Wildlife Refuge System Adminamended, to regulate Refuge activities. FPEIS to reflect FWS’s authority. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Consespecifically established the boundaries Economic Zone within which the U.S. Cjurisdiction to NOAA over management 
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 420 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 

or the Secretary of the Interior unless specifically authorized by regulations issued by the Service.” It is recommended that NMFS consult with FWS prior to finalizing the DPEIS on the legal requirements for approval of action permitted with the NWRs and include a summary of results of this consultation in the FPEIS. Also, it is recommended that all cases in which proposed actions would affect NWRs in the PRIA identified and incorporated into the analysis presented in the FPEIS along with all relevant information on the outcome of any consultations with FWS on such proposed actions. 

NMFS will be reorganizing the current wregulations at 50 CFR 665 as a compleproposed establishment of the FEPs to shift to geographically-based fishery mathe FEPs or reorganization of the regulamanagement measures. The FEPs only framework and foundation for future fish

by replacing the current species-based with geographically-based fishery ecosywill be mirrored by the re-organized regor reorganized regulations would not affout its mandated management of the Pshift in management approach (i.e., repwith FEPs), represents a status quo for 

management program. As such, the prothe historical or current fishing operatioPRIA. In conclusion, no substantive changes tregulations, including those recommendproposed with the replacement of westeInasmuch as the FWS is a member of tbe included in all consultations and delimeasures specifically proposed under taffect the NWRs in the central Pacific O

30 Letter, public 

comment period June 8, 2007 Willie R. Taylor, 

Issue 10. In summary the DOI related that it found 

deficiencies in the DPEIS that “precluded meaningful NEPA analysis of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources managed by the Service .... Within 10 National Wildlife Refuges in the Central Pacific Ocean.” 

NMFS and the Council re-evaluated the a basis for “meaningful analysis” of antiwildlife resources managed by the Servlight of the proposed management plan The FPEIS discloses the background, pproposed action, describes a proposal a
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 421 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Other comments were on cumulative effects on Service actions to conserve and protect fishery resources in the PRIA NWRS (addressed above – see Issue 7); and effects on FWS management of the NWRs (addressed above – see Issue 8). DOI asserts that NMFS continues to propose activities that are incompatible with NWR System requirements found at 50 CFR 29 (addressed above, see Issue 8)]. DOI requested a through and complete analysis of the effects of the proposed action on NWRs in the PRIA. 

alternatives to the proposed action, desenvironment, and considers potential dicumulative impacts of the alternatives oThe Council is authorized under the MSmanagement plans for the Western Pacproposed action is to replace existing spmanagement plans (FMPs) with place-bplans (FEPs). The proposed FEPs wouand management of fisheries resources western Pacific Ocean. The affected area includes some areas national wildlife refuges in the Pacific Rhas been disclosed and the impacts of NWR management by FWS were consichange from species-based FMPs to pladministrative action. This change woulfishery management measures; and theexisting FWS management of the natura result of implementing any of the Fedecosystem management or for MUS spto promulgate and enforce regulations rmanagement would remain unchangedalternative is selected for implementatioNMFS and FWS would continue to collarespective management activities relativFEPs, as under the existing FMPs. If nemanagement measures are proposed bproposed new measures would be eval
Chapter 6: Preparers, Distribution of the EIS, and Res

Ecosystem Approach FPEIS Page 422 

Table 6-1. Summary of Public Comments on the 2007 Draft Programmatic EIS, Responses, and Associated Act

No. 

Source, Date, Commenter & Affiliation: 

Issue Number: Issue: Response: 

Because the Refuges and DOI managedisclosed in the FPEIS, no new manageaddressed, and because future managecoordinated with the DOI, to the extent interested parties including the public, nmade as a result of this comment. Respcomments will have partially addressed 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 423

Chapter 7. REFERENCES 

Adams, T., P. Dalzell, and E. Ledua. 1999. Ocean resources. In: M. Rappaport (Ed.), The Pacific 

Islands Environment and Society. The Bess Press, Honolulu, HI.

Ainley, D.G., T.C. Telfer, and M.H. Reynolds. 1997. Townsends’ and Newell’s shearwater 

(Puffinus auricularis). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 

297 (18 pp.). The American Ornithologists’ Union, the Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Washington, D.C. 

Alcala, A.C. 1981. Fish yield of coral reefs of Sumilon Island, central Philippines. Bulletin of the 

National Research Council of the Philippines. 36:1–7. 

Alcala, A.C. and T. Luchavez. 1981. Fish yield of a coral reef surrounding Apo Island, central 

Visayas. pp: 69-73 In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium. 

Allen, T.F.H. and T.W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press, 

New York, NY. 

Allen, S. and A. Gough. Monitoring Environmental Justice Impacts: Vietnamese-American 

Longline Fishermen Adapt to the Hawaii Swordfish Fishery Closure. Human 

Organization Vol. 65: No. 3, pp 319–328. 

Amesbury, J. and R. Hunter-Anderson. 1989. Native fishing rights and limited entry in Guam.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. 

Amesbury, J., R. Hunter-Anderson, and E. Wells. 1989. Native fishing rights and limited entry in 

the CNMI. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. 

Arenas, P. Hall, and M. Garcia. 1992. The association of tunas with floating objects and dolphins 

in the eastern Pacific Ocean. In: Association of fauna with floating objects and dolphins 

in the EPO Inter-American tropical tuna commission (unpublished, 38 pp.). InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission , La Jolla, CA. 

Arias-Gonzales, J.E., R. Galzin, J. Nielson, R. Mahon, and K. Aiken. 1994. Reference area as a 

factor affecting potential yield of coral reef fishes. NAGA: The ICLARM Quarterly.

17(4):37–40. 

Asakura, A., T. Ohba, S. Miyano, T. Furuki, T. Kurozumi, and H. Harada. 1994. Outline of the 

biological expedition to the Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia. Nat. Hist. Res. Special 

Issue 1: 1-11. 

Austin, O. 1949. The status of Steller’s albatross. Pacific Science. 3:283–295. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 424

Balazs, G.H. 1996. Behavioral changes within the recovering Hawaiian green turtle population. 

Pp: 16-20 In: J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell (Compilers), 

Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-387. 

Balazs, G.H. 2002. Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and 

Management Workshop. February 5–8 2002, Honolulu, HI. Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. 

Balazs, G.H. and M. Chaloupka. 2004. Thirty-year recovery trend in the once depleted 

Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Biological Conservation. 117:491–498. 

Balazs, G.H., P. Craig, B.R. Winton, and R.K. Miya. 1994. Satellite telemetry of green turtles 

nesting at French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, and Rose Atoll, American Samoa. Pp: 184-187 

In: K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (Eds.), Proceedings of 

14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFSSEFSC-351. 

 

Balazs, G.H. and S. Hau. 1986. Geographic distribution: Lepidochelys olivacea in Hawaii. 

Herpetology Review. 17(2):51. 

Balazs, G.H., H.F. Hirth, P.Y. Kawamoto, E.T. Nitta, L.H. Ogren, R.C. Wass, and J.A. 

Wetherall. 1992. Interim recovery plan for Hawaiian sea turtles. Honolulu Laboratory, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center. NMFS, NOAA, Honolulu. SWFSC Admin. Rept. 

H-92-01. 

Balazs, G.H., P.Siu, and J. Landret. 1995. Ecological aspects of green turtles nesting at Scilli 

Atoll in French Polynesia. In Twelth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical 

memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361; p. 7-10 

 

Bakun A. 1996. Patterns in the ocean. La Jolla, CA: California Sea Grant College/CIB. 

Bank of Hawaii. 1997. American Samoa economic report. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Bank of Hawaii. 2000. American Samoa economic report. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Bank of Hawaii. 2002. American Samoa economic report. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Bank of Hawaii. 1999a. Hawaii 1998: Annual economic report (Vol. 47). Bank of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Bank of Hawaii. 1999b. Guam economic report: October 1999. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Bank of Hawaii. 1999c. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands economic report: 

October 1999. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 425

Bank of Hawaii. 2004. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands economic report: 

October 2004. Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Bartlett, G. 1989. Juvenile Caretta off Pacific coast of Baja California. Noticias Caguamas. 2:1-

10. 

Bellagio Conference on Sea Turtles, Steering Committee. 2004. What can be done to restore 

Pacific turtle populations? The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles. 

Bellagio Conference Center, 17-22 November 2003. 

Bigelow, K. 1997. Cook Islands National Fisheries Assessment. Oceanic Fisheries Programme 

Center Report No. 10. South Pacific Forum Secretariat. 

Bigg, G. 2003. The Oceans and Climate (2nd ed.).Cambridge University Press, Cambride, 

England. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le 

Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. 

Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.), 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 

BirdLife International. 2009. Bristle-thighed Curlew. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/. 

Retrieved 2/2/09. 

Birkeland, C. (Ed.). 1997a. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman and Hall, NY. 

Birkeland, C. 1997b. Status of coral reefs in the Marianas. In: R.W. Grigg and C. Birkeland 

(Eds.), Status of Coral Reefs in the Pacific.University of Hawaii Sea Grant College 

Program, Honolulu, HI. 

Birkeland, C., R. Randall, R, Wass, B, Smith, and S. Wilkens. 1987. Biological resource 

assessment of the Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS MEMD 3. 232 pp. 

Birkeland, C., R. Randall, and S. Amesbury. 1994. Coral and Reef-fish Assessment of the 

Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Report to the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 126 pp. 

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick 

(Eds.), The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 426

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and M.Y. Chaloupka. 2000. Green turtle somatic growth model: 

Evidence for density dependence. Ecological Applications. 10:269–282. 

Bjorndal, K.A., J.A. Wetherall, A.B. Bolten, and J.A. Mortimer 1999. Twenty-six years of green 

turtle nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: An encouraging trend. Conservation Biology. 

13:126–134. 

Boehlert, G.W. and B.C. Mundy. 1993. Ichthyoplankton assemblages at seamounts and oceanic 

islands. Bulletin of Marine Science. 53(2):336–361. 

Brainard, R., J. Maragos, R. Schroeder, J. Kenyon, P. Vroom, S. Godwin, R. Hoeke, G. Aeby, R. 

Moffitt, M. Lammers, J. Gove, M. Timmers, S. Holzworth, and S. Kolinski. 2005. The 

state of coral reefs of the Pacific Remote Island Areas. In: J. Waddell (Ed.), The state of 

coral reef ecosystems of the Unites States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005.

NOAA Tech. Memo.NOS NCC11. 

Brewbaker, P. 2000. Hawaii economic trends: January 2000. Honolulu, HI: Bank of Hawaii. 

Brodziak, J., R. Moffitt, and G. DiNardo. 2009. Hawaiian bottomfish assessment update for 

2008. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 

96822-2396. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-09- 02, 93 p. 

Browman, H.I. and K.I. Stergiou. 2004a. Introduction: Perspectives on ecosystem-based 

approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 

274:269–303. 

Browman, H.I. and K.I. Stergiou. 2004b. Marine protected areas as central element of 

ecosystem-based management: Defining their location, size, and number. Perspectives on 

ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. 274:269–303. 

Buddemeier, R.W., J.A. Kleypas, and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Coral Reefs and Global Climate 

Change: Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef 

Ecosystems. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. 56 pp. 

Calambokidis J., G. Steiger, J. Straley, T. Quinn II, L. Herman, S. Cerchio, D. Salden, M. 

Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urban, R. Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K. Balcomb, C. Gabriele, 

M. Dahlheim, N. Higashi, S. Uchida, J. Ford, Y. Miyamura, P. de Guevara, S. Mizroch, 

L. Schlender, and K. Rasmussen. 1997. Abundance and population structure of 

Humpback whales in the North Pacific Basin (Final Report). Cascadia Research 

Collective. Contract #50ABNF500113 Report. 

Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett. 2005. Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from 

carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

110(C09S04). 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 427

Carretta, .J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M. Lowry. 2004. 

U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments 2004. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-375.

Carleton, C. 1987. Report on a study of the marketing and processing of precious coral products 

in Taiwan, Japan and Hawaii. South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Report No. 87/13. 

Cayre, R., A. Pianet, A. Morlier and J.M. Stretta. 1989. Thons et environment. Proceedings of 

the ORSTROM Working Group on Tunas and Environment. Paris, 12-15 September 

1988. 26 pg. 

Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book. 2005. www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ 

Chaloupka, M. and C. Limpus. 2001. Trends in the abundance of sea turtles resident in southern 

Great Barrier Reef waters. Biological Conservation. 102:235–249. 

Chan E. and H. Liew. 1996. Decline of the leatherback population in Terengganu, Malaysia, 

1956–1995. Chelonian Conservation Biology. 2(2): 196–203. 

Chave, E.H. and B.C. Mundy. 1994. Deep-sea benthic fish of the Hawaiian Archipelago, Cross 

Seamount, and Johnston Atoll. Pacific Science. 48:367–409. 

Chesher, R.H. 1969. Destruction of Pacific corals by the sea star, Acanthaster planci. Science. 

165:280–283. 

Cheng, A.S., L.E. Kruger, and S.E. Danew. 2003. "Place" as an integrating concept in natural 

resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. Soc. Natur. Resour.

16:87-104. 

Chimner, R.A., B. Fry, M.Y. Kaneshiro, and N. Cormier. 2006. Current extent and historical 

expansion of introduced mangroves on O`ahu, Hawai`i. Pac. Sci. 60(3): 377-384. 

Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. Dantonio, R. Francis, J. F. 

Franklin, J.A. Macmahon, R.F. Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G. 

Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the 

scientific basis for ecosystem applications. Ecological Applications. 6(3):665–691. 

Clarke, R. 1989. NMFS SWFSC Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-89-5. 

Cliffton K., D. Cornejo, and R. Felger. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. In: K. 

Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles (pp. 199–209). Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Cobb, J. 1902. Commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands (Extracted from the U.S. Fish 

Commission Report for 1901). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 428

Coles, R. and Kuo, J. 1995. Seagrasses. In: J.E. Maragos, M.N., Peterson, L.C. Eldredge, J.E. 

Bardach, and H.F. Takeuchi (Eds.), Marine and coastal biodiversity in the tropical 

island Pacific segion, Vol. 1, Systematics and information management priorities (pp. 

39–57). Honolulu, HI: East–West Center. 

Colgan, M.W. 1981. Long-term recovery process of a coral community after a catastrophic 

disturbance. University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Tech. Rept. No. 76. 

Colgan, M.W. 1982. Succession and recovery of a coral reef after predation by Acanthaster 

planci (L.). Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium: Manila.

2:333–338. 

Colgan, M.W. 1987. Coral reef recovery on Guam (Micronesia) after catastrophic predation by 

Acanthaster planci. Ecology. 68(6): 1592-1605. 

Colin, P.L., D.M Devaney, L. Hills-Colinvaux, T.H. Suchanek, and J.T. Harrison, III. 1986. 

Geology and biological zonation of the reef slope, 50–360 m depth at Enewetak Atoll, 

Marshall Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science. 38(1):111–128. 

Coutures, E. 2003. The biology and artisanal fishery of lobsters of American Samoa. DMWR 

Biological Report Series, No. 103. 

Craig, P. (Ed.). 2002. Natural history guide to American Samoa. National Park of American 

Samoa and Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. 78 p. 

Craig P., B. Ponwith., F. Aitaoto, and D. Hamm. 1993. The commercial, subsistence and 

recreational fisheries of American Samoa. Marine Fisheries Review. 55 (2), 109-116. 

Craig, P., G. Dinonato, D. Fenner, C. Hawkins. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems in 

American Samoa. In: J. Waddell (Ed.), The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United 

States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Tech, Memo, NOS NCC11. 

CRM. 1996. Nonpoint source marine monitoring program: First year progress report. Draft 

report by Division of Coastal Resources Management, CNMI. 

Cummings, V. 2002. Sea turtle conservation in Guam. In: I. Kinan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 

Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. February 

5–8, 2002, Honolulu, HI. 

Dalzell, P. 1996. Catch rates, selectivity and yields of reef fishing. In: N. V. C. Poulnin and C. 

Roberts (Eds.), Tropical reef fisheries (pp. 161–192). London: Chapman and Hall. 

Dalzell, P. and T. Adams. 1997. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the Pacific 

Islands. Proceedings of the Eighth International Coral Reef Symposium (pp. 2027–2032). 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 429

Dalzell, P., T.J.H. Adams, and N.V.C. Polunin. 1996. Coastal fisheries in the Pacific islands.

Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 1996. 34:395–531. 

Dam R. and C. Diez. 1997a. Diving behavior on immature hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) in a Caribbean reef habitat. Coral Reefs. 16:133–138. 

Dam R. and C. Diez. 1997b. Predation by hawksbill turtles on sponges at Mona Island, Puerto 

Rico. Proceedings of Eighth International Coral Reef Symposium (Vol. 2, 1412–1426). 

Davenport J., and G. Balazs. 1991. Fiery bodies—Are pyrosomas an important component of the 

diet of leatherback turtles? British Herpetological Society Bulletin.31:33–38. 

Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, and F.C. Coleman. 2002. Ecological effects of fishing in marine 

ecosystems of the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commision. 

Delcroix, T., G. Eldin, M.H. Radenac, J. Toole and E. Firing. 1992. Variation of the western 

equatorial Pacific Ocean, 1986-1988. Journal of Geophysical Research 97: 5423-5445. 

DeMartini, E., F. Parrish, and R. Boland. 2002. Comprehensive evaluation of shallow reef fish 

populations at French Frigate Shoals and Midway Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries. 

DeMello, J. K. 2004. Commercial marine landings from fisheries on the coral reef ecosystem of 

the Hawaiian Archipelago. In A. M. Friedlander (Ed.), Status of Hawaii’s coastal 

fisheries in the new millennium (pp. 160–173). Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by 

the American Fisheries Society, Hawaii Chapter, Honolulu, HI. 

Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 1999. The State of Hawaii data 

book: 1998. State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and 

Tourism, Honolulu. 

Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 2003. The State of Hawaii data 

book: 2002. http://www2.hawaii.gov/dbedt/index.cfm?section=READ_Databook445

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR). 2002. Reports on the NMFS logbook 

program for the American Samoa longline fishery, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters 2001. 

American Samoa Government. 

Des Rochers, K. 1992. The impact of an oil spill on Hawaii’s natural environment: A general 

overview. In: Oil spills at sea: Potential impacts on Hawaii. Report prepared for the State 

of Hawaii Department of Health by the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program. Report 

No. CR-92-06. 

de Young, B., M. Heath, F. Werner, F. Chai, B. Megrey, and P. Monfrey. 2004. Challenges of 

modeling ocean basin ecosystems. Science. 304:1463–1466. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 430

Dobbs, K. 2001. Marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: A compendium 

of information and basis for the development of policies and strategies for the 

conservation of marine turtles (1st ed.). Townsville, Queensland, Australia: Great Barrier 

Reef Park Authority. 

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta

(Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 88(14). 

Donaldson, T.J. 1995. Comparative analysis of reef fish distribution patterns in the Northern and 

Southern Mariana Islands. Natural History Research. 2: 227–234. 

Donaldson, T.J., R.F. Myers, J.T. Moyer, and P.J. Schupp. 1994. Zoogeography of fishes of the 

Mariana, Ogasawara and Izu Islands: A preliminary assessment. Natural History 

Research: Special Issue. 1: 303–332. 

Doney, S.C. 2006. The dangers of ocean acidification. Scientific American, 294(3), 58-65. 

Duenas and Swavely, Inc. 1985. Saipan Lagoon use management plan. Prepared for the CNMI 

Coastal Resources Management Office (Four-volume set). 

Duron, M. 1978. Contribution a l’etude de la biologie dedermochelys coriacea dans les pertuis 

charentais. Doctoral dissertation, L’Universite de Bordeaux. 

Dutton, P., B. Bowen, D. Owens, A. Barragán, and S. Davis. 1999. Phylogeography of the 

leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Zoology. 248:397–409. 

Dyer, C. and J.R. McGoodwin (Eds.). 1994. Folk management in the world’s fisheries. Niwot, 

CO: University of Colorado Press. 

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the North Pacific 

Ocean. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center. 

Eckert, K.L. and S.A. Eckert. 1988. Pre-reproductive movements of leatherback turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in the Caribbean. Copeia. 2:400–406. 

Eckert, S. A. 1998. Perspectives on the use of satellite telemetry and other electronic 

technologies for the study of marine turtles, with reference to the first year-long tracking 

of leatherback sea turtles. In: S.P. Epperly and J. Braun (Eds.), Proceedings of the 

Seventeenth 21 Annual Sea Turtle Symposium (p. 294). NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFC-415. 

Eckert S. A., D. Nellis, K. Eckert, and G. Kooyman. 1986. Diving patterns of two leatherback 

sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) during interesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. Croix, 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Herpetologica. 42:381–388. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 431

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management: A Report to 

Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Eldredge, L.G. 1983. Summary of environmental and fishing information on Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Historical background, description of 

the islands, and review of the climate, oceanography, and submarine topography. In: 

Resources Assessment Investigation of the Mariana Archipelago, 1980–1985. Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Enoki, T. 2004. Management of Forest Ecosystems on Islands: the mangrove in Hawaii as an 

alien species. The Okinawan J. of Am. Stud. No. 1: 62-66. 

Faleomavaega, E.F.H. 2002. Statement before the American Samoa legislature. 

Fefer, S.I. 1987. Trip report to Palmyra Atoll, 16–30 September 1987. Unpublished Trip Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Firing, J. and R.E. Brainard. 2006. Ten years of shipboard ADCP measurements along the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin. 543:347-363. 

Flores, T. 2003. Offshore Fisheries Survey 2003. Annual Report. Government of Guam, 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. 11pp. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible 

fisheries. Rome. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1999. Indicators for sustainable 

development of marine capture fisheries. FAO guidelines for responsible fisheries. No. 8. 

Rome. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002. FAO guidelines on the 

ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rome. 

Forney, K.A. 2004. Estimates of cetacean mortality and injury in two U.S. Pacific longline 

fisheries 1994–2004. Admin. Rep. LJ-04-07. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Forney K., J. Barlow, M. Muto, M. Lowry, J. Baker, G. Cameron, J. Mobley, C. Stinchcomb, 

and J. Carreta. 2000. Draft U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2000. La 

Jolla, CA: NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 432

Friedlander, A.M. 1996. Assessment of the coral reef resources of Hawaii with emphasis on 

waters of federal jurisdiction. Report to Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council, Honolulu, HI. 

Friedlander, A and E. DeMartini. 2002. Contrasts in density, size, and biomass of reef fishes 

between the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: the effects of fishing down 

apex predators. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 230: 253-264. 

Friedlander, A.M., G. Aeby, E. Brown, A. Clark, S. Coles, S. Dollar, C. Hunter, P. Jokiel, J. 

Smith, B. Walsh, I. Willams, and W. Wiltse. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems in 

the Main Hawaiian Islands. In: J. Waddell (Ed.), The state of coral reef ecosystems of the 

United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Tech, Memo, NOS 

NCC11. 

Fryer, G.J. and P. Fryer. 1999. Geology. In: M Rapaport (Ed.), Pacific Islands Environment and 

Society. Bess Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Garcia, S., and A. Demetropolous. 1986. Management of Cyprus fisheries. FAO Fisheries 

Technical Paper 250. United Nations Fish and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 

Garcia, S. M., A. Zerbi, C. Aliaume, T. Do Chi, and G. Lasserre. 2003. The ecosystem approach 

to fisheries: Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation, 

and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. 

Gelbspan, R. 2004. Boiling point. New York: Basic Books. 

Gilman, E., H.V. Lavieren, J. Ellison, V. Jungblut, L. Wilson, F. Areki, G. Brighouse, J. 

Bungitak, E. Dus, M. Henry, M. Kilman, E. Matthews, I. Sauni Jr., N Teariki-Ruatu, S. 

Tukia, and K. Yuknavage. 2006. Pacific Island mangroves in a changing climate and 

rising sea. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 179. United Nations 

Environment Programme, Regional Seas Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 

Gonsalez, O. J. 1996. Formulating an ecosystem approach to environmental protection.

Environmental-Management. 20(5):597–605. 

Gourley, J. 1997. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: An assessment of the 

coral reef resources under local and federal jurisdiction. Report to Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

Grant, G.S. 1994. Juvenile leatherback turtle caught by longline fishing in American Samoa. 

Marine Turtle Newsletter. 66:3–5. 

Grant, G.S., P. Craig, and G.H. Balazs. 1997. Notes on juvenile hawksbill and green turtles in 

American Samoa. Pacific Science. 51(1):48–53. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 433

Green, A. 1996. Status of the coral reefs of the Samoan Archipelago. Department of Marine and 

Wildlife Resources Biological Report Series, P.O. Box 3730, Pago Pago, American 

Samoa. 96799, 125 pp. 

Green, A. 1997. An assessment of the status of the coral reef resources, and their patterns of use 

in the U.S. Pacific Islands. Final report prepared for the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, Honolulu, HI. 

Green, A. and C. Mundy. 1995. Biological assessment of the coral reefs adjacent to the proposed 

road development on Ta’u Island, Manu’a Islands. Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources Biological Report Series, P.O. Box 3730, Pago Pago, American Samoa. 

96799. 6 pp. 

Green, A. and P. Craig. 1996. Rose Atoll: a refuge for giant clams in American Samoa? 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Biological Report Series, P.O. Box 3730, 

Pago Pago, American Samoa. 96799. 55 pp. 

Green, D. and F. Ortiz-Crespo. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations in the central eastern 

Pacific. In: K. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles (pp. 1–583). 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Grigg, R. 1976. Fishery management of precious and stony corals in Hawaii. Sea Grant Tech. 

Rept. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TR-77-03, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Grigg, R. 1982. Darwin Point: A threshold for atoll formation. Coral Reefs. 1;29-34. 

Grigg, R. 1983. Community structure, succession and development of coral reefs in Hawaii. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series. 11:1–14. 

Grigg, R. 1993. Precious coral fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands. Marine Fisheries 

Review. 55(2):50–60. 

Grigg, R.W. 2002. Precious Corals in Hawaii: Discovery of a New Bed and Revised 

Management Measures for Existing Beds. Mar. Fish. Rev. 64(1):13-20. 

Grigg, R.W., and L.G. Eldredge. 1975. The commercial potential of precious corals in 

Micronesia. Part —The Mariana Islands. University of Guam, Marine Laboratory Tech. 

Rep. 18. Sea Grant Publication UGSG-75-01. 

Gulko, D. 1998. Hawaiian coral reef ecology. Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing. 

Gutierrez, J.T. 2003. Fisheries participation, effort, and harvest surveys. Government of Guam, 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. 24 pp. 

Haight, W. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater snappers 

(Lutjanidae) at Penguin Bank, Hawaii. Master’s thesis, University of Hawaii. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 434

Haight, W., D. Kobayashi, and K. Kawamoto. 1993a. Biology and management of deepwater 

snappers of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):20–27. 

Haight, W., J. Parrish, and T. Hayes. 1993b. Feeding ecology of deepwater lutjanid snappers at 

Penguin Bank, Hawaii: depth, time of day, diet, and temporal changes. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society. 122(3):338–347. 

Hamnett, M.P. and C.L. Anderson. 2000. Impact of ENSO events on tuna fisheries of the U.S. 

affiliated Pacific Islands. University of Hawaii (Honolulu): Joint Institute for Marine and 

Atmospheric Research; Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. 

Hamnett M. and W. Pintz. 1996. The contribution of tuna fishing and transshipment to the 

economies of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 

Guam. Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. SOEST 96-05. JIMAR Contribution 96-303. 

Hare, S.R. 1996. Low frequency climate variability and salmon production. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Harman, R. and A. Katekaru. 1988. 1987 Hawaii commercial fishing survey. Honolulu, HI: State 

of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources, 

Honolulu. 

Harrison, C.S. 1990. Seabirds of Hawaii: Natural history and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press. 

Harrison, C.S. 2005. Pacific Seabirds. Volume 32. 

Hasegawa H. 1979. Status of the short-tailed albatross of Torishima and in the Senkaku Retto in 

1978–79. Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin. 6:806–814. 

Hasegawa H. 2007a. “Short-tailed Albatrosses on Torishima in 2006-07.” Email to Thorn Smith, 

Alaska Longliners Association, January 13, 2007. 

Hasegawa H .2007b “RE:Report of Hasegawa’s latest survey survey on Torishima.” E-mail to 

Greg Balogh, UWFWS, December 12, 2007. 

Hastie, L. and W. Saunders. 1992. On the distribution and fishery potential of the Japanese Red 

Crab Chaceon granulatus in the Palauan Archipelago, Western Caroline Islands. Marine 

Fisheries Review. 54 (1):26–32. 

Hatcher, B.G., R.E. Johannes, and A I. Robertson. 1989. Review of research relevant to the 

conservation of shallow tropical marine ecosystems. Oceanography and Marine Biology: 

An Annual Review. 27: 337-414. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 435

Hilborn, R. 2004. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: The carrot for the stick? Perspectives 

on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. 274:269–303. 

Hildreth, R., M.C. Jarman, and M. Landlas. 2005. Roles for precautionary approach in marine 

resources management. In: A. Chircop. and M. McConnel (Eds.), Ocean Yearbook 19 

(pp. 33–61). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 

Hill P. and D. DeMaster. 1999. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments 1999. Seattle, WA: 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 

Hill P., D. DeMaster, and R. Small. 1997. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments 

1996/U.S.pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 1996. Seattle, WA: National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS/NOAA-0TM-NMFS-AFSC-78. 

Hodge R. and B. Wing. 2000. Occurrence of marine turtles in Alaska waters:1960–1998.

Herpetological Review. 31:148–151. 

Holthus, P.F. and J.E. Maragos. 1995. Marine ecosystem classification for the tropical island 

Pacific. In: J.E. Maragos, M.N. Peterson, L.G. Eldredge, J.E. Bardach, and H.E. 

Takeuchi (Eds.), Marine and coastal biodiversity in the tropical island Pacific region 

(pp. 239–278). Honolulu, HI: Program on Environment, East–West Center. 

Hopley, D. and D.W. Kinsey. 1988. The effects of a rapid short-term sea level rise on the Great 

Barrier Reef. In: G. I. Pearman (Ed.), Greenhouse: Planning for a climate change (pp. 

189–201). New York: E. J. Brill. 

Horwood J. 1987. The sei whale: Population biology, ecology and management. London: Croom 

Helm. 

Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu (Eds.) 

2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 944 pp. retrieved from: 

[http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm] [Also see: Summary for 

Policymakers and Technical Summary, 98 pp.]

Hunter, C. 1995. Review of coral reefs around American Flag Pacific Islands and assessment of 

need, value, and feasibility of establishing a coral reef fishery management plan for the 

Western Pacific Region. Final report prepared for Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council. Honolulu. 

Hunter, C.L., A.M. Friedlander, W.M. Magruder, and K.Z. Meier.1993. Ofu reef survey: 

baseline assessment and recommendations for long-term monitoring of the proposed 

National Park, Ofu, American Samoa. Final report to the U.S. National Park Service, 

Pago Pago, American Samoa. 92 pp. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 436

Huston, M.A. 1985. Patterns of species diversity on coral reefs. Annual Review of Ecological 

Systems 6:149–177. 

ICES. 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing: Proceedings of an ICES/SCOR Symposium.ICES. 

Journal of Marine Science. 57(3):465–791. 

ICES. 2005. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 62(4):307–614. 

Inouye, D. 2004. Congress passes bill with nearly half-billion dollars for defense related 

initiatives in Hawaii. July 30, 2004, http://inouye.senate.gov/. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and 

H.L. Miller (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY. 

Irons, D.K., R.K. Kosaki. and J.D. Parrish. 1990. Johnston Atoll Resource Survey Final Report - 

Phase Six (21 July 89 - 20 July 90). Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, 

Honolulu, Fort Shafter, Hawaii. 

Itano, D. 1996. The development of small-scale fisheries for bottomfish in American Samoa 

(1961–1987). South Pacific Commission Fisheries Newsletter No. 76 and No. 77. 

Itano, D. and T. Buckley. 1988. The coral reefs of the Manu’a Islands, American Samoa. 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Biological Report Series. 28 pp. 

Iversen, R., T. Dye, and L. Paul. 1990. Native Hawaiian fishing rights. Phase 2 Main Hawaiian 

Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, Honolulu. 

Jennings, S. 2004. The ecosystem approach to fishery management: A significant step towards 

sustainable use of the marine environment? Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches 

to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 274:269–303. 

Johannes, R.E. 1981.Words of the lagoon: fishing and marine lore in the Palau district of 

Micronesia. University of California Press: Berkeley. 

Jokiel, P.L. and E. Cox. 1996. Assessment and monitoring of U.S. coral reefs in Hawaii and 

central Pacific. In: M.P. Crosby, G.R. Gibson, and K.W. Potts (Eds.), A coral reef 

symposium on practical, reliable, low cost monitoring methods for assessing the biota 

and habitat conditions of coral reefs. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, 

Silver Spring, MD.
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 437

Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M. 

Ishii, T. Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K. 

Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H. 

Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and 

I. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. In: A.B. Bolten and B.E. 

Witherington (Eds.), Loggerhead sea turtles (pp. 210–217). Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Kanciruk, P. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Palinuridae (spiny lobsters). In: J.S. Cob and 

B.F. Philips (Eds.), The biology and management of lobsters (Vol. 2., pp. 59–92), 

Academic Press, NY. 

Katahira, L. K., C. M. Forbes, A. H. Kikuta, G. H. Balazs, and M. Bingham. 1994. Recent 

findings and management of hawksbill nesting beaches in Hawaii. In: The Proceedings of 

the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351. 

Kawamoto, K. and S. Pooley. 2000. Preliminary draft: Annual report of the 1999 western 

Pacific lobster fishery. NMFS SWFSC Honolulu Laboratory. 

Kay, J.J. and E. Schneider. 1994. Embracing complexity: The challenge of the ecosystem 

approach. Alternatives. 20(3):32–39. 

Keenan, E.E., R.E. Brainard, and L.V. Basch. 2006. Historical and present status of the pearl 

oyster at Pearl and Hermes Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research 

Bulletin: 543: 333-344. 

King, M. 1993. Deepwater shrimps. In Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific, A. 

Wright and L. Hill (eds). Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, Honiara: Forum Fisheries 

Agency and Halifax: International Centre for Ocean Development, 513-538. 

Kitchell, J.F, C.H. Boggs, X. He, and C.J. Walters. 1999. Keystone predators in the central 

Pacific. In Alaska sea grant: Ecosystem approaches for fisheries management. 

Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska. 

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins. 2006. 

Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: a Guide for 

Future Research. Workshop Report, National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Knudson, K.E. 1987. Non-commercial production and distribution in the Guam fishery.

University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam: Micronesian Area Research Center. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 438

Kolinksi, S.P., L.I. IIo, and J.K. Ruak. 2004. Green turtles and their marine habitats at Tinian and 

Aguijan, with protections on resident turtle demograpshics in the southern arc of the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesica 37:95-116. 

Laffoley, D.d’A., E, Maltby, M.A. Vincent, L. Mee, E. Dunn, P. Gilliland, J. Hamer, D. 

Mortimer, and D. Pound. 2004. The ecosystem approach: Coherent actions for marine 

and coastal environments: A report to the UK government. English Nature. 

Lee T. 1993. Summary of cetacean survey data collected between the years of 1974 and 1985. 

NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS 181. 184p. 

Levington, J.S. 1995. Marine biology. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Levitus, S. 1982. Climatological atlas of the world ocean. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Professional Paper No. 13. 

173 p. 

Limpus, C.J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.),

Biology and conservation of sea turtles (pp. 297–303). Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Limpus, C.J. 1985. A study of the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, in eastern. Australia. 

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia. 

Limpus C. 1992. The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Queensland: Population 

structure within a southern Great Barrier Reef feeding ground. Wildlife Research. 

19:489–506. 

Limpus, C.J. and D. Reimer. 1994. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland:A 

population in decline. In: R. James (Compiler). Proceedings of the Australian Marine 

Turtle Conservation Workshop (pp. 39–59). Sea World Nara Resort, Gold Coast, 

November 14–17, 1990. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Australia. 

Link, J.S. 2002. Does food web theory work for marine ecosystems? Marine Ecology Progress 

Series. 230:1–9. 

Lubchenco, J., S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: 

The emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications. 13(Suppl.):S3–S7. 

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997a. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. Pp: 387-409 In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles 

(pp. 387–409). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Lutcavage, M.E., and P.L. Lutz. 1997b. Diving physiology. In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (Eds.),

The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 439

MacDonald, C. 1986. Recruitment of the puerulus of the spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus, in 

Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 43:2118–2125. 

MacDonald, C. and J. Stimson. 1980. Population biology of spiny lobsters in the lagoon at Kure 

Atoll—Preliminary findings and progress to date. Pp: 161-174 In: R. Grigg and R. Pfund 

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Status of Resource Investigations in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. April 24–25, 1980, Honolulu, Hawaii, University of 

Hawaii, Honolulu, HI UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-80-04. 

Mace, P. 2004. In defense of fisheries scientists, single-species models and other scapegoats: 

Confronting real problems. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the 

management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 274:269–303. 

Maragos, J.E. 1994. Reef and coral observations on the impact of the grounding of the longliner

Jin Shiang Fa at Rose Atoll, American Samoa. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Island Office, Honolulu. Hawaii. 27 pp. 

Maragos, J.E., Hunter, C.L. and K.Z. Meier. 1994. Reefs and corals observed during the 1991-

1992 American Samoa coastal resources inventory. Report prepared for the American 

Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa Government. 50 

pp. 

Maragos, J.and D. Gulko. 2002. Coral reef ecosystems of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: 

Interim results emphasizing the 2000 surveys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu. 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Ecosystem Approach Task Force. 2003. Technical 

guidance for implementing an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee. 

Marquez, M. 1990. Sea turtles of the world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle 

species known to date. FAO Species Catalog: FAO Fisheries Synopsis. 11(125). 

Marshall, N. 1980. Fishery yields of coral reefs and adjacent shallow water environments. Pg. 

103 In: P.M. Roedel and S.B. Saila (Eds), Proceedings of an International Workshop on 

Stock Assessment for Tropical Small Scale Fisheries. University of Rhode Island, 

Kingston. 

Marten, G.G., and J.J. Polovina. 1982. A comparative study of fish yields from various tropical 

ecosystems. In: D. Paul and G.I. Murphy (Eds.), Theory and management of tropical 

fisheries. Manila, Philipines: ICLARM 

Matsuzawa, Y. 2005. Nesting and beach management of eggs and pre-emergent hatchlings of 

pacific loggerhead sea turtles on Yakushima Island, Japan: April to September 2004. 

Final Report to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: Contract No. 

04-WPC-011. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 440

McConnell, K.E., and T.C. Haab. 2001. Small boat fishing in Hawaii: Choice and economic 

values. SOEST Publication 01-01, JIMAR Contribution 01-336, 62 pp. 

McKeown, A. 1977. Marine turtles of the Solomon Islands. Honiara: Solomon Islands: Ministry 

of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. 

Meylan, A. 1985. The role of sponge collagens in the diet of the Hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys 

imbricata. In: Bairati and Garrone (Eds.), Biology of invertebrate and lower vertebrate 

collagens. Plenum Press, NY. 

Meylan, A. 1988. Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: A diet of glass. Science. 239:393–395. 

Meylan, A. 1999. International movements of immature and adult hawksbill turtles 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology

3:189-194. 

Miller, A.J., D.R. Cayan, T.P. Barnett, N.E. Graham and J.M. Oberhuber. 1994. Interdecadal 

variability of the Pacific Ocean: model response to observed heat flux and wind stress 

anomalies. Climate Dynamics 9: 287-302. 

Moffitt, R.B. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. Pp: 73-95 In: A. Wright and L. Hill (Eds.)

Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific. IPS (Suva), FFA(Honiara), ICOD 

(Canada). 

Moffitt B. and J. Polovina. 1987. Distribution and yield of the deepwater shrimp Heterocarpus

resource in the Marianas. Fishery Bulletin. 85(2): 329-349. 

Moffitt B., D. Kobayashi, and G. DiNardo. 2004. Status of the Hawaiian Bottomfish Stocks, 

2004. PIFSC Administrative Report H-06-01, 43 pp. 

Moffitt, R.B. J. Johnson, G. DiNardo. 2006. Spatiotemporal analysis of lobster trap catches: 

impacts of trap fishing on community structure. Atoll Research Bulletin. 543:217-236. 

Morgan, J. 1989. Large marine ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. Pp: 377-394 In: K. Sherman, 

L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold, (Eds), Biomass Yields and Geography of Large Marine 

Ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 111. Westview Press. Boulder CO. 

Mundy, C. 1996. A quantitative survey of the corals of American Samoa. Report to the 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resource, American Samoan Government. 

Munro, J.L. (Ed.). 1983. Caribbean coral reef fishery resources. ICLARM studies and reviews

(Vol. 7). Manila, The Philippines: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources 

Management. 

Munro, J.L. 1984. Coral reef fisheries and world fish production. NAGA: The ICLARM 

Newsletter. 7(4):34. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 441

Murawski, S. 2005. Strategies for incorporating ecosystems considerations in ecosystem 

management. Managing Our Nations Fisheries II: Focus on the future. Washington D.C. 

March 24-26, 2005. 

Myers, R.F. 1997. Assessment of coral reef resources of Guam with emphasis on waters of 

federal jurisdiction. Report prepared for the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries 

Management Council.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1978. Biological Opinion on the Fishery 

Management Plan for Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific. October 5, 1978. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Biological opinion on the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: Hawaii 

Central North Pacific longline fishery. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002a. Biological opinion on the Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. March 8, 2002. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002b. Informal consultation on the Fishery 

Management Plan for Coral Reef Ecosystem Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

March 7, 2002. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004a. Biological Opinion for the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. February 23, 

2004. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004b. Fisheries of the United States 2003.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005a. Final Biological Opinion on Effects of 

Hawaii-Based Pelagic, Deep-Set Longline Fishery on listed sea turtles and humpback 

whales. October 4, 2005. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Seabird interaction avoidance methods and pelagic squid management. Fishery 

Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005c. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Bottomfish and seamount groundfish fishery of the Western Pacific Region. May 26, 

2005. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 442

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007a. Informal consultation on Amendment 13 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

November 19, 2007. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007b. MMPA determination for Amendment 13 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

November 19, 2007. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Biological Opinion on Amendment 14 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region. NMFS, Honolulu, HI. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008b. Biological Opinion on Amendment 18 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. NMFS, 

Honolulu, HI. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008c. Informal consultation on Amendment 7 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region. February 5, 2008. 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a 

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD. 

 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998c. 

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys 

Coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

1998d. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta 

caretta). National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD. 

 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998e. 

Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys 

olivacea). National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. New priorities for the 21st 

century. NOAA’s strategic plan updated for FY 2005–FY 2010. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 443

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005a. The State of Coral Reef 

Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States:2005. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005b. Protecting America’s 

Marine Environment. A report of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee on Establishing and Managing a National System of Marine Protected Areas. 

Naughton, M.K. Morgan and K. Rivera. 2008. Unpubl. Species Information – Short-tailed 

Albatross (Phoebastaria albatrus). Prepared for the Fourth Meeting of the Advisory 

Committee of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrel.s, August 22-

25, 2008. Cape Town, South Africa. 

Nichols, W.J., A. Resendiz, and C. Mayoral-Russeau. 1999. Biology and conservation of 

loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in Baja California, Mexico. Proceedings of the 19th 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

Nichols, W.J., A. Resendiz, and C. Mayoral-Russeau. 2000. Biology and conservation of 

loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in Baja California, Mexico. Pp: 169-171 In: 

Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

March 2–6, 1999, South Padre Island, TX. 

Nunn, P. 2003. Geomorphology. In: M. Rapaport (Ed.), The Pacific Islands: Environment and 

Society. The Bess Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Oishi, F. 1983. Shrimp Industry Development Project. Division of Aquatic Resources, 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. 22 p. 

Okamoto, H. 1982. Deep bottomfish surveys - Hawaii. Completion report prepared for the 

Pacific Tuna Development Foundation under Project no. 35, Deep Bottom Fishing 

Surveys –Hawaii Div. Aquat. Resources, Dept. Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu 21 

p. 

Olson D., A. Hitchcock, C. Mariano, G. Ashjian, G. Peng, R. Nero, and G. Podesta. 1994. Life 

on the edge: Marine life and fronts. Oceanography. 7(2):52–59. 

O'Malley, J.M., and S.G. Pooley. 2002. A description and economic analysis of large American 

Samoa longline vessels. SOEST (University of Hawaii) Report 02-345. 

Ostazeski, J. 1997. The deepwater shrimp fishery of the Northern Mariana Islands. Honolulu 

Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS. Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Admin. Rept. H-97-10C. 

Parker, D.M., W. Cooke, and G.H. Balazs. 2002. Dietary components of pelagic loggerhead 

turtles in the North Pacific Ocean. Pp: 148-149 In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Sea 

Turtle Symposium. February 29–March 4, 2000, Orlando, FL. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 444

Parrish, J.D. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. Pp: 405-464 In: J.J. Polovina 

and S. Ralston (Eds.), Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries 

management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Parrish, F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fisheries Bulletin. 

87:1001–1005. 

Parrish, F. and J. Polovina. 1994. Habitat thresholds and bottlenecks in production of the spiny 

lobster (Panulirus marginatus) in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of Marine 

Science. 54(1):151–163. 

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine 

food webs. Science. 279:860–863. 

PBEC. 1984. Biological and physical survey of Bahia Laulau, Saipan. Report prepared by 

Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants Inc. for Commonwealth of the Northern Marian 

Islands Planning/Energy Office. 

Picaut, J. and R. Tournier. 1991. Monitoring of the 1979-1985 equatorial Pacific transports with 

expendable bathythermograph data. J. Geo. Res. 96: 3263-3277. 

Pikitch, E.K., C. Santora, E. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D.O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. 

Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E.D. Houde, J. Link, P.A. Livingston, M. Mangel, 

M.K. McAllister, J. Pope, and K.J. Sainsbury. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery 

management. Science. 305:1–2. 

Pitcher, C.R. 1993. Spiny lobster. Pp: 543-611 In: A. Wright and L. Hill (Eds.), Inshore marine 

resources of the South Pacific: Information for fishery development and management. 

FFA/USP Press, Fiji. 

Plotkin, P.T. 1994. The migratory and reproductive behavior of the olive ridley, Lepidochelys 

olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829), in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Master’s thesis, Texas A&M 

University. 

Polunin, N.V.C. and R.D. Morton. 1992. Fecundity–Predicting the population fecundity of local 

fish populations subject to varying fishing mortality. Unpublished report, Center for 

Tropical Coastal Management, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle. 

Polunin, N.V.C. and C. Roberts (Eds.). 1996. Tropical reef fisheries. Chapman & Hall, London. 

Polunin, N.V.C., C.M. Roberts, and D. Pauly. 1996. Developments in tropical reef fisheries 

science and management. Pp: 161-192 In: N.V.C. Polunin and C. Roberts (Eds.), 

Tropical reef fisheries. Chapman & Hall, London. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 445

Polovina, J.J. 1984. Model of a coral reef ecosystem. The ECOPATH model and its application 

to French Frigate Shoals. Coral Reefs. 3: 1-11. 

Polovina, J.J. 1993. The lobster and shrimp fisheries in Hawaii. Marine Fisheries Review. 

55(2):28–33. 

Polovina J.J. 1996. Decadal variation in the trans-Pacific migration of northern bluefin tuna 

(Thunnus thynnus) coherent with climate-induced change in prey abundance. Fisheries 

Oceanography. 5(2): 114-119. 

Polovina, J.J. 2005. Climate variation, regime shifts, and implications for sustainable fisheries. 

Bulletin of Marine Science. 76(2): 233–244. 

Polovina, J.J., G.H. Balazs, E.A. Howell, D.M. Parker, M.P. Seki, and P.H. Dutton. 2004. Forage 

and migration habitat of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys 

olivacea) sea turtles in the central North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography. 13(1): 

36-51. 

Polovina, J.J., and W. Haight. 1999. Climate variation, ecosystem dynamics, and fisheries 

management in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries 

Management, Alaska Sea Grant College Program. 

Polovina, J.J., E. Howell, D.R. Kobayashi, and M.P. Seki. 2001. The transition zone chlorophyll 

front: A dynamic global feature defining migration and forage habitat for marine 

resources. Progress in Oceanography. 49:469–483. 

Polovina J.J., D. Kobayashi, D. Parker, M. Seki, and G. Balazs. 2000. Turtles on the edge: 

Movement of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along oceanic fronts, spanning longline 

fishing grounds in the central North Pacific, 1997–1998. Fisheries Oceanograph.y 9:71–

82. 

Polovina, J.J., E.A. Howell, and M. Abecassis. 2008. Ocean's least productive waters are 

expanding. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L03618, doi:10.1029/2007GL031745 

Polovina, J.J. and G. Mitchum. 1992. Variability in spiny lobster Panulirus marginatus

recruitment and sea level in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Fisheries Bulletin.

90:483–493. 

Polovina J.J., G. Mitchum, N. Graham, M. Craig, E. DeMartini, and E. Flint. 1994. Physical and 

biological consequences of a climate event in the central North Pacific. Fisheries 

Oceanography. 3:15–21. 

Polovina, J.J., G. Mitchum, and G. Evans. 1995. Decadal and basin-scale variation in mixed 

layer depth and the impact on biological production in the Central and North Pacific, 

1960–88. Deep-Sea Research. 42(10):1701–1716. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 446

Polovina, J.J., R.B. Moffitt, S.R. Ralston, P.M. Shiota, and H.A. Williams. 1985. Fisheries 

resource assessment of the Mariana Archipelago, 1982-1985. Mar. Fish. Rev. 47(4):19-

25. 

Polovina, J.J. and S. Ralston. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources 

with application to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. U.S. Fisheries Bulletin. 

84(4):759-70. 

Pooley, S. 1993. “Economics and Hawaii’s marine fisheries.” Marine Fisheries Review. 

55(2):93-101. 

Porter, V., T. Lebere, M. Gawel, J. Gutierrez, D. Burdick, V. Torres, and E. Lujan. 2005. The 

state of coral reef ecosystems of Guam. In: J. Waddell (Ed.), The state of coral reef 

ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NOS NCC11. 

Postma, H. and J.J. Zijlstra (Eds.).1988. Ecosystems of the World 27: Continental shelves 

Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

PSDA. 1997. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Military training in the Marianas. U.S. 

Pacific Command Draft Report. 

Pratt D., P. Bruner, and D. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical 

Pacific. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. 409 pp. 

Ralston, S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa,Guam 

and the Northern Marianas. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 

Honolulu. 

Ralston, S., M. Gooding, and G. Ludwig. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of 

bottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus hand-line fishing) at Johnston Atoll. 

Fishery Bulletin. 84(1):141–155. 

Ralston, S. and H. A. Williams. 1988. Depth distributions, growth, and mortality of deep slope 

fishes from the Mariana Archipelago. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS.

Randall, R.H. 1971. Tanguisson-Tumon, Guam, reef corals before, during, and after the crownof-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) predation. Master’s thesis, University of Guam. 

Randall, R.H. 1973. Reef physiography and distribution of corals at Tumon Bay, Guam, 

before crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci (L.) predation. 

Randall and Eldredge 1977 (Cited on page 151 typhoon damage to reef. 

Randall, R.H. and R.F. Myers. 1983. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam: Vol. 2. 

University of Guam Press. University of Guam Marine Laboratory Contribution No. 189. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 447

Randall, R.H., S.D. Rogers, E.E. Irish, S.C. Wilkins, B.D. Smith, and S.S. Amesbury. 1988. A 

Marine Survey of the Obyan-Naftan Reef Area. University of Guam, Marine Laboratory: 

Mariana Islands.

Redmond, R.L. 1990. Trip report: A biological survey of Baker and Howland Islands and 

Palmyra Atoll, September 1990. Unpublished Trip Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Reeves R., S. Leatherwood, G. Stone, and L. Eldridge. 1999. Marine mammals in the area 

served by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). Apia, Samoa: 

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 

Reina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, J.R. Spotila, R. Piedra, and F.V. Paladino. 2002. Nesting ecology of 

the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, 

Costa Rica: 1988–1989 to 1999–2000.Copeia. 3:653–664. 

Reynolds, R.W. and T.M. Smith.1994. Improved global sea surface temperature analyses using 

optimal interpolation. J. Climate. 7:929-948. 

Richmond, R.H. and E.A. Matson. 1986. Report of a preliminary field survey of the lagoon 

waters adjacent to the Puerto Rico Dump Site, Saipan. Report prepared by the University 

of Guam Marine Laboratory for the Coastal Resource Management Office in Saipan, 

CNMI. 

Rice D. 1960. Distribution of bottle-nosed dolphin in the leeward Hawaiian Islands. Journal of 

Aquatic Mammals. 41:407–408. 

Rice D. 1989. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus. Academic Press, New York, NY. 

Robertson D. 1980. Rare birds of the West Coast of North America. Woodcock Publications, 

Pacific Grove, CA. 

Robinson, R.A.; H.Q.P. Crick; J.A. Learmonth; I.M.D. Maclean; C.D. Thomas, III; F. Bairlein; 

M.C. Forchhammer; C.M. Francis; J.A. Gill; B.J. Godley; J. Harwood; G.C. Hays; B. 

Huntley; A.M. Hutson; G.J. Pierce; MM.Rehfisch; D.W. Sims; M.B. Santos; T.H. 

Sparks; D.A. Stroud; and M.E. Visser. 2008. Traveling through a warming world: climate 

change and migratory species. Endangered Species Research Preprint. Published online, 

June 17, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-29 from: 

www.int-res.com/articles/esr2008/theme/ICC/ICCpp2.pdf

Rogers, A. D. 1994. The biology of seamounts. Advances in Marine Biology. 30:305–350. 

Rohmann S.O., Hayes J.J., Newhall R.C., Monaco M.E. and R.W. Grigg. 2005. The area of 

potential shallow-water tropical and subtropical coral ecosystem in the United States. 

Coral Reefs. 24: 370-383. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 448

Rubinstein, D. 2001. A sociocultural study of pelagic fishing activities in Guam. Final progress 

report available from University of Hawaii Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric 

Research, Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. Also available at 

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/pdf/rubinstein01.pdf 

Russ, G. R., and A. C. Alcala. 1994. Marine reserves: They enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts 

and protect resources. Naga: The ICLARM Quarterly. 17(3): 4–7. 

Samples, K., and J. Sproul. 1988. An economic appraisal of effort management alternatives for 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands commercial lobster fishery. NMFS SWFSC 

Honolulu Laboratory Admin. Rept. H-88-12C. 

Sarti L., S. Eckert, N. Garcia, and A. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world’s largest nesting 

assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 74:2–5. 

Saucerman, S. 1995. Assessing the management needs of a coral reef fishery in decline. In: P. 

Dalzell and T.J. H. Adams (Eds.), South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries 

Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries Manuscript 

Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers, South Pacific Commission, 

Noumea. 

Schafers, A. 2004. Room shortages might slow Japanese tourism. Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 

Accessed, July 4, 2004, http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/04/news/index2.htm. 

Schrope, M. 2002. Troubled waters. Nature. 418:718–720. 

Schug, D. and A. Galea'i, 1987. American Samoa: the tuna industry and the economy. In: Tuna 

Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region, East-West Center, Honolulu. 

Seki, M.P., J.J. Polovina, R.E. Brainard, R.R. Bidigare, C.L. Leonard, and D.G. Foley. 2001. 

Biological enhancement at cyclonic eddies tracked with GOES thermal imagery in 

Hawaiian waters. Geophys. Res. Letters.28(8):1583-1586. 

Seminoff J., W. Nichole, and A. Hidalgo. 2000. Chelonia mydas agassizii diet.Herpetological 

Review. 31:103. 

Severance, C. and R. Franco. 1989. Justification and design of limited entry alternatives for the 

offshore fisheries of American Samoa, and an examination of preferential fishing rights 

for native people of American Samoa within a limited entry context. Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. 

Severance, C., R. Franco, M. Hamnett, C. Anderson, and F. Aitaoto. 1999. Effort comes 

from the cultural side: Coordinated investigation of pelagic fishermen in American 

Samoa. Draft report for Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, JIMAR/SOEST, University 

of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 449

Sharma, K., A. Peterson, S. Pooley, S. Nakamoto, and P. Leung. 1999. Economic 

contributions of Hawaii’s fisheries. SOEST 99-08/JIMAR Contribution 99-327, Pelagic 

Fisheries Research Program, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Sherburne J. 1993. Status report on the short-tailed albatross Diomedea albatrus. 

Unpublished Report for FWS, Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

Sherman, K. and M. Alexander. 1986. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. 

Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 

Shomura, R. 1987. Hawaii’s marine fishery: Yesterday and today. NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Center Honolulu Laboratory Admin.Rept. No. H-87-21. 

Simonds, K.M. 2003. Managing turtles and pelagic fisheries on the high seas. Conservation and 

sustainable management of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. Bellagio Conference Center. 

17-22 November, 2003. 

Sissenwine, M.and S. Murawski. 2004. Moving beyond “intelligent tinkering”: Advancing an 

ecosystem approach to fisheries. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the 

management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 274:269–303. 

Smith, S.V. 1978. Coral-reef area and the contributions of reefs to processes and resources in the 

world’s oceans. Nature. 273:225–226. 

Smith, M.K. 1993. An Ecological Perspective on Inshore Fisheries in the Main Hawaiian Islands 

Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):34-49. 

Spotila J., A. Dunham, A. Leslie, A. Steyermark, P. Plotkin, and F. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide 

population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: Are leatherback turtles going extinct? 

Chelonian Conservation Biology. 2(2): 209–222. 

Spotila, J. R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific 

leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature. 405:529–530. 

Starbird, C.H. and M.M. Suarez. 1994. Leatherback sea turtle nesting on the north Vogelkop 

coast of Irian Jaya and the discovery of a leatherback sea turtle fishery on Kei Kecil 

Island. P: 143 In: Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. March 1–5, 1994, Hilton Head, SC. 

Starmer, J., C. Bearden, R. Brainard, T. de Cruz, R. Hoeke, P. Houk, S. Holzwarth, S. Kolinksi, 

J. Miller, R. Schroeder, M. Timmers, M. Trianni, and P. Vroom. 2005. The state of coral 

reef ecosystems of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In: J. Waddell 

(Ed.), The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 

Associated States: 2005. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCC11. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 450

Stevenson, D.K. and N. Marshall. 1974. Generalizations on the fisheries potential of coral reefs 

and adjacent shallow-water environments. Pp: 147-156 in Proceedings of the Second 

International Coral Reef Symposium. University of Queensland, Brisbane. 

Stinson, M.L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the northeastern 

Pacific Ocean. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

Sturman, A.P. and H. McGowan. 2003. Climate. In: M. Rapaport (Ed.), The Pacific Islands: 

Environment and society. The Bess Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Tagami, D.T. and S. Barrows. 1988. Deep-sea shrimp trapping for Heterocarpus laevigatus in 

the Hawaiian Archipelago by a commercial fishing vessel. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum, NMFS, 14 pp. 

Tagami, D.T. and S. Ralston. 1988. An assessment of exploitable biomass and projection of 

maximum sustainable yield for Heterocarpus laevigatus in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Southwest Fisheries Center Administration Report H-88-14, 22 pp. 

Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology.16:284– 

307. 

Territorial Planning Commission and Department of Commerce. 2000. American Samoa’s 

comprehensive economic development strategy year 2000. American Samoa 

Government. 

The Royal Society. 2005: Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 

The Royal Society, London, -60. 

Thompson, P. and W. Freidl. 1982. A long term study of low frequency sound from several 

species of whales off Oahu, Hawaii. Cetology. 45:1–19. 

Tickell, W. 1973. A visit to the breeding grounds of Steller's albatross, Diomedea albatrus. Sea 

Swallow. 23:1–4. 

Titcomb, M. 1972. Native use of fish in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Tomczak, M. and J.S. Godfrey. 2003. Regional Oceanography: An introduction (2nd ed.). 

http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/pdfversion.html 

Toole, J.M., E. Zou, and R.C. Millard.1988. On the circulation of the upper waters in the 

western equatorial Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. 35:1451-1482. 

Trianni, M. 1998. Qualitative assessment of World War II ordinance sites in coral reef habitats 

at the island of Rota: A historical record. CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife Technical 

Assistance Report 98a. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 451

Trianni M. 1998b.Unpublished report on the status of CNMI crustaceans fisheries. CNMI 

Divison of Fish and Wildlife. 

Trianni, M.S. and C.K. Kessler. 2002. Incidence and strandings of the Spinner Dolphin, Stenella 

longirostris, in Saipan Lagoon. Micronesica. 34(2):249-260. 

Troeng, S. and E. Rankin. 2005. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive green 

turtle (Chelonia mydas) nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological 

Conservation. 121:111–116. 

Tulafono, R. 2001. Gamefishing and tournaments in American Samoa. Pp: 175-177 In: M.L. 

Miller, C. Daxboeck, C. Dahl, K. Kelly and P. Dalzell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 

Pacific Island Gamefish Tournament Symposium, held 29 July - 1 August 1998, 

Honolulu, HI. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Uchida, R. and D. Tagami. 1984. Biology, distribution, population structure, and preexploitation abundance of spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus (Quoy and Gaimard 

1825), in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: R. Grigg and K. Tanoue (Eds.), 

Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Resource Investigations in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawaii Sea Grant Misc. Ret. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR84-01. 

Uchida, R., J. Uchiyama, R. Humphreys, Jr., and D. Tagami. 1980. Biology, distribution, and 

estimates of apparent abundance of the spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus (Quoy and 

Gaimard), in waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Part I. Distribution in 

relationship to depth and geographical areas and estimates of apparent abundance. Part II. 

Size distribution, legal to sublegal ratio, sex ratio, reproductive cycle, and morphometric 

characteristics. In: R. Grigg and R. Pfund (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Status of Resource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. April 24–25, 

1980, Honolulu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR80-04. 

Uchida, R. and J. Uchiyama. (Eds.). 1986. Fishery Atlas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 38. 

U.S. Air Force. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Termination of the Air Force 

Mission at Johnston Atoll. May 2004. 

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine and Raytheon Demilitarization 

Company (USACHPPM and Raytheon). 2000. Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal 

System (JACADS), Facility Closure Campaign, RCRA Facility Assessment (EPA ID 

#TT0 570 090 001). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Data for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI). Available at http://www.census.gov/census2000/cnmi.html. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 452

U.S. Committee on Ocean Policy. 2004. U.S. Ocean Action Plan: the Bush Administration’s 

response to the U.S. Ocean Commission on Policy.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Resource assessment: Ugum Watershed, Guam. Report 

prepared by the U.S. Deptartment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Pacific Basin, Agana, Guam. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife management.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman 

Reef National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix B In: Environmental Assessment for the 

Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge: Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. 

16 pp. 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix C In: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge: Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. 28pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

for the effects of the Hawaii-based domestic longline fleet on the short-tailed albatross 

(Phoebastria albatrus). November 18, 2002. Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Biological opinion on the effects of the reopened shallowset sector of the Hawaii-based longline fishery on the short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria 

albatrus). Formal consultaion log number: 1-2-1999-F-02.2. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft 

Conservation Conservation plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of 

Interior. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft 

Conservation Conservation plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of 

Interior. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft 

Conservation Conservation plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of 

Interior. 

U.S. White House. 2009. U.S. Presidential Proclamation 8336 of January 6, 2006: Establishment 

of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. 74 Federal Register: 1565-

1575; January 12, 2009. 

Utzurrum, R. 2002. Sea turtle conservation in American Samoa. Pp: 30-31 In: I. Kinan (Ed.), 

Proc. of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 453

Workshop, Feb. 5-8, 2002. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Honolulu. 

Valiela, I. 1995. Marine Ecological Processes (2nd ed.). Springer, New York, NY. 

Valiela 2003 cited on page 75 not cited in this chapter 

Veron, J.E.N. 1995. Corals of the tropical island Pacific region. Pp: 75-82 In: J.E. Maragos, 

M.N.A. Peterson, L.G. Eldredge, J.E. Bardach, and H.F. Tekeuchi (Eds.), Marine 

and coastal Biodiversity in the tropical island Pacific region: Vol. 1. Species 

systematics and information management priorities. East West Center, Honolulu, HI. 

Wakeford, R. 2005. Personal communication at the April 18–22, 2005, Ecosystem Science and 

Management Planning Workshop. Convened by the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

Walters, C. 2005. Personal communication at the April18–22, 2005, Ecosystem Science and 

Management Planning Workshop. Convened by the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to climate change. Nature 

416: 389-395. 

Warham, J. 1990. The shearwater genus Puffinus. Pp: 157-170 In: The petrels: Their ecology 

and breeding system. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

 

Wass, R.C. 1982. The shoreline fishery of American Samoa: Past and present. Pp: 51-83 In: J.L. 

Munro (Ed.), Marine and coastal processes in the Pacific: Ecological aspects of coastal 

zone management. UNESCO, Jakarta, Indonesia. 

Wells, S.M. and M.D. Jenkins. 1988. Coral reefs of the world. Vol. 3: Central and Western 

Pacific. United Nations Environment Programme/International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature. 

WPRFMC (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council). 1983. Crustaceans fishery 

management plan. Honolulu. 

WPRFMC. 1999. Bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 

1998 annual report. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. 

WPRFMC. 2000. Regulatory Amendment Establishing Permit and Reporting Requirements for 

the Pelagic Troll and Handline Fishery in the Remote Island Areas of the Western Pacific 

Region. Honolulu, HI. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 454

WPRFMC. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Coral Reef Ecosystems Fishery 

Management Plan of the Western Pacific Region. Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council. Honolulu, HI.

WPRFMC. 2002. Environmental Assessment for Precious Corals FMP. Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

WPRFMC. 2003a. Measure to limit pelagic longline fishing effort in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone around American Samoa. Amendment 11 to the Pelagics Fishery Management 

Plan. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

WPRFMC. 2003b. Bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 

2001 annual report. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, 

HI. 

WPRFMC. 2004a. Bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 

2002 annual report. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, 

HI. 

WPRFMC. 2004b. Pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2002 annual report. Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI.

WPRFMC. 2004c. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Annual Report, 2003. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, 

HI. 

WPRFMC. 2005a. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries FMP. Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. Brett: check that there is a 

document... 

WPRFMC. 2005b. Pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2005 annual report. Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 

WPRFMC. 2006a. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries FMP, Amendment 8, 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. Brett: check that 

there is a document... 

WPRFMC. 2005b. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries FMP, Amendment 9. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. Brett: check that 

there is a document... 

WPRFMC. 2007a. Measures to end bottomfish overfishing in the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region including a Final SEIS. Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI. 
Chapter 7: References 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 455

WPRFMC. 2007b. Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Corals Fisheries 

of the Westen Pacific Region. 

WPRFMC. 2008a. Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries 

of the Western Pacific Region. 

WPRFMC. 2008b. Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Corals Fisheries 

of the Westen Pacific Region. 

Wetherall, J.A. 1993. Pelagic distribution and size composition of turtles in the Hawaii longline 

fishing area. In: G.H. Balazs and S.G. Pooley (Eds.), Research plan to assess marine 

turtle hooking mortality: Results of an expert workshop held in Honolulu, Hawaii, 

November 16–18, 1993. SWFSC Admin. Rept. H-93-18. 

Wilson, R.R. and R.S. Kaufman. 1987. Seamount biota and biogeography. Geophysics 

Monographs. 43:355–377. 

Witherell, D., C. Pautzke, and D. Fluharty. 2000. An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska 

groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57:771–777. 

World Travel and Tourism Council. 1999. WTTC tourism report 1999: How travel and tourism 

affects Hawaii’s economy. World Travel and Tourism Council, New York. 

Yaffee, S.L. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management.Conservation Biology. 13(4):713–725. 

Yuen, S., B. DeBaryshe, and I. Stern. 1997. Family adaptation to occupational loss, final report.

University of Hawaii, Honolulu: Center on the Family.

Zann, L.P. and A. Mulipola. 1995. The inshore resources of Western Samoa: Coastal inventory 

and fisheries database. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency 

Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries, Noumea (New 

Caledonia), 26 Jun - 7 Jul 1995. 

Zeller, D., M. Darcy, S. Booth, M.K. Lowe, and S. Martell. 2008. What about recreational catch? 

Potential impact on stock assessment for Hawaii's bottomfish fisheries. Fisheries 

Research, 91:88-97. 

Zug, G.R., G.H. Balazs, and J.A. Wetherall. 1995. Growth in juvenile loggerhead sea turtles 

(Caretta caretta) in the North Pacific pelagic habitat. Copeia. (2):484–487. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 456

Chapter 8. GLOSSARY 

Abyssalpelagic (or Abyssopelagic) zone: The deep sea pelagic environment from a depth of 

approximately 4,000-7,000 meters. 

Adaptive Management: A program that adjusts regulations based on changing conditions of the 

fisheries and stocks. 

Aphotic: Light level modifier of the deep epipelagic ocean ecosystem, and turbid regions of all 

other waters; areas never reached by natural light. 

Archipelago: A group of islands; an expanse of water with scattered islands. 

Associated Species: Those species that (a) prey upon the target species, (b) are preyed on by it, 

(c) compete with it for food, living space, etc., or (d) co-occur in the same fi shing area 

and are exploited (or accidentally taken) in the same fishery or fisheries. 

Atoll: Earthform consisting of a ringlike perimeter reef area, often with a reef islet, enclosing a 

lagoon area. 

Bank: Submerged earthform with a crest at a depth of 20–200 meters in oceanic waters and of 

0–5 meters in nearshore and neritic waters. 

Barrier Net: A small-mesh net used to capture coral reef or coastal pelagic fishes. 

Barrier Reef: A reef growing offshore from a land mass and separated from the shoreline, often 

by a lagoon or estuary. 

Bathypelagic Zone: The pelagic environment between depths of 1,000 meters and 4,000 meters. 

Benthic: 1. Defining a habitat or organism found on the sea bottom 2. Of or pertaining to the 

seafloor (or bottom) of a water body. 

Biological Opinion: A scientific assessment issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service or 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 

listed species. Determines the likelihood of an action to jeopardize the existence of a 

species listed under the ESA. 

Biomass: Or standing stock. The total weight of a group (or stock) of living organisms (e.g., 

fish, plankton) or of some defined fraction of it (e.g., spawners) in an area, at a particular 

time. 

Bioprospecting: The search for commercially valuable biochemical and genetic resources in 

plants, animals and microorganisms for use in food production, the development of new 

drugs and other biotechnology applications. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 457

Bycatch: Any fish harvested in a fishery which are not sold or kept for personal use, and 

includes economic discards and regulatory discards. 

Charter Fishing: Fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire (as defined in section 

2101(21a) of Title 46, United States Code) who is engaged in recreational fishing. 

Climate Change: A general term usually referring to the impacts of global temperature rise, 

which can include any change in the climate resulting from increased greenhouse gasses 

in Earth’s atmosphere. 

Commercial Fishing: Fishing in which the fish harvested, either in whole or in part, are 

intended to enter commerce or enter commerce through sale, barter or trade. For the 

purposes of this FPEIS, commercial fishing includes the commercial extraction of 

biocompounds. 

Consensual Management: Decision making process where stakeholders meet and reach 

consensus on management measures and recommendations. 

Coral Reef Ecosystem (CRE): Those species, interactions, processes, habitats and resources of 

the water column and substrate located within any waters less than or equal to 50 fathoms 

in total depth. 

Council: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 

Critical Habitat: Those geographical areas that are essential for bringing an endangered or 

threatened species to the point where it no longer needs the legal protections of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and which may require special management 

considerations or protection. These areas are designated pursuant to the ESA as having 

physical or biological features essential to the conservation of listed species. 

Dealer: One who buys and sells species in the fisheries management unit without altering their 

condition. 

Demersal Fishery: Fishing that targets marine organisms that generally live in or near the 

bottom of the ocean, as compared with pelagic fishing for fish or other species that 

generally occur in open waters. In the Western Pacific Region, demersal fisheries include 

bottomfish, crustaceans, precious corals, and coral reef ecosystem taxa. 

Dip Net: A hand-held net consisting of a mesh bag suspended from a circular, oval, square or 

rectangular frame attached to a handle. A portion of the bag may be constructed of 

material, such as clear plastic, other than mesh. 

Ecology: The study of interactions between an organism (or organisms) and its (their) 

environment (biotic and abiotic). 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 458

Ecological Integrity: Maintenance of the standing stock of resources at a level that allows 

ecosystem processes to continue. Ecosystem processes include replenishment of 

resources, maintenance of interactions essential for self-perpetuation and, in the case of 

coral reefs, rates of accretion that are equal to or exceed rates of erosion. Ecological 

integrity cannot be directly measured but can be inferred from observed ecological 

changes. 

Economic Discards: Coral reef resources that are the target of a fishery but which are not 

retained because they are of an undesirable size, sex or quality or for other economic 

reasons. 

Ecosystem: A geographically specified system of organisms (including humans), the 

environment, and the processes that controls its dynamics. 

Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: Fishery management actions aimed at conserving the 

structure and function of marine ecosystems in addition to conserving fishery resources. 

Ecotourism: Observing and experiencing, first hand, natural environments and ecosystems in a 

manner intended to be sensitive to their conservation. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assesses alternatives and analyze the impact of 

proposed major Federal actions on the environment. Also used to inform and involve 

members of the public in agency decision making. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrate necessary to a species or species 

group or complex, for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): The zone established by Proclamation numbered 5030, dated 

March 10, 1983. For purposes of the Magnuson Act, the inner boundary of that zone is a 

line coterminous with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal states, 

commonwealths, territories or possessions of the United States. 

Exogenous factors: Processes, activities, or other situations that may affect a fishery, but are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Council, NMFS, or a local fishery management agency’s 

purview. The FEP process is likely to help address exogenous factors in order to promote 

healthy nearshore fisheries. 

Exporter: One who sends species in the fishery management unit to other countries for sale, 

barter or any other form of exchange (also applies to shipment to other states, territories 

or islands). 

Ex-vessel revenues: Prices received by the harvester for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic plans 

and animals. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 459

Fish: Finfish, mollusks, crustaceans and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other 

than marine reptiles, marine mammals and birds. 

Fishery: One or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and 

management and that are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, 

recreational and economic characteristics; and any fishing for such stocks. 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan: A fishery management plan that contains conservation and 

management measures necessary and appropriate for fisheries within a given ecosystem 

to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote 

the long-term health and stability of the fishery. 

Fishing: The catching, taking or harvesting of fish; the attempted catching, taking or harvesting 

of fish; any other activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking 

or harvesting of fish; or any operations at sea in support of, or in preparation for, any 

activity described in this definition. Such term does not include any scientific research 

activity that is conducted by a scientific research vessel. 

Fishing Community: A community that is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged 

in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs and 

includes fishing vessel owners, operators and crews and United States fish processors that 

are based in such community. 

Food Web: Inter-relationships among species that depend on each other for food (predator-prey 

pathways). 

Framework Measure: Management measure listed in an FMP for future consideration. 

Implementation can occur through an administratively simpler process than a full FMP 

amendment. 

Ghost Fishing: The chronic and/or inadvertent capture and/or loss of fish or other marine 

organisms by lost or discarded fishing gear. 

Habitat: Living place of an organism or community, characterized by its physical and biotic 

properties. 

Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC): Those areas of essential fish habitat (EFH) 

identified pursuant to Section 600.815(a)(9). In determining whether a type or area of 

EFH should be designated as a HAPC, one or more of the following criteria must be met: 

(1) ecological function provided by the habitat is important; (2) habitat is sensitive to 

human-induced environmental degradation; (3) development activities are, or will be, 

stressing the habitat type; or (4) the habitat type is rare. 

Handline: Fishing gear that is deployed and retrieved by hand: may include reels to retrieve the 

line. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 460

Harvest: The catching or taking of a marine organism or fishery management unit species 

(MUS) by any means. 

Holistic Management: Fishery management that takes into consideration the interdependent 

relationship between fisheries and the environment including human aspects, and that 

considers short-term and long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of 

management actions. 

Hook-and-line: Fishing gear that consists of one or more hooks attached to one or more lines. 

Incidental Catch: Non-target species harvested and retained in a fishery. 

Live Rock: Any natural, hard substrate (including dead coral or rock) to which is attached, or 

which supports, any living marine life-form associated with coral reefs. 

Longline: A type of fishing gear consisting of a main line which is deployed horizontally from 

which branched or dropper lines with hooks are attached. 

Low-Use MPA: A Marine Protected Area that is managed to allow limited fishing activities. 

Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI): The islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago consisting of Niihau, 

Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Hawaii and all of the smaller associated 

islets lying east of 161°20' W longitude. 

Marine Protected Area (MPA): An area designed to protect entire ecosystems through areabased restrictions of use and other management measures. 

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The largest long-term average catch or yield that can be 

taken, from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological and environmental 

conditions and fishery technological characteristics (e.g., gear slectivity), and the 

distribution of catch among fleets. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): The component of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, responsible for the 

conservation and management of living marine resources. Also known as NOAA 

Fisheries. 

No-Take MPA: A Marine Protected Area where fishing or removal of living marine resources is 

prohibited unless otherwise authorized. 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI): the islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the 

west of 161°20'W longitude. 

Observer: any person required or authorized to be carried on a vessel for conservation and 

management purposes by regulations or permits under the MSA. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 461

Optimum Yield (OY): With respect to the yield from a fishery “optimum” means the amount of 

fish that: (a) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with 

respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the 

protection of marine ecosystems; (b) is prescribed as such on the basis of the MSY from 

the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor; and (c) in 

the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with 

producing the MSY in such fishery. 

Overfished: A stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass has declined 

below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce 

maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. 

 Overfishing: Fishing at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex 

to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation77: Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996, while researching connections between Alaska salmon 

production cycles and Pacific climate. PDO has since been described as a long-lived El 

Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability because the two climate oscillations have 

similar spatial climate fingerprints, but very different temporal behavior. PDO is often 

observed for longer periods of time as opposed to El-Niño. 

Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIAs): Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston 

Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Wake Island and Palmyra Atoll. 

Passive Fishing Gear: Gear left unattended for a period of time prior to retrieval (e.g., traps, gill 

nets). 

Pelagic Fishery: Fishing that targets marine organisms that generally live in the water column as 

opposed to demersal fisheries whose target species generally live in or near the bottom of 

the ocean. In the Western Pacific Region, the pelagic fisheries include fisheries targeting 

tuna, billfish, and squid. 

Precautionary Approach: The implementation of conservation measures even in the absence of 

scientific certainty that fish stocks are being overexploited. 

Recruitment: A measure of the weight or number of fish which enter a defined portion of the 

stock such as fishable stock (those fish above the minimum legal size) or spawning stock 

(those fish which are sexually mature). 

Reef: A ridgelike or moundlike structure built by sedentary calcareous organisms and consisting 

mostly of their remains. It is wave-resistant and stands above the surrounding sediment. It 

 

77 Hare, S.R., 1996: Low frequency climate variability and salmon production. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of 

Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 462

is characteristically colonized by communities of encrusting and colonial invertebrates 

and calcareous algae. 

Reef-obligate Species: An organism dependent on coral reefs for survival. 

Regulatory Discards: Any species caught that fishermen are required by regulation to discard 

whenever caught, or are required to retain but not sell. 

Resilience: The ability of a population or ecosystem to withstand change and to recover from 

stress (natural or anthropogenic). 

Restoration: The transplanting of live organisms from their natural habitat in one area to another 

area where losses of, or damage to, those organisms has occurred with the purpose of 

restoring the damaged or otherwise compromised area to its original, or a substantially 

improved, condition; additionally, the altering of the physical characteristics (e.g., 

substrate, water quality) of an area that has been changed through human activities to 

return it as close as possible to its natural state in order to restore habitat for organisms. 

Rock: Any consolidated or coherent and relatively hard, naturally formed, mass of mineral 

matter. 

Rod-and-Reel: A hand-held fishing rod with a manually or electrically operated reel attached. 

Scuba-assisted Fishing: Fishing, typically by spear or by hand collection, using assisted 

breathing apparatus. 

Secretary: The Secretary of Commerce or a designee. 

Sessile: Attached to a substrate; non-motile for all or part of the life cycle. 

Slurp Gun: A self-contained, typically hand-held, tube–shaped suction device that captures 

organisms by rapidly drawing seawater containing the organisms into a closed chamber. 

Social Acceptability: The acceptance of the suitability of management measures by 

stakeholders, taking cultural, traditional, political and individual benefits into account. 

Spear: A sharp, pointed, or barbed instrument on a shaft, operated manually or shot from a gun 

or sling and used in fishing. 

 Stock Assessment: A scientifically-based evaluation of a stock in terms of abundance and 

fishing mortality levels and trends, and relative to fishery management objectives and 

constraints if they have been specified. 

Stock of Fish: A species, subspecies, geographical grouping or other category of fish capable of 

management as a unit. 
Chapter 8: Glossary 

Ecosytem Approach FPEIS Page 463

Submersible: A manned or unmanned device that functions or operates primarily underwater 

and may be used to harvest coral or fish. 

Subsistence Fishing: Fishing to obtain food for personal use rather than for sale or recreation. 

Target Resources: Species or taxa sought after in a directed fishery. 

Trophic Web: A network that represents the predator/prey interactions of an ecosystem. 

Trap: A portable, enclosed, box-like device with one or more entrances used for catching and 

holding fish or other marine organism. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: (WPRFMC or Council): A 

Regional Fishery Management Council established under the MSA, consisting of 

representatives from the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory 

of Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and other entities 

which has authority over the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States, 

Territories, Commonwealths, and Possessions of the United States in the Pacific Ocean 

Area. The Council has 13 voting members including eight appointed by the Secretary of 

Commerce at least one of whom is appointed from each of the following areas: Hawaii, 

the Territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 
This page left blank intentionally.