DRAFT SUPPLMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

BOTTOMFISH AND SEAMOUNT 

GROUNDFISH FISHERIES OF THE WESTERN 

PACIFIC REGION 

 MEASURES TO END BOTTOMFISH 

OVERFISHING IN THE HAWAII ARCHIPELAGO

Opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus) 

Prepared by: 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Pacific Islands Region 

March 30, 2006 
Cover: Painting by Les Hata. Used by permission, from the State of Hawaii, Department of Land & Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. 


DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

BOTTOMFISH AND SEAMOUNT GROUNDFISH FISHERIES 

OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION

MEASURES TO END BOTTOMFISH OVERFISHING IN THE HAWAII ARCHIPELAGO

March 30, 2006 

Responsible Agency: Responsible Council: 

NMFS Pacific Islands Region Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110 Management Council 

Honolulu, HI 96814-4700 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 

 Honolulu, HI 96813 

 

Contact: Contact: 

William L. Robinson Kitty M. Simonds 

Regional Administrator Executive Director 

Telephone: (808) 944-2200 (808) 522-8220 

Fax: (808) 973-2941 (808) 522-8226 

 

Abstract: 

On the basis of fishery information analyzed by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), NMFS has determined that overfishing of the bottomfish 

species complex is occurring within the Hawaii Archipelago. The Regional Administrator for the Pacific 

Islands Regional Office (PIRO) notified the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (also known as 

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council or Council) of this overfishing determination 

on May 27, 2005. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 

the Council is required to take action within one year following NMFS’ notification of the overfishing to 

develop measures to end the overfishing through an amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of the Western Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP). In May 2005, a 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the FMP was completed by the Council and NMFS and 

made available to the public on June 17, 2005. 

This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) supplements and, as appropriate, 

incorporates by reference relevant sections and analysis contained in the May 2005 FEIS. Contained in 

this DSEIS are a range of management measures to end bottomfish overfishing in the Hawaii 

Archipelago. Hawaii’s bottomfish are managed as a single archipelagic-wide multi-species stock 

complex, however, bottomfish fisheries in the Hawaii Archipelago occur in two broad management subareas, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The MHI is the zone 

that contributes most of the problems in terms of both reduced biomass and overfishing. Therefore, 

reducing fishing mortality in the MHI would be the most effective means to end the overfishing in the 

Hawaii Archipelago. The management measures considered in this DSEIS (except for the No Action 

Alternative) target a 15 percent or greater reduction in bottomfish fishing mortality in the MHI, which is 

estimated to be the appropriate level of reduction to end overfishing.
ii

[This page purposely left blank.] 
iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

BMUS Bottomfish Management Unit Species 

BiOp Biological Opinion 

BRFA Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cm Centimeters 

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DBEDT Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State of Hawaii 

DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FFS French Frigate Shoals 

fm Fathoms 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FR Federal Register 

FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

ft Feet 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

HDAR Division of Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii 

HINWR Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

HIR Hawaiian Islands Reservation 

HMSRT Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

kg Kilograms 

km Kilometers 

lb Pounds 

m Meters 

MFMT Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold 

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSST Minimum Stock Size Threshold 

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield 

NDSA Naval Defense Sea Areas 
iv

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

nm Nautical Miles 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRSAA National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office (NMFS) 

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (NMFS) 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PRIA Pacific Remote Island Areas 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIR Regulatory Impact Review 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act 

SPR Spawning Potential Ratio 

SWR State Wildlife Refuge 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VMS Vessel Monitoring System 

WPacFIN Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network 

WPRFMC Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 
v

SUMMARY 

Background and Overview 

This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) supplements the May 2005 

Final Environmental Impact Statement1

 (FEIS) on the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region). Concurrent with 

the completion of the FEIS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) informed the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (also known as the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council or Council) that the Hawaii archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock 

complex, which occurs in both federal and state jurisdictions throughout the archipelago, was 

determined to be experiencing overfishing. Bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago are a 

collection, or complex, of deep-slope snappers, groupers, and jacks, however, the primary 

species of concern are the Deep 7 bottomfish species: onaga (Etelis corsucans), ehu (Etelis 

carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (Pristipomoides sieboldii), hapuupuu 

(Epinephelus quernes), opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus), and lehi (Aphareus rutilans). 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries are separated into two broad management sub-areas, the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) of which is separated 

into two smaller management zones; the Mau Zone and Hoomalu Zone. Nearly 80 percent of 

bottomfish habitat in the MHI are within the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii (0 to 3 miles 

offshore), and historically, bottomfish fishing in the MHI has been managed by the state. The 

state’s MHI management measures include bottomfish vessel registration, commercial fishing 

reporting, recreational catch limits for bottomfish two species (onaga, ehu), and 19 restricted 

bottomfish fishing areas. NMFS obtains commercial bottomfish fishing statistics from the State 

of Hawaii’s Division of Aquatic Resources (HDAR). 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires the 

Secretary of Commerce through NMFS to report annually 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, have overfishing occurring, or are approaching a condition of 

being overfished. The overfishing threshold levels for bottomfish management unit species 

(BMUS) stocks and populations is specified in Amendment 62

 of the Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Bottomfish FMP). On May 27, 2005, the Regional 

Administrator for NMFS’ Pacific Islands Region notified the Council that Hawaii’s bottomfish 

multi-species stock complex is experiencing overfishing (within state and federal jurisdictions), 

with the MHI as the zone that contributes most of the problems in terms of both reduced biomass 

and overfishing (70 FR 34452, June 14, 2005). Pursuant to the MSA, the Council has one year 

from the May 27, 2005 notification to develop measures to end the overfishing through an 

amendment to the Bottomfish FMP (16 U.S.C. 18539(e)(3)). Because of the time it takes to 

obtain and process the fisheries data, stock assessments are usually conducted on annual fisheries 

data that is lagging behind the current calendar year. For example, the full set of 2003 bottomfish 

 

1

 For a copy of the May 2005 FEIS contact William L. Robinson or Kitty M. Simonds, or visit www.wpcouncil.org

for an electronic version. 2

 68 FR 46112, August 5, 2003. 
vi

data was compiled and analyzed in 2005. 

Hawaii’s BMUS are evaluated under the MSA as a single archipelagic-wide multi-species stock 

complex. Management criteria, such as whether the stock complex is overfished or whether 

overfishing is occurring, apply to the stock complex rather than to the three sub-area 

management zones or to individual species either on an archipelagic basis or within the subareas. Under the MSA National Standard 1guidelines, Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multispecies stock complex is not overfished (based on the biomass threshold using catch per unit 

effort [Catch-Per-Unit-Effort or CPUE] as a proxy). The current CPUE ratio is 0.82, above the 

threshold value of 0.7 established as the Minimum Stock Size Threshold in the Bottomfish FMP. 

However, under the 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. Based on 2002 fishery catch and effort data analyzed by NMFS’ Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), Appendix 5 to the 2003 Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Annual Report3

 indicated that overfishing is occurring in the Hawaii Archipelago 

because the ratio of current fishing mortality (F) to estimated fishing mortality at maximum 

sustainable yield (FMSY) exceeded the MFMT of 1.0. Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish F ratio is 

obtained by adding the weighted F contributions of the three management zones (MHI, Mau and 

Hoomalu) by using effort, amount of bottomfish fishing gear used over a given unit of time, as a 

proxy for fishing mortality. The archipelagic values also include a weighted factor based on the 

amount of bottomfish habitat in each management zone. These habitat factors are 0.447, 0.124 

and 0.429 for the MHI, Mau and Hoomalu Zones, respectively. 

Using 2002 fishery data and the weighted factors for each zone, Appendix 5 to the bottomfish 

annual report stated that the archipelagic F ratio was between 1.14 and 1.35, above the 

overfishing threshold of 1.0. As reported in Appendix 5, the F ratio for the MHI was 1.86 to 

2.33. The F ratios for the Mau and Hoomalu Zones were 1.19 and 0.37, respectively. Since the 

completion of Appendix 5 in April 2005, PIFSC has received the full set 2003 bottomfish fishery 

data from the State of Hawaii’s Division of Aquatic Resources. Based on 2003 bottomfish 

fishery statistics and the weighted factors for each zone, the archipelagic F ratio is determined to 

be 1.13, above the overfishing threshold of 1.0. Individual F ratios for MHI, Mau and Hoomalu 

Zones are 1.88, 0.96 and 0.39, respectively (See Appendix 2 for more information). 

The MHI F ratio greatly exceeds those of the NWHI zones and indicates that the overfishing 

occurs as a result of excessive fishing mortality (or effort) on the BMUS complex in the MHI. 

Considering the 2003 catch and effort data from each zone and their weighted factors, fishing 

effort in the MHI should be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent to lower the archipelagic F 

ratio from 1.13 percent down to a threshold value of 1.00 or less (Bottomfish Plan Team April 

2005). The MHI is the zone that contributes most of the problems in terms of both reduced 

biomass and overfishing. Therefore, reducing fishing mortality in the MHI would be the most 

effective means to end the overfishing in the Hawaii Archipelago (70 FR 34452, June 14, 2005). 

 

3

 Appendix 5 to the Council’s Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Annual Report, which also contains the status 

of bottomfish fisheries in the Western Pacific Region, can be obtained electronically at 

www.wpcouncil.org/Bottomfish/Documents/AnnualReports/2003/2003BAR-Appendix5-SatausofBott 
vii

Management of the bottomfish multi-species stock complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago is 

confounded by issues of single sector (commercial) representation in fisheries data in the MHI, 

the spatial distribution of fishing effort on the stocks, and the proxies used to measure fishing 

impacts. Fishing effort is heavily skewed towards the MHI, with nearly 3,600 bottomfish vessels 

registered in the MHI only nine bottomfish vessels operating in the NWHI. In the NWHI, the 

total commercial catch represents the sum total of all bottomfish fishing occurring there, while in 

the MHI, there is believed to be significant but unknown recreational catch which is not subject 

to mandatory reporting (HDAR Bottomfish Survey 2005). Only commercial catch and dealer 

reporting is required in the MHI. 

In accordance with the MSA, federal fishery management actions (e.g. FMP amendments) are 

subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.), this DSEIS was prepared because the May 27, 2005 

overfishing determination added significant new circumstances and information relative to the 

management of Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex. This DSEIS 

examines Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries, describes the alternatives being considered to end the 

overfishing, identifies the impacts associated with each alternative, and describes current data 

gaps and areas requiring further research and coordination with the State of Hawaii. 

Description of the Alternatives Considered in this DSEIS 

To meet the purpose and need of this proposed action (to end overfishing in the bottomfish 

complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago), the Council is considering several management measures 

or alternatives to address bottomfish fishing in the MHI, which as previously discussed, is the 

primary management area of concern. To determine the appropriate range of alternatives, the 

Council conferred with fisheries experts, Council staff, members of the fishing community, and 

members of the public through meetings and workshops held throughout Hawaii (see Section 

1.7). 

A range of alternatives was selected taking into account: (a) the best available scientific 

information on the bottomfish species’ life history, habitat, and stock assessments; (b) the 

requirements of the MSA; and (c) the potential impacts to cultural, social, biological, 

enforcement, ecosystem, and economic factors. Under all the alternatives, HDAR’s bottomfish 

management regime (HAR Chapter 13-4) may remain in place or could be changed by DLNR. 

The state’s current bottomfish management regime includes: (i) 19 Bottomfish Restricted 

Fishing Areas (BRFAs) throughout the MHI, (ii) a recreational bag limit of 5 ehu and/or onaga 

per trip per person, (iii) required bottomfish vessel registration, and (iv) prohibited use of bottom 

longline, nets, traps, and trawls to take bottomfish. To end the bottomfish overfishing through 

reducing fishing mortality by 15 percent within the MHI, the Council is considering the 

following management alternatives, of which, all but Alternative 2a require close coordination 

with the State of Hawaii and parallel regulations. 
viii

Alternative 1: No Action 

Alternative 1 is to take no federal action; that is, no federal management measures would be 

recommended by the Council at this time. 

This alternative would also allow continued open access for entry into the MHI fishery, and 

commercial fishermen would continue to be required to submit catch reports. Recreational 

fishermen would continue not to be required to submit catch reports, and the recreational catch 

component would continue to be unknown. 

Based on new mapping information of bottomfish habitat, HDAR is in the process of reviewing 

its bottomfish management regime, with a focus on the Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas 

(BRFAs). Under this alternative (no federal action), the state would likely continue to propose 

changes to is bottomfish management regime which includes: reducing the number of BRFAs 

from 19 to 12, modifying the BRFA locations and generally increasing their size, and 

standardizing BRFA boundaries to corresponding minutes of latitude and longitude. According 

to HDAR, the revised BRFAs include a greater amount of quality bottomfish habitat, with some 

are placed closer to shore to facilitate monitoring and enforcement. It is acknowledged by 

Hawaii’s Division of Conservation and Enforcement (DOCARE) that enforcement of the 

existing BRFAs has not been effectively conducted due to lack of adequate funding, staff, and 

assets. 

Alternative 2: Area Closures 

Alternative 2 contains two variations, both of which would prohibit targeting, possession, 

landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species from specified closed areas. Alternative 2a would 

close federal waters around Penguin Bank and Middle Bank to bottomfish fishing for the Deep 7 

species. Alternative 2b would overlay federal closures in areas where the State of Hawaii is 

proposing closed areas known as that overlap BRFAs into the federal Exclusive Economic Zone 

(3 to 200 nm). 

Alternative 2a: Closure of Penguin Bank and Middle Bank (Secondarily Preferred) 

Under Alternative 2a, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) in or from federal waters around Penguin Bank and Middle 

Bank. All vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI 

would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to obtain 

permits as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing effort, 

and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, each 

vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its registration 

number. 

If the State of Hawaii does not commit to adopting seasonal closure regulations (Alternative 3) 

by April 15, 2006, the Council recommended the adoption of Alternative 2a. This alternative can 

be implemented by federal action as the vast majority of both Penguin and Middle Banks occur 

in federal waters (Figure 3). Together these areas represent between 16 percent and 20 percent of 
ix

MHI bottomfish landings (based on 1998 to 2004 and 1990 to 2004 data, respectively). The 

effectiveness of the area closures in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored 

through recreational and commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

Alternative 2b: Overlay Federal Closures on Proposed HDAR’s Bottomfish Restricted 

Fishing Areas 

Alternative 2b would overlay federal closures on the State of Hawaii’s proposed BRFAs in 

federal waters (3 to 200 nm offshore). HDAR has proposed to replace the current 19 BRFAs 

with 12 BRFAs. The proposed 12 BRFAs are based on bottom mapping and sonar data that 

provide a detailed view of bottomfish Essential Fish Habitat in the 100 to 400 m depth range. It 

is estimated by HDAR that the proposed BRFAs will reduce fishing (landings) by at least 17 

percent (see Appendix 3). 

According to HDAR, monitoring of the BRFAs will mostly include fishery-independent 

components (e.g. video cameras) and perhaps some limited extractive sampling. In order for area 

closures to be effective, it is important to have adequate enforcement. Problems with the current 

level of enforcement by DOCARE have been noted and the proposed BRFAs have been placed 

closer to shore, to the extent possible, and design them with straight-line boundaries, making it 

easier for both fishermen and enforcement officers to determine whether fishing takes place 

inside or outside the closed areas. Overlaying federal closures for those proposed BRFAs that 

extend into the EEZ will allow for enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard and NMFS Office of 

Law Enforcement. 

Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure (Primarily Preferred) 

Under Alternative 3, an annual summer closure would be implemented from May 1 to August 31 

of each year for the entire MHI bottomfish fishery (both commercial and recreational vessels). 

Targeting, possessing, landing, or selling MHI Deep 7 species would be prohibited during the 

closed season; however, the NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. All vessel operators 

(both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register 

their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to complete and submit reports of their 

catch, fishing effort, and area fished. In addition, each vessel would be required to be marked on 

an unobstructed upper surface with its registration number. To achieve the needs and objectives 

of this action (i.e. a 15 percent reduction in MHI fishing mortality), the State of Hawaii would 

need to establish a parallel summer closure for state waters. Recognizing that parallel state and 

federal seasonal closure regulations must be promulgated in order for a seasonal closure to be 

effective, the Council requested that the State of Hawaii notify the Council by April 15, 2006 of 

its commitment to adopt seasonal closure regulations. If the State of Hawaii does not commit to 

adopting seasonal closure regulations, the Council recommended the adoption of Alternative 2a 

(Closure of Middle and Penguin Banks). The effectiveness of the seasonal closure in reducing 

bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and commercial reporting 

as well as enforcement activities. 
x

Alternative 4: Catch Limits 

Alternative 4 includes two variations that would limit the commercial catch of MHI bottomfish. 

Alternative 4a would establish a fleet-wide total allowable catch (TAC) of bottomfish for all 

commercial fishing vessels in the MHI, while Alternative 4b would establish vessel-specific 

individual fishing quotas (IFQs) for Deep 7 bottomfish for all commercial fishing vessels in the 

MHI. Once either quota was reached, no targeting, possessing, landing or selling of MHI Deep 7 

bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be permitted. The NWHI bottomfish fishery 

would remain open. 

Under both variations, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting 

bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and to 

obtain permits, as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing 

effort, and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, 

each vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its 

registration number. 

To achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), 

the State of Hawaii would need to establish a parallel requirement as both State and federal 

waters would have to be closed once the limit was reached. The effectiveness of the catch limits 

in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and 

commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

Alternative 4a: TAC 

Under Alternative 4a, a TAC of 198,484 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all species combined), 

representing a 15 percent reduction from the 2003 fleet-wide MHI bottomfish catches of these 

species, would be applied to the entire MHI commercial bottomfish fishery. The bottomfish 

fishing year would start on October 1 and continue until the TAC was reached. Thereafter, no 

fishing for Deep 7 bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be permitted in the MHI. The 

NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. 

Alternative 4b: IFQs 

Under Alternative 4b, IFQs would be established for each MHI commercial bottomfish 

fisherman, allowing each fisherman to catch 85 percent of their 2003 catch of the Deep 7 species, 

based on reported landings. The bottomfish fishing year would start on January 1. The number of 

participants would be limited to past participation in the fishery and quota amounts would be 

determined based on individual historical catches. Once a commercial fisherman had landed his 

respective IFQ, that person would not be permitted to fish for, possess, or sell any bottomfish 

until the following year. The recreational fishery would remain open. 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish participant with an IFQ would be issued a set of bottomfish 

stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of bottomfish and all the 

stamps totaling the fisherman’s total IFQ. The fisherman would be required to submit a stamp to 

the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman sold fish in excess of the number of bottomfish 
xi

pounds for one stamp, he would be required to surrender a second stamp to the dealer. Once all 

the stamps were submitted the fisherman would be prohibited from fishing until the next open 

season. 

Under this variation, fishermen would be required to continue reporting their catches and to stop 

fishing when their individual quota was reached. Fishery data would need to be analyzed in real 

time to ensure that fishermen did not exceed their quota and to penalize those that did. 

IFQs could be implemented in a number of ways, two methods are outlined here: 

1. Provide equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) to all historical 

participants. Under this alternative, historical "highliners" would get the same quota as parttime fishermen, and vice versa. Variations could provide equal quotas to a subset of all 

historical participants, such as those most active in recent years. 

2. Provide individual quotas that are equal to 85 percent of each and every fisherman’s 

historical catch. Under this alternative, fishermen’s quotas would be relative to their 

individual historical catches. Variations could provide similar quotas to a subset of all 

historical participants, such as those most active in recent years. 

Alternative 5: Combination Measures 

Alternative 5 would mitigate potential impacts of the stand-alone alternatives above by 

combining modifications of those alternatives. Alternative 5 includes two variations. Alternative 

5a would combine a seasonal bottomfish closure with bottomfish IFQs for certain commercial 

fishing vessels during the seasonal closure. Alternative 5b would combine seasonal closures with 

a partial closure of Penguin Bank. 

Under both versions of Alternative 5, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) 

targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis 

and would be required to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing 

effort, and area fished. 

Successful implementation and enforcement of Alternative 5 would be dependent upon 

coordination with the State of Hawaii as it would require parallel regulations for fishing limits 

and closures in both state and federal waters. 

Under both versions of Alternative 5 enforcement would include shore-based monitoring of 

landings and sales. Imported bottomfish or bottomfish caught in the NWHI would still be 

available, and these would need to be certified and tracked to final point of sale. At-sea 

enforcement would be needed during closed seasons and to patrol the area closure in Alternative 

5b. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, each vessel would be 

required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its registration number.
xii

Alternative 5a: Seasonal Closure and IFQs 

Under Alternative 5a, the MHI bottomfish fishery would be closed during an expanded seasonal 

closure from May 1 to September 30 of each year, except for a small number of full-time 

commercial bottomfish fishermen. The exempt fishermen would each receive IFQs for the Deep 

7 species that they could use during the otherwise closed season (May to September). Once each 

exempted fisherman’s quota was landed, he would be required to stop fishing until the next open 

season. The combined total of all IFQs would equal 23,946 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all 

species combined) as this is the amount that could be made available for harvest during the 

otherwise closed season and still maintain the overall annual reduction of 15 percent from the 

2003 baseline for the entire MHI. 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish fisherman exempted from the summer closure would be 

issued a set of bottomfish stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of 

bottomfish and all the stamps totaling the vessel’s IFQ for the otherwise closed season. The 

fisherman would be required to submit a stamp to the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman 

sold fish in excess of the number of bottomfish pounds for one stamp, he would be required to 

surrender a second stamp to the dealer. Once all the stamps were submitted the fisherman would 

be prohibited from targeting, possessing, landing or selling MHI Deep 7 bottomfish until the next 

open season. 

As in Alternative 4, IFQs could be calculated and provided in equal amounts to all qualifying 

fishermen, or they could be calculated and provided such that each qualifying fisherman’s quota 

was proportionate to his historical catch. However, in either case, the sum of the IFQs would not 

exceed the 23,946 pounds available. 

 

Alternative 5b: Seasonal Closure and Area Closure 

Alternative 5b would combine a seasonal closure from June 1 to August 31 of each year for the 

MHI with a year-round closure of the southwestern quarter of Penguin Bank. All MHI 

bottomfish fishermen would be prohibited from targeting, possessing landing or selling the Deep 

7 species from the MHI during the summer closure. However, the year-round partial closure of 

Penguin Bank would enable the length of the summer closure to be reduced as compared to other 

alternatives. Based on historical MHI landings of deep-slope bottomfish, a summer closure from 

June through August would reduce landings by up to 11 percent as compared to the 2003 

baseline. Based on 1998 to 2004 historical data indicating that federal waters around Penguin 

Bank are the source of 16 percent of MHI Deep 7 catches as compared to the 2003 baseline and 

lacking spatially detailed catch and effort data for this area, the closure of the southwestern 

quarter of Penguin Bank would be estimated to further reduce landings by an additional 4 

percent. Thus the combination of the seasonal and area closures under Alternative 5b would be 

expected to achieve the 15 percent reduction target. 
xiii

Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives Considered 

For each alternative considered in detail, the potential direct and indirect impacts on each of the 

affected components of the human environment are described, as are the potential cumulative 

impacts. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

Alternative 1 is to take no federal action; that is, no further federal management measures would 

be recommended by the Council at this time. However under this and all other alternatives, 

HDAR’s bottomfish management measures could remain in place or be changed by DLNR. 

Existing HDAR regulations include: bag limits for the recreational harvest of onaga and ehu 

(unless recreational fishing activities are closed as in some alternatives); requirements for anyone 

who intends to harvest any of HDAR’s designated seven deep-slope bottomfish species (the 

Deep 7: onaga, ehu, opakapaka, gindai, lehi, kalekale, hapuupuu, and lehi) to register and mark 

their vessels with their registration number beginning with “BF”; and the existing 19 BRFAs 

which have been closed to bottomfish fishing since 1998. Under this and all other alternatives 

HDAR would continue to manage the BRFAs and could make changes to them. Uncertainty 

about the effectiveness of the State’s existing BRFAs, about the final configuration of any new 

BRFAs (and related changes to existing area closures) and fishermen’s responses to them, as 

well as uncertainty about trends in factors external to the fishery management regime (such as 

market demand and prices for fresh MHI bottomfish), hamper reliable estimations of future 

fishing activity. However it can be reasonably anticipated that catches of target species will be 

reduced if the proposed BRFAs close prime fishing areas. The distribution of impacts among 

fishery sectors, communities, and participants will largely be a function of where new area 

closures are located, and the proximity and viability of remaining open areas. 

Absent any new federal or state actions, fishing activities and fishery conditions under 

Alternative 1 would continue as at present. If the trend of declining commercial fishing activity, 

apparent for the past 20 years, continues, overfishing may end by the observed reduction in effort 

which is used as a proxy for fishing mortality. There is, however, little flexibility under MSA 

National Standard 1 guidelines to preclude management measures to address an overfishing 

condition even though there is a historical trend in reduced fishing effort. Furthermore, fishing 

pressure (e.g. overfishing) may increase in future years due to markets or exogenous factors such 

as high fuel costs, which are believed to cause fishermen to switch from trolling to bottomfish 

fishing. If this continues, bottomfish stocks and catch rates may further decline and fishery 

participants in all sectors will see lower returns both in financial and non-market (e.g. angler 

satisfaction, protein sources, and social benefits) terms. If the overfishing of bottomfish in 

Hawaii continues, there is potential for experiencing an ‘“overfished” state in the bottomfish 

fishery, which left unchecked could cause the fishery to collapse and require the implementation 

of a rebuilding plan. An overfished resource and subsequent collapsed fishery would likely result 

in significant negative impacts on Hawaii’s fishing communities and participants. 

Alternative 2: Area Closures 

Under Alternative 2a, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 
xiv

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) in or from federal waters around Penguin Bank and Middle 

Bank. This alternative can be implemented by federal action as the vast majority of both Penguin 

and Middle Banks occur entirely in federal waters. Together these areas represent between 16 

percent and 20 percent of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish landings as compared to the 2003 baseline 

(based on 1998 to 2004 and 1990 to 2004 data, respectively). 

Deepwater bottomfish within the closed areas would be protected but fishing effort (and 

associated mortality) could be displaced to open areas, thus reducing the potential benefits of the 

closures. However subsequent mortality rates may be lower if open areas have lower catch rates 

than Penguin and Middle Banks. The extent of effort moving to open areas is unknown, but 

several key factors suggest a shifting of effort would likely occur. Oahu bottomfish landings 

represent approximately 30 percent of the commercial MHI landings, and harvests from Penguin 

Bank make up a significant proportion of those landings. Additionally, because MHI bottomfish 

tend to command higher aggregate prices than NWHI or imported bottomfish, a shifting of effort 

to other areas within the MHI is likely to occur. A year-round closure of Penguin and Middle 

Banks would likely have disproportionate effects on fishing communities and participants on 

Oahu and Kauai because of the proximity of the banks to these islands. Costly at sea 

enforcement and air surveillance would be necessary enforce the closed areas. 

Under Alternative 2b, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species in or from federal waters of 

the state’s BRFAs. According to HDAR, the proposed BRFAs will reduce fishing effort by at 

least 15 percent. Deepwater bottomfish within the closed areas would be protected but fishing 

effort (and associated mortality) could be displaced to open areas, thus reducing the potential 

benefits of the closures. The assumptions and analysis of HDAR's proposed revisions to the 

BRFAs, is complex and it is difficult to predict the associated impacts. Although area closures 

are recognized as a valid management tool for some fisheries, there is more uncertainty in 

predicting the impacts associated with the proposed BRFA revisions when compared to the other 

alternatives. For example, the proposed closed areas will likely increase bottomfish biomass 

within the closed areas; however, the spillover effect to adjacent areas is unknown. The 

distribution of impacts among fishery sectors, communities, and participants will largely be a 

function of where new area closures are located, and the proximity and viability of remaining 

open areas. The proposed closed areas would require costly at sea and air surveillance 

enforcement and according to NMFS OLE, closed areas interspersed with open areas are difficult 

to enforce. The USCG and NMFS OLE have indicated that they lack appropriate resources to 

adequately enforce the proposed BRFAs (131st Council Meeting, March 13 to 16, 2006), 

Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure 

Under Alternative 3, an annual summer closure would be implemented during May to August of 

each year for the entire MHI bottomfish fishery (both commercial and recreational vessels). To 

achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in the fishing mortality of MHI 

Deep 7 species), the State of Hawaii would need to establish a parallel summer closure for state 

waters. 
xv

Based on historical MHI landings, the May to August closure would be expected to reduce MHI 

landings by up to 17 percent as compared to the 2003 baseline. Peak spawning of deep-water 

bottomfish is believed to occur during the summer months, thus spawning bottomfish would be 

protected throughout the MHI during the closed season. Although fishing effort could shift to 

open periods, the extent of effort shifting to open periods is not expected to be significant as 

there would be a reduced number of calendar days to fish, in combination with the sensitivity of 

the bottomfish fishery to adverse weather conditions. Historically, the highest levels of 

bottomfish fishing effort occur in the winter months when there is a greater demand for 

bottomfish during the holiday season, as well as shift in weather patterns that result in calmer 

ocean conditions that are more conducive to bottomfish fishing. In addition, the closure would 

occur during the time when bottomfish activity has been historically low as fishermen switch to 

other fisheries. Both the pelagic troll (e.g. yellowfin) and the hook-and-line mackerel (akule and 

opelu) fisheries are at their peak during the summer period and therefore represent various 

recreational and commercial fishing opportunities during the bottomfish closed season. 

It’s believed the largest impact of a seasonal closure would be on the full-time commercial 

bottomfish sector, which whom depend on harvesting bottomfish for their livelihood. Impacts on 

fishing communities and participants would generally be evenly distributed except for some 

number of participants from each community who prefer year-round bottomfish fishing to other 

types of fishing or who prefer summer bottomfish fishing to other times of year. 

Enforcement of a seasonal closure will occur mostly shore-side and at fish markets. At sea 

enforcement or air surveillance would still be conducted, however, at levels lower than what is 

required for year around area closures. 

Alternative 4: Catch Limits 

Both variations of Alternative 4 would provide direct control of fishing mortality and would 

(with parallel State regulations) be expected to achieve the target 15 percent reduction in catches 

of MHI Deep 7 species. However concerns have been raised regarding the determination of 

appropriate allowable harvest levels on an ongoing annual basis as to date not even one 

comprehensive stock assessment has been completed for this fishery. PIFSC has recently 

initiated a process to complete a comprehensive stock assessment, however the date of 

completion is unknown, and further the assessment model would unlikely be able to predict 

allowable harvest levels on an annual basis. There is also a paucity of fishery independent data, 

as well as difficulty in adjusting available CPUE data as highliners leave the fishery. 

Incorporating the existence of area closures such as the State’s BRFAs has also proven 

problematic as the BRFAs are generally designed to close the most productive fishing areas, thus 

reducing available CPUE in remaining open areas. Additionally there is a lack of fishery 

independent data, a lack of recreational data, and difficulty in adjusting available CPUE data as 

highliners leave the fishery. These factors may make the use of a quota-based management 

program difficult. 

High-grading would also be a concern under both versions of Alternative 4. High-grading to 

maximize value can occur within species (e.g. discarding small fish in favor of larger fish) or 

between species (e.g. discarding low-value species in favor of higher-value species). Deep-slope 
xvi

bottomfish generally have a high mortality rate resulting from embolism as they are brought to 

the surface. If, and to what extent, high-grading occurs, additional bottomfish mortality may 

occur. A quota-based program may also lead fishery participants to make sure that they achieve 

quotas out of fear that future quotas (or their share of them) may otherwise be reduced. This can 

result in increased impacts on target species as compared to other management approaches. 

The use of a commercial fleet-wide TAC under Alternative 4a would be anticipated to result in a 

bunching of fishing effort at the beginning of each fishing year (October 1) as fishery 

participants would be aware that once the TAC was reached the fishery would be closed to all 

sectors. Given that the majority of commercial landings are already made during the winter 

season this is not likely to radically change these operations, however it may lead to market 

“floods” which temporarily reduce fresh fish prices and adversely impact commercial fishermen. 

Once the TAC was reached, this alternative would lead to an increased reliance on NWHI or 

imported bottomfish. Pending the designation of the NWHI National Marine Sanctuary, a 

continued NWHI bottomfish fishery is likely to be subject to reduced catch limits, or completely 

phase-out over a period of time. An increase reliance on imported bottomfish would be 

anticipated to have negative impacts on the entire commercial fishery sector as market channels 

for fresh MHI bottomfish would be lost and have to be regained each year, a task that has 

historically proven to be difficult in many fisheries and industries. 

The impacts of Alternative 4b on the commercial fishery sector would vary depending on how 

the IFQs were implemented. If equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) 

were provided to each participant, highliners would get the same quota as part-time fishermen, 

and vice versa. This would leave some without enough quota, while others would have unused 

quota. Without a method to transfer (trade) quota between fishermen, this would have 

disproportionately adverse impacts on the highliners. If individual quotas (equal to 85 percent of 

each fisherman’s individual historical catch) were provided, all commercial participants would 

be anticipated to experience proportionately equally adverse impacts, and it is likely that more of 

the total quota would be used even if there were no method to transfer quota between fishermen. 

If individual quotas were provided to a subset of all historical participants, such as those most 

active in recent years, the individual quotas would not change, but some historical participants 

would not have any quota. The recreational (including subsistence) fishery sector would not be 

issued an IFQ but would continue to be subjected to the State’s recreational bag limits. 

Because this alternative may also lead to an increased reliance on imported bottomfish as the 

commercial IFQs were reached, it would be anticipated to have negative impacts on the entire 

commercial fishery sector as market channels for fresh MHI bottomfish would again be lost and 

have to be regained each year. 

Alternative 5: Combination Measures 

Both variations of Alternative 5 (with parallel State regulations) would be expected to meet the 

15 percent target reduction in fishing mortality to MHI Deep 7 species. Alternative 5a’s 

expanded (May–September) summer closure would impact all fishery sectors, communities and 

participants; however, this is normally be a period of lower bottomfish fishing activity because 

of the increased availability of pelagic fish, so this impact may be relatively low. The provision 
xvii

of equal IFQs for use by a subset of commercial fishermen during the otherwise closed season 

will offset the impacts on this group. However, the allocation of equal quotas to each qualifying 

participant would likely leave some without enough quota, while others could have unused 

quota. Without a method to transfer (trade) quota between fishermen, this would have adverse 

impacts on the qualifying highliners. 

As compared with alternatives that would result in time periods during which no MHI bottomfish 

were landed (resulting from seasonal closures or TACs or universal IFQs), Alternative 5a would 

be expected to have a strongly positive impact on the entire commercial fishery sector. It would 

provide a continuous supply of fresh MHI bottomfish to local markets, thus maintaining open 

market channels that would otherwise be expected to be filled by increased imports during the 

closed season. Experience has shown that if imports come to dominate market channels, it can be 

difficult for local producers to regain their market share as wholesalers and retailers can be 

reluctant to forgo their now-established supply chains. 

Alternative 5b would combine a seasonal closure June to August of each year for the MHI with a 

year-round partial closure of Penguin Bank. Based on historical MHI landings of deep-slope 

bottomfish, a summer closure from June through August would reduce MHI Deep 7 landings by 

up to 11 percent as compared to the 2003 baseline. Data from 1998 to 2004 indicate that federal 

waters around Penguin Bank are the source of 16 percent of MHI Deep 7 catches as compared to 

the 2003 baseline. The closure of the southwestern quarter of Penguin Bank would be expected 

to further reduce landings by an additional 4 percent. As in Alternative 5a, deep-slope bottomfish 

throughout the MHI would be protected during the closed season. Fishing effort could shift to 

open periods, potentially reducing the benefits of the closures. In addition to the benefits of the 

seasonal closure, Alternative 5b would further protect target species within the closed area on the 

southwestern quarter of Penguin Bank. 

Economic Impacts from the Alternatives 

The economic effects of ending overfishing in the MHI bottomfish fishery depends largely on 

how fishermen and the seafood market react to the measures. For the fishermen, it is expected 

that they will adjust to the extent possible by shifting their effort to other time-area strata. For the 

market, the same applies in terms of finding substitutes for decreases in their supply of MHI 

bottomfish. Their primary alternatives are as follows: NWHI bottomfish, imported bottomfish, 

and other species (non-bottomfish). The management objective to reduce bottomfish catch in the 

MHI by 15 percent translates to a reduction of roughly 35,000 pounds of the deep 

snapper/grouper complex or $110,000 ex-vessel revenues. The aggregate impact on Hawaii’s 

economy would be small. Using an input/output approach, as a rough order of magnitude, the 

total economic impact would be $300,000 in business sales with a loss of $120,000 in income. 

Fishermen would have the ability to offset some of their lost revenue by substituting different 

target species and adjusting their fishing patterns accordingly. Obviously, the distribution of this 

cost across currently active (or potentially newly active) participants would differ by their 

current levels of fishing effort, but if there are roughly 300 active commercial bottomfish 

fishermen in the MHI, the average impact is minimal. However, the individual impact may be 

significant for the relatively few full-time bottomfish fishermen. There is a consumer price 
xviii

element in which any decrease in the supply of bottomfish would be expected to increase prices 

by a certain percentage. 

Finally, the Hawaii bottomfish fishery is also important culturally to Hawaii’s fishing 

communities, a value not entirely reflected by the seafood market. Again, NWHI bottomfish 

would be considered in many cases a close substitute, but substituting different snapper species 

from imports would not be so close a cultural substitute. More research would be required on the 

implications of this effect on Hawaii’s communities. 

Selection of a Preferred Alternative 

Based on public comments received and recommendations provided by the Council’s advisory 

panels and its Science and Statistical Committee, the Council at its 131st meeting selected 

Alternative 3 (Seasonal Closure) as the measure to end the bottomfish overfishing problem 

within the MHI. Recognizing that parallel state and federal seasonal closure regulations must be 

promulgated in order for a seasonal closure to be effective, the Council requested that the State 

of Hawaii notify the Council by April 15, 2006 of its commitment to adopt seasonal closure 

regulations. If the State of Hawaii does not commit to adopting seasonal closure regulations, the 

Council recommended the adoption of Alternative 2a (Closure of Middle and Penguin Banks), 

which is the only alternative that involves only federal jurisdiction that could be unilaterally 

approved and implemented by NMFS acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. The 

Council also recommended at its 131st meeting, that a working group be established composed of 

staff from the Council, State, and Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive research, 

monitoring, and enforcement program to evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s existing and 

proposed BRFAs.
xix

Table 1: Summary Impact Comparisons of the Alternatives. 

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Target Species (-) Continued 

overfishing. (-) Does not meet MSA requirements. (?) The impact of a revised State of Hawaii bottomfish management regime. (-) Recreational fishermen would continue not to be required to submit catch reports, and the recreational catch component would continue to be unknown 

2a: (+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 20 percent based on historical catch. 2b: (+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 17 percent based on 2004 catch. (+) Closed areas may help replenish stocks in adjacent habitat (i.e. spillover). (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. (-) Fishing effort may increase in open areas reducing benefits of closures & depressed CPUE in those areas fished. 

(+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 17 percent based on historical catch.  (+) May protect bottomfish summer spawning aggregations & reduce mortality on spawning fish increasing biomass over time. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. (-) Fishing effort may increase during open periods reducing overall benefit. 

(+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 15 percent based on historical catch. (+) Sets hard limits on amount of fish caught. (+) Recreational and commercial catch data collection would be improved with new, timely reporting requirements. (-) Lack of robust stock assessments may lead to errors in setting harvest limits. (-) Poor, missing data on catch especially in recreational fishery may leato errors in setting harvest limits. (-) May lead to high-grading and thus no net decrease in mortality. 

Legend: (+) positive, (-) negative, (?) unknown, (n) neutral. 
xx

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

(n/+) If the decline in fishing effort continues, there may be a decline in catch of nontarget spp. (n) Bycatch data in the MHI has only recently been reported, but is estimated to be minimal, and disproportionately limited to a few number of species which likely survive when discarded. 

(+) Catch of nontarget spp. would be eliminated in closed areas. (n/-) Increased effort in open areas may locally increase catch of nontarget species and bycatch in those areas.  (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. 

(n/-) Increased effort during open period may lead to increased catches of nontarget species and bycatch, especially for species more abundant during the open season. (+) The minimal bycatch levels would be eliminated during closed period. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements 

(-) If annual quota is met, effort to catch normally nontarget species may increase. (n) Bycatch in deep handlinfishery is minimal so reduction in bycatch would be minimal. (-) High-grading may increase bycatch, including that of target species. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements 

Protected Species (n) Rare interactions between bottomfish 

fishers and protected species. A decline in bottomfish fishing, it is expected that there will be a proportional reduction in the potential of an interaction. 

(+) Potential minor benefits in preventing possible interactions in closed areas. (n) Impact of potential increased effort in open fishing areas likely negligible as interactions are rare. 

(+) The possibility of protected species interactions would be eliminated during closed period. 

(n/+) An enforced reduction in landings and possible shortened season may resulin a proportional reduction of potential interactions. 
xxi

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

EFH, Biodiversity, & Ecosystem 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (n/+) Negligible or slightly positive effects by less fishing effort in closed areas. (?/-) Potential for localized negative effects if bottomfish fishing effort is too highly concentrated in open areas with suitable habitat. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (+) Potential negative impacts on EFH, biodiversity, and ecosystems would be eliminated during closure 

period. (?/n) The impacts of a potential increased level of effort during open season are unknown, but likely minimal. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (+/n) No likely effect on EFH or slight positive effect by less fishing presence once the TAC is reached. 
xxii

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Fishing Sectors (-) Continued 

overfishing would lead to decreased landings. 

2a: (+) Closure of Penguin Bank, the most productive bottomfish area in the MHI, may result in failure of fulltime bottomfish fishing and multi-fishery operations. 2a: (-) Impact to all sectors will not be distributed evenly throughout the islands; greatest impact will be to Oahu and Kauai based fishermen. 2b: (-) Proposed closures may impact small boat recreational and commercial fishermen throughout the state if force to travel farther to bottomfish. 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly throughout all fishing sectors. (+) Pelagic troll or other fisheries are viable alternatives for MHI bottomfish fishers during closed season. (n) Historically there are higher monthly bottomfish landings during the proposed open season. 

(+) Commercial bottomfish fishers who have correctly reported their catch will lose less than those who have noreported or have underreported their catches. (-) Fishermen with poorly documented catch records may be squeezed out of the fishery. (-) May restrict new entry into the fishery. 
xxiii

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Fishing Communities 

 (-) Continued overfishing may reduce the social and economic benefits of maintained fishing opportunities. 

2a: (-) Disproportionate localized economic and social impacts to Oahu and Kauai fishing communities. 2b: (-) Potential negative impact on communities located near proposed area closures. 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly across the state. (+) The fishery would not be closed during holiday season when red bottomfish are most desired by local communities. (-) Marginal impact if seasonal closure is implemented during historically low periods of fishing effort and landings. 

4a: (+) A TAC would likely affect all fishing communities equally. 4b: (+) Distribution of IFQs recognizes past participation and experience in fishery. 4b: (-) For those fishing communities whose commercial fishermen have poorly documented catch records may be squeezed ouof the fishery. 
xxiv

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Native Hawaiian Communities 

(-) Continued overfishing would lead to decrease in CPUE and available bottomfish. 

(-) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture, especially for those Native Hawaiians. 2b: (-) Potential negative impact on Native Hawaiian communities located near proposed area closures. 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly across state. (n/-) Marginal impact if seasonal closure is implemented during historically low periods of fishing effort. (-/n) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture; however, seasonal closures were historically used by Native Hawaiians to manage marine resources. 

(-) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture. 
xxv

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Administration and Enforcement 

(+) No impacts or additional costs. (n) Continue to monitor the status of the fishery. (-) Would continue to have limited data, especially for recreation fishing effort & landings hindering future management efforts. 

2a: (+) Penguin Bank is a large area close to Oahu that will make it easier to enforce and monitor. 2a: (-) Middle Bank is farther from Oahu and would likely be monitored via air surveillance (costly) than by boat by USCG. (-) Requires a research monitoring program to be implemented to measure effectiveness. 2b: (n,-) May allow the force of federal jurisdiction to enhance state jurisdiction in the MHI, but multiple relatively small closed areas with open areas in between are difficult to enforce. 2b: (-) Historically, DOCARE has been underfunded and has lacked the ability to adequately enforce the existing BRFAs. Burdening the USCG with enforcing the proposed closed areas could negatively affect them as they have other important missions (e.g. Homeland security). 

(n/-) Requires enhanced state and federal coordination. Similar rules would need to be established by both state and federal agencies. (-) Certification of imported and NWHI bottomfish will be needed. (-) Administrative and enforcement costs will increase over current levels. (+) At-sea and air enforcement, which is costly, would be minimal although necessary to monitor compliance; Bulk of monitoring can be through dockside enforcement or monitoring of markets and dealers. (+) Existing state dealer reporting program could be used to check sales and landings. 

4a: (-) Closely monitoring ocatch reports may require more resources.  4a: (+) Costly at-sea and air enforcement not required unless quota is met. 4a: (-) All bottomfish sold would have to be tracked to point of sale.  4b: (-) Implementing and monitoring IFQs would likely require additional resources and may be burdensome to administer. 4b: (-) Enforcement would be difficult catch fishermen who exceed their IFQ. 
xxvi

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Regional Economy (-/n) Continued 

overfishing may eventually lead to a collapse of the bottomfish fishery in the MHI. 

2a: (-/n) Closure of Penguin and Middle Banks may slightly affect the impact Oahu and Kauai fishermen’s contribution to the regional economy. 2a: (-) Total Penguin Bank closure would negatively impact Oahu bottomfish fishermen’s ability to supply local high quality sashimi markets. 2b: (-) Statewide closures may have slight effects on economy statewide. (-) May encourage importation of lesser quality products that will further erode the market for local bottomfish in local markets (-) May encourage increased importation of similar products that may facilitate the supplanting of the traditionally high-priced local bottomfish species. 

(+) Seasonal closure would be during period of historically slow bottomfish fishing activity. (+) Winter months and important holiday seasons would remain open when red fish is most desired by local communities. (-) MHI bottomfish product would be eliminated from market during closure period. (-) MHI Bottomfish fishermen may lose foothold due to higher levels of imports. 

(-) With reduced bottomfish landings there will be a loss of revenue. (-) If quotas are met, importof bottomfish are likely to increase above the current level of an average 750,000 pounds. 
xxvii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................................................... ii 

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................... xxvii 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xxxii 

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................xxxiii 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish................................................................ 1 

1.3 Overfishing Determination................................................................................................ 4 

1.4 Statements of the Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 6 

1.5 Proposed Federal Action ................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Action Area........................................................................................................................ 6 

1.7 Public Participation............................................................................................................ 8 

1.8 Related NEPA Documents ................................................................................................ 9 

1.8.1 Final Environmental Impact Statement—Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fishery of the Western Pacific Region, May 2005 ................................................. 9 

1.8.2 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement – Towards an Ecosystem 

Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery 

Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans .............................. 10 

1.9 Relevant Laws and Executive Orders.............................................................................. 10 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 11 

2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Further Detail......................................... 11 

2.1.1 The Entire Hawaii BMUS Complex.................................................................... 11 

2.1.2 Gear Restrictions................................................................................................... 13 

2.1.3 Limited Entry........................................................................................................ 13 

2.1.4 Rolling Closures.................................................................................................... 14 

2.1.5 Closure of NWHI Bottomfish Fishery.................................................................. 15 

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail.................................................................................... 16 

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action....................................................................................... 16 

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Area Closures................................................................................. 17 

2.2.2.1 Alternative 2a: Closure of Penguin Bank and Middle Bank (Secondarily 

Preferred) .............................................................................................................. 17 

2.2.2.2 Alternative 2b: Overlay Federal Closures on Proposed HDAR Restricted Fishing 

Areas ..................................................................................................................... 17 

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure (Primarily Preferred But Contingent Upon State 

of Hawaii) ............................................................................................................. 22 
xxviii

2.2.4 Alternative 4: Catch Limits................................................................................... 22 

2.2.5 Alternative 5: Combination Measures .................................................................. 24 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................. 28 

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 28 

3.2 Oceanographic Setting..................................................................................................... 29 

3.2.1 Currents and Eddies .............................................................................................. 30 

3.2.2 Productivity Trends............................................................................................... 31 

3.3 Hawaii’s Deep-Water Bottomfish ................................................................................... 31 

3.3.1 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................ 31 

3.3.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...................... 32 

3.3.2 Management Unit Species (MUS)........................................................................ 33 

3.3.2.1 Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) .............................................. 33 

3.3.2.2 The Deep 7 Species........................................................................................... 36 

3.3.3.2 Overfishing Criteria .......................................................................................... 40 

3.3.3.3 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) ................................................................ 42 

3.4 Fisheries........................................................................................................................... 44 

3.4.1 History................................................................................................................... 45 

3.4.2 Fishing Gear and Methods.................................................................................... 48 

3.4.3 Existing Regulatory Regimes ............................................................................... 49 

3.4.3.1 Federal Management Regime ........................................................................... 49 

3.4.3.1.1 Overview of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Amendments ............ 49 

3.4.3.1.2 Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Regulations............................................. 50 

3.4.3.1.3 Observer Program............................................................................................ 53 

3.4.3.1.4 Data Collection................................................................................................ 54 

3.4.3.1.5 Federal Enforcement........................................................................................ 55 

3.4.3.2 State of Hawaii Management Regime .............................................................. 55 

3.4.3.2.1 State Regulations ............................................................................................. 55 

3.4.3.2.2 State Data Collection....................................................................................... 56 

3.4.3.2.3 State Enforcement............................................................................................ 57 

3.4.4 Commercial Fisheries ........................................................................................... 58 

3.4.4.1 Participation and Effort..................................................................................... 58 

3.4.4.2 Landings............................................................................................................ 64 

3.4.4.3 CPUE ................................................................................................................ 90 

3.4.4.4 Revenues and Prices ......................................................................................... 93 

3.4.5 Processing and Marketing................................................................................... 101 

3.4.6 Bycatch ............................................................................................................... 104

3.4.6.1 Magnuson–Stevens Act (MSA) Definitions and Requirements ..................... 104 

3.4.6.2 Available Estimates of Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality................................. 105 

3.4.6.3 Bycatch in the Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery ........................... 106 

3.4.6.4 Bycatch in the NWHI Bottomfish Fishery...................................................... 108 

3.4.7 Recreational Fishery ........................................................................................... 112 

3.5 Protected Species........................................................................................................... 113 

3.5.1 Marine Mammals................................................................................................ 114 

3.5.1.1 Listed Cetaceans ............................................................................................. 114 
xxix

3.5.1.2 Other Cetaceans .............................................................................................. 114 

3.5.1.3 Listed Pinniped: The Hawaiian Monk Seal .................................................... 115 

3.5.1.4 Other Pinniped: The Northern Elephant Seal ................................................. 115 

3.5.2 Sea Turtles .......................................................................................................... 116 

3.5.3 Seabirds............................................................................................................... 117 

3.5.4 Bottomfish Fisheries Interactions With Protected Species................................. 117 

3.6 Economic, Social, and Cultural Setting......................................................................... 117 

3.6.1 Hawaii Overview ................................................................................................ 117 

3.6.1.1 Fishing-Related Economic Activities ............................................................. 120 

3.6.2 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 123 

3.6.2.1 Population Size and Ethnicity......................................................................... 125 

3.6.2.2 Sociocultural Setting....................................................................................... 126 

3.6.2.3 Social Aspects of Fish Harvest ....................................................................... 126 

3.6.2.4 Social Aspects of Fish Distribution and Consumption................................... 133 

3.6.2.5 Social Significance of Fishing to the Broader Community ............................ 135 

3.6.6.6 Native Hawaiian Community ......................................................................... 137 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................................................... 139 

4.1 Alternative 1: No Action ................................................................................................... 139 

4.1.1 Target Species..................................................................................................... 140 

4.1.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 140 

4.1.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 141 

4.1.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 142 

4.1.5 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 144 

4.1.6 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 144 

4.1.7 Native Hawaiian Community ............................................................................. 145 

4.1.8 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 145 

4.2 Alternative 2: Area Closures ......................................................................................... 145 

4.2.1 Target Species..................................................................................................... 147 

4.2.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 150 

4.2.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 150 

4.2.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 150 

4.2.5 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 151 

4.2.6 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 152 

4.2.7 Native Hawaiian Community ............................................................................. 152 

4.2.8 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 153 

4.3 Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure .................................................................................... 154 

4.3.1 Target Species..................................................................................................... 154 

4.3.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 155 

4.3.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 156 

4.3.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 156 

4.3.5 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 157 

4.3.6 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 157 

4.3.7 Native Hawaiian Community ............................................................................. 158 

4.3.8 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 158 
xxx

4.4 Alternative 4: Catch Limits ........................................................................................... 158 

4.4.1 Target Species..................................................................................................... 160 

4.4.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 161 

4.4.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 161 

4.4.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 162 

4.4.5 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 162 

4.4.6 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 163 

4.4.7 Native Hawaiian Community ............................................................................. 164 

4.4.8 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 165 

4.5 Alternative 5: Combination Measures........................................................................... 166 

4.5.1 Target Species..................................................................................................... 167 

4.5.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 169 

4.5.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 170 

4.5.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 170 

4.5.5 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 171 

4.5.6 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 172 

4.5.7 Native Hawaiian Community ............................................................................. 174 

4.5.8 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 174 

4.6 Impacts to the Regional Economy................................................................................. 175 

4.7 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................... 178 

4.8 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................ 187 

4.8.1 History of Bottomfish Fishing in Hawaii............................................................ 187 

4.8.2 Past Bottomfish Management Actions Potentially Contributing to Cumulative 

Effects ................................................................................................................. 187 

4.8.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council, NMFS, State of Hawaii Activities .... 188 

4.8.3.1 Hawaii Bottomfish Stock Assessment............................................................ 188 

4.8.3.2 Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) ...................................... 188 

4.8.3.3 Hawaii Archipelago Ecosystem Research Plan .............................................. 189 

4.8.3.4 State of Hawaii Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas .................................... 189 

4.8.3.5 NWHI National Marine Sanctuary ................................................................. 189 

4.8.4 Cumulative Effects to Target Species................................................................. 189 

4.8.5 Nontarget Species and Bycatch .......................................................................... 192 

4.8.6 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 193 

4.8.7 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems.................................................................... 197 

4.8.8 Fishery Sectors.................................................................................................... 198 

4.8.9 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................... 201 

4.8.10 Native Hawaiian Communities........................................................................... 203 

4.8.11 Administration and Enforcement........................................................................ 205 

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES .............................................. 207 

5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives and Mitigation 

Measures ......................................................................................................................... 207 

5.2 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential of the 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures............................................................................ 207 
xxxi

5.3 Urban Quality, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Design of the Built Environment 

Including the Reuse and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives and Mitigation 

Measures ......................................................................................................................... 207 

5.4 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and Other Land Use Plans............... 207 

5.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Involved in the Proposed 

Action.............................................................................................................................. 208 

5.8 Permits, Licenses, and Approvals Necessary to Implement the Proposed Action........ 208 

CHAPTER 6: PREPARERS AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DSEIS .................................. 209 

6.1 Preparers of the DSEIS.................................................................................................. 209

6.2 Distribution of the DSEIS.............................................................................................. 210 

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 213 

APPENDIX 1: RELEVANT LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND AGENCIES WITH 

JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORTIY IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION ......................... 225 

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF HAWAII BOTTOMFISH AND SEAMOUNT GROUNDFISH 

STOCKS (SEPTEMBER 2005) ................................................................................................. 231 

APPENDIX 3: HDAR’S ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN EFFORT AND LANDINGS FROM 

THE PROPOSED BRFAS.......................................................................................................... 233
xxxii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Map of the Hawaii Archipelago Showing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) 

and the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Bottomfish Management Areas ...................... 7 

Figure 2: Existing and Proposed BFRAs around Kauai, Niihau, and Kaula Rock. ................... 19 

Figure 3: Existing and Proposed BRFAs around Oahu, Penguin Bank, Molokai, and Maui. ... 20 

Figure 4: Existing and Proposed BRFAs around Hawaii Island. ............................................... 21 

Figure 5: The Hawaii Archipelago............................................................................................. 29 

Figure 6: SPR Trends by BMUS Stock...................................................................................... 39 

Figure 7: Bottomfish Habitat in the MHI................................................................................... 44 

Figure 8: State of Hawaii CML Statistical Grids around Penguin Bank.................................... 57 

Figure 9. MHI Bottomfish Vessels and Trips by Year............................................................... 62 

Figure 10: Commercial Bottomfish Landings in Hawaii by Year and Management Zone.......... 66 

Figure 11: Landings from Penguin and Middle Banks as a Percentage of Total MHI Landings 

(Deep 7 Species). ........................................................................................................ 70 

Figure 12: Monthly Landings From Penguin and Middle Banks................................................. 70 

Figure 13: Average Species Composition (1996–2004) of Bottomfish Catches from the Three 

Bottomfish Management Zones in the Hawaii Archipelago....................................... 72 

Figure 14: Average Monthly Landings between 1996 and 2004 for the Three Bottomfish 

Management Areas in the Hawaii Archipelago.......................................................... 85 

Figure 15: Average Monthly Landings of Deep 7 Species From MHI and From Federal Waters 

in the MHI................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 16: Average Monthly Percentage of Bottomfish Landings Formed by Fish Caught in 

Waters Under Federal Jurisdiction in the MHI........................................................... 87 

Figure 17: Landings of the Deep 7 Bottomfish Complex from the Two Principal Bottomfish 

fishing Under Federal Jurisdiction in the MHI........................................................... 88 

Figure 18: Mean MHI Bottomfish Catches by Month, 1998–2004. ............................................ 89 

Figure 19: Federal Area Landings as a Percentage of the Total MHI Landings, 1998–2004...... 89 

Figure 20: Bottomfish CPUE Trends in the MHI. ....................................................................... 90 

Figure 21: Bottomfish CPUE Trends in the NWHI. .................................................................... 93 

Figure 22: Annual Revenues and Average Prices by Bottomfish Management Zone. ................ 96 

Figure 23: Average Prices by Species by Month for the MHI..................................................... 99 

Figure 24: Average Prices by Species by Month for the Hoomalu Zone................................... 100 

Figure 25: Average Prices by Species by Month for the Mau Zone. ......................................... 100 

Figure 26: Hawaii Bottomfish Demand (Annual, Inflation-Adjusted Ex-Vessel Price and 

Supplies [Domestic Landings and Imported Fresh Snapper]), 1980–2003. ............. 101 

Figure 27: Monthly Imports of Bottomfish into Hawaii, 2000-2004......................................... 102 

Figure 28: Ratio of Bycatch to Catch in the MHI.. .................................................................... 107 

Figure 29: NMFS Research Cruise Estimates of Bottomfish Bycatch in Hawaii...................... 110 

Figure 30: Landings from Penguin and Middle Banks as a Percentage of Total MHI Landings 

(Deep 7 Species). ...................................................................................................... 146 

Figure 31: Percentage of MHI Commercial Landings by Island (1998 to 2004)....................... 148 

Figure 32: Commercial Fisheries Statistical Chart of Penguin Bank Area. ............................... 149 

Figure 33: Percentage of MHI Landings by Month (Deep 7 Species)....................................... 155 

Figure 34: Average Monthly Landings of Hawaii Bottomfish.. ................................................ 177 

Figure 35: Average Monthly Snapper Imports to Hawaii.......................................................... 177 
xxxiii

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Summary Impact Comparisons of the Alternatives................................................... xix 

Table 2: Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) .......................................................... 2 

Table 3: Estimated Reductions and Available Pounds under Alternative 5a............................ 25 

Table 4: Summary Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................ 26 

Table 5: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for all 

Western Pacific FMPs................................................................................................. 33 

Table 6: List of BMUS.............................................................................................................. 34 

Table 7: Historical Annual Archipelago-Wide SPRs (%) by BMUS Stock ............................. 38 

Table 8: 2003 SPRs (%) by BMUS Stock by Zone .................................................................. 39 

Table 9: MSY and Reference Values (CPUE and Effort at MSY) by Area ............................. 43 

Table 10: Current Status of Bottomfish in Hawaii’s Management Sub-areas (2003 data)......... 43 

Table 11: Number of Commercial Vessels in the MHI Bottomfish Fishery, 1948–2002 .......... 59 

Table 12: Number of Vessels in the NWHI Bottomfish Fishery, 1984–2003............................ 60 

Table 13: Number of Trips in the Hawaii Bottomfish Fishery, 1988–2003 ............................... 61 

Table 14: Summary of Number of Trips1 by Area...................................................................... 63 

Table 15: Summary of Unique License Numbers1

 by Area........................................................ 64 

Table 16: Commercial Bottomfish Landings in the MHI and NWHI 1984–2003 (1,000 lbs) ... 65 

Table 17: NWHI BMUS Landings by Species (1,000 lbs)......................................................... 68 

Table 18: MHI BMUS Landings by Species (1,000 lbs)............................................................ 68 

Table 19: Summary of Pounds Caught by Area.......................................................................... 69 

Table 20: MHI BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Species and Year, 1996–2004 ..................... 73 

Table 21: Mau Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, total by Species and Year, 1996–2004 ............... 74 

Table 22: Hoomalu Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Species and Year, 1996–2004..... 75 

Table 23: MHI BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004....................... 76 

Table 24: Mau Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004 .............. 77 

Table 25: Hoomalu Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004....... 78 

Table 26: Summary of Pounds Caught (Deep 7 Species) in the MHI by Month, 1990–2003.... 79 

Table 27: Summary of Pounds Caught (Deep 7 Species) in MHI Federal Jurisdiction by Month, 

1990–2004................................................................................................................... 80 

Table 28: Federal Area Pounds Caught as Percentage of the Total 

Deep 7 Species Pounds Caught................................................................................... 81 

Table 29: Pounds of Deep 7 Species Caught at Penguin Bank by Month, 1990–2004 .............. 82 

Table 30: Pounds of Deep 7 Species Caught at Middle Bank by Month, 1990–2004................ 83 

Table 31: Bottomfish CPUE in the MHI and NWHI, 1948–2003 (lb/trip) ................................ 90 

Table 32: Bottomfish CPUE in the MHI and NWHI, 1984–2003 (lb/day) ................................ 92 

Table 33: Inflation-Adjusted BMUS Revenue and Price, MHI and NWHI, 1984–2003 ........... 95 

Table 34: MHI Bottomfish Prices by Month and Year for the Deep 7 Species (2000–2004).... 96 

Table 35: Hawaii Chefs and Wholesalers Perceptions of Hawaii Bottomfish.......................... 103 

Table 36: Bycatch Percentage by Species Grouping for 2003-2004 ........................................ 108 

Table 37: Percent Discards From Bottomfish Trips with NMFS Observers, 1990–1993 ........ 109 

Table 38: Mau Zone Bycatch by Species in 2001 and 2002..................................................... 111 

Table 39: Hoomalu Zone Bycatch by Species in 2001 and 2002 ............................................. 111 

Table 40: Registered Commercial and Noncommercial Bottomfish Vessels by Island ........... 112 
xxxiv

Table 41: Hawaii Gross State Product by Industry, 1997–2003 ($Million) ............................. 118 

Table 42: Volume and Value of Commercial Fish Landings in Hawaii by Fishery, 1999....... 121 

Table 43: Annual Estimated Commercial Landings in Hawaii (1,000 lbs), 2000–2003 .......... 121 

Table 44: Estimated Output, Household Income, and Employment Generated by Bottomfish 

Fishing Activity in Hawaii........................................................................................ 122 

Table 45 Hawaii Population by County................................................................................... 125 

Table 46: Motivations of 1993 Active Vessel Captains and Owners in the NWHI Bottomfish 

Fishery....................................................................................................................... 131 

Table 47: Estimated Reductions and Available Pounds under Alternative 5a.......................... 167 

Table 48: Anticipated Participation and IFQ Levels Under Various Minimum Landing 

Requirements ............................................................................................................ 172 

Table 49: Summary Impact Comparisons of the Alternatives.................................................... 179 
1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Introduction 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the principal 

federal statute providing for management of the U.S. marine fisheries including those within the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The inner boundary of the EEZ is the seaward limit of each of 

the coastal states, commonwealths, territories, or possessions of the United States. The EEZ 

extends from this inner boundary to 200 miles offshore. The management of the fishery 

resources in the waters of the EEZ is vested in the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in 

eight regional fishery management councils. Each council has authority over fisheries in specific 

coastal regions. The area under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (also known as the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council or Council), 

which is collectively referred to as the Western Pacific Region, includes the waters of the EEZ 

surrounding the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas.4

As promulgated under the MSA, the councils are responsible for the preparation of fishery 

management plans (FMPs) or amendments to those FMPs for each fishery under their authority 

that requires conservation and management. The councils transmit these FMPs to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), acting on behalf of the Secretary, for review and approval, 

disapproval, or partial approval. Once approved, NMFS implements the FMP through 

regulations and enforcement. Federal fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are currently 

managed under five species-based FMPs5: Pelagics, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Coral 

Reef Ecosystems Crustaceans, and Precious corals. 

1.2 FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

The combined FMP, environmental assessment, and Regulatory Impact Review for the 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (commonly 

referred to as the Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of the 

Western Pacific Region or Bottomfish FMP) was prepared by the Council and approved by the 

Secretary in 1986. The Bottomfish FMP established a moratorium on the commercial harvest of 

seamount groundfish stocks at the Hancock Seamounts in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI), the only exploitable seamount groundfish (e.g. alfonsin) habitat in the Western Pacific 

 

4

 The U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) includes Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston 

Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll. 5

 On November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68443), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice 

announcing the availability for public review the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS)—Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery 

Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans, dated October 27, 2005. The proposed federal action 

in the DPEIS would be the realignment of the existing fishery regulations contained in the Western Pacific 

Region’s five species-based FMPs into geographically-based fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) regulations. At its 

130th meeting (December 20, 2005), the Council adopted the FEPs and recommended that Council staff 

incorporate comments from local resource management agencies and from the public into the FEPs prior to 

transmittal to NMFS for Secretarial review. See Section 1.7.2 of this DSEIS for more information. 
2

Region. This moratorium remains in effect until August 31, 2010 (69 FR 51400). Consequently, 

there currently is no seamount groundfish fishery in the Western Pacific Region. The Bottomfish 

FMP also implements a permit system for bottomfish fishing in the EEZ around the NWHI and 

establishes a bottomfish fishery management framework that includes measures 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 

(see Section 3 for the list of FMP regulations). Table 2 provides the current list of Bottomfish 

Management Unit Species (BMUS). 

Table 2: Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS). 

Common Name Local Name Scientific Name

Snappers

Silver jaw jobfish Lehi (H), palu-gustusilvia (S) Aphareus rutilans

Grey jobfish Uku (H), asoama (S) Aprion virescens

Squirrelfish snapper Ehu (H), palu-malau (S) Etelis carbunculus

Longtail snapper Onaga, ulaula (H), palu-loa

(S) 

Etelis coruscans

Blue stripe snapper Taape (H), savane (S); funai

(G) 

Lutjanus kasmira

Yellowtail snapper Yellowtail kalekale (H), palu-i 

iusama (S) 

Pristipomoides auricilla

Pink snapper Opakapaka (H), palu-tlena 

lena (S), gadao (G) 

Pristipomoides filamentosus

Yelloweye snapper Yelloweye opakapaka, 

kalekale (H), Palusina (S) 

Pristipomoides flavipinnis

Snapper Kalekale (H) Pristipomoides sieboldii

Snapper Gindai (H, G), palu-sega (S) Pristipomoides zonatus

Jacks 

Giant trevally White ulua (H), tarakito (G), 

sapo-anae (S) 

Caranx ignoblis

Black jack Black ulua (H), tarakito (G), 

tafauli (S) 

Caranx lugubris

Thick lipped trevally Pig ulua, butaguchi (H) Pseudocaranx dentex

Amberjack Kahala Serioila dumerili 
3

Common Name Local Name Scientific Name

Groupers

Blacktip grouper Fausi (S), gadau (G) Epinephelus fasciatus

Sea bass Hapuupuu (H) Epinephelus quernus

Lunartail grouper Papa (S) Variola louti

Emperors 

Ambon emperor Filoa-gutumumu (S) Lethrinus amboinensis

Redgill emperor Filoa-paloomumu (S), mafuti

(G) 

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus

Seamount groundfish

Alfonsin Beryx splendens

Ratfish/butterfish Hyperoglyphe japonica

Armorhead Pseudopentaceros richardsoni

Note. G = Guam; H = Hawaii; S = American Samoa. 

The Bottomfish FMP has been amended seven times since approval in 1986. These amendments 

are as follows: 

Amendment 1 established the potential for limited access systems for bottomfish fisheries in the 

EEZ surrounding American Samoa and Guam. 

Amendment 2 divided the EEZ around the NWHI into two zones: the Hoomalu Zone to the 

northwest and the Mau Zone to the southeast. The amendment also established a limited access 

program for the Hoomalu Zone. 

Amendment 3 defined when a stock is determined to be in an overfished condition. Amendment 

3 also delineated the process by which overfishing is monitored and evaluated. 

Amendment 4 established regulations which require permitted vessel owners or operators to 

notify NMFS at least 72 hours before leaving port if they intend to fish in a 50 nautical miles 

“protected species study zone” around the NWHI. This notification allows federal observers to 

be placed on board bottomfish vessels to record interactions with protected species if this action 

is deemed necessary. 

Amendment 5 established a bottomfish limited access program for the Mau Zone and a 

framework for a Community Development Program. 
4

Amendment 6 identified and described essential fish habitat for managed species of bottomfish, 

discussed measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the bottomfish fishery, and 

supplements Amendment 3 by providing criteria for identifying when overfishing has occurred 

in the fishery, as well as described fishing communities in the Western Pacific Region. 

Amendment 7 brought the Bottomfish FMP into conformity with the Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Fishery Management Plan (CRE FMP) by prohibiting fishing for BMUS in the CRE FMP’s notake areas and amending the BMUS list to exclude species now managed under the CRE FMP. 

Additional information on these amendments may be found in Section 2.3.1 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement—Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Western 

Pacific Region, dated May 2005. 

1.3 Overfishing Determination 

The MSA requires the Secretary of Commerce to annually report 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 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 management unit 

species (BMUS) complex is specified in Amendment 6 of Bottomfish FMP.6

 Relying on the 

expertise and advice of NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NMFS has determined 

that overfishing of the bottomfish multi-species complex is occurring within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, primarily in the Main Hawaiian Islands bottomfish management area (MHI). On 

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, 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). As stated in the overfishing notification letter, “the MHI is the 

zone that contributes most of the problems in terms of both reduced biomass and overfishing.” 

The overfishing notification letter further states, “therefore, it is likely that reducing fishing 

mortality here [MHI] would be the most effective means to end overfishing in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago." 

Bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago are a collection, or complex, of deep-slope snappers, 

groupers, and jacks. The primary species of concern are the Deep 7 bottomfish species: onaga 

(Etelis corsucans), ehu (Etelis carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale 

(Pristipomoides sieboldii), hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernes), opakapaka (Pristipomoides 

filamentosus), and lehi (Aphareus rutilans). Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries are separated into two 

broad management sub-areas, MHI and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), of which is 

separated into two smaller management zones; the Mau Zone and Hoomalu Zone. Nearly 80 

percent of bottomfish fishing grounds in the MHI are within the waters of the State of Hawaii (0 

to 3 nm offshore), and historically, bottomfish fishing in the MHI has been managed by the state. 

In contrast, most bottomfish habitat in the NWHI occurs in federal waters (3 to 200 nm offshore) 

and therefore the NWHI bottomfish fishery has been managed under the Council’s Bottomfish 

FMP. The state’s MHI management measures include bottomfish vessel registration, restricted 

 

6

 68 FR 46112, August 5, 2003. 
5

fishing gears, commercial fishing reporting, recreational catch limits (5 fish combined) for two 

bottomfish species (onaga and ehu), and 19 restricted fishing areas where bottomfish fishing is 

prohibited. 

Because of the time it takes to obtain and process the fisheries data, stock assessments are 

usually conducted on annual fisheries data that is lagging behind the current calendar year. For 

example, the full set of 2002 and 2003 bottomfish data was compiled and analyzed in 2005. 

Under the MSA National Standard 1 guidelines, Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species 

stock complex is not overfished (the biomass standard using catch per unit effort [CPUE] as a 

proxy). Based on 2003 data, the current CPUE ratio is 0.82, above the threshold value of 0.7 

established as the Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST). However, MSA National Standard 1 

guidelines indicate that overfishing of Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock 

complex is occurring because the ratio of current fishing mortality (F) to estimated fishing 

mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) is exceeding the MFMT of 1.00. Hawaii’s 

archipelagic bottomfish F ratio is obtained by adding weighted F contributions of the three 

management areas (MHI, Mau and Hoomalu Zones). The weighted F contributions are 

calculated by taking the F values for each zone (the ratio of fishing mortality from which fishing 

effort is often used as a proxy) multiplied by habitat factors that are estimations of the amount of 

bottomfish habitat in each management zone. These habitat factors are 0.447, 0.124 and 0.429 

for the MHI, Mau and Hoomalu Zones, respectively. 

As reported in Appendix 5 of the 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report (which uses complete data for 

2002), the 2002 individual F ratios for the MHI, Mau and Hoomalu Zones were 2.33, 1.19, and 

0.37, respectively. For example, multiplying 2.33 times 0.447 results in a MHI weighted F 

contribution of 1.041. Multiplying 1.19 times 0.124, and 0.37 times 0.429 results in a Mau Zone 

F contribution of 0.147 and a Hoomalu Zone F contribution of 0.158, respectively. Therefore, the 

addition of the individual weighted F contributions for 2002 data was 1.35, above the 

archipelagic overfishing threshold of 1.0. Since the completion of Appendix 5 in April 2005, 

PIFSC has received the full set 2003 bottomfish fishery data from the State of Hawaii’s Division 

of Aquatic Resources. Based on 2003 bottomfish fishery statistics and the weighted F 

contributions from each zone, the archipelagic F ratio is determined to be 1.13, above the 

overfishing threshold of 1.0. Individual F ratios (without their weighted habitat factors) for MHI, 

Mau and Hoomalu Zones are 1.88, 0.96 and 0.39, respectively (PIFSC 2005) (See Appendix 2 

for more information). 

The MHI F contribution greatly exceeds those of the NWHI zones and indicates that the 

overfishing occurs as a result of too much fishing mortality (or effort) on the BMUS complex in 

the MHI. Considering the 2003 catch and effort data from each zone and their weighted factors, 

the Council’s Bottomfish Plan Team determined that to end the overfishing, fishing effort in the 

MHI should be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent to lower the archipelagic F ratio from 1.13 

percent down to a threshold value of 1.00 or less (Bottomfish Plan Team April 2005). As 

indicated earlier, the MHI is the zone that contributes most of the problems in terms of both 

reduced biomass and overfishing. Therefore, reducing fishing mortality in the MHI would be the 

most effective means to end the overfishing in the Hawaii Archipelago (70 FR 34452, June 14, 

2005). 
6

1.4 Statements of the Purpose and Need 

In accordance with the MSA, the Council shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of Commerce 

within one year of the overfishing notification a Bottomfish FMP amendment, regulatory 

amendment, or proposed regulations to end overfishing for the fishery to which the identification 

or notice applies (16 U.S.C. 18539(e)(3)). In this case, the overfishing identification applies to 

Hawaii archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex. The Council is preparing an 

amendment which will end overfishing by reducing fishing mortality for bottomfish in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago to below the maximum fishing mortality threshold. To achieve this 

objective, the fishing mortality on bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago must be reduced by at 

least 15 percent. The MHI is the zone that contributes most of the problems in terms of both 

reduced biomass and overfishing. Therefore, reducing fishing mortality in the MHI would be the 

most effective means to end the overfishing in the Hawaii Archipelago. 

1.5 Proposed Federal Action 

The proposed federal action is the approval of the Bottomfish FMP amendment to end 

overfishing of Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex by the Secretary of 

Commerce and the implementation and enforcement of the amendment’s regulatory measures by 

NMFS. Based on the Council’s recommendation at its 131st meeting (March 13 to 16, 2006), the 

proposed federal action would be the implementation of Alternative 3, a seasonal closure 

between May 1st and August 31st prohibiting the targeting, possession, landing, or selling of any 

of Hawaii’s Deep 7 bottomfish species. If the State of Hawaii does not commit to promulgate 

seasonal closure regulations, the Council recommended the proposed federal action be the 

implementation of Alternative 2a, closure of Middle and Penguin Banks to the targeting, 

possession, landing, or selling of any of Hawaii’s Deep 7 bottomfish species from Middle and 

Penguin Banks. 

1.6 Action Area 

The action area includes the federal, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 3 to 200 nm offshore) of 

the Hawaiian Archipelago. For management purposes, Hawaiian Archipelago is divided into two 

management sub-areas: the MHI and the NWHI (See Figure 1). The Bottomfish FMP divides the 

federal waters of the NWHI further into two smaller management zones: the Mau Zone and the 

Hoomalu Zone. 

The MHI are the waters surrounding inhabited Hawaiian Islands. Approximately 80 percent of 

bottomfish fishing grounds in the MHI are within the waters of the State of Hawaii, 0–3 miles 

from shore. Bottomfish fishing in the MHI is managed by the State of Hawaii using through 

measures that include bottomfish vessel registration, restricted fishing gears, commercial fishing 

reporting, recreational catch limits for onaga and ehu, and 19 restricted bottomfish fishing areas. 

Approximately 3,600 vessels are registered with the State of Hawaii to conduct bottomfish 

fishing in the MHI. 

The Mau Zone is a bottomfish limited entry zone at the southeastern end of the NWHI and 
7

includes the waters surrounding the islands of Necker and Nihoa (See Figure 1). Nearly all deep 

water bottomfish habitat is located in federal waters in Mau Zone. Currently, four vessels are 

operating under the Mau Zone limited entry program. 

The Hoomalu Zone is a limited entry zone at the center and western end of the NWHI, ranging 

from French Frigate Shoals to Kure Atoll (See Figure 1). Owners and operators of vessels 

bottomfish fishing in the Hoomalu Zone are limited by weather and the fresh seafood nature of 

the fishery. Vessels participating in this fishery typically operate on trips lasting up to three 

weeks. Nearly all bottomfish habitat in the Hoomalu Zone is located in federal waters (3 to 200 

nm offshore). Currently, four vessels are operating under the Hoomalu Zone limited entry 

program. 

Figure 1: Map of the Hawaii Archipelago Showing the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) 

Bottomfish Management Areas 

Despite delineation of these bottomfish management areas and zones, the bottomfish species 

complex in the entire Hawaiian Archipelago is evaluated under MSA as a single archipelagicwide, multi-species stock complex.. Management criteria, such as whether overfishing is 

occurring applies to the stock complex rather than to the three sub-area management zones or to 

individual species either on an archipelagic basis or within the sub-areas. However, the condition 

of the BMUS complex can be further evaluated at finer scales based on the management subareas, and based on the evaluation at finer scales, management actions have historically been 

taken to address management issues within the sub-areas or zones. For example, Amendments 2 

and Amendment 5 to the Bottomfish FMP, created limited access programs for the Hoomalu and 

Mau Zones, respectively, with the objective to reduce fishing capacity in those zones. 
8

As discussed in Section 1.3, The MHI F ratio greatly exceeds those of the NWHI zones and 

indicates that the overfishing problem is primarily a result of too much fishing mortality (or 

effort) on the BMUS complex in the MHI. The MHI is the zone that contributes most of the 

problems in terms of both reduced biomass and overfishing. Therefore, reducing fishing 

mortality in the MHI would be the most effective means to end the overfishing in the Hawaii 

Archipelago (70 FR 34452, June 14, 2005). Based on 2003 catch and effort data from each zone 

and as well as their weighted factors, the Council’s Bottomfish Plan Team determined that at 

least a 15 percent reduction in fishing mortality (or effort) in the MHI would likely end the 

bottomfish overfishing in the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

1.7 Public Participation 

Meetings that included discussion of the bottomfish data collection, overfishing determination, 

and proposed solutions included the following: the 127th Council meeting held May 31 to June 

2, 2005; the 129th Council meeting held November 8 to 11, 2005; the 89th Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting held May 17 to 19, 2005; the 90th SSC meeting held 

October 18 to 20, 2005; the Bottomfish Plan Team meeting held April 26 to 28, 2005; other 

meetings with members of the Hawaii Bottomfish Plan Team were held July 18, August 3, 

August 8, September 27, and October 21, 2005; several targeted bottomfish fishermen meetings 

were held November 17, 22, and 29, November 25, 2005, and December 1, 2005; Public 

meetings were held the week of December 12, 13, 14, 15, and 20, 2005 in Hilo, Kona, Kauai, 

Maui, and Honolulu, Hawaii; respectively. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) state “[t]here shall 

be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This process shall be termed 

scoping.” The formal scoping process for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft SEIS) was initiated with a publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register on November 28, 2005 (70 FR 71258). This notice invited the public to attend public 

scoping meetings to provide their comments and perspectives regarding the proposed action and 

related issues. 

As announced in the Notice of Intent, local newspapers advertisements, radio announcements, 

and meeting flyers, 7 public scoping meetings were held across the MHI in January 2006. The 

dates and locations of the meetings were: 

1. Lanai, Hawaii—Friday, January 6, 2006 from 6:00 to 9:00 pm at the Lanai High and 

Elementary School cafeteria. Lanai City, Lanai.∗

2. Molokai, Hawaii—Saturday, January 7, 2006, 6:00 to 9:00 pm at the Mitchell Pauole Center 

Conference Room, Kaunakakai, Molokai.∗

3. Hilo, Hawaii—Monday, January 9, 2006, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the University of Hawaii, 

 

∗

 The Lanai and Molokai meetings were not included in the November 28, 2005 Federal Register notice, but as well 

as the others, were advertised in local newspapers and meeting flyers. 
9

Hilo Campus Center, 200 W. Kawili St., Hilo, Hawaii 96720; 

4. Kona, Hawaii—Tuesday, January 10, 2006, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the King Kamehameha 

Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Rd., Kona, HI 96740; 

 

5. Maui, Hawaii—Wednesday, January 11, 2006, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Maui Beach 

Hotel, 170 Kaahumanu Ave., Kahului, HI 96732; 

6. Oahu, Hawaii—Thursday, January 12, 2006, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Ala Moana Hotel, 

410 Atkinson Dr., Honolulu, HI 96815; and 

7. Kauai, Hawaii—Friday, January 13, 2006, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chiefess Kamakahelei 

Middle School, 4431 Nuhou St., Lihue, HI 96766. 

 1.8 Related NEPA Documents 

This section briefly discusses related NEPA documents to this Draft SEIS for an amendment 

under the Bottomfish FMP to end overfishing in the bottomfish complex in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

1.8.1 Final Environmental Impact Statement—Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fishery of the Western Pacific Region, May 2005 

The environmental impact on the Bottomfish FMP was originally evaluated in an environmental 

assessment in 1986. Subsequent environmental assessments or NEPA categorical exclusions 

were completed for each of the amendments to the Bottomfish FMP since 1986. With the dated 

nature of the original 1986 environmental assessment, along with environmental assessments for 

subsequent amendments, there was a need for an updated environmental impact analysis that 

provided an overview of all the issues and management alternatives for the Western Pacific 

Region bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries. 

Pursuant to NEPA, a Notice of Intent was issued in the Federal Register on August 16, 1999, to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the management of the bottomfish and 

seamount groundfish fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (64 FR 44476). Public scoping for 

the draft EIS indicated that the primary management issues concerned the NWHI bottomfish 

fishery; therefore, the management alternatives primarily involved that fishery. The availability 

for public review and comment of the draft EIS was issued in the Federal Register on October 

17, 2003 (68 FR 59787). Through the Environmental Protection Agency, NMFS published a 

notice announcing the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on June 

17, 2005 (70 FR 35275). 

Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.), this DSEIS was prepared because the 

bottomfish overfishing determination added significant new circumstances and information 

relative to the management of Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks. This Draft SEIS, which analyzes 

measures to end overfishing in the bottomfish complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago, 

supplements the 2005 FEIS. Where appropriate, this DSEIS incorporates by reference relevant 
10

sections and analysis contained in the May 2005 FEIS.7

1.8.2 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement – Towards an Ecosystem 

Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery Management Plans 

to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

On November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68443), the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice 

announcing the availability for public review of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement—Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From SpeciesBased Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans, dated October 27, 

2005. The public comment period ended on December 27, 2005. Based on the preferred 

alternatives in the draft programmatic environmental impact statement (DPEIS), the proposed 

Federal action will be the realignment of the existing fishery regulations contained in the 

Western Pacific Region's five species-based fishery management plans (FMPs) into 

geographically based fishery ecosystem plan (FEP) regulations. No substantive changes to 

current fishing regulations would occur under the proposed Federal action. Although the FEPs 

and the DPEIS are under an ongoing process, the federal action proposed in that DPEIS does not 

preclude the Council’s ability to prepare and submit to NMFS an amendment to the Bottomfish 

FMP to end overfishing of the bottomfish complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

1.9 Relevant Laws and Executive Orders 

The conservation and management of the living marine resources in the United States is 

entrusted to NMFS, which carries out its charge under laws, treaties, and legislative mandates 

from the U. S. Congress and the president. The most relevant of these to the current action are 

briefly discussed in Appendix 1. 

 

7

 For a copy of the May 2005 FEIS contact William L. Robinson or Kitty M. Simonds, or visit www.wpcouncil.org

for an electronic version. 
11

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 

Chapter 2 presents the alternatives being considered in this DSEIS to end bottomfish overfishing 

in the Hawaii Archipelago. As indicated in NMFS’ notification of bottomfish overfishing in 

Hawaii, the MHI are where the overfishing problem primarily occurs and reducing fishing 

mortality in the MHI would be the most effective means to end bottomfish overfishing in the 

archipelago. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Further Detail 

2.1.1 The Entire Hawaii BMUS Complex 

Numerous options were considered regarding the range of the species to be included in this 

management action. Although the overfishing control rule is applied to the entire BMUS list (see 

Table1), consideration was given to a narrow range of species that are of particular concern to 

minimize potential unnecessary impacts of this action. BMUS include species that are harvested 

using the hook-and-line method of fishing where weighted and baited lines are lowered and 

raised with electric, hydraulic, or hand-powered reels. The Bottomfish FMP applies to the U.S. 

Western Pacific Region and therefore includes species that are harvested in Hawaii, American 

Samoa, and the Mariana Islands. A number of BMUS do not occur in Hawaii. 

Three separate species complexes were initially considered in this management action including 

the full list of species under BMUS, BMUS excluding uku, and the complex of seven deep slope 

species managed by the State of Hawaii (onaga, ehu, gindai, kalekale, hapuupuu, lehi, and 

opakapaka). The two complexes, BMUS and BMUS without uku, are not included in the 

alternatives to be further analyzed. 

Onaga and ehu have been the BMUS of primary concern due to reduced local abundance in the 

MHI. Prior to adoption of the current overfishing and overfished definitions, the Bottomfish 

FMP overfished threshold was set at 20 percent spawning potential ratios (SPR) on an 

archipelagic basis, and no overfishing definition existed. Using species specific, targeted catch 

rates, SPRs for onaga and ehu have been, and remain, well under 20 percent in the MHI for those 

species. The state’s BRFAs and recreational catch limits were implemented in 1998 with the 

intent of rebuilding the local abundance of onaga and ehu resources in the MHI. The list of 

prohibited species was expanded to include other deep slope bottomfish commonly caught while 

targeting onaga and ehu such as gindai, kalekale, hapuupuu, lehi, and opakapaka. The primary 

rationale for including the additional deep-slope species was due to high mortality rates generally 

associated with embolism while bringing the fish to the surface. Bottomfish fishermen are now 

familiar with the seven deep slope species managed by the state through the BRFAs and bag 

limits. The Council, its advisors, and the public have suggested that any new federal bottomfish 

management action in the MHI should be consistent with the bottomfish species managed under 

the state’s regime. 

BMUS such as taape (Lutjanus kasmira) and kahala (Serioila dumerili) are abundant and often 

considered a nuisance species by fishermen. White ulua, one of the most culturally and socially 
12

important species in the MHI, is targeted by a variety of gear types, including shore-based 

fisheries. Including these species in potential management measures to address concerns 

regarding deep slope bottomfish species would not be appropriate. 

For example, taape was introduced from French Polynesia nearly fifty years ago to enhance 

nearshore fisheries. Taape has adapted well and spread rapidly throughout the archipelago 

(introduced in MHI and now found in the NWHI) and is commonly harvested in abundance by 

numerous gear types. Because of its dense populations, fishermen often raise concerns that taape 

competes with other important food and sport fish for prey and habitat. At numerous Council 

public meetings and hearings regarding bottomfish, fishermen and other interested members of 

the public routinely request that the state or federal fishery agencies develop a program to 

eradicate the species. However, recent studies have shown taape not to compete directly with 

bottomfish species and concluded that taape did not generally share the same depth range and 

feeding habits and is not a frequent predator or prey of native species (Parish et al. 2000). 

Preventing the harvest of taape through the implementation of any of the alternatives considered 

is not scientifically warranted nor would it be well received by the fishermen or public who 

perceive this species as over abundant and a nuisance. 

Kahala is a species that is often associated with a high incidence of ciguatera fish poisoning. 

Kahala was harvested commercially in Hawaii for decades prior to 1980. Peak landings (over 

150,000 lbs/year) were recorded in the early 1950s. During the 1960s and early 1970s, kahala 

remained a significant bycatch in the handline fishery targeting high-value deep-sea snappers, 

like opakapaka, onaga, and uku. Landings averaged 70,000 pounds per year during this period. 

Although the price for kahala was low ($0.50–0.70/lb), it could be harvested in sufficient 

quantities to offset fishing costs when the more valuable snappers were hard to catch. Kahala 

landings varied seasonally, generally reaching their peak in the December– May period of the 

year. The full-time bottom fishermen who frequented the Penguin Bank area during the 1970s 

report that kahala comprised 20 to 30 percent of their annual catch. Kahala bites so aggressively 

on handline gear that they were often forced to fish it out of an area before they could effectively 

target on deep sea snappers. Since 1980–1981, kahala has been shunned by seafood marketers 

due potential ciguatera toxicity, and most commercial fishermen discard it when caught. Kahala 

is caught in the recreational fishery where fishermen can purchase a simple ciguatera test kit to 

determine if the fish is ciguatoxic. The test kit, distributed by Oceanit Testing Systems, Inc., can 

be purchased at retail outlets for about five dollars a test. 

White ulua (Caranx ignobilis) is included in the BMUS complex and is one of the most 

important species targeted by shore based and small boat based fishermen. White ulua has 

assumed a pivotal role in ancient and contemporary Hawaiian culture. Gaffney (2000) noted that 

the strength of the ulua, particularly large species such as the white ulua (Caranx ignobilis) were 

greatly admired by ancient Hawaiians, and that they were used as a substitute in Hawaiian 

religious rites when a human sacrifice was unavailable. More recently, ulua have become an 

important target for shoreline recreational fishermen, and was a driving force behind the 

founding of several sports fishing clubs in Hawaii in the early part of the twentieth century 

(Gaffney 2000). White ulua is targeted with a variety of gears including shore casting, slide bait, 

spear, whipping, and handline. Commercial landings of ulua were as high as 600,000 pounds at 
13

the turn of the twentieth century, but have declined considerably since then (Friedlander and 

Dalzell 2004). Like kahala, large ulua are a concern for ciguatera poisoning and have not been 

largely marketed since the early 1980s. 

Including the full list of BMUS under the proposed management measures is not appropriate as 

BMUS other than the Deep 7 such as taape and kahala are believed to healthy and their inclusion 

under the proposed measures will not help rebuild deep slope bottomfish stocks, namely onaga 

and ehu which are of most concern in the MHI. 

2.1.2 Gear Restrictions 

Limiting use of fishing gear (e.g. reels, hooks) on bottomfish fishing vessels could include 

creating limits on the number of stations or reels each vessel can use, the type of reel (electric, 

hydraulic, hand), the number of hooks on each line (between 5 and 12 hooks are typically used), 

and so forth. Such measures could attempt to control the fishing power of each vessel and 

therefore limit fishing effort. However, implementation of such controls in the bottomfish fishery 

would likely be ineffective and difficult to enforce. 

Bottomfish vessels typically operate between two to four reel stations while fishing. The number 

of reels and hooks per line is not dependent on the size of the vessel. Small vessels can use up to 

four stations while large vessels can operate two. The specific configuration of the gear and 

number of stations used is dependent on a number of variables, including the number of 

fishermen, overall ocean conditions, wind speed and direction, current, tide, depth of water, 

topography of the fishing grounds, location of the fish, and if the vessel is drifting or anchored. 

Such variables make it difficult to use gear restrictions to control effort in this fishery. In 

addition, bottomfish reels are also used to target pelagic species at fish aggregation devices and 

seamounts. Therefore, prohibiting the use of this gear will impact non-bottomfish fisheries. 

2.1.3 Limited Entry 

Limiting access in the MHI bottomfish fishery would provide direct control over the total number 

of fishery participants. However, only a small percentage of commercial fishermen target and 

land bottomfish as their primary fishing activity. The majority of Hawaii commercial fishermen 

switch between the bottomfish fishery and other fisheries and land less than 1,000 pounds of 

bottomfish per year. Therefore, establishing a limited entry program without implementing 

additional output controls (landing limits) would not prevent fishing mortality from increasing 

through an increase in participant activity. 

The State of Hawaii established a control date in 1998 when their BRFAs, recreational bag limits 

and bottomfish registration program were implemented. The state has not used the control date to 

further manage the fishery. The Council recommended, at its 127th meeting in June 2005, to 

implement a federal control date that was established in August 2005. Either of these control 

dates could be used if considering a limited entry or quota based management regime. 

Criteria to establish initial limited entry participants would likely be based on historical 

participation in the MHI bottomfish fishery. Commercial participation would be based on official 
14

State of Hawaii commercial marine license and catch reporting history. Recreational participation 

would be more difficult to determine. The state’s 1998 bottomfish management regime requires 

any person who may fish for bottomfish (any of the seven species) to register their vessel with the 

Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources (HDAR) and display the letters “BF” on their boat. This 

rule applied to all vessels used for bottomfish fishing, whether the owner is a recreational, 

subsistence or commercial fisherman. Of the 3,600 vessels registered with the HDAR, about 40 

percent have declared themselves as recreational. Because recreational fishermen are not required 

to report their catches, the number of recreational vessels used for bottomfish fishing since 1998 

is unknown. As indicated in public scoping meetings for this DSEIS, establishing a MHI limited 

entry program is supported by many full-time commercial fishermen; however, part-time 

commercial and recreational fishermen do not seem to support limited entry. 

2.1.4 Rolling Closures 

During several Council advisory group meetings, it was suggested that the Council consider 

using short, continuous, alternating open and closed fishing periods to minimize potential 

impacts to commercial fishermen and the markets which depend on a continuous supply of 

bottomfish product. The concern is that a typical three or five month seasonal closure would 

allow foreign imports to replace the local supply of bottomfish to retail markets and restaurants. 

There is concern that foreign suppliers of bottomfish, which for example often market their fish 

as onaga and opakapaka could make permanent inroads and shut out local suppliers. 

The proposal to use rolling closures could help to minimize direct fishing and market impacts by 

allowing fishermen to deliver product on a consistent basis. Two variants were explored under 

this option. The first would call for rotating closures on a weekly basis. For example, fishermen 

could fish the first week of January and not fish the second, fish the third week and not the 

fourth, and so on. The second option would assign each state-registered fisherman an odd or 

even number. Fishermen would then be allowed to land fish only during their assigned even or 

odd weeks. The BF registration numbers or trailer license plates were suggested as means to 

identify fishermen. 

There were a number of concerns raised with each of these variants. The primary concern for 

both variants would be the increased administrative burden of monitoring and enforcing such 

complex programs. Enforcement could be conducted dockside and in the markets. However, the 

3,600 registered bottomfish fishermen primarily use trailers to launch their vessels. Vessel size 

ranges from 12 to 60 feet with an average of about 21 feet in length. The potential sites for ports 

of entry where bottomfish can be landed are numerous and would therefore be very difficult to 

enforce. In addition, fishermen who fish during a closed week could easily hold the fish for 

delivery to market the following week because of the long shelf life of most bottomfish species. 

If an alternating number system were to be used, fishermen could easily partner with others 

allowing them to switch off and rotate vessels so that they could fish continuously. 

The main reason why these options are not considered in detail is because after meeting with 

many fishermen throughout the state during public hearings, meetings, and forums, the majority 

of fishermen repeatedly indicated that they would prefer a block (i.e. summer 3–month closure) 

during a period when other fishing opportunities are available. 
15

2.1.5 Closure of NWHI Bottomfish Fishery 

The bottomfish species complex in the entire Hawaiian Archipelago is evaluated under MSA as a 

single archipelagic-wide multi-species stock complex. Management criteria, such as whether 

overfishing is occurring on the stock complex; apply to the stock complex rather than to the three 

sub-area management zones or to individual species either on an archipelagic basis or within the 

sub-areas. However, the status of the species complex can be further evaluated at finer scales 

based on the management sub-areas, and based on the evaluation at finer scales, management 

actions have historically been taken to address issues within the sub-areas or zones. Under the 

National Standard 1 guidelines, Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex is 

not overfished (the biomass standard using catch per unit effort [CPUE] as a proxy). The current 

CPUE ratio is 0.82, above the threshold value of 0.7 established as the MSST. 

However, overfishing (the fishing mortality standard using fishing effort as a proxy) on an 

archipelagic wide basis is occurring. The 2003 archipelagic effort ratio (proxy for F/FMSY) is 

1.13, above the threshold value of 1.0 established as the MFMT. Looking further at the effort 

ratios by zone, the MHI is at 1.88, well above the targeted ratio of 1.0. Mau and Hoomalu Zone 

ratios are below this target level at 0.96 and 0.39, respectively (see Appendix 2 for PIFSC’s most 

recent report on the status of Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks). Therefore, reducing fishing mortality 

in the MHI is likely the most effective means to end overfishing in the Hawaiian Archipelago (70 

FR 34452, June 14, 2005). 

The overfishing problem is closely linked to excessive fishing mortality (where effort is used as 

a proxy) in the MHI. The contribution of each zone to the archipelagic effort ratio can be 

calculated by multiplying the effort ratios by the weighting factors (e.g. habitat area) for each 

zone. For example, using 2002 Hawaii bottomfish data, the weighted MHI F ratio contribution 

by itself was 1.04, above the archipelagic overfishing threshold (MFST) of 1.0 (see Section 1.3). 

During the same year, the weighted F ratio contributions for the Mau and Hoomalu Zones were 

0.147 and 0.158, respectively. The weighted contributions to the archipelagic effort ratio in 2003 

by zone were 0.84 for the MHI, 0.12 for the Mau zone (a drop from 0.147 in 2002) and 0.17 for 

the Hoomalu zone. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the fishing mortality metrics 

for the NWHI will change significantly with 2004 information. The overfishing condition in the 

Hawaiian archipelago bottomfish species complex is largely attributable to the MHI, not the 

NWHI, and therefore closing the NWHI bottomfish fishery is not believed by NMFS to not be a 

viable alternative that addresses the overfishing problem, excess rate of fishery mortality, 

observed in the MHI. Furthermore, reducing or eliminating effort in the NWHI could further 

exacerbate the excessive fishing mortality (or effort) in the MHI due to market demand and/or 

from displacing the NWHI fishing effort towards the MHI. For these reasons, closure of the 

NWHI bottomfish fishery is not viewed as a viable solution to end the overfishing of Hawaii’s 

archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex. 

Although the small NWHI bottomfish fishery is believed to have little impact on Hawaii’s 

bottomfish overfishing problem, as well as minimal impact to the greater NWHI coral reef or 

deep slope ecosystems, NOAA is currently contemplating the amount fishing, if any, is 

appropriate for the pending NWHI National Marine Sanctuary. An environmental impact 

statement is being prepared for this NWHI initiative, thus the NEPA analysis for this initiative is 
16

not available at this time. Based on a January 19, 2006 letter from Vice Admiral (Ret.) Conrad 

Lautenbacher, NOAA Administrator, the Council was provided an opportunity to recommend 

commercial and recreational fishing regulations under the MSA for bottomfish and pelagic 

fisheries that operate within the boundaries of the proposed NWHI sanctuary. At its 131st

meeting (March 13 to 16, 2006), the Council recommended a limit of 14 commercial bottomfish 

permits for the NWHI (seven for the Mau Zone and seven for the Hoomalu zone), and a 

bottomfish harvest limit of 391,850 pounds, which represents 85 percent of the NWHI 

bottomfish maximum sustainable yield. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Under all the alternatives, HDAR’s bottomfish management regime would remain in place, 

including bag limits for the recreational harvest of onaga and ehu (unless recreational fishing 

activities are closed as in some alternatives), bottomfish vessel registration, and its existing or 

proposed network of RFAs. To end the bottomfish overfishing through reducing fishing effort by 

15 percent within the MHI, the Council considered in detail the following management 

alternatives.

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

Alternative 1 is to take no federal action; that is, no federal management measures would be 

recommended by the Council at this time. 

Under this and all other alternatives, the State of Hawaii’s bottomfish management measures, 

which were established in 1998 under Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) 

administrative rule (HAR Chapter 13-94) may remain in place or could be changed by DLNR. 

The state’s current bottomfish management regime includes: (i) 19 Bottomfish Restricted 

Fishing Areas (BRFAs) throughout the MHI, (ii) a recreational bag limit of 5 ehu and/or onaga 

per trip per person, (iii) required bottomfish vessel registration, and (iv) prohibited use of bottom 

longline, nets, traps, and trawls to take bottomfish. Seven species, including deep-slope snappers 

and a grouper, were identified for management under the state regulations. According to HDAR, 

the state’s current BRFAs were delineated according to bottom topography, location of reported 

bottomfish landings, proximity to access points and points of observation for ease of 

enforcement, and recommendations from fishermen, with the primary purpose being to protect 

critical bottomfish habitat and presumed spawning and nursery habitat areas. 

This alternative would also allow continued open access for entry into the MHI fishery, and 

commercial fishermen would continue to be required to submit catch reports. Recreational 

fishermen would continue not to be required to submit catch reports, and the recreational catch 

component would continue to be unknown. 

Based on new mapping information of bottomfish habitat, Division of Aquatic Resources, State 

of Hawaii (HDAR) is in the process of reviewing its bottomfish management regime, with a 

focus on the BRFAs. Currently proposed changes to the BRFAs by HDAR include reducing their 

number, modifying their locations, standardizing their boundaries to corresponding minutes of 

latitude and longitude, and increasing their size. Factors being considered by HDAR include 
17

facilitating GPS navigation around BRFAs, locating BRFAs close to shore to facilitate 

monitoring and enforcement, increasing habitat protection, and supporting larval transport and 

recruitment between banks and islands. Also under consideration are modifications to HDAR’s 

existing Commercial Fisheries Statistical Area reporting grids to allow for better evaluation of 

the effectiveness of existing and new BRFAs. 

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Area Closures 

2.2.2.1 Alternative 2a: Closure of Penguin Bank and Middle Bank (Secondarily Preferred) 

Under Alternative 2a, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) in or from federal waters around Penguin Bank and Middle Bank 

(see Figure 3). All vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in 

the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to 

obtain permits as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing 

effort, and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, 

each vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its 

registration number. The effectiveness of the closed areas in increasing the stock biomass of the 

Deep 7 species would be monitored and analyzed through a combination of fishery dependent 

(i.e. catch reports) and fishery independent data. Fishery independent data would be collected via 

controlled sampling experiments, submersible surveys, remote cameras (e.g. “Bot-Cam”) and 

other methodologies. If the State of Hawaii does not commit to adopting seasonal closure 

alternative (Alternative 3), the Council recommended the adoption of Alternative 2a. Alternative 

2a does not require parallel State of Hawaii regulations, as the vast majority of both Penguin and 

Middle Banks occur in federal waters. 

2.2.2.2 Alternative 2b: Overlay Federal Closures on Proposed HDAR Restricted Fishing 

Areas 

Alternative 2b would overlay federal closures on the State of Hawaii’s proposed Bottomfish 

Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFAs) in federal waters (3 to 200 nm offshore; see Figures 2-4). In 

other words, federal closed areas would apply to those portions of the proposed BRFAs that 

extend in to the EEZ. All recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) from the proposed BRFAs. The state’s current BRFAs were 

delineated with the purposes and objectives as described in Section 2.2.1. 

Recently, HDAR has undertaken a review of their management program. Although their review 

and final recommendation is not yet complete, the state has proposed to modify its statewide 

network of BFRAs According to HDAR, the state is proposing to establish 12 BRFAs that are 

generally larger than the existing 19 BRFAs, and are based on comprehensive bottom mapping 

and sonar data that provide a detailed view of bottomfish Essential Fish Habitat in the 100 to 400 

m depth range. It is estimated by HDAR that the proposed BRFAs will reduce fishing mortality 

(landings) by at least 17 percent (see Appendix 3). 
18

All vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI would 

be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to complete and 

submit reports of their catch, fishing effort, and area fished. 

Prior to the establishment and after the implementation of the proposed BRFAs, state and federal 

partners will develop and implement monitoring methodology that will allow them to determine 

how fishing mortality, biomass and size distribution of bottomfish are affected by the BRFAs. 

This monitoring will include both fishery-dependent (i.e. catch reports) and fishery-independent 

components. 

Regarding fishery-independent monitoring, new technology will allow the state to monitor a grid 

of stations within appropriate bottomfish habitats throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, using 

baited and unbaited video cameras to directly assess species and size-distribution at selected. 

Some catch sampling will be needed within closed areas and consideration is being given to 

developing a monitoring effort that may include experimental fishing. 

 

In order for area closures to be effective, it is important to have effective enforcement. 

Enforcement of the existing BRFAs by DOCARE has not been adequately conducted due to poor 

funding levels resulting in a lack of staffing and assets. According to HDAR the proposed 

BRFAs have been moved closer to shore to facilitate shore side enforcement, to the extent 

possible, and are designed with straight-line boundaries, making it easier for both fishermen and 

enforcement officers to determine whether fishing takes place inside or outside the closed areas. 

Federal closed areas would require at sea and air surveillance by the USCG and NMFS OLE. A 

comprehensive and properly resourced enforcement plan, including a Joint Enforcement 

Agreement between state and federal enforcement agencies, would need to be developed to 

adequately enforce the area closures. 
19

 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed BFRAs around Kauai, Niihau, and Kaula Rock. 
20

 Figure 3: Existing and Proposed BRFAs around Oahu, Penguin Bank, Molokai, and Maui. 
21

Figure 4: Existing and Proposed BRFAs around Hawaii Island. 
22

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure (Primarily Preferred) 

Under Alternative 3, an annual summer closure would be implemented from May 1 to August 31 

of each year for the entire MHI bottomfish fishery (both commercial and recreational vessels). 

Targeting, possessing, landing, or selling MHI Deep 7 species would be prohibited during the 

closed season; however, the NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. All vessel operators 

(both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register 

their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to complete and submit reports of their 

catch, fishing effort, and area fished. In addition, each vessel would be required to be marked on 

an unobstructed upper surface with its registration number. To achieve the needs and objectives 

of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), the State of Hawaii would need to 

establish a concurrent summer closure for state waters. Recognizing that parallel state and 

federal seasonal closure regulations must be promulgated in order for a seasonal closure to be 

effective, the Council requested that the State of Hawaii notify the Council by April 15, 2006 of 

its commitment to adopt seasonal closure regulations. If the State of Hawaii does not commit to 

adopting seasonal closure regulations, the Council recommended the adoption of Alternative 2a 

(Closure of Middle and Penguin Banks). The effectiveness of the seasonal closure in reducing 

bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and commercial reporting 

as well as enforcement activities, which mostly would be conducted shore side. At sea 

enforcement or air surveillance may also occur during the closed season. 

2.2.4 Alternative 4: Catch Limits 

Alternative 4 includes two variations that would limit the commercial catch of MHI bottomfish. 

Alternative 4a would establish a fleet-wide total allowable catch (TAC) of bottomfish for all 

commercial fishing vessels in the MHI, while Alternative 4b would establish vessel-specific 

individual fishing quotas (IFQs) for Deep 7 bottomfish for all commercial fishing vessels in the 

MHI. Once either quota was reached, no targeting, possessing, landing or selling of MHI Deep 7 

bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be permitted. The NWHI bottomfish fishery 

would remain open. 

Under both variations, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting 

bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and to 

obtain permits, as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing 

effort, and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, 

each vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its 

registration number. 

To achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), 

the State of Hawaii would need to establish a parallel requirement as both State and federal 

waters would have to be closed once the limit was reached. The effectiveness of the catch limits 

in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and 

commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 
23

Alternative 4a: TAC 

Under Alternative 4a, a TAC of 198,484 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all species combined), 

representing a 15 percent reduction from the 2003 fleet-wide MHI bottomfish catches of these 

species (Kawamoto et al. 2005), would be applied to the entire MHI commercial bottomfish 

fishery. The bottomfish fishing year would start on October 1 and continue until the TAC was 

reached. Thereafter, no fishing for Deep 7 bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be 

permitted in the MHI. The NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. 

Alternative 4b: IFQs 

Under Alternative 4b, IFQs would be established for each MHI commercial bottomfish 

fisherman, allowing them to catch 85 percent of their 2003 catch of the Deep 7 species, based on 

reported landings. The bottomfish fishing year would start on January 1. The number of 

participants would likely be limited to past participation in the fishery and quota amounts would 

likely be determined based on individual historical catches. Once a commercial fisherman had 

landed his respective IFQ, that person would not be permitted to fish for, possess, or sell any 

bottomfish until the following year. The recreational fishery would remain open. 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish participant with an IFQ would be issued a set of bottomfish 

stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of bottomfish and all the 

stamps totaling the fisherman’s total IFQ. The fisherman would be required to submit a stamp to 

the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman sold fish in excess of the number of bottomfish 

pounds for one stamp, he would be required to surrender a second stamp to the dealer. Once all 

the stamps were submitted the fisherman would be prohibited from fishing until the next open 

season. As is the case with other IFQ fisheries, the bottomfish stamps would be non-transferable. 

Under this alternative, fishermen would be required to continue reporting their catches and to 

stop fishing when their individual quota was reached. Fishery data would need to be analyzed in 

real time to ensure that fishermen did not exceed their quota and to penalize those that did. 

IFQs could be implemented in a number of ways, two methods are outlined here: 

1. Provide equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) to all historical 

participants. Under this alternative, historical highliners would get the same quota as part-time 

fishermen, and vice versa. Variations could provide equal quotas to a subset of all historical 

participants, such as those most active in recent years. 

2. Provide individual quotas that are equal to 85 percent of each and every fisherman’s historical 

catch. Under this alternative, fishermen’s quotas would be relative to their individual historical 

catches. Variations could provide similar quotas to a subset of all historical participants, such as 

those most active in recent years. 
24

2.2.5 Alternative 5: Combination Measures 

Alternative 5 would mitigate the potentially negative impacts of the above stand-alone 

alternatives above by combining modifications of them. Alternative 5 includes two variations: 

Alternative 5a would combine a seasonal bottomfish closure with bottomfish IFQs for a limited 

number of MHI commercial fishing vessels during the seasonal closure, while Alternative 5b 

would combine a seasonal MHI closure with a year-round closure of the southern portion of 

Penguin Bank. 

Under both versions of Alternative 5, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) 

targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis 

and would be required to obtain permits as well as to complete and submit catch reports 

including their catches, fishing effort, and area fished. 

To achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), 

the State of Hawaii would need to establish parallel requirements as fishing limits and closures 

would be required in both state and federal waters. The effectiveness of the combined measures 

in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and 

commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

The effectiveness of Alternative 5b's closed area in increasing the stock biomass of the Deep 7 

species would be monitored and analyzed through a combination of fishery dependent (i.e. catch 

reports) and fishery independent data. Fishery independent data would be collected via 

controlled sampling experiments, submersible surveys, remote cameras (e.g. “Bot-Cam”) and 

other methodologies. 

Alternative 5a: Seasonal Closure and IFQs 

Under Alternative 5a, the MHI bottomfish fishery would be closed during an expanded seasonal 

closure from May 1 to September 30 of each year, except for a small number of full-time 

commercial bottomfish fishermen. The exempt fishermen would each receive IFQs for the Deep 

7 species that they could use during the otherwise closed season (May–September). Once each 

exempted fisherman’s quota was landed, he would be required to stop fishing until the next open 

season. The combined total of all IFQs would equal 23,946 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all 

species combined) as this is the amount that could be made available for harvest during the 

otherwise closed season and still maintain the overall annual reduction of 15 percent from the 

2003 baseline for the entire MHI (Table 47). 
25

Table 3: Estimated Reductions and Available Pounds under Alternative 5a. 

 

Target 

Reduction 

MHI Closure Months Estimated Reduction in 

MHI Landings due to MaySeptember closure 

Pounds Available to 

Harvest and Still Meet 15 

Percent Target Reduction 

15 percent 

35,027 pounds 

May–September 25.25 percent 

58,973 

23,946 

Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005. 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish fisherman exempted from the summer closure would be 

issued a set of bottomfish stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of 

bottomfish and all the stamps totaling the vessel’s IFQ for the otherwise closed season. The 

fisherman would be required to submit a stamp to the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman 

sold fish in excess of the number of bottomfish pounds for one stamp, he would be required to 

surrender a second stamp to the dealer. Once all the stamps were submitted the fisherman would 

be prohibited from targeting, possessing, landing or selling MHI Deep 7 bottomfish until the next 

open season. 

As in Alternative 4, IFQs could be calculated and provided in equal amounts to all qualifying 

fishermen, or they could be calculated and provided such that each qualifying fisherman’s quota 

was proportionate to his historical catch. However, in either case, the sum of the IFQs would not 

exceed the 23,946 pounds available. 

Alternative 5b: Seasonal Closure and Area Closure 

Alternative 5b would combine a seasonal closure from June 1 to August 31 of each year for the 

MHI with a year-round partial closure of Penguin Bank. All MHI bottomfish fishermen would be 

prohibited from targeting, possessing landing or selling the Deep 7 species from the MHI during 

the summer closure. However, the year-round partial closure of Penguin Bank would enable the 

length of the summer closure to be reduced as compared to other alternatives. Based on historical 

MHI landings of deep-slope bottomfish, a summer closure from June through August would 

reduce landings by up to 11 percent as compared to the 2003 baseline (Kawamoto et al. 2005). 

Based on 1998 to 2004 historical data indicating that federal waters around Penguin Bank are the 

source of 16 percent of MHI Deep 7 catches as compared to the 2003 baseline (Kawamoto et al. 

2005) and lacking spatially detailed catch and effort data for this area, the closure of the 

southwestern quarter of Penguin Bank would be estimated to further reduce landings by an 

additional 4 percent. Thus the combination of the seasonal and area closures under Alternative 

5b would be expected to achieve the 15 percent reduction target. 

Table 4 provides a summary comparison of the alternatives regarding their various requirements. 
26

Table 4: Summary Comparison of Alternatives. 

 

Alt. 1: 

No Action 

Alt. 2a: 

Closure 

of 

Penguin 

and 

Middle 

Banks 

Alt. 2b: 

Overlay 

Federal 

Closures 

of State 

BRFAs 

Alt. 3: 

May–

August 

MHI 

Closure 

Alt. 4a: 

Fleet-wide 

Commerci

al TAC 

Alt. 4b: 

IFQ for 

Some or 

Most 

Alt. 5a: 

May–

September 

MHI 

Closure 

w/select IFQ 

exemptions 

Alt. 5b: 

June–

August 

MHI 

Closure 

YearRound 

Partial PB 

Closure 

Continues state’s 

bag limit, 

bottomfish 

vessel 

registration and 

BRFAs 

D D

D

D D D D D

Continues 

commercial 

catch reporting 

requirement 

D D

D

D D D D D

Requires catch 

reporting by 

recreational 

bottomfish 

fishermen 

D

D

D D D D D

Requires at-sea 

enforcement and 

aerial 

surveillance 

markings on 

bottomfish 

vessels 

D

D

D D D

Requires state 

and federal 

mirror 

regulations 

 D

D D D D D

Requires shorebased 

enforcement of 

landings and/or 

monitoring by 

D

D

D D D D D
27

 

Alt. 1: 

No Action 

Alt. 2a: 

Closure 

of 

Penguin 

and 

Middle 

Banks 

Alt. 2b: 

Overlay 

Federal 

Closures 

of State 

BRFAs 

Alt. 3: 

May–

August 

MHI 

Closure 

Alt. 4a: 

Fleet-wide 

Commerci

al TAC 

Alt. 4b: 

IFQ for 

Some or 

Most 

Alt. 5a: 

May–

September 

MHI 

Closure 

w/select IFQ 

exemptions 

Alt. 5b: 

June–

August 

MHI 

Closure 

YearRound 

Partial PB 

Closure 

dealers plus 

certification and 

tracking of 

NWHI and 

imported 

bottomfish 

Requires 

fishermen to 

report their 

catches on a pertrip basis 

 D D

Requires 

issuance of 

bottomfish 

stamps 

 

 D
28

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the environmental resources that may be affected by the proposed action 

or the alternatives. It is based primarily on the corresponding chapter in the FEIS for Bottomfish 

and Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Western Pacific Region (WPRFMC 2005b), and has 

been updated to incorporate more recent information, including the 2003 fishery data made 

available in the Bottomfish FMP annual report (WPRFMC 2005c) and additional analyses 

conducted by PISFC staff. 

The Bottomfish FMP (WPRFMC 1986), its amendments, and implementing regulations define 

fishery management area and sub-areas within the EEZ surrounding the State of Hawaii as 

follows. The inner boundary of the fishery management area is a line coterminous with the 

seaward boundaries of the State of Hawaii (i.e. the 3-mile limit). The outer boundary of the 

fishery management area is a line drawn in such a manner that each point on it is 200 nautical 

miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. 

The federal bottomfish fishery management area in Hawaii is divided into three sub-areas 

(Figure 5) with the following designations and boundaries: 

(1) Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) means the EEZ of the Hawaiian Islands Archipelago 

lying to the east of 161°20' W longitude. 

(2) Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) means the EEZ of the Hawaiian Islands 

Archipelago lying to the west of 161°20' W Midway Island is treated as part of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Sub-area. 

(i) Hoomalu Zone means that portion of the EEZ around the NWHI west of 

165°W longitude. 

(ii) Mau Zone means that portion of the EEZ around the NWHI between 161°20' 

W longitude and 165° W longitude. 

(3) Hancock Seamount means that portion of the EEZ in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands west of 180°00' W longitude and north of 28°00' N latitude. 

As noted above, the proposed action will not affect the groundfish resources of the Hancock 

Seamount, and that sub-area will not be considered further in this EIS. 
29

Figure 5: The Hawaii Archipelago. 

3.2 Oceanographic Setting 

The ocean is a three-dimensional medium stratified vertically in terms of light penetration, 

temperature, nutrient concentrations, and concentration of dissolved oxygen. Toward the surface 

is the photic zone, the waters that receive the sun’s light. In Hawaii, this zone extends as deep as 

about 100 meters. Surface waters are mixed by the wind creating a chemically homogeneous 

layer varying from about 120 meters deep in winter to perhaps 30 meters deep in summer. Below 

this mixed layer is a zone of rapidly decreasing temperature called the thermocline. Below the 

thermocline, temperature decreases gradually to the bottom. Primary production by 

phytoplankton and benthic macroalgae consumes nutrients in the photic zone, resulting in low 

ambient nutrient concentrations in the mixed layer. As organisms die and sink out of the photic 

zone and through the thermocline, decomposition produces inorganic nutrients while consuming 

oxygen. Thus, the surface mixed layer is low in nutrients but high in oxygen, while the reverse is 

true below the thermocline. 

The BMUS occupy habitat within and below the photic zone and mixed layer, although the 

species of most concern, onaga and ehu, tend to occupy waters deeper than 150 meters. 

Typically, metabolic processes are slow in such deep waters with low oxygen concentrations. 

Top carnivores in this cold, dark, relatively low-energy environment tend be long-lived, with 

slow growth rates and delayed reproductive maturity. Such is generally the case for deep-slope 

bottomfish, which makes them more susceptible to overfishing. 
30

3.2.1 Currents and Eddies 

The depth of the thermocline (middle layer of the ocean where differences in water temperature 

inhibit mixing with surface layer) varies greatly over the ocean, setting up gradients in water 

density and pressure that result in large-scale water movements called geostrophic currents. In 

the North Pacific Ocean the geostrophic currents form a large, basin-scale, clockwise movement 

called the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (NPSG), centered at about 28°N. At the latitude of 

Hawaii, circulation is roughly east to west, reinforcing the wind-driven surface currents. 

Between about 18°N and 22°N, the currents are strongly influenced by the islands. According to 

Juvic and Juvic (1998): 

The North Equatorial Current (NEC) forks at Hawai‘i Island; the northern branch 

becomes the North Hawaiian Ridge Current (NHRC) and intensifies near the 

islands with a typical width of 65 miles (100 km) and speed of 0.5 knots (25cm/s). 

West of the islands, two elongated circulations appear. A clockwise circulation is 

centered at 19°N, merging to the south with the southern branch of the NEC. A 

counterclockwise circulation is centered at 20°30’N. Between them is the narrow 

Hawaiian Lee Countercurrent (HLCC), extending in longitude from 170°W to 

158°W. Surface currents over the western islands and northeast of the NHRC are 

variable, and their average is smaller than can be estimated from existing data. 

Within the NPSG, the westward flowing northern edge of NEC grazes the Hawaiian Islands, 

mainly near the Big Island. The NHRC can be thought of as a small part of the NEC that turns 

northwest to flow along the windward side of the chain instead of turning southwest to pass 

south of Hawaii Island (E. Firing, UH-SOEST, personal communication). Ten years of shipboard 

acoustic Doppler current profiler data collected by the NOAA shows a mean westward flow of 

the NHRC through the ridge between Oahu and Nihoa, and extending along the lee side of Nihoa 

and Necker to depths from 20 to 250 m (Firing 2006). 

The Subtropical Counter Current (STCC) is an eastward flowing surface current found typically 

along 24°N from 130°E to 160°W. The eastward flowing HLCC is generally located along 20°N 

and extends from about 150°E to just west of the Hawaiian Islands (Kobashi and Kawamura 

2002). The formations of the STCC and HLCC have recently been attributed to the “wake effect” 

that results from the combination of the westward trades winds blowing over the Hawaiian 

Archipelago.8

 

Generally within the lee of the archipelago there are an abundance of mesoscale eddies created 

from a mixture of wind, current, and sea floor interactions. The eddies, which can rotate either 

clockwise or counter clockwise, have important biological impacts, and likely play an important 

role in larval transport (E. Firing, UH-SOEST, personal communication). Eddies create vertical 

fluxes, with regions of divergence (upwelling) where the thermocline shoals and deep nutrients 

are pumped into surface waters enhancing phytoplankton production, and also regions of 

convergence (downwelling) where the thermocline deepens. 

 

8

 http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/10apr_hawaii.htm 
31

3.2.2 Productivity Trends 

Most oceanic food webs (excluding, for example, those around volcanic vents) depend on 

primary producers (phytoplankton and macroalgae) to convert inorganic nutrients and the sun’s 

energy into organic compounds that are then consumed and incorporated at successively higher 

trophic levels. Growth rates of primary producers may be limited by the availability of light or 

the lack of essential nutrients. Most often in the sea, the limiting factor is the availability of 

nitrogen. A deep and strong thermocline is an effective barrier to the transport of inorganic 

nitrogen to surface waters. Climatological cycles, winds and currents, as noted above, can greatly 

affect the depth of the thermocline and the rate of nutrient recharge. These events and cycles may 

be quite transitory, with annual or longer duration, such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, or 

even longer. For example, Polovina et al. (1994) showed that decadal-scale climate changes 

resulted in changes in the mixed layer depth and ultimately changes in productivity of the entire 

ecosystem in the North Pacific Ocean. Productivity changes at all trophic levels in the NWHI 

varied by 30–50 percent as a result of this documented decadal-scale climate cycle. Thus, it is 

important to understand that the “carrying capacity” of the environment, or potential productivity 

of an ecosystem, is dynamic and may fluctuate considerably in response to oceanographic 

conditions as mediated by climatological cycles and events. In terms of bottomfish resources, 

these cycles may be expressed as variability in stock size, recruitment, growth rates, or other 

factors. 

3.3 Hawaii’s Deep-Water Bottomfish 

3.3.1 Habitat Requirements 

Commercially important deepwater bottomfish inhabit the deep slopes of island coasts and banks 

at depths of 100 to 400 meters. The distribution of adult bottomfish in the region 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 six most important bottomfish species tend 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 depths. Depth alone, however, may not indicate 

satisfactory habitat, and both the quantity and quality of habitat at depth are important. 

Bottomfish are typically distributed in a nonrandom patchy or contagious pattern, reflecting 

bottom topography 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 has been shown to be correlated with areas of high relief and current flow 

(Haight 1989; Haight et al. 1993a; Ralston et al. 1986). Although the water depths utilized by 

bottomfish may overlap somewhat, the available resources may be partitioned by speciesspecific 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 
32

may partition the resource through depth and time of feeding activity, and through different prey 

preferences. Although deepwater snappers are generally thought of as top-level carnivores, 

several snapper species in the Pacific are known to incorporate significant amounts of 

zooplankton in their diets (Haight et al. 1993b). 

Cooperative studies by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources, the 

University of Hawaii, and NOAA, using submersible and remotely operated vehicles, are 

investigating, among other things, bottomfish habitat. Results indicate that the preferred habitat 

for the snapper species consists of hard substrate with a relatively large number of holes and 

crevices that serve as shelter for smaller fish and shrimp that onaga and ehu are presumed to feed 

on. In pinnacle habitats in particular, the abundance of small fish and invertebrates is similar to, 

if not greater than, that observed on shallow water coral reef habitats. Onaga and ehu, as well as 

their potential prey species, were found to be absent over sand substrates as well as hard 

substrates with few holes. The presence of one species of potential prey fish, longtailed slopefish 

(Symphysanodon maunaloae), appears to be highly correlated with the presence of ehu and 

onaga. Several potential competitor species have also been also observed in these habitats 

including the hogo (Pontinus macrocephalus), moray eels (Gymnothorax berndti and G. 

nuttingi), kalekale (Pristipomoides sieboldii), and the hapu‘upu‘u (Epinephelus quernus). 

Juvenile onaga and ehu were found in an area of small, low carbonate (limestone) features 

scattered over an otherwise sandy bottom. Unlike juvenile ōpakapaka, which have been found to 

occupy shallower depths than adults, juvenile onaga and ehu were found at the same depths as 

adults. 

3.3.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

The MSA identifies essential fish habitat (EFH) as those waters and substrate necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. This includes the marine areas and their 

chemical and biological properties that are utilized by the organism. Substrate includes sediment, 

hard bottom, and other structural relief underlying the water column along with their associated 

biological communities. As part of Amendment 6 to the Bottomfish FMP, the Council 

designated EFH for bottomfish MUS which were approved by NMFS in 1999 (64 FR 19068; 

April 19, 1999). 

In addition to and as a subset of EFH, the Council described habitat areas of particular concern 

(HAPC) based on the following criteria: ecological function of the habitat is important, habitat is 

sensitive to anthropogenic degradation, development activities are or will stress the habitat, or 

the habitat type is rare. 

In considering the potential impacts of a proposed action on EFH, all designated EFH must be 

considered. Thus, the designated areas of EFH and HAPC for all Council FMPs are shown in 

Table 5. 
33

 

Table 5: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) 

for all Western Pacific FMPs. 

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 

Bottomfish 

and 

Seamount 

Groundfish 

Bottomfish: Water 

column and bottom 

habitat down to a depth 

of 400 meters 

Seamount groundfish: 

(adults only) water 

column and bottom from 

80 to 600 meters 

Bottomfish: Water 

column down to a 

depth of 400 meters 

Seamount 

groundfish: 

(including juveniles) 

epipelagic zone (0 to 

200 nm offshore) 

Bottomfish: All 

escarpments and slopes 

between 40–280 meters, 

and three known areas of 

juvenile ōpakapaka habitat 

Seamount groundfish: not 

identified 

Precious 

Corals 

Keahole Point, Makapuu, 

Kaena Point, Westpac, 

Brooks Bank, 180 

Fathom Bank deep-water 

precious coral (gold and 

red) beds, and Milolii, 

Auau Channel, and S. 

Kauai black coral beds 

NA Makapuu, Westpac, and 

Brooks Bank deep-water 

precious corals beds and 

the Auau Channel black 

coral bed 

Crustaceans Bottom habitat from 

shoreline to a depth of 

100 meters 

Water column down 

to 150 meters 

All banks within the 

NWHI with summits less 

than 30 meters 

Coral Reef 

Ecosystems 

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 PRIAs, many 

specific areas of coral reef 

habitat (see FMP) 

All areas are bounded by the shoreline and the outer boundary of the EEZ, unless otherwise 

indicated. Source: Amendment 6 to the Bottomfish FMP. 

3.3.2 Management Unit Species (MUS) 

3.3.2.1 Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

The bottomfish fisheries in the region target an assemblage of species from the taxonomic 

groups: Lutjanidae (snappers), Serranidae (groupers), Carangidae (jacks), and Lethrinidae 

(emperors). Table 6 presents the list of BMUS designated under the Bottomfish FMP. 
34

Table 6: List of Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS). 

Common name Local Name Scientific Name

Snappers

Silver jaw jobfish Lehi (H); palu-gustusilvia (S) Aphareus rutilans

Grey jobfish Uku (H); asoama (S) Aprion virescens

Squirrelfish snapper Ehu (H); palu-malau (S) Etelis carbunculus

Longtail snapper Onaga, ulaula (H); palu-loa

(S) 

Etelis coruscans

Blue stripe snapper Taape (H); savane (S); funai

(G) 

Lutjanus kasmira

Yellowtail snapper Yellowtail, kalekale (H); 

Palu-i Iusama (S) 

Pristipomoides auricilla

Pink snapper Opakapaka (H); palu-tlena 

lena (S); gadao (G) 

Pristipomoides filamentosus

Yelloweye snapper Yelloweye ōpakapaka, 

kalekale (H); Palusina (S) 

Pristipomoides flavipinnis

Snapper Kalekale (H) Pristipomoides sieboldii

Snapper Gindai (H,G); palu-sega (S) Pristipomoides zonatus

Jacks 

Giant trevally White ulua (H); tarakito (G); 

sapo-anae (S) 

Caranx ignoblis

Black jack Black ulua (H); tarakito (G); 

tafauli (S) 

Caranx lugubris

Thick lipped trevally Pig ulua, butaguchi (H) Pseudocaranx dentex

Amberjack Kahala Serioila dumerili 

Groupers 

Blacktip grouper Fausi (S); gadau (G) Epinephelus fasciatus

Sea bass Hapuupuu (H) Epinephelus quernus

Lunartail grouper Papa (S) Variola louti

Emperors 
35

Common name Local Name Scientific Name

Ambon emperor Filoa-gutumumu (S) Lethrinus amboinensis

Redgill emperor Filoa-paloomumu (S); mafuti

(G) 

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus

Seamount groundfish 

Alfonsin Beryx splendens

Ratfish/butterfish Hyperoglyphe japonica

Armorhead Pseudopentaceros richardsoni

Note: G = Guam; H = Hawaii; S = American Samoa. 

Relatively little is known about the reproduction and early life history of deepwater bottomfish in 

the region. Spawning occurs over a protracted period, and peaks from July to September (Haight 

et al. 1993b). The eggs are released directly into the water column. The eggs hatch in three to 

four days, and the planktonic larval phase is thought to last at least 25 days (Leis 1987). For 

some species this phase may be considerably longer. For example, the pelagic stage for 

‘ōpakapaka is believed to be as long as six months (Moffit and Parrish 1996). Experimental work 

at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology found that ‘ōpakapaka eggs incubated at temperatures 

characteristic of adult habitat did not hatch, but those incubated in water at surface temperatures 

hatched and were reared for up to 4 months (C. Kelly, HURL, personal communication). This 

indicates that surface currents or eddies could play an integral role in the dispersal of some 

bottomfish larvae. 

Larval advection simulation research indicates that larval exchange may occur throughout the 

Hawaiian archipelago and that the amount of larval exchange between the NWHI and the MHI is 

correlated with the duration of the larval phase, with the highest larval exchange occurring with 

the longest larval phase durations (Kobayashi 1998). The direction of larval exchange is subject 

to oceanographic circulation patterns as well as large-scale temperature or climate variation, 

leading to oceanographic regime shifts of different scales (e.g. El Niño, the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation). Many such oceanographic events and their resultant impacts to marine ecosystems 

have been described, including impacts to Pacific pelagic species (Polovina et al. 2001) and other 

Pacific fisheries including the Hawaiian lobster fishery (Polovina 2005). Data on actual larval 

exchange rates between the MHI and NWHI are lacking. Preliminary research indicates that 

genetic connectivity does exist between MHI and NWHI bottomfish species. 

Little is known of the life history of the juvenile fish after settling out of the plankton, but 

research on opakapaka (P. filamentosus) indicates the juveniles utilize nursery grounds well 

away from the adult habitat (Parrish 1989). Most of the target species have a relatively high age 

at maturity, long life span, and slow growth rate. These factors, combined with considerable 

variation in larval recruitment, make these species more susceptible to overfishing (Haight et al. 

1993a). 
36

3.3.2.2 The Deep 7 Species 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries target bottomfish species and species complexes at characteristic 

depths. At shallow depths (surface to 40 fm) uku are fished while drifting or slowly trolling over 

relatively flat bottom. Deeper water species complexes (e.g. ōpakapaka at 40 to 120 fm; onaga at 

80 to 150 fm) are found along high-relief, deep slopes and are fished with a different method, 

vertical handline. In 1998, the State of Hawaii established bottomfish management regulations 

focused on seven of these deep-water species, including onaga, ehu, kalekale, ōpakapaka, gindai, 

lehi, and hapuupuu. These are termed the “Deep 7.” All but hapuupuu are snappers. The 

paragraphs below briefly summarize information regarding the Deep 7 species. 

Onaga: Large specimens of onaga will reach at least 3 feet in length and weigh up to 30 pounds. 

They inhabit deep, rocky bottoms offshore and are known to occur between 80 and 250 fathoms. 

Onaga are commonly caught on or near the bottom, in areas of steep drop-offs, ledges, and 

pinnacles. Onaga feed on small fishes, squids, and crustaceans, and are thought to reach sexual 

maturity at about 21 inches and 5 pounds, at approximately 5 years old. Females with ripe 

ovaries have been reported during August and September. Onaga are distributed throughout the 

Indo–Pacific region.

Ehu: Adult ehu will reach a length of at least 24 inches and a weight of up to about 12 pounds. 

They inhabit deeper offshore water beyond the reef, mainly occurring over rocky bottoms, 

usually between 80 and 218 fathoms. They feed on fishes and larger invertebrates such as squids, 

shrimps, and crabs, and reach sexual maturity at about 11.7 inches fork length, or 1 pound in 

weight, at approximately 3 years old. Ehu are distributed throughout the Indo–Pacific region.

Kalekale: Large specimens of kalekale can reach up to 24 inches in length and 6 pounds. 

Commonly, they are found at around 12 inches in length. They inhabit deeper offshore water 

beyond the reef, occurring over rocky bottoms usually between 40 and 200 fathoms. They feed 

on fish, shrimps, crabs, polychaetes, cephalopods, and urochordates. Fish of 14 inches fork 

length are approximately 2 pounds in weight and 5 years old. Kalekale are distributed throughout 

the Indo–Pacific region. 

Ōpakapaka: Large specimens will reach a length of at least 3 feet and weigh up to about 20 

pounds, with a maximum known age of 18 years. They inhabit deeper offshore water beyond the 

reef, occurring over rocky bottoms, usually between 40 and 120 fathoms. Fish apparently 

migrate into shallower depths near 40 fathoms at night. They feed on small fishes, squids, 

shrimps, crabs, pyrosomes, and zooplankton. Sexual maturity is reached at about 1.8 years and 

they generally spawn at about 2.2 years (1.5 pounds, 13 inches fork length). In 1989, Henry 

Okamoto, Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, initiated a tagging study to evaluate the growth 

and movement of deep water species, particularly opakapaka. Between 1989 and 1994, 4240 

opakapaka and other bottomfish were tagged using surgically placed anchor tags with stiff nylon 

streamers. Fishermen have since recaptured and reported 397 opakapaka between 1989 and 

2003. The study suggests that opakapaka are able to move between islands, and cross channels, 

with water depths of 1400 fathoms or less. Inter-island crossing of opakapaka tagged and 

recaptured include fish that moved from Oahu to Molokai (22 nautical miles, depths exceeding 
37

300 fathoms), Oahu to Kauai (60 nautical miles, depths exceeding 1,400 fathoms) and Maui to 

Big Island (27 nautical miles, depths exceeding 1,000 fathoms). Ōpakapaka are distributed 

throughout the Indo–Pacific region. 

Gindai: Gindai will reach up to 20 inches in length and 6 pounds in weight. They inhabit deeper 

offshore water beyond the reef, occurring over rocky bottoms, usually between 60 and 130 

fathoms. They feed on fishes, shrimps, crabs, cephalopods, and other invertebrates. Gindai are 

distributed throughout the Indo–Pacific region. 

Lehi: Large lehi specimens will reach a length of at least 3 feet and weigh up to about 30 

pounds. They inhabit reefs and rocky bottom areas usually between 60 and 100 fathoms. They 

feed on fish, squid, and crustaceans. Lehi are distributed throughout the Indo–Pacific region. 

Hapuupuu: This grouper reaches lengths of up to 4 feet and weighs up to 60 pounds. They 

occur in waters 11 to 208 fathoms deep. They feed mainly on fish and crustaceans. The hapuupu

is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Island. 

3.3.3 Status of the Stocks 

3.3.3.1 Spawning Potential Ratio 

Amendment 3 to the Bottomfish FMP 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 (termed spawning potential 

ratio, or SPR) is equal to or less than 20 percent. Given the scarcity of data, and using the best 

available information, the Council used to use SPR as a proxy for maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY). The 1996 reauthorization of the MSA by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) contained 

new requirements for monitoring potential overfishing, and added bycatch requirements among 

other things. In a supplement to Amendment 6 to the Bottomfish FMP, the Council established 

methods to comply with the SFA’s overfishing provisions that allow calculation of MSY and 

other reference parameters (68 FR 16754; April 7, 2003). The details of the overfishing 

provisions are described in detail in this chapter. However, the Council has amassed 18 years of 

SPR data for Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries, and the values are useful to illustrate of the status of 

the bottomfish stocks in the three Hawaii management zones. 

Fishery data for 2003 suggest that none of the five BMUS species for which SPR values can be 

calculated have SPR values below the 20 percent critical threshold that defines recruitment 

overfishing in the Bottomfish FMP. Estimated SPRs range from a low of 31 percent for onaga to 

a high of 50 percent for hapuupuu when expressed on an archipelago-wide basis. However, 

onaga and ehu stocks are severely stressed in the MHI. In 2003, the MHI SPR values for these 

species are below 20 percent (10.26 percent for onaga and 4.69 percent for ehu) using targeted 

CPUE figures (WPRFMC 2005c). The Council’s Bottomfish Plan Team believes that targeted 

CPUE better represents the condition of bottomfish stocks in the MHI than aggregated CPUE. 

Using this measure, neither ‘ōpakapaka nor uku SPRs indicate critically depleted conditions. 

Table 7 summarizes the archipelago-wide SPR values (using aggregate CPUE) for the most 

important BMUS, and Figure 6 shows these trends graphically. 
38

 Table 7: Historical Annual Archipelago-Wide SPRs (%) by BMUS Stock. 

Year Ehu Hapuupuu Onaga Opakapaka Uku

1986 41 55 53 51 58 

1987 61 71 61 69 65 

1988 37 56 42 49 62 

1989 51 70 38 69 68 

1990 44 57 36 57 52 

1991 44 58 42 57 53 

1992 51 67 41 68 61 

1993 54 65 53 67 73 

1994 38 51 39 53 52 

1995 41 48 33 54 56 

1996 43 49 39 52 57 

1997 42 49 25 52 51 

1998 38 44 22 47 50 

1999 37 47 34 46 55 

2000 39 49 27 52 52 

2001 40 51 26 51 48 

2002 37 45 26 47 45 

2003 36 50 31 48 43 

M 43.00 54.56 37.11 54.94 55.61 

SD 6.93 8.52 10.67 7.94 7.86 

Source: 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report, WPRFMC 2005c. 
39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year

SPR

Ehu Hapu'u Onaga Opakapaka Uku

Figure 6: SPR Trends by BMUS Stock. Source: 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report, 

WPRMC 2005c. 

While the bottomfish populations may be genetically connected throughout the archipelago, 

localized depletion of stocks in the MHI has been apparent for the past decade (WPRFMC 

2005c). Table 8 provides a breakdown of the above SPR ratios for the three Hawaii zones using 

aggregate CPUE. With the exception of onaga in the Hoomalu Zone, all of the NWHI SPRs are 

above 50 percent. In the MHI, however, the SPRs are substantially lower, with the onaga SPR at 

around 10 percent. 

 Table 8: 2003 SPRs (%) by BMUS Stock by Zone. 

Zone Ehu Hapuupuu Onaga Opakapaka Uku 

MHI 26 29 9 21 26 

Mau 58 61 53 57 58 

Hoomalu 62 63 46 62 63 

Source: 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report, WPRMC 2005c. 
40

3.3.3.2 Overfishing Criteria 

Reauthorization of the MSA included additional requirements for the quantification of fish stock 

status with respect to overfishing. The MSA seeks to ensure long-term fishery sustainability by 

halting or preventing overfishing, and by rebuilding any overfished stocks. Overfishing occurs 

when fishing mortality (F) is higher than the level which produces MSY, defined as the 

maximum long-term average yield that can be produced by a stock on a continuing basis. A 

stock is deemed to be overfished when stock biomass (B) has fallen to a level substantially below 

the biomass producing MSY. There are two indicators that managers must monitor to determine 

the status of a fishery: the level of F in relation to F at MSY (FMSY), and the level of B in relation 

to B at MSY (BMSY). 

The National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR §600.305 et. seq.) for National Standard 1 call for the 

development of control rules identifying “good” versus “bad” fishing conditions in the fishery 

and the stock, and describing how a variable such as F will be controlled as a function of some 

stock size variable such as B in order to achieve good fishing conditions. Because fisheries must 

be managed to achieve optimum yield (OY), not MSY, the MSY control rule is useful for 

specifying the required “objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery is 

overfished.” The National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310) refer to these criteria as “status 

determination criteria” and state that they must include two limit reference points or thresholds: 

one for F that identifies when overfishing is occurring, and a second for B or its proxy that 

indicates when the stock is overfished. The status determination criterion for F is the maximum 

fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is the criterion 

for B. If fishing mortality exceeds the MFMT for a period of one year or more, overfishing is 

occurring. If stock biomass falls below MSST in a given year, the stock or stock complex is 

overfished. A Council must take remedial action in the form of a new FMP, an FMP amendment, 

or proposed regulations when it has been determined by the Secretary of Commerce that 

overfishing is occurring, a stock or stock complex is overfished, either of the two thresholds is 

being approached, or existing remedial action to end previously identified overfishing has not 

resulted in adequate progress. 

The National Standard Guidelines state that the MFMT may be expressed as a single number or 

as a function of some measure of the stock’s productive capacity, and that it “must not exceed 

the fishing mortality rate or level associated with the relevant MSY control rule” (50 CFR 

600.310(d)(2)(i)). The Guidelines further state that “to the extent possible, the MSST should 

equal whichever of the following is greater: one-half the MSY stock size, or the minimum stock 

size at which rebuilding to the MSY level would be expected to occur within 10 years if the 

stock or stock complex were exploited at the maximum fishing mortality threshold” (50 CFR 

600.310(d)(2)(ii)). Although not required, warning reference points (e.g., BFLAG) may be 

specified in advance of B or F approaching or reaching their respective thresholds. When such a 

reference point is reached, the Council may begin preparations for action to control F. 

A target control rule specifies the relationship of F to B for a harvest policy aimed at achieving a 

given target. OY is one such target, and National Standard 1 requires that conservation and 

management measures both prevent overfishing and achieve OY on a continuing basis. OY is the 

yield that will provide the greatest overall benefits to the nation, and is defined on the basis of 
41

MSY, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. MSY is therefore an 

upper limit for OY. A target control rule can be specified using reference points similar to those 

used in the MSY control rule, such as FTARGET and BTARGET. While MSST and MFMT are limits, 

the target reference points are guidelines for management action, not constraints. The technical 

guidance for National Standard 1 states that “Target reference points should not be exceeded 

more than 50 percent of the time, nor on average” (Restrepo et al. 1998). 

A supplement to Amendment 6 of the Bottomfish FMP, approved by NMFS in 2003 (68 FR 

46112; August 5, 2003), specified how the Council would comply with the new requirements of 

National Standard 1. Because of the paucity of data for all bottomfish species and island areas 

managed under the Bottomfish FMP, the Council’s control rules and overfishing thresholds are 

specified for multi-species complexes. Standardized values of catch per unit effort and fishing 

effort are used as proxies for biomass and fishing mortality, respectively. The stock status 

determination criteria are specified for those proxies using defaults recommended in the NMFS 

technical guidance for implementing National Standard 1. 

The MSY control rule is specified as the MFMT. The MFMT and MSST are dependent on the 

natural mortality rate (M), an estimate of which is published annually in the SAFE report. 

In addition to the thresholds MFMT and MSST, a warning reference point, BFLAG, is also 

specified at a point above the MSST to provide a trigger for consideration of management action 

prior to B reaching the threshold. 

MFMT, MSST, and BFLAG are specified as follows: 

MFMT: F(B) = FMSYB/cBMSY for B < cBMSY

F(B) = FMSY for B > cBMSY

MSST: cBMSY

BFLAG: BMSY

Where c = max(1 − M, 0.5) 

Standardized values of fishing effort (E) and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) are used as proxies for 

F and B, respectively, so EMSY, CPUEMSY, and CPUEFLAG are used as proxies for FMSY, BMSY, 

and BFLAG, respectively. In cases where reliable estimates of CPUEMSY and EMSY are not 

available, they are estimated from catch and effort time series, standardized for all identifiable 

biases. In Hawaii, archipelago-wide estimates of the reference points are calculated as the 

weighted averages of estimates for each of the three management zones. 

A secondary set of reference points is specified to evaluate stock status with respect to 

recruitment overfishing. A secondary “recruitment overfishing” control rule is specified to 

control fishing mortality with respect to that status. The rule can be applied only to those 

component stocks (species) for which adequate data are available. The ratio of a current 

spawning stock biomass proxy (SSBPt) to a given reference level (SSBPREF) is used to determine 

if individual stocks are experiencing recruitment overfishing. SSBP is CPUE scaled by percent 

mature fish in the catch. When the ratio SSBPt/SSBPREF, or the “SSBP ratio” (SSBPR) for any 

species drops below a certain limit (SSBPRMIN), that species would be considered to be 
42

recruitment overfished and management measures would be implemented to reduce fishing 

mortality on that species, regardless of the effects on other species within the stock complex. The 

rule would apply only when the SSBPR drops below the SSBPRMIN, but it would continue until 

the ratio achieves the “SSBPR recovery target” (SSBPRTARGET), which would be set at a level no 

less than SSBPRMIN. These two reference points and their associated recruitment overfishing 

control rule, which prescribes a target fishing mortality rate (FRO-REBUILD) as a function of the 

SSBP ratio, are as specified below, with EMSY again used as a proxy for FMSY. 

 

FRO-REBUILD: F(SSBPR) = 0 for SSBPR < 0.01 

 F(SSBPR) = 0.2FMSY for 0.10 < SSBPR < SSBPRMIN

 F(SSBPR) = 0.4FMSY for SSBPRMIN < SSBPR < SSBPRTARGET 

 SSBPRMIN: 0.02 

 SSBPRTARGET: 0.30 

3.3.3.3 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) 

Reference values for biomass and fishing mortality are needed for application of the control 

rules. Since estimates of biomass and fishing mortality are not available for any of the areas 

involved, proxies of CPUE and effort at MSY, respectively, are used to establish reference 

values. The current values for CPUE and E are compared to the reference values and their ratio 

determines the current status of the fishery relative to control rule thresholds. The best available 

reference value estimates are used. Refinement of reference value estimates and standardization 

of catch and effort data for the bottomfish fishery are ongoing activities and those applied here 

will change as better data become available. 

For Hawaii, the time series of data allowed the application of a simple dynamic surplus 

production model. A three parameter model was fit to the NWHI daily CPUE and the MHI per 

trip CPUE time series with parameters of intrinsic rate of increase, r; Mau zone carrying 

capacity, k; and MHI catchability, q. NWHI zone q values used in the model were based on 

standardized estimates obtained from a research depletion study carried out in the CNMI. A fourstep pattern of MHI q was used to simulate changes in catchability expected from changes in 

technology and experience of MHI fishermen. Carrying capacity values for the Hoomalu zone 

and MHI were based on the Mau zone k adjusted by relative length of 100-fathom contour for 

the zones. The reference values obtained for each zone are presented in Table 9. 
43

Table 9: MSY and Reference Values (CPUE and Effort at MSY) by Area. 

Zone MSY CPUE at MSY Effort at MSY 

MHI 353,435 pounds 407 lb/trip 868 trips 

Mau Zone 97,904 pounds 470 lb/day 208 days 

Hoomalu Zone 339,728 pounds 431 lb/day 789 days 

Source: Kobayashi and Moffitt 2005. 

The control rule uses the reference values to establish thresholds. The current status of the 

fishery is determined by the ratio of current values of CPUE and effort compared to the reference 

values. The MFMT is set at the effort at MSY, such that overfishing is occurring when the 

current effort ratio is greater than 1.0. The biomass threshold, MSST, is defined as 1.0 minus 

natural mortality. Natural mortality for species of the bottomfish complex is largely unknown, 

therefore, estimates are used. Various sources report natural mortality estimates ranging from 

0.30 to 0.90. The precautionary value of 0.30 was selected for the purpose of establishing the 

MSST. The resulting MSST is 0.70. The current status of the stocks for the various island areas 

are presented in Table 10. 

Table 10: Current Status of Bottomfish in Hawaii’s Management Sub-areas (2003 data). 

Zone CPUE Ratio 

(current/MSY) 

Effort Ratio 

(current/MSY) 

Threshold Above 0.7 Below 1.0 

Hawaii, all areas combined 0.82 1.13 

MHI 0.47 1.88 

Mau Zone 1.01 0.96 

Hoomalu Zone 1.13 0.39 

Source: PIFSC 2005; Appendix 2. 

In 1998, the State of Hawaii established bottomfish restricted fishing areas encompassing 

approximately 20 percent of the 100 fathom contour in the MHI. Commercial CPUE and effort 

data thus far do not reflect any benefit in terms of increased biomass or decreased fishing 

mortality obtained from these closures. 

Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock 

complex is not overfished (the biomass standard using CPUE as a proxy). The current CPUE 

ratio is 0.82, above the threshold value of 0.7 established as the MSST. However, overfishing 

(the fishing mortality standard using fishing effort as a proxy) is occurring. The 2003 effort ratio 

is 1.13, above the threshold value of 1.0 established as the MFMT. 

The Secretary of Commerce informed the Council on May 27, 2005, that according to MSA 

National Standard 1 guidelines and the associated reference points adopted by the Council, the 

bottomfish multi-species stock complex in the Hawaii archipelago is experiencing overfishing. 

On behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the Regional Administrator for the Pacific Islands 

Region notified the Council of this overfishing determination on May 27, 2005 (70 FR 34452, 
44

June 14, 2005). As stated in the overfishing notification letter, “the MHI is the zone that 

contributes most of the problems in terms of both reduced biomass and overfishing.” The 

overfishing notification letter further states, “[t]herefore, it is likely that reducing fishing 

mortality here [MHI] would be the most effective means to end overfishing in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago (70 FR 3442, June 14, 2005).” The Council is required to take action end the 

overfishing within one year following the notification (70 FR 34552, June 14, 2005). 

3.4 Fisheries 

The deep-slope bottomfish fishery in Hawaii concentrates on species of eteline snappers, 

carangids and a single species of grouper concentrated at depths of 30 to 150 fathoms (55 to 275 

m). The fishery can be divided into two geographical areas (see Figure 1) the inhabited MHI 

with their surrounding reefs and offshore banks; and the NWHI, a chain of largely uninhabited 

islets, reefs and shoals extending 1,200 nautical miles across the North Pacific. In the MHI 

approximately 80 percent of the bottomfish habitat lies in state waters. Bottomfish fishing 

grounds within federal waters (3 to 200 nm offshore) 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 (Figure 7). 

Figure 7: Bottomfish Habitat in the MHI. 

Data from various surveys indicate that the importance of the MHI fishery varies significantly 

among fishermen of different islands. According to a 1987 survey of boat fishing club members, 

bottomfish represented roughly 13 percent of the catch of Hawaii fishermen, 25 percent of the 

catch of Oahu and Kauai fishermen, and 75 percent of the catch of Maui fishermen (Meyer 

Resources 1987). A survey of licensed commercial fishermen conducted about the same time 
45

indicated that the percentage of respondents who used bottomfish fishing methods was 25 

percent on Hawaii, 28 percent on Kauai, 29 percent on Oahu, 33 percent on Lanai, 50 percent on 

Molokai and 51 percent on Maui (Harman and Katekaru 1988). Presumably, the differences 

among islands relate to the proximity of productive bottomfish fishing grounds. 

Roughly 30 percent of the MHI commercial landings of the Deep 7 species from 1998 to 2004 

are from Oahu. Maui landings from the same time period represent 36 percent, with Hawaii, 

Kauai and Molokai/Lanai representing 18, 10 and 5 percent, respectively (Kawamoto and Tau 

2005). Specific bottomfish fishing locales favored by fishermen vary seasonally according to sea 

conditions and the availability and price of target species. Historically, Penguin Bank is one of 

the most important bottomfish fishing grounds in the MHI, as it is the most extensive shallow 

shelf area in the MHI and within easy reach of major population centers. Penguin Bank is 

particularly important for the MHI catch of uku, one of the few bottomfish species available in 

substantial quantities to Hawaii consumers during summer months. 

3.4.1 History 

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 

(Iversen et al. 1990). The poo lawaia (expert fishermen) within the community knew of dozens 

of specific koa (fishing areas) where bottomfish could be caught (Kahaulelio 1902). As Beckley 

(1883) noted, each koa could be precisely located: 

Every rocky protuberance from the bottom of the sea for miles out, in the waters 

surrounding the islands, was well known to the ancient fishermen, and so were the 

different kinds of rock fish likely to be met with on each separate rock. [They] 

took their bearing for the purpose of ascertaining the rock which was the habitat 

of the particular fish they were after, from the positions of the different mountain 

peaks. 

European colonization of the Hawaiian Islands during the early nineteenth century and the 

introduction of a cash economy led to the development of a local commercial fishery. As early as 

1832, fish and other commodities were sold near the waterfront in Honolulu (Reynolds 1835). 

Other fish markets were established on the islands of Maui and Hawaii. John Cobb (1902), who 

investigated Hawaii’s commercial fisheries in 1900 for the U.S. Fish Commission, reported that 

the bottomfish ulaula, uku, and ulua were three of the five fish taken commercially on all the 

Hawaiian Islands. 

Initially, the commercial fishing industry in Hawaii was monopolized by Native Hawaiians, who 

supplied the local market with fish using canoes, nets, traps, spears and other traditional fishing 

devices (Cobb 1902; Jordan and Evermann 1902). However, the role that Native Hawaiians 

played in Hawaii’s fishing industry gradually diminished during the latter half of the nineteenth 

century as successive waves of immigrants of various races and nationalities arrived in Hawaii. 
46

Between 1872 and 1900, the non-indigenous population increased from 5,366 to 114,345 (Office 

of Hawaiian Affairs 1998). Kametaro Nishimura, credited by some to be the first Japanese 

immigrant to engage in commercial fishing in Hawaii, began his fishing career in the islands in 

1885, harvesting bottomfish such as ōpakapaka, ulua, and uku (Miyaski 1973). By the turn of the 

century, Japanese immigrants to Hawaii dominated the bottomfish fishery using wooden-hulled 

“sampans” propelled by sails or oars (Cobb 1902). The sampan was brought to Hawaii by 

Japanese immigrants during the late nineteenth century, and over time Japanese boat builders in 

Hawaii adapted the original design to specific fishing conditions found in Hawaii (Goto et al. 

1983). The bottomfish fishing gear and techniques employed by the Japanese immigrants were 

imitations of those traditionally used by Native Hawaiians, with slight modifications (Konishi 

1930). 

During the early years of the commercial bottomfish fishery, vessels restricted their effort to 

areas around the MHI. Cobb (1902) recorded that some of the best fishing grounds were off the 

coast of Molokai and notes that large sampans with crews of four to six men were employed in 

the fishery. Typically, the fleet would leave Honolulu for the fishing grounds on Monday and 

return on Friday or Saturday. The fishing range of the sampan fleet increased substantially after 

the introduction of motor powered vessels in 1905 (Carter 1962). Fishing activity was occurring 

around the NWHI at least as early as 1913, when one commentator stated: “Fishing for ulua and 

kahala is most popular, using bonito for bait, fishermen seek this [sic] species in a 500 mile 

range toward Tori-Jima [NWHI]” (Japanese Consulate 1913, as cited in Yamamoto 1970:107). 

Within a few years more than a dozen sampans were fishing for bottomfish around the NWHI 

(Anon. 1924; Konishi 1930). Fishing trips to the NWHI typically lasted 15 days or more, and the 

vessels carried 7 to 8 tons of ice to preserve their catch (Nakashima 1934). The number of 

sampans traveling to the more distant islands gradually declined because of the limited shelter 

the islands offered during rough weather and the difficulty of maintaining the quality of the catch 

during extended trips (Konishi 1930). However, during the 1930s, at least five bottomfish fishing 

vessels ranging in size from 65 to 70 feet continued to operate in the waters around the NWHI 

(Hau 1984). In addition to catching bottomfish, the sampans harvested lobster, reef fish, turtles, 

and other marine animals (Iversen et al. 1990). 

During World War II, the bottomfish fishery in Hawaii virtually ceased operations, but 

recommenced shortly after the war ended (Haight et al. 1993a). The late 1940s saw as many as 

nine vessels fishing around the NWHI. By the mid-1950s, vessel losses and depressed fish prices 

resulting from large catches had reduced the number of fishery participants. During the 1960s, 

only one or two vessels were operating around the NWHI. 

There was renewed interest in harvesting the bottomfish resources of the NWHI in the late 1970s 

following a collaborative study of the marine resources of the region by state and federal 

agencies (Haight et al. 1993a). The entry of several modern boats into the NWHI fishery and the 

resultant expanding supply of high-valued bottomfish such as ōpakapaka and onaga made 

possible the expansion of the tourism-linked restaurant market by allowing a regular and 

consistent supply of relatively fresh fish (Pooley 1993a). Markets for Hawaii bottomfish further 

expanded after wholesale seafood dealers began sending fish to the U.S. mainland. By 1987, 28 

vessels were active in the NWHI bottomfish fishery, although only 12 were fishing for 

bottomfish full time. Some of the non–full-time vessels also engaged in the pelagic or lobster 
47

fisheries (Iversen et al. 1990). In 1989, the Council developed regulations that divided the fishing 

grounds of the NWHI bottomfish fishery into the Hoomalu Zone and Mau Zone. Limited access 

programs were established for the Hoomalu Zone and Mau Zone in 1988 and 1999, respectively, 

to avoid economic overfishing (Pooley 1993b; WPRFMC 1998b). 

The 1970s also saw major changes in the composition and operations of the bottomfish fishery 

around the main Hawaiian Islands. The fishery changed from one dominated, in terms of catch 

and effort, by a relatively small number of full-time professional fishermen to one dominated by 

hundreds of part-time commercial and recreational fishermen. This change was the result of a 

number of factors. The popularity of offshore fishing increased in Hawaii with the increase in the 

availability of both locally built and imported small fiberglass boats. In addition, the rise in fuel 

prices during the 1970s made fishing for bottomfish particularly attractive to fishermen as it 

consumed less fuel than trolling and generated higher-value fish catches to offset fuel costs. 

Finally, as navigation systems, bottom-sounders and hydraulic or electric powered reels became 

more affordable, the skill level and experience necessary to fish bottomfish successfully was 

reduced and the labor associated with hauling up the long lines was considerably lightened. 

During the early 1980s, with the development of a much larger market for bottomfish, 

bottomfish fishermen fishing around the main Hawaiian Islands were able to obtain premium 

prices for their catches, and thus were motivated to increase their landings (Pooley 1993a). 

However, the number of vessels participating in the MHI fishery declined after reaching a peak 

of 583 in 1985. The decrease in fishing effort suggests that some bottomfish fishermen perceived 

a growing shortage of bottomfish in the MHI fishery and switched to other fisheries, particularly 

targeting pelagics. Currently, most fishermen landing bottomfish commercially switch between 

fisheries targeting seasonal abundance and market prices. Very few fishermen target bottomfish 

exclusively year round 

In 1998, concerns generated from PIFSC and the Council’s Bottomfish Plan Team about low 

SPR values in the MHI led the State of Hawaii to close certain areas around the MHI to 

bottomfish fishing, including areas of Penguin Bank within the EEZ.9

 In addition, new state rules 

established a recreational bag limit of five onaga or ehu, or a mix of both, per person per day. 

This bottomfish management regime requires any person who may fish for bottomfish (any of 

the seven species) to register their vessel with the HDAR and display the letters “BF” on their 

boat. This rule applies to all vessels used for targeting bottomfish fishing, whether the owner is a 

recreational/subsistence fisherman or a commercial fisherman. Of the 3,600 vessels registered 

with the HDAR as of August 2005, about 40 percent declared themselves recreational fishermen 

(HDAR Bottomfish Survey 2005). It is unknown how many of these vessels, registered as 

recreational, have fished for bottomfish since 1998. 

Hawaii’s sport fishing charter boat fleet began to develop during the early 1950s as Hawaii 

became an increasingly popular tourist destination (Markrich 1994). What started as a few 

 

9

 The State of Hawaii claims the authority to manage and control the marine, seabed, and other resources within 

“archipelagic waters.” These archipelagic waters encompass a number of bottomfish fishing grounds, such as 

parts of Penguin Bank, that lie inside the EEZ. An October 24, 1997, memorandum from NOAA/General Counsel 

Southwest Region to the Council Chairman declared that, despite any contentions by the State of Hawaii to the 

contrary, for purposes of federal fishery management, state waters do not extend beyond 3 miles from the coast. 
48

charter boats operating out of harbors such as Kewalo Basin and Kona has evolved into a highly 

competitive industry involving nearly 200 vessels statewide (Hamilton 1998; Walker 1996). The 

charter boat fleet mainly targets pelagic game fish such as billfish and tuna. However, a few 

charter boats take bottomfish fishing trips if patrons are interested (Hamilton 1998). Most of the 

charter boats engaged in bottomfish fishing are based on the islands of Maui and Kauai. 

3.4.2 Fishing Gear and Methods 

The basic design of the handline gear used in Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries has remained 

essentially unchanged from gear used by early Native Hawaiians (Haight et al. 1993a). The gear 

consists of a main line with a 2 to 4 kilograms weight attached to the terminus. Several 40 to 60 

centimeters sidelines with circle hooks are attached above the weight at 0.5 to 1.0 meters 

intervals. A chum bag containing chopped fish or squid may be suspended above the highest of 

these hooks. The gear is pulled after several fish are hooked. 

Circle hooks used in the bottomfish fishery are flat by design. “Kirbed” hooks (bent or offset to 

the side) 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 pick at the bait or mouth the bait and spit it out (K. 

Kawamoto, PIFSC, personal communication). 

Fishermen use the circle hook for its self-setting ability and for its curved design with its long 

inward pointing hook point 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’s 

less prone to snagging on rocky or hard substrate bottoms and very difficult to snag flat or 

smooth surfaces. This characteristic minimizes the loss of gear (K. Kawamoto, PIFSC, personal 

communication). 

All bottomfish fishermen in Hawaii target the same assemblage of bottomfish species. The 

ability to target particular species varies widely depending on the skill of each captain. 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. 1993a). According to 

Hau (1984), ‘ōpakapaka 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. Hāpu‘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. Kāhala are one of the least 

valuable bottomfish because large specimens have a reputation for carrying the ciguatera toxin, 

and because of high densities of parasites in the flesh. 
49

As detailed in Section 3.3.1.1, commercially important deepwater bottomfish inhabit the deep 

slopes of island coasts and banks at depths of 100 to 400 meters. The distribution of adult 

bottomfish is highly correlated with suitable physical habitat. In addition to depth, both the 

quantity and quality of habitat are important and generally include locations of high-relief 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 and direction 

and sea conditions. These environmental constraints limit the time during which bottomfish 

fishing can be conducted. 

3.4.3 Existing Regulatory Regimes 

3.4.3.1 Federal Management Regime 

3.4.3.1.1 Overview of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Amendments 

The Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of the Western Pacific 

Region (Bottomfish FMP) was implemented in 1986. It prohibits certain destructive fishing 

techniques, including explosives, poisons, trawl nets and bottom-set gillnets; establishes a 

moratorium on the commercial harvest of seamount groundfish stocks at the Hancock 

Seamounts; and implements a permit system for fishing for bottomfish in the EEZ around the 

NWHI. (The moratorium on the commercial harvest of seamount groundfish stocks at the 

Hancock Seamounts, the only exploitable seamount habitat in the management area, remains in 

effect. At its 123rd meeting (June 21–24, 2004), the Council approved an extension of the 

moratorium until August 31, 2010 (69 FR 51400). Consequently, there is no seamount 

groundfish fishery in the region. The plan also establishes 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. 

The Bottomfish FMP has been amended seven times since 1986. Implemented in 1987, 

Amendment 1 includes the establishment of potential limited access systems for bottomfish 

fisheries in the EEZ surrounding American Samoa and Guam within the framework measures of 

the Bottomfish FMP. Amendment 2 (1988) divides the EEZ around the NWHI into two 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. Amendment 3 (1991), which has been 

supplanted by Amendment 6, 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. 

Amendment 3 also delineates the process by which overfishing is monitored and evaluated. 

Amendment 4 (1990) requires vessel owners or operators to notify NMFS at least 72 hours 

before leaving port if they intend to fish in a 50 nautical miles “protected species study zone” 

around the NWHI. This notification allows federal observers to be placed on board bottomfish 

vessels to record interactions with protected species if this action is deemed necessary. 

Amendment 5 (1999) establishes a limited access system for the Mau Zone and a framework for 

a Community Development Program. Amendment 6 (1999) identifies and describes essential fish 

habitat for managed species of bottomfish, discusses measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality in the bottomfish fishery, provides criteria for identifying when overfishing has 
50

occurred in the fishery and describes fishing communities in the region. Amendment 6 initially 

was only partially approved, with the provisions for bycatch, overfishing and fishing 

communities in Hawaii disapproved. The disapproved provisions were rewritten and the revised 

provisions have been implemented. Amendment 7 (2003) brings the Bottomfish FMP into 

conformity with the Coral Reef Ecosystem (CRE) FMP by prohibiting fishing for BMUS in the 

CRE FMP’s no-take areas, and amending the BMUS list to exclude species now managed under 

the CRE FMP. 

4.3.1.2 Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Regulations 

For the complete list of federal regulations for Western Pacific Region fisheries, see 50 CFR Part 

660. The following can be found at 50 CFR § 660.61. 

Gear Restrictions 

(1) Fishing for bottomfish and seamount groundfish with bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets is 

prohibited. 

(2) Possession of a bottom trawl and bottom-set gillnet by any vessel having a Hoomalu Zone 

permit or Mau Zone permit or otherwise established to be fishing for bottomfish or seamount 

groundfish in the management sub-areas is prohibited. 

(3) The possession or use of any poisons, explosives, or intoxicating substances for the purpose 

of harvesting bottomfish and seamount groundfish is prohibited. 

Permits 

(1) The owner of any vessel used to fish for BMUS in the NWHI sub-area must have a permit 

and the permit must be registered for use with the vessel. A single vessel cannot be registered for 

use with a Hoomalu Zone permit and a Mau Zone permit at the same time. 

(2) Hoomalu Zone limited access permit: 

 (i) A Hoomalu Zone permit may not be sold or otherwise transferred to a new owner. A 

Hoomalu Zone permit or permits may be held by a partnership or corporation. If 50 percent or 

more of the ownership of the vessel passes to persons other than those listed in the original 

application, the permit will lapse and must be surrendered to the NMFS Regional Administrator. 

 (ii) Upon application by the owner of a permitted vessel, the NMFS Regional 

Administrator will transfer that owner’s permit to a replacement vessel owned by that owner, 

provided that the replacement vessel does not exceed 60 feet (18.3 m) in length. The replacement 

vessel must be put into service no later than 12 months after the owner applies for the transfer, or 

the transfer shall be void. An owner of a permitted vessel may apply to the Regional 

Administrator for transfer of that owner’s permit to a replacement vessel greater than 60 feet 

(18.3 meters) in length. The Regional Administrator may transfer the permit upon determining, 

after consultation with the Council and considering the objectives of the limited access program, 

that the replacement vessel has catching power that is comparable to the rest of the vessels 

holding permits for the fishery, or has catching power that does not exceed that of the original 

vessel, and that the transfer is not inconsistent with the objectives of the program. The Regional 

Administrator shall consider vessel length, range, hold capacity, gear limitations, and other 
51

appropriate factors in making determinations of catching power equivalency and comparability 

of the catching power of vessels in the fishery. 

 (iii) Hoomalu Zone limited access permit renewal: A qualifying landing for Hoomalu 

Zone permit renewal is a landing of at least 2,500 pounds (1,134 kg) of BMUS from the 

Hoomalu Zone or a landing of at least 2,500 pounds (1,134 kg) of fish from the Hoomalu Zone, 

of which at least 50 percent by weight was BMUS. A permit is eligible for renewal for the next 

calendar year if the vessel covered by the permit made three or more qualifying landings during 

the current calendar year. 

 (iv) The NMFS Regional Administrator may issue new Hoomalu Zone limited access 

permits if the Regional Administrator determines, in consultation with the Council that 

bottomfish stocks in the Hoomalu Zone are able to support additional fishing effort. When the 

Regional Administrator has determined that new permits may be issued, they shall be issued to 

applicants based upon eligibility, determined as follows: 

 (a) Point system: 

 Two points will be assigned for each year in which the applicant was owner or 

captain of a vessel that made three or more of any of the following types of landings in the 

NWHI: Any amount of BMUS, regardless of weight, if made on or before August 7, 1985; at 

least 2,500 pounds (1,134 kg) of BMUS, if made after August 7, 1985; or at least 2,500 pounds 

(1,134 kg) of any fish lawfully harvested from the NWHI, of which at least 50 percent by weight 

was bottomfish, if made after August 7, 1985. One point will be assigned for each year in which 

the applicant was owner or captain of a vessel that landed at least 6,000 pounds (2,722 kg) of 

bottomfish from the MHI. For any 1 year, points will be assigned for landings in the NWHI subarea or MHI sub-area, but not in both sub-areas. New permits shall be awarded to applicants in 

descending order, starting with the applicant with the largest number of points. If two or more 

persons have an equal number of points, and there are insufficient new permits for all such 

applicants, the new permits shall be awarded by the Regional Administrator through a lottery. 

 (b) Before the NMFS Regional Administrator issues a Hoomalu Zone permit to 

fish for bottomfish, the primary operator and relief operator named on the application form must 

have completed a protected species workshop conducted by NMFS. 

 (c) An applicant must own at least a 25 percent share in the vessel that the permit 

would cover, and only one permit will be assigned to any vessel. 

(3) Mau Zone limited access permit: 

 (i) Eligibility for new Mau Zone limited access permits: 

 (a) The NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) will issue an initial Mau 

Zone permit to a vessel owner who qualifies for at least 3.0 points under the following point 

system: An owner who held a Mau Zone permit on or before December 17, 1991, and whose 

permitted vessel made at least one qualifying landing of BMUS on or before December 17, 1991, 

shall be assigned 1.5 points; an owner whose permitted vessel made at least one qualifying 

landing of BMUS during 1991 shall be assigned 0.5 point; an owner whose permitted vessel 

made at least one qualifying landing of BMUS during 1992 shall be assigned 1.0 point; an owner 

whose permitted vessel made at least one qualifying landing of BMUS during 1993 shall be 

assigned 1.5 points; an owner whose permitted vessel made at least one qualifying landing of 

BMUS during 1994 shall be assigned 2.0 points; an owner whose permitted vessel made at least 

one qualifying landing of BMUS during 1995 shall be assigned 2.5 points; and an owner whose 

permitted vessel made at least one qualifying landing of BMUS during 1996 shall be assigned 

3.0 points. A “qualifying landing” means any amount of BMUS lawfully harvested from the Mau 
52

Zone and offloaded for sale. No points shall be assigned to an owner for any qualifying landings 

reported to the State of Hawaii more than 1 year after the landing. 

 (b) More than one Mau Zone permit may be issued to an owner of two or more 

vessels provided each of the owner’s vessels for which a permit will be registered for use has 

made the required qualifying landings for the owner to be assigned at least 3.0 eligibility points. 

 (c) A Mau Zone permit holder who does not own a vessel at the time initial 

permits are issued must register the permit for use with a vessel owned by the permit holder 

within 12 months from the date the permit was issued. In the interim, the permit holder may 

register the permit for use with a leased or chartered vessel. If within 12 months of initial permit 

issuance, the permit holder fails to apply to the NMFS PIRO to register the permit for use with a 

vessel owned by the permit holder, then the permit expires. 

 (d) Before the NMFS PIRO issues a Mau Zone permit to fish for bottomfish, the 

primary operator and relief operator named on the application form must have completed a 

protected species workshop conducted by NMFS. 

 (e) A Mau Zone permit may be held by an individual, partnership, or corporation. 

No more than 49 percent of the underlying ownership interest in a Mau Zone permit may be sold, 

leased, chartered, or otherwise transferred to another person or entity. If more than 49 percent of 

the underlying ownership of the permit passes to persons or entities other than those listed in the 

original permit application supplemental information sheet, then the permit expires and must be 

surrendered to the NMFS PIRO. A Mau Zone permit holder may apply to the NMFS PIRO to 

register the permit for use with another vessel if that vessel is owned by the permit holder and is 

no longer than 60 feet (18.3 m). If a Mau Zone permit holder sells the vessel, for which the 

permit is registered for use, the permit holder must within 12 months of the date of sale apply to 

the NMFS PIRO to register the permit for use with a vessel owned by the permit holder. If the 

permit holder has not applied to register a replacement vessel within 12 months, then the permit 

expires. If a permitted vessel owned by the permit holder is sold or becomes not seaworthy, the 

Mau Zone permit with which the vessel was registered may be registered for use with a leased or 

chartered vessel for a period not to exceed 12 months from the date of registration of the leased 

or chartered vessel. If by the end of that 12-month period the permit holder fails to apply to the 

NMFS PIRO to register the permit for use with a vessel owned by the permit holder, then the 

permit expires. 

 (ii) A Mau Zone permit will be eligible for renewal if the vessel for which the permit is 

registered for use made at least five separate fishing trips with landings of at least 500 pounds 

(227 kg) of BMUS per trip during the calendar year. Only one landing of BMUS per fishing trip 

to the Mau Zone will be counted toward the landing requirement. If the vessel for which the 

permit is registered for use fails to meet the landing requirement, the owner may apply to the 

NMFS Regional Administrator for a waiver of the landing requirement. Grounds for a waiver are 

limited to captain incapacitation, vessel breakdowns, and the loss of the vessel at sea if the event 

prevented the vessel from meeting the landing requirement. Lack of profitability is not sufficient 

for waiver of the landing requirement. 

Prohibitions 

It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following: 

(1) Fish for bottomfish or seamount groundfish using prohibited gear. 
53

(2) Fish for, or retain on board a vessel BMUS in the Hoomalu Zone or Mau Zone without the 

appropriate permit registered for use with that vessel. 

(3) Serve as primary operator or relief operator on a vessel with a Mau Zone or Hoomalu Zone 

permit without completing a protected species workshop conducted by NMFS. 

(4) Fail to notify the USCG at least 24 hours prior to making any landing of bottomfish taken in 

the Hoomalu Zone. 

(5) Fish within any protected species study zone in the NWHI without notifying the NMFS PIRO 

of the intent to fish in these zones. Protected species study zones means the waters within 50 

nautical miles around the following islands of the NWHI and as measured from the following 

coordinates: Nihoa Island 23°05' N latitude, 161°55' W longitude; Necker Island 23°35' N 

latitude, 164°40' W longitude; French Frigate Shoals 23°45' N latitude, 166°15' W longitude; 

Gardner Pinnacles 25°00' N latitude, 168°00' W longitude; Maro Reef 25°25' N latitude, 170°35' 

W longitude; Laysan Island 25°45' N latitude, 171°45' W longitude; Lisianski Island 26°00' N 

latitude, 173°55' W longitude; Pearl and Hermes Reef 27°50' N latitude, 175°50' W longitude; 

Midway Island 28°14' N latitude, 177°22' W longitude; and Kure Island 28°25' N latitude, 

178°20' W longitude. 

Notification 

(1) The owner or operator of a fishing vessel must inform the NMFS PIRO at least 72 hours (not 

including weekends and holidays) before leaving port of his or her intent to fish within the 

protected species study zones. The notice must include the name of the vessel, name of the 

operator, intended departure and return dates, and a telephone number at which the owner or 

operator may be contacted during the business day (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) to indicate whether an 

observer will be required on the subject fishing trip. 

(2) The operator of a fishing vessel that has taken bottomfish in the Hoomalu Zone must contact 

the USCG, by radio or otherwise, at the 14th District, Honolulu, HI; Pacific Area, San Francisco, 

CA; or 17th District, Juneau, AK, at least 24 hours before landing, and report the port and the 

approximate date and time at which the bottomfish will be landed. 

At-Sea Observer Coverage 

All fishing vessels must carry an observer when directed to do so by the NMFS Regional 

Administrator. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Any person who is required to do so by applicable state law or regulation must make and/or file 

all reports of MUS landings containing all data and in the exact manner required by applicable 

state law or regulation. 

3.4.3.1.3 Observer Program 

During the period 1990–1993, observers were placed on NWHI bottomfish vessels to monitor 

protected species interactions, particularly interactions with the Hawaiian monk seal. More 

recently, the Hawaii-based NWHI bottomfish fishery has been monitored under a mandatory 
54

observer program since October 2003. Beginning then, PIRO personnel have conducted daily 

shore-side dock rounds in Honolulu to determine which fishing vessels are in port. The 

information is used to generate an estimate of fishing effort on a real-time basis by assuming that 

a vessel is fishing when it is absent from the harbor. From the fourth quarter of 2003 through the 

second quarter of 2005, observer coverage in the bottomfish fleet has averaged 21.4 percent, and 

there have been no interactions with protected species and bottomfish vessels. 

3.4.3.1.4 Data Collection 

The NMFS Pacific Islands Fishery Science Center (PIFSC) manages the Western Pacific 

Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN), a partnership with the state and territorial 

governments in the region for collecting, processing, analyzing, sharing, and managing fisheries 

data. Through the cooperative efforts of the member agencies, WPacFIN provides fisheries data 

and information to NMFS, the Fishery Council, and its various committees and advisory bodies 

to develop, implement, evaluate, and amend FMPs for the region. WPacFIN staff assists island 

agencies (including HDAR) in designing and implementing appropriate local fisheries data 

collecting, monitoring, analyzing and reporting programs, complete with associated 

microcomputer-based data processing systems. Staff members also help promote data standards 

to facilitate information analyses and reports. 

In regards to bottomfish fishery-dependent data collection, the HDAR has played a central role 

both within the MHI as well as the NWHI. Any fisherman who sells fish in Hawaii is required to 

have a Commercial Marine License (CML). These licenses may be “reporting” or “nonreporting.” A non-reporting license holder is typically a crewman on a vessel for which the 

captain does all the reporting. Reporting fishermen must submit Monthly Fishing Reports to 

HDAR by the tenth of the following month. 

For commercial fishermen with limited-entry federal NWHI bottomfish fishing permits, a NWHI 

Bottomfish Trip Daily Log is required for every day fished. These forms are due to HDAR by 

the tenth of the month after the end of the trip. These fishermen must also complete a NWHI 

Bottomfish Trip Sales Report for each fishing trip, but are not required to submit the Monthly 

Fishing Report. 

There are no mandatory reporting or permit programs for recreational fisheries in the State of 

Hawaii. Recreational fisheries do constitute significant harvests of fisheries resources in the 

state, and the lack of quality data in relation recreation fishing patterns and harvests does hamper 

fishery management decisions. The Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey (HMRFS) 

collects voluntary recreational fishing information on several fisheries in the state (e.g. shoreline 

pole and line); however, the HMRFS has not been effective in capturing quality data from the 

Hawaii recreational bottomfish fishery. In terms of landings, the recreational bottomfish fishery 

(those without ever having a CML and those with expired CMLs) is believed harvest at least 25 

percent to 70 percent of the total bottomfish catch (HDAR Bottomfish Fishery Survey 2005). 
55

3.4.3.1.5 Federal Enforcement 

Enforcement of federal fishery regulations around Hawaii is shared by the U.S. Coast Guard and 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. The USCG’s Fourteenth District is located in Hawaii, and 

two high-endurance cutters are home-ported in Honolulu. These cutters perform a variety of 

functions, including fishery regulations enforcement, throughout the Pacific Ocean. The 

District’s air wing is based on Oahu and consists of three C-130 aircraft and three HH-65 

helicopters that are used primarily for search and rescue. The C-130s also make law enforcement 

flights throughout the district’s area of responsibility. 

The NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Honolulu Field Office is responsible for enforcing 

federal laws and regulations pertaining to federally regulated fisheries and federally protected 

living marine resources. Four special agents, one fishery patrol officer, and three support 

employees routinely respond to alleged violations throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the 

Western Pacific Ocean. Enforcement is accomplished in cooperation with the USCG and the 

State of Hawaii. 

3.4.3.2 State of Hawaii Management Regime 

The state bottomfish fishery is managed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. In response to very low and decreasing SPR values 

for onaga and ehu in the MHI, HDAR developed and implemented new regulations for 

bottomfish fishing in state waters (Hawaii Administrative Rules [HAR] 13-94; effective June 1, 

1998). This rule established regulations for the deep-sea bottomfish fishery managed by the state 

and includes gear restrictions, noncommercial bag limits, 19 areas closed to bottomfish fishing 

(BFRAs), requirements for registration and identification of bottomfish fishing vessels, and a 

control date for possible future implementation of a limited access management regime. HDAR e 

is currently proposing new BRFAs throughout the state (see Section 2.2.2). 

3.4.3.2.1 State Regulations 

State of Hawaii regulations require any person who takes marine life for commercial purposes, 

whether within or outside of the state, to first obtain a commercial marine license from the 

HDAR. 

HAR 13-94, Bottomfish Management, defines “bottomfish” as seven deep-water species, 

including onaga, ehu, kalekale, ōpakapaka, gindai, hapuupuu, and lehi. Use or possession of nets, 

traps, trawls or bottomfish longlines in bottomfish fishing is prohibited. Non-commercial 

fishermen are limited to a maximum of five onaga or ehu, or a mix of both, per person. The rule 

also established 19 areas around the MHI closed to bottomfish fishing. Bottomfish fishing 

vessels must be registered with the state and identified with the letters “BF” and appropriate 

registration numbers (Department of Boating and Ocean Recreation vessel registration, federal 

fishery permit numbers or USCG vessel documentation number) on the vessel. A control date of 

June 1, 1998 was also established to potentially qualify applicants for a future limited entry 

program for commercial bottomfish fishing. 
56

HAR 13-95, Rules Regulating the Taking and Selling of Certain Marine Resources, establishes a 

minimum size of one pound for the sale of ōpakapaka, onaga, and uku. 

In September of 2005, Governor Linda Lingle, signed HAR 13 60.5, NWHI Marine Refuge, that 

put all State waters from Nihoa to Kure Atoll into a no extraction marine refuge. All commercial 

and recreational fishing is now prohibited in these waters. 

3.4.3.2.2 State Data Collection 

The State of Hawaii provides fishermen with a Commercial Fisheries Statistical Charts, a grid to 

facilitate reporting of catch by area. The inshore reporting grid areas are irregular shapes, and do 

not mirror known fishing grounds or habitat, and are not aligned with known management areas. 

The seaward boundaries of the inner grid areas generally lie two miles from shore. However, the 

grid has not been geo-referenced (Walter Ikehara, NMFS, formerly of HDAR, personal 

communication). The offshore grids are aligned by latitude and longitude on a Mercator 

Projection, giving standard 20 minute square grid areas. Any fisherman who sells fish in Hawaii 

is required to have a Commercial Marine License (CML). These licenses may be “reporting” or 

“non-reporting.” A non-reporting license holder is typically a crewman on a vessel for which the 

captain does all the reporting. Reporting fishermen must submit Monthly Fishing Reports to 

HDAR by the tenth of the following month. Starting March 1, 2006, HDAR begun a policy 

where fishermen wanting to renew their annual CML have to submit all of their missing reports 

or HDAR will not issue the fishermen a CML. The reason for this policy is to facilitate more 

complete and timely reporting (R. Kokubun, HDAR, personal communication). 

The shortcomings associated with reporting bottomfish based on the Commercial Fisheries 

Statistical grids are particularly problematic when Penguin Bank is considered. Penguin Bank 

(grid 331) (Figure 8) is almost entirely in federal waters and is a highly popular bottomfish 

fishing area. The edge of the reporting grid parallels the bank slope which is recognized as prime 

bottomfish habitat. Adjacent grids, such grid 429, include the bottomfish habitat on the east coast 

of Oahu. Fish reported in grid 429 could have come from Makapuu Point off of east Oahu or 

from the western edge of Penguin Bank. However, when meeting with active bottomfish 

fishermen who frequent Penguin Bank, they indicate that all catches taken in the Penguin Bank 

area are reported as coming from 331. Another problem associated with reporting grid 331 is that 

it does not allow for finer evaluation of fish caught from different locations on the Bank. Without 

good spatial data it is difficult to predict the immediate consequences of the action, and to 

monitor subsequent changes when the action is taken. 

The problems with the existing reporting grids are clear, however HDAR has been hesitant to 

revise the grid system because of concerns with an inability to compare historical to new catch 

area information. However, the importance of improving the reporting grid to facilitate 

monitoring and assessments is recognized by HDAR, and options for improving the grid are 

under consideration. 
57

Figure 8: State of Hawaii CML Statistical Grids around Penguin Bank. 

3.4.3.2.3 State Enforcement 

The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), which oversees the operations of the DLNR, 

has police powers, and appoints and commissions enforcement officers within the Division of 

Conservation and Resources Enforcement. Enforcement Officers (DOCARE) enforce statutes 

and regulations of the state in all state lands including public lands, state parks, forest reserves, 

forests, aquatic life and wildlife areas, Kahoolawe Island Reserve, and any other lands and 

waters within the state. Violations can be dealt with through the state criminal court system, 

administratively, or through the BLNR. There are approximately 130 DOCARE officers in the 

state, and as state above, their area of responsibility is wide ranging and includes both terrestrial 

and marine areas. DOCARE possesses several small vessels (approximately 25 ft) and two larger 

vessels (approximately 35 ft). 

Given the apparent lack of adequate funding to DOCARE over the past many years, DOCARE 

has not had the ability to properly enforce the state’s existing BRFAs (G. Moniz, DOCARE, 

personal communication). A consistent comment heard in the public scoping meetings related to 

this DSEIS is that there was never any enforcement of the BRFAs, nor enforcement of the 

recreational bottomfish bag limit. DOCARE states that in the eight years of the state’s BRFAs, 

they have only received two complaints about fishermen illegally fishing within a BRFA (G. 

Moniz, DOCARE, personal communication). 
58

3.4.4 Commercial Fisheries 

3.4.4.1 Participation and Effort 

In the small boat fishery around the MHI the distinction between “recreational” and 

“commercial” fishermen is extremely tenuous (Pooley 1993a). A statewide survey of small boat 

fishermen conducted during 1995 to 1996 indicated that of the 42 fishermen interviewed who 

predominately use bottomfish fishing gear, 80 percent sold a portion of their catch (WPRFMC 

1996). However, most of those selling fish are just trying to cover fishing trip expenses and do 

not expect a profit from their operation. 

The individuals participating in the MHI fishery who make trips longer than 24 hours are mostly 

full-time commercial fishermen. They typically operate larger boats than the part-time 

commercial/recreational 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. 

The majority of participants in the MHI fishery shift from species group to species group and 

from the bottomfish fishery to other fisheries, primarily the pelagic fishery, 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 (WPRFMC 1996). Based on 2005 survey conducted by HDAR, Saturday is the most 

common day of the week to go bottomfish fishing in the MHI. Seasonal price variability 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. 

The number of fishermen engaged in bottomfish fishing in the MHI increased dramatically in the 

1970s and 1980s, but then declined in the early 1990s, rebounded somewhat in the late 1990s, 

but in 2002 reached its lowest level since 1977 (Table 11; Figure 9). The 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. 
59

Table 11: Number of Commercial Vessels in the MHI Bottomfish Fishery, 1948–2002. 

Year No. Vessels Year No, Vessels Year No. Vessels

1948 207 1968 116 1988 572 

1949 196 1969 130 1989 537 

1950 164 1970 219 1990 501 

1951 126 1971 198 1991 469 

1952 110 1972 185 1992 407 

1953 106 1973 238 1993 403 

1954 103 1974 241 1994 423 

1955 108 1975 295 1995 400 

1956 106 1976 306 1996 487 

1957 102 1977 377 1997 502 

1958 96 1978 414 1998 498 

1959 76 1979 423 1999 483 

1960 69 1980 461 2000 495 

1961 65 1981 430 2001 404 

1962 98 1982 526 2002 386 

1963 110 1983 541 2003* 325 

1964 87 1984 558 M 465 

1965 85 1985 583 SD 66 

1966 97 1986 538 

1967 99 1987 535 

* 2003 Data Incomplete. 

Source: WPRFMC 2005c.. 

In contrast to the MHI fishery, bottomfish fishing in the NWHI is conducted solely by part-time 

and full-time commercial fishermen. The vessels venturing into the NWHI tend to be larger than 

those fishing around the MHI, as the distance to fishing grounds is greater (Haight et al. 1993a). 

The medium-sized powered vessels are 42 to 49 feet long. Because their smaller size limits 

fishing range and hold capacity, they usually operate in the lower (southeastern) end of the 
60

NWHI (Mau Zone) or in the MHI. The larger powered vessels are 47 to 64 feet long. With an 

average fuel capacity of 1,500 gallons, the vessels have a maximum range (round trip) of 1,800 

miles. The average maximum hold capacity is 4,000 pounds. 

Many of the boats that fish in the Mau Zone switch to different fisheries and move to other 

fishing grounds during the year. The majority of vessels fish in the Mau Zone during a season 

that generally extends from November to April. 

A 1993 survey of participants in the NWHI fishery found that vessels fishing in the Mau Zone 

made an average of 12.7 trips to the area to target bottomfish and 3.4 trips to target pelagic fish 

or a mixture of pelagic species and bottomfish (Hamilton 1994). 

Because the NWHI bottomfish fishing grounds were divided into the Mau Zone and Hoomalu 

Zone in 1988, the Mau Zone has generally seen a greater share of the fishing effort as access to 

the Hoomalu Zone was restricted under a limited access program (WPRFMC 1999). Only five 

vessels harvested bottomfish in the Mau Zone in 1989, but during the 1990s an average of ten 

vessels fished in the area (Table 12). The amount of effort (fishing days) expended in the Mau 

Zone has fluctuated along with the number of active vessels. Mau Zone activity levels peaked in 

1994 with a total of 594 fishing days as a result of a combination of relatively large fleet size and 

intensive activity by each vessel. 

Table 12: Number of Vessels in the NWHI Bottomfish Fishery, 1984–2003. 

Year Mau Hoomalu Total2 Year Mau Hoomalu Total2

1984 NA NA 19 19951 10 5 15 

1985 NA NA 23 19963 13 3 16 

1986 NA NA 24 19973 9 6 15 

1987 NA NA 28 19982 7 7 13 

1988 4 12 13 19993 7 6 13 

1989 5 5 10 20003 6 5 11 

1990 14 5 16 20013 6 5 11 

19911 14 4 17 20023 5 4 9 

19921 8 5 13 20033 5 4 9 

19931 8 4 12 M 8.31 5.25 13.06 

19941 12 5 16 SD 3.36 1.98 2.59 

Note. 1

Based on NMFS and HDAR data. 2 Total may not match sum of areas due to vessel 

participation in both areas. 3

Based on HDAR data. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish 

Annual Report. 
61

Eighty-one permits to fish in the Mau Zone have been issued since 1989, but only 37 of the 

permits were actually used. The turnover rate has been high, with only 38 percent of the 37 

active vessels fishing in the Mau Zone for more than 2 years. A limited access program was 

established for the Mau Zone in 1999, and ten vessels are allowed to fish in the area under the 

Bottomfish FMP. Permits to fish in the Mau Zone are nontransferable and subject to a use-it-orlose-it requirement. At present, there is no procedure for issuance of new Mau Zone limited 

access permits. Currently, there are 4 permitted bottomfish vessels fishing the Mau Zone. 

A limited access program was established for the Hoomalu Zone in 1989. Since 1995, the 

number of vessels allowed to fish in the area has been set at seven. Permits to fish in the 

Hoomalu Zone are non-transferable and subject to a use-it-or-lose-it requirement. New Hoomalu 

Zone limited access permits are issued based on a point system. Since 1989, 17 permits to fish in 

the Hoomalu Zone have been issued, of which 15 have been used. In comparison to the Mau 

Zone, the Hoomalu Zone exhibits more continuity in participation, but the turnover has still been 

fairly high. Only about half of the active vessels have fished in the Hoomalu Zone for more than 

two years. Currently, there are four permitted bottomfish vessels active in the fishery. 

Table 13 summarizes the number of trips taken per year in each of the Hawaii bottomfish fishing 

zones. In the Mau Zone, the largest number of trips occurred in 1994 and 1995 at nearly 100 in 

each year. From 1998 to 2002 the number of trips to this zone has averaged 49, although in 2002, 

76 trips were made. 

The number of trips to the Hoomalu Zone peaked in its inaugural year, 1988, and has only 

reached 50 trips once thereafter (1998). Between 1998 and 2002, the average number of trips 

made there is 38 per year. 

Recorded (commercial) trips in the MHI peaked at 5,091 in 1989. Prior to 1979, there had never 

been a year with more than 2,000 trips. The MHI fishery peaked in the period 1983–1989, when 

the annual number of trips averaged 4,414. The highest number of MHI annual trips since then is 

3,810 in 2000. The average number of MHI trips between 1998 and 2002 is 3024. The 2003 

total, although incomplete, is the lowest in 25 years (see Figure 9). 

Table 13: Number of Trips in the Hawaii Bottomfish Fishery, 1988–2003. 

Year Mau Hoomalu Total NWHI MHI

1988 21 72 93 4,911 

1989 22 28 50 5,091 

1990 55 25 80 3,242 

19911 84 47 131 2,895 

19921 55 37 92 3,401 

19931 72 34 106 1,977 
62

Year Mau Hoomalu Total NWHI MHI

19941 99 41 140 2,333 

19951 97 33 130 2,031 

19962 81 26 107 2,780 

19972 53 38 91 3,158 

19982 39 50 89 3,023 

19992 30 48 78 2,970 

20002 47 36 83 3,810 

20012,3 55 41 87 2,761 

20022, 76 26 102 2,556 

20032,4 37 39 76 1,517 

M 

SD

Note. 1NWHI data from combination NMFS and HDAR. 2Data from HDAR. 32001 data are a 

combination of HDAR data sets. 4

Incomplete data. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 

Bottomfish Annual Report. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997

Year

Number of boats

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Number of Trips

Vessels Trips

Figure 9. MHI Bottomfish Vessels and Trips by Year. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, Bottomfish 

2003 Annual Report. 
63

Table 14 summarizes the number of MHI bottomfish fishing trips by area. For the most recent 

years for which data are available there have been on average 445 trips to Penguin Bank, but 

only nine to Middle Bank. 

Table 14: Summary of Number of Trips1 by Area. 

Zone Name 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hawaii (island) state water (0–2) 638 499 427 403

Hawaii (island) federal water 890 752 565 489

Hawaii (island) both 1,526 1,249 992 891

MMLK state water (0–2) 480 359 363 355

MMLK federal water 909 605 613 558

MMLK both 1,386 960 973 908

Penguin Bank federal water 480 377 496 426

MMLK plus 331 federal water 1,865 1,336 1,469 1,332

Oahu state water (0–2) 203 143 184 214

Oahu federal water 361 255 335 402

Oahu both 563 398 518 612

Kauai state water (0–2) 143 140 187 112

Kauai federal water 333 236 193 93

Kauai both 475 376 379 205

Middle Bank federal water 17 8 7 5

Note. MMLK (Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe) does not include Penguin Banks, until mentioned otherwise. 1 

Trip/License by areas may not be additive because the fisherman may have fished in more than one area 

during a single trip. The more than one area per trip may be divided into state/federal or multiple areas within 

each broad destination. Trip = 1 day fished. Source: Kawamoto and Tao 2005. 

Table 15 summarizes the number of participants using state and federal bottomfish fishing areas 

around the MHI. As reflected by the numbers of trips shown in Table 13, Penguin Bank is a 

highly popular area, used on average during the past 4 years by 61 license holders. In contrast, 

Middle Bank, much less accessible to smaller boats and those based farther south, was used on 

average by only about three license holders per year. 
64

Table 15. Summary of Unique License Numbers1 by Area. 

Zone name 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hawaii (island) state water (0–2) 76 62 64 57

Hawaii (island) federal water 116 98 84 44

Hawaii (island) both 178 153 131 89

MMLK state water (0–2) 81 63 61 59

MMLK federal water 102 91 80 66

MMLK both 146 120 112 99

Penguin Bank federal water 77 58 59 50

MMLK plus 331 federal water 209 168 163 145

Oahu state water (0–2) 56 41 51 53

Oahu federal water 76 51 52 46

Oahu both 120 81 91 89

Kauai state water (0–2) 32 35 40 37

Kauai federal water 61 46 42 16

Kauai both 85 71 66 44

Middle Bank federal water 5 4 2 2

Note. MMLK (Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe) does not include Penguin Banks, until mentioned otherwise. 

1

Trip/License by areas may not be additive because the fisherman may have fished in more than one area during a 

single trip. The more than one area per trip may be divided into state/federal or multiple areas within each 

broad destination. Trip = 1 day fished. Source: Kawamoto and Tao 2005. 

3.4.4.2 Landings 

Only commercial landings data are available for the MHI fishery because the State of Hawaii 

does not require a saltwater recreational fishing license and there are no state or federal reporting 

requirements for recreational fishing in the waters around Hawaii. It is estimated that the 

recreational/subsistence catch in the MHI bottomfish fishery is about equal to the commercial 

catch (WPRFMC 1999). Charter boat operators are considered to be commercial fishermen 

under Hawaii statute and therefore are required to submit monthly catch reports. Consequently, 

charter boat catches are included in estimates of commercial landings. 

Based on recent (1999 to 2003) landings data, commercial bottomfish catches in the MHI fishery 

represent approximately 60 percent of the total commercial bottomfish landings in Hawaii 

(WPRFMC 2003). If, as has been suggested, unreported noncommercial landings, virtually all of 

which are from the MHI, are approximately equal to the reported commercial landings from the 

MHI, it would mean that about 75 percent of Hawaii’s bottomfish landings are from the MHI. 

The annual bottomfish landings in the MHI have been fairly stable for the past 10 years (Table 

16), however, in the past 3 years landings have trended downward (Figure 10) reflecting a rather 

sharp drop in participation. 
65

Table 16: Commercial Bottomfish Landings in the MHI and NWHI 1984–2003 (1,000 lbs). 

Year Mau Hoomalu Total NWHI MHI2

1984 NA NA 661 807 

1985 NA NA 922 763 

1986 NA NA 869 810 

1987 NA NA 1,015 783 

1988 NA NA 625 1,164 

1989 118 184 303 1,006 

1990 249 173 421 646 

19911 103 283 387 548 

19921 71 353 424 587 

19931 98 287 385 348 

19941 160 283 443 458 

19951 166 202 369 440 

19961 133 176 309 440 

19971 105 241 346 513 

19981 66 266 332 479 

19992 54 269 323 455 

2000 49 213 262 497 

2001 50 236 286 367 

20024 108 120 228 362 

20033,4 77 145 222 273 

M 107.13 228.73 336.00 494.60 

SD 53.89 63.03 235.53 233.77 

Note. 1

NWHI data from combination NMFS and HDAR. 2. Data from HDAR. 3Incomplete data. 

4

MHI data incomplete. Source: WPFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 
66

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

1000 lb 

MAU HOOMALU TOTAL NWHI MHI

Figure 10: Commercial Bottomfish Landings in Hawaii by Year and Management Zone. 

Source: WPFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

Total NWHI bottomfish landings grew dramatically in the mid-1980s and then tailed off, 

stabilizing in the 1990s at a level slightly below the MHI bottomfish landings (Table 16). 

The ex-vessel sales of BMUS in 2002 clearly show the substantial effects of changes in fishing 

strategy and participation in the fishery. The overall vessel sales reports indicate that the total 

NWHI BMUS landings were substantially lower in 2002 (Table 16). A single vessel dropped out 

of each management zone with varying effects on the overall zone landings. Although the Mau 

Zone lost a vessel, there were some vessels that did increase their targeting of bottomfish 

contrary to their usual pelagic species/mixed species targeting strategy. The BMUS landings in 

the Mau Zone increased by 116 percent (Table 16) while the number of trips increased by 38 

percent. The Hoomalu Zone lost a single participating highliner vessel and the effects of that loss 

were realized in the 49 percent decrease in landings and the 36 percent decrease in the number of 

trips from that zone. 

In 2003, the number of vessels fishing in the Mau and Hoomalu Zones remained constant from 

the previous year, but the number of trips taken changed substantially in both zones. In 2003, 

Mau Zone trips decreased by 51 percent, while Hoomalu Zone trips increased by 50 percent. 

These shifts in effort resulted in a 29 percent decrease in Mau Zone landings and a 21 percent 

increase in Hoomalu Zone landings. 

In the MHI, landings peaked in the 1988 to 1989 period, coincident with the historical maximum 

number of recorded trips. In recent years, landings have trended downward, with the 2003 

landings being the lowest since 1970, reflecting the 25-year low in number of trips. 

Table 17 summarizes NWHI BMUS landings by species. From 1991 through 1998, ōpakapaka 

landings were greater than those of any other species in the NWHI. From 1999 through 2001, 
67

however, onaga landings were higher than those of any other species. For the two most recent 

years, uku landings have predominated. For comparison, Table 18 summarizes MHI BMUS 

landings by species over the same period. Opakapaka landings were greater than those of any 

other species in every year. 

Table 19 summarizes bottomfish landings from areas around the MHI. Reflecting the pattern 

observed for effort and participation, the landings for Penguin Bank are substantial, but those for 

Middle Bank are the lowest for any of the areas. The Penguin Bank landings have averaged 

nearly 60,000 pounds annually, but there has been a general downward trend over the past four 

years. 
68

Table 17: NWHI BMUS Landings by Species (1,000 lbs). Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. Table 18: MHI BMUS Landings by Species (1,000 lbs). 

Species 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2Opakapaka 147 134 178 103 158 137 171 172 168 155 179 108 1Onaga 108 89 72 43 52 49 81 83 69 72 89 54 6Ehu 34 27 29 18 18 21 34 31 28 23 35 22 1Hapuupuu 15 14 14 9 13 14 14 17 14 12 19 12 8 Uku 109 90 88 61 72 59 64 81 74 108 96 66 5

Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

Species 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2

Opakapaka 79 86 145 158 145 105 79 109 87 77 53 67 3Onaga 21 46 23 40 42 53 30 55 48 93 92 73 5Ehu 25 20 8 11 15 8 17 15 17 17 13 14 1Hapuupuu 85 59 57 59 68 54 49 57 70 59 23 31 2Butaguchi 103 75 79 64 61 47 46 51 38 28 29 32 2Uku 77 69 86 33 78 75 62 37 55 36 43 59 6Other BMUS 

23 22 18 19 27 17 25 19 15 11 9 12 1
69

Table 19: Summary of Pounds Caught by Area. 

Zone Name 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hawaii (island) state water 

(0–2) 31,713 21,567 16,689 22,310

Hawaii (island) federal water 47,422 39,450 29,302 24,191

Hawaii (island) both 79,135 61,017 45,991 46,501

MMLK state water (0–2) 46,304 31,909 37,430 38,616

MMLK federal water 105,527 61,962 69,338 61,407

MMLK both 151,831 93,871 106,768 100,023

Penguin Bank federal water 77,910 52,391 62,913 45,459

MMLK plus 331 federal 

water 229,741 146,262 169,681 145,482

Oahu state water (0–2) 6,014 4,621 6,933 9,768

Oahu federal water 31,190 17,097 19,066 19,877

Oahu both 37,204 21,718 25,999 29,645

Kauai State water (0–2) 13,203 10,082 10,665 7,272

Kauai federal water 22,028 25,676 28,822 22,104

Kauai both 35,231 35,758 39,487 29,376

Middle Bank federal water Confidential Data1

Note. MMLK (Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe) does not include Penguin Banks, until mentioned otherwise. 1

Trip/License by areas may not be additive because the fisherman may have fished in more than one area 

during a single trip. The more than one area per trip may be divided into state/federal or multiple areas 

within each broad destination. Trip = 1 day fished. Source: Kawamoto and Tao, 2005. 

To illustrate the importance of Penguin Bank and Middle Bank to the MHI bottomfish fishery, 

Figure 11 plots landings of the seven major bottomfish species from those two areas as a 

proportion of the total MHI landings of those species. That proportion has varied from a low of 

12 percent in 1999 to a high of 25 percent in 1994. The proportion was 19 percent in 2004. 

There is an annual cycle of landings from Penguin and Middle Banks, as can be seen in Figure 

12. Landings peak in December and January and are lowest in June and July. 
70

13

15

13

19

25

22

20

18

16

12

15 15 15

13

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

Year

Year

Percent

Figure 11: Landings from Penguin and Middle Banks as a Percentage of Total 

MHI Landings (Deep 7 Species). Source: Kawamoto and Tao, 2005. 

Mean 1990 - 2004

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Pounds Caught

Figure 12: Monthly Landings From Penguin and Middle Banks. Source: 

Kawamoto and Tao, 2005. 
71

The following tables present additional, newer analyses of landings by species and landings by 

month in the Hawaii bottomfish fishing zones. Tables 20 to 22 and Figure 13 show the species 

composition of the three bottomfish management zones in the Hawaiian Islands archipelago 

between 1996 and 2004. Between five and seven species form over 90 percent of catch in each 

management area. In the MHI, catches are dominated by opakapaka, onaga, uku, taape, 

papio/ulua, ehu, and kalekale, with opakapaka, onaga and uku accounting for almost two thirds 

of landings. Another distinguishing feature of MHI bottomfish catches is the relatively large 

amount of ta’ape, which forms over 13 percent of landings. Ta’ape is found in only relatively 

small quantities in landings from the Mau Zone and is not recorded in Hoomalu Zone landings. 

Uku or the green snapper, Aprion virescens, is also a major component of MHI bottomfish 

catches, and is the most dominant feature of bottomfish catches from the Mau Zone, where it 

forms almost 40 percent of the catch. The other dominant species in Mau Zone catches include

butaguchi, opakapaka, hapuupuu, onaga, and ehu. Butaguchi, opakapaka, and hapuupuu all make 

similar contributions to the catch, while onaga forms less than 10 percent of catches. In the 

neighboring Hoomalu Zone, onaga, and opakapaka make up just over half of the catches, with 

the balance of the catch formed principally by hapuupuu, uku, and butaguchi. 

These catch composition data indicate quite clearly that there are major differences in the catch 

composition between the three zones. Opakapaka and onaga account for about half the landings 

from the MHI and Hoomalu Zone but are a much smaller fraction (21 percent) of the Mau Zone 

landings, which are dominated by shallow water bottomfish species, particularly uku and 

butaguchi. 
72

Figure 13: Average Species Composition (1996–2004) of Bottomfish Catches from the 

Three Bottomfish Management Zones in the Hawaii Archipelago. Source: 

Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005. 
73

Table 20: MHI BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Species and Year, 1996–2004. 

MHI Zone Year Species Name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2Hapuupuu 11,466 14,215 11,346 10,106 16,183 11,105 8,411 10,Kahala 5,526 12,108 21,805 17,599 22,573 13,823 11,336 4,Kalekale 21,788 21,252 19,886 11,190 16,659 11,759 11,451 9,Opakapaka 148,730 145,807 141,958 129,155 149,879 100,003 108,917 115,Uku 53,309 67,976 61,105 89,834 80,036 57,469 56,930 44,Ehu 28,286 25,798 23,728 19,429 29,522 20,911 17,441 15,Onaga 67,550 69,145 58,325 60,981 74,531 54,993 68,981 71,Papio/Ulua 35,579 41,330 40,770 25,039 23,409 24,585 20,605 1,Lehi 8,839 12,367 8,647 9,859 10,834 10,427 9,536 8,Gindai 3,143 2,812 3,346 2,390 3,653 3,127 2,129 2,Taape 44,195 85,491 74,851 70,073 55,041 47,551 39,399 37,Armorhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Butaguchi 3,261 5,926 1,944 1,796 2,653 1,737 1,649 1,Gunkan ulua 52 192 315 12 73 123 421 1,White ulua 6,213 2,204 3,717 2,977 4,046 4,202 4114 12,Yellow-tail kali 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005. 
74

Table 21: Mau Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, total by Species and Year, 1996–2004. 

Mau Zone Year Species Name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2Hapuupuu 20,166 13,838 7,517 5,777 4,657 4,266 17,110 17,Kahala 205 0 480 1,206 2,024 387 1,285 Kalekale 7,729 3,985 1,630 1,257 2,638 2,016 3,099 1,Opakapaka 15,632 26,586 9,428 7,918 6,987 4,182 15,405 6,Uku 47,610 24,621 32,152 27,144 13,033 19,086 44,679 53,Ehu 12,238 4,070 3,091 4,231 5,159 6,083 6,702 3,Onaga 10,865 17,301 1,835 3,969 3,462 3,824 9,725 6,Papio/Ulua 15 0 12 0 0 0 0 Lehi 201 47 43 36 575 25 26 Gindai 3,487 1,036 613 1,109 841 608 1,400 Taape 40 9 2 5 17 47 24 Armorhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Butaguchi 25,289 16,461 9,113 7,229 14,365 8,328 10,391 8,Gunkan ulua 872 547 450 248 183 224 1169 White ulua 818 500 237 129 298 551 785 Yellow-tail Kali 49 0 25 6 0 0 6 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005. 
75

Table 22: Hoomalu Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Species and Year, 1996–2004. 

Hoomalu Zone Year Species Name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2Hapuupuu 21,892 44,490 65,313 56,018 20,595 21,107 12,670 19Kahala 30 48 0 100 0 320 0 Kalekale 1,708 3,913 3,710 3,201 1,563 1,499 1,053 1Opakapaka 61,568 85,465 75,537 71,841 50,487 52,901 22,846 15Uku 16,328 14,853 23,040 13,758 29,824 36,491 14,861 41Ehu 6,163 11,230 14,988 14,161 8,487 8,372 3,836 7Onaga 18,997 38,296 49,851 94,594 91,354 70,630 47,204 48Papio/Ulua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lehi 0 17 0 0 4 0 11 Gindai 1,684 4,289 4,501 2,860 1,153 1,362 1,546 1Taape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Armorhead 0 0 12 11 8 0 0 Butaguchi 23,515 36,817 30,257 22,726 21,388 19,432 20,325 14Gunkan ulua 0 0 0 0 377 0 0 White ulua 11,646 5,244 6,523 2,638 1,624 5,249 2,939 Yellow-tail Kali 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales, 2005
76

Table 23: MHI BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004. 

MHI Zone Year Month 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 January 53,913 57,773 83,724 41,694 36,722 53,068 41,446 36,027 February 31,793 49,515 50,500 38,532 76,062 39,302 30,018 29,006 March 39,422 44,093 59,069 23,414 41,962 39,919 31,590 43,604 April 27,485 49,829 21,049 23,257 21,017 15,107 41,743 22,804 May 33,442 39,580 24,274 43,720 46,075 36,673 35,601 26,174 June 29,063 19,230 27,453 41,339 45,679 22,055 20,026 28,205 July 21,726 25,949 28,874 32,397 19,217 22,966 20,091 10,465 August 36,038 35,942 32,975 27,990 26,018 16,679 16,034 14,445 September 37,985 43,304 27,091 35,115 42,427 18,703 37,909 30,453 October 42,197 39,819 32,598 41,357 24,360 26,998 17,953 38,647 November 36,172 45,343 30,030 33,580 26,445 37,458 30,072 19,419 December 48,701 56,246 54,106 68,045 83,108 32,892 38,838 37,301 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales, 20
77

Table 24: Mau Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004. 

Mau Zone Year Month 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 January 13,330 15,195 7,792 3,331 2,158 1,060 1,218 5,074 February 12,349 21,853 11,791 4,411 1,116 3,009 6,840 9,152 March 11,729 10,340 10,596 3,918 0 3,528 14,170 11,886 April 11,712 18,329 1,871 498 665 1,675 10,558 4,901 May 12,011 6,527 896 5,337 4,038 4,495 8,161 11,646 June 19,154 9,420 3,238 0 8,215 2,665 3,913 15,981 July 13,399 8,206 1,567 4,832 10,243 7,180 12,190 2,658 August 11,667 5,022 2,576 1,877 13,205 8,954 10,778 14,010 September 15,032 602 2,563 11,345 2,981 9,547 10,516 5,667 October 9,606 1,580 13,790 9,910 3,215 1,547 15,255 5,510 November 5,007 4,986 6,065 7,188 2,460 4,620 10,865 7,925 December 10,220 6,941 3,883 7,617 5,943 1,347 7,342 4,318 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales, 20
78

Table 25: Hoomalu Zone BMUS Pounds Caught, Totals by Month and Year, 1996–2004. 

Hoomalu Zone Year Month 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 January 18,379 17,395 16,112 28,454 15,890 31,447 7,455 2,570 February 8,195 10,309 17,021 21,406 20,223 21,801 10,079 16,918 March 9,074 24,540 21,509 29,789 28,657 14,234 16,061 9,062 April 14,631 25,114 18,960 24,318 21,207 19,509 6,377 21,553 May 9,630 21,267 18,457 19,028 22,054 16,522 9,621 10,101 June 14,622 11,131 20,377 30,530 13,515 17,458 8,545 13,424 July 14,182 19,297 24,165 18,433 10,188 18,678 5,178 14,123 August 11,279 20,444 23,197 26,220 20,905 12,680 10,952 11,041 September 8,791 21,655 31,516 19,868 16,180 15,042 4,538 10,448 October 22,489 25,946 35,480 16,116 22,802 16,857 16,049 11,222 November 9,821 27,014 21,265 22,922 17,867 13,801 12,384 13,630 December 22,438 20,550 25,673 24,824 17,376 19,334 20,052 17,606 

Note. Pounds caught are from adjusted values whenever possible. Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales, 20
79

Table 26: Summary of Pounds Caught (Deep 7 Species) in the MHI by Month, 1990–2003. 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

January 26,635 45,411 57,226 35,839 41,351 54,854 40,228 38,597 59,489 28,136 23,739 36,585 February 36,789 35,152 28,224 22,323 34,868 49,352 24,176 29,573 29,824 22,689 60,214 22,275 March 39,815 14,702 33,345 16,456 29,416 32,402 29,735 26,097 37,486 13,542 32,340 24,748 April 33,472 12,391 39,069 10,926 15,466 18,240 18,833 28,920 8,857 10,426 13,634 6,837 May 15,177 13,164 23,527 11,559 12,226 16,317 15,277 20,107 9,742 16,859 19,573 16,267 June 9,797 11,498 11,599 9,717 10,848 10,618 11,131 5,992 9,262 10,368 14,996 9,098 July 28,332 19,155 14,437 10,922 14,068 10176 10,636 10,597 6,621 7,807 5,377 9,484 August 27,276 17,068 11,065 17,597 21,840 8,738 19,617 1,5845 11,107 8,955 9,208 7,489 September 27,078 27,643 17,595 33,102 35,029 26,225 26,579 20,317 15,341 20,368 24,220 8,736 October 28,574 43,493 35,785 29,622 37,287 15,131 29,794 22,477 21,199 26,597 15,341 18,626 November 37,586 29,607 23,848 22,640 14,448 28,774 26,357 30,477 17,696 24,217 17,914 26,829 December 43,733 31,661 44,500 49,247 52,030 59,810 37,439 42,397 40,612 53,146 64,705 25,351 Summary 354,264 300,945 340,220 269,950 318,877 330,637 289,802 291,396 267,236 243,110 301,261 212,325 

Note. Deep 7 BMUS species list does not include uku (Aprion virescens). 1998 is the year that State of Hawaii in

species area closures and recreational bottomfish bag limits. Data sets used were all from the most recent HOctober 2005. Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005. 
80

Table 27: Summary of Pounds Caught (Deep 7 Species) in MHI Federal Jurisdiction by Month, 1990–2004

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

January 5,409 6,933 5,481 7,461 7,352 12,509 11,801 7,263 16,711 3,649 3,441 6,09February 4,800 5,822 4,497 3,742 8,978 8,906 6,348 5,517 5,147 2,197 12,468 5,27March 5,662 1,449 4,895 3,924 7,778 7,975 6,124 2,882 5,458 1,193 7,955 6,04April 4,717 3,266 4,760 1,607 3,882 6,615 4,643 4,770 1,313 1,377 2,053 1,32May 834 3,264 3,277 1,825 3,807 6,025 1,631 3,997 1,166 2,510 713 2,07June 1,049 2,048 1,606 1,317 3,993 2,746 1,759 1,538 372 997 929 747 July 2,023 2,693 1,944 1,289 7,271 2,124 1,599 2,869 402 1164 398 1240 August 3,670 2,470 1,114 3,800 6,381 1,985 1,924 3,198 1,099 988 194 1039 September 4,012 1,661 1,447 5,154 8,341 5,996 2,509 6,099 1,417 1,378 3,195 816 October 3,923 6,690 4,935 7,096 7,816 4,252 7,481 5,156 3,623 4,030 2,157 1,84November 5,440 5,994 3,895 4,528 4,008 3,078 6,511 3,812 2,866 1,280 1,341 3,07December 6,129 3,820 5,108 10,141 11,259 10,081 5,485 5,031 3,685 8,096 11,082 3,28Summary 47,668 46,110 42,959 51,884 80,866 72,292 57,815 52,132 43,259 28,859 45,926 32,8Note. Deep 7 BMUS species list does not include uku (Aprion virescens). 1998 is the year that State of Hawaii 

instituted bottomfish species area closures and recreational bottomfish bag limits. Source: Kawamoto et a2005. 
81

Table 28: Federal Area Pounds Caught as Percentage of the Total Deep 7 Species Pounds Caught. 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200

January 20% 15% 10% 21% 18% 23% 29% 19% 28% 13% 14% 17% 14% February 13% 17% 16% 17% 26% 18% 26% 19% 17% 10% 21% 24% 18% March 14% 10% 15% 24% 26% 25% 21% 11% 15% 9% 25% 24% 14% April 14% 26% 12% 15% 25% 36% 25% 16% 15% 13% 15% 19% 16% May 5% 25% 14% 16% 31% 37% 11% 20% 12% 15% 4% 13% 16% June 11% 18% 14% 14% 37% 26% 16% 26% 4% 10% 6% 8% 23% July 7% 14% 13% 12% 52% 21% 15% 27% 6% 15% 7% 13% 5% August 13% 14% 10% 22% 29% 23% 10% 20% 10% 11% 2% 14% 3% September 15% 6% 8% 16% 24% 23% 9% 30% 9% 7% 13% 9% 16% October 14% 15% 14% 24% 21% 28% 25% 23% 17% 15% 14% 10% 16% November 14% 20% 16% 20% 28% 11% 25% 13% 16% 5% 7% 11% 16% December 14% 12% 11% 21% 22% 17% 15% 12% 9% 15% 17% 13% 16% 

Summary 13% 15% 13% 19% 25% 22% 20% 18% 16% 12% 15% 15% 15% 

Note. Deep 7 BMUS species list does not include uku (Aprion virescens). 1998 is the year that State of Ha

bottomfish species area closures and recreational bottomfish bag limits. Table data are expressed pe

pounds caught, [(PB + MB)/MHI] × 100. Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005.
82

Table 29: Pounds of Deep 7 Species Caught at Penguin Bank by Month, 1990–2004. 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

January 5,409 6,933 5,481 7,088 7,352 11,533 11,759 6,476 16,711 3,649 3,441 6,099 February 4,493 5,805 2,759 3,742 8,909 8,417 5,784 5,499 5,147 2,197 12,359 5,270 March 5,662 1,449 3,806 2,458 7,717 7,683 5,957 2,882 5,458 1,193 7,352 6,043 April 4,717 3,225 4,714 1,607 3,178 5,927 4,619 4,770 1,313 1,209 2,053 1,322 May 834 3,160 3,277 1,816 3,558 3,014 1,631 3,949 1,166 2,510 713 2,073 June 1,049 1,139 1,606 1,317 3,080 2,022 1,759 1,285 372 997 603 744 July 2,017 2,684 884 1,289 5,483 1,375 1,599 2,252 402 1,164 355 1236 August 2,284 2,222 563 3,800 4,714 1,985 1,924 3,198 1,099 988 194 1039 September 3,775 1,639 874 5,154 7,136 5,735 2,446 6,099 1,417 1,378 2,026 775 October 3,923 6,690 4,505 6,939 6,792 4,252 7,481 5,156 3,623 4,030 1,414 1,840 November 5,408 5,688 3,874 4,528 2,877 3,014 5,746 3,812 2,866 1,280 813 3,076 December 6,129 3,727 4,896 9,806 10,954 9,069 5,455 5,031 3,685 8,096 10,943 3,275 

Note. Deep 7 BMUS species list does not include uku (Aprion virescens). 1998 is the year that State of Hawaii in

species area closures and recreational bottomfish bag limits. Area 331 is the only area designated in the Staarea as Penguin Bank. Data sets used were all from the most recent HDAR data received in October 2005.Sal. 2005. 
83

Table 30: Pounds of Deep 7 Species Caught at Middle Bank by Month, 1990–2004. 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200

January 0 0 0 373 0 976 42 787 0 0 0 February 307 17 1,738 0 69 489 564 18 0 0 109 March 0 0 1,089 1,466 61 292 167 0 0 0 603 April 0 41 46 0 704 688 24 0 0 168 0 May 0 104 0 9 249 3,011 0 48 000June 0 909 0 0 913 724 0 253 0 0 326 July 6 9 1,060 0 1,788 749 0 617 0 0 43 August 1,386 248 551 0 1,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 September 237 22 573 0 1,205 261 63 0 0 0 1169 4October 0 0 430 157 1,024 0 0 0 0 0 743 November 32 306 21 0 1,131 64 765 0 0 0 528 December 0 93 212 335 305 1,012 30 0 0 0 139 

Note: Deep 7 BMUS species list does not include uku (Aprion virescens). 1998 is the year that State of Hawaii 

species area closures and recreational bottomfish bag limits. Areas denoted as Middle Bank are 578, 579, 

sets used were all from the most recent HDAR data received in October 2005. Source: Kawamoto et al. 2
84

Tables 22 to 24 and Figure 14 show the monthly landings of BMUS from the three management 

zones in the Hawaii Archipelago. There is a clear difference in the seasonal pattern of landings 

between the MHI and the two zones in the NWHI. MHI bottomfish landings peak between 

November and March, which reflects the demand for red snappers over the holiday season 

between Thanksgiving and the New Year period, which also includes the Chinese and 

Vietnamese new years. On the other hand, landings from the MHI are lowest in the summer 

months, between June and August, presumably as MHI fishermen take vacations at this time. By 

contrast, both the Mau and Hoomalu Zone monthly landings do not show much of a seasonal 

pattern, being relatively steady throughout the year, with the suggestion of a response from the 

Mau Zone to offset the mid-year trough in the MHI production. 

Tables 25 to 30 summarize data on the Deep 7 bottomfish species complex in order to ascertain 

the impacts of closing those waters under federal jurisdiction in the MHI. This includes primarily 

penguin Bank and Middle Bank, most of which lie beyond the 3-mile limit under the jurisdiction 

of the State of Hawaii. Not surprisingly, Figure 15 shows that the seasonal pattern of landings 

observed for the MHI in Figure 14 is similar for the Deep 7 bottomfish complex. The monthly 

percentage of the MHI bottomfish landings formed by catches from federal waters ranges on 

average from 13 to 18 percent (Figure 16) with an overall average of 17 percent. 

The average monthly pattern of landings of Deep 7 species from the two principal bottom-fishing 

grounds in federal waters are shown in Figure 17. The monthly landings at Penguin Bank reflect 

the trend for the MHI as a whole but with a much sharper decline during the summer months 

lasting from April to September. The data for the Deep 7 landings at Middle Bank are much 

patchier, with many months in different years with no landings from this fishing ground. 

However, the average trend suggests that the pattern of landings from this fishing ground is more 

or less the converse of the typical MHI pattern, with landings peaking between May and 

October. 

In summary, the patterns for the MHI show that landings as a whole decline in the late springsummer period, presumably as a result of less fishing activity as fishermen take vacations or 

possibly perform maintenance on their vessels. Market demand for bottomfish in this period does 

not appear to decline, and is compensated by production from the two NWHI fishing grounds, 

which are far less seasonal in their production, and possibly by an increase in production, at least 

in some years from Middle Bank in the MHI. Moreover, this seasonal production pattern is also 

reflected in bottomfish imports into the State of Hawaii, which show a response to the MHI 

production decline, with peaks in imports between June and September. 
85

 

Figure 14: Average Monthly Landings between 1996 and 2004 for the Three 

Bottomfish Management Areas in the Hawaii Archipelago. Source: 

Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005. 

 Hoomalu Zone 

 Main Hawaiian Islands 
86

Figure 15: Average Monthly Landings of Deep 7 Species From MHI and From 

Federal Waters in the MHI. Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005. 
87

Figure 16: Average Monthly Percentage of Bottomfish Landings Formed by Fish 

Caught in Waters Under Federal Jurisdiction in the MHI. Source: 

Kawamoto et al. 2005. 
88

Figure 17: Landings of the Deep 7 Bottomfish Complex from the Two Principal 

Bottomfish fishing Under Federal Jurisdiction in the MHI. Source: 

Kawamoto et al. 2005. 
89

Figure 18: Mean MHI Bottomfish Catches by Month, 1998–2004. Source: 

Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005. 

The annual cycle of landings from Penguin and Middle Banks shown in Figure 17 is also 

apparent in the annual cycle of landings in the entire MHI (Figure 18). The percentage of 

landings from federal waters in the MHI by month is shown in Figure 19. 

Federal vs Total MHI Mean Catch 1998 - 2004

17% 16% 15%

13% 12%

9%

7% 7%

12%

17%

14%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Percentage

Figure 19: Federal Area Landings as a Percentage of the Total MHI Landings, 

1998–2004. Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005. 

Mean MHI BF Catch by Month

1998 - 2004 

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Pounds Caught

Total MHI Catch Federal MHI Catch
90

3.4.4.3 CPUE 

Table 31 presents a time-series of trip CPUE values in the Hawaii bottomfish fishing zones. In 

the MHI, highest CPUE was recorded in the mid-1950s. There seems to have been a 

discontinuity between 1981 and 1982 with more recent numbers being markedly lower. Absolute 

lowest CPUE was recorded in 1996 and 1998. The 2003 CPUE increased from that of 2002, but 

was still only 45 percent of the long-term mean value. 

In the Mau Zone, CPUE on a per trip basis peaked in the late 1960s, with the lowest recorded 

value from 1993. CPUE has been relatively constant in recent years, but a 6-year high was 

recorded in 2003. The 2003 CPUE was 130 percent that of the mean of the previous 5 years. 

In the Hoomalu Zone, trip CPUE has been relatively constant for many years. The 2003 value 

was the lowest seen in 19 years, but was still 90 percent of the mean of the previous 5 years. 

Figure 20 plots the trend in bottomfish CPUE in pounds per trip for the MHI fishery. The 

declining trend from 1948 to 1991 is apparent. Since 1992, the trend has been relatively stable. 

 

Annual Bottomfish CPUE MHI

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

19481952195619601964196819721976198019841988199219962000

Year

Lb/Trip

Figure 20: Bottomfish CPUE Trends in the MHI. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 

Bottomfish Annual Report.
91

Table 31: Bottomfish CPUE in the MHI and NWHI, 1948–2003 (lb/trip). 

Year MHI Mau Hoomalu Year MHI Mau Hoomalu

1948 614 5,968 14,635 1977 527 4,387 4,000 

1949 713 6,788 4,614 1978 635 4,753 3,550 

1950 677 4,966 6,072 1979 380 5,361 4,951 

1951 621 4.980 8,228 1980 421 6,210 6,687 

1952 577 7,407 4,766 1981 416 1,336 8,167 

1953 645 8,937 7,627 1982 307 NA 7,953 

1954 887 6,158 8,613 1983 214 2,242 3025 

1955 755 4,659 9,336 1984 220 4,308 4,085 

1956 784 2,523 5,202 1985 230 4,239 5,909 

1957 789 3,958 1,535 1986 274 2,206 5,301 

1958 533 NA 6,254 1987 237 2,889 8,187 

1959 519 NA 5,897 1988 329 2,136 4,702 

1960 630 6,379 8,139 1989 361 5,412 5,328 

1961 496 6,999 7,978 1990 245 4,454 4,793 

1962 491 4,641 NA 1991 202 2,413 5,928 

1963 518 6,410 NA 1992 228 2,092 7,388 

1964 619 8,028 8,390 1993 213 1,992 8,040 

1965 503 6,656 NA 1994 218 3,748 4,651 

1966 536 4,413 NA 1995 193 2,460 5,544 

1967 602 14,749 NA 1996 125 2,823 5,870 

1968 478 6,055 NA 1997 176 3,294 5,234 

1969 480 11,484 NA 1998 130 2,518 5,198 

1970 433 7,111 NA 1999 209 2,926 4,605 

1971 433 4,784 NA 2000 187 2,654 5,212 

1972 514 2,386 NA 2001 194 2,066 5,300 

1973 421 3,224 NA 2002 179 2,496 4,651 

1974 329 3,367 NA 2003 190 3,293 4,481 

1975 430 5,439 NA M 424 4,676 6,096 

1976 485 4653 NA SD 196 2,493 2,187 

Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 
92

Table 32: Bottomfish CPUE in the MHI and NWHI, 1984–2003 (lb/day). 

Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

Year Mau Hoomalu Combined Year Mau Hoomalu Com

1984 NA NA 682 1995 306 582 1985 NA NA 736 1996 298 563 1986 NA NA 800 1997 429 574 1987 NA NA 877 1998 364 527 1988 322 866 786 1999 337 534 1989 677 808 763 2000 260 601 1990 573 675 611 2001 283 543 1991 333 671 525 2002 438 412 1992 239 639 491 2003 508 490 1993 267 723 523 M 374 615 1994 353 629 526 SD 122 116 
93

Calculations of partial CPUEs (CPUE by species) in the MHI for the major bottomfish species 

(2003 Annual Report) showed that values for all species except ōpakapaka were less than half of 

their early values. The decline is most apparent for ehu. If species targeting is taken into 

consideration, all four species for which there are sufficient data (ōpakapaka, onaga, ehu, and 

uku) show MHI CPUE less than or equal to 50 percent of their original values. 

Bottomfish CPUE in NWHI

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Lb/day

Figure 21: Bottomfish CPUE Trends in the NWHI. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 

2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

For the NWHI, a better measure of CPUE is pounds per day, due to the greater variability in the 

length of trips. On a catch-per-day basis (Table 32), the 2002 and 2003 CPUE in the Mau Zone 

were the highest since the 1989 to 1990 period. The 2003 CPUE was 151 percent of the mean of 

the previous 5 years. In the Hoomalu Zone, the highest daily CPUEs were also recorded in the 

late 1980s, but unlike the trend in the Mau Zone, CPUEs in the past two years in the Hoomalu 

Zone were the lowest recorded from that area. The 2003 Hoomalu daily CPUE was 94 percent of 

the mean for the previous 5 years. The combined CPUE trend can be seen in Figure 21. 

3.4.4.4 Revenues and Prices 

Inflation-adjusted gross revenue in the MHI bottomfish fishery grew steadily in the 1980s (Table 

33) as a result of increases in both real prices and landings (WPRFMC 2003). However, 

beginning in 1990, revenue in the MHI fishery decreased sharply as both MHI bottomfish prices 

and landings declined. Inflation-adjusted revenue in the MHI fishery reached its lowest levels 

ever in 2001. Revenues from 2001 to 2003 were all below the previous low value, although the 

trend was upward slightly during those years. Similarly, inflation-adjusted revenues in the NWHI 
94

fishery reached their lowest levels ever in the 2001 to 2003 period, with 2003 having the lowest 

recorded level. 

Revenue from the MHI fishery was always greater than that from the NWHI. Before the mid1980s, MHI bottomfish revenue made up over 80 percent of the total Hawaii bottomfish revenue. 

The proportion declined due to a dramatic increase of NWHI bottomfish landings in the mid1980s, and the MHI revenue was about 50 percent of the total during the period 1985–1987. 

Since then, revenues in both areas have declined, but revenue from the MHI fishery remains 

above that of the NWHI. It was 67 percent of the total in 2003. 

Historically, bottomfish catches from the MHI have tended to command higher aggregate prices 

than those caught in the NWHI, reflecting a larger proportion of preferred species and greater 

freshness. In the late 1990s, however, the prices appeared to converge, perhaps due to the 

softness of the upscale part of the Hawaii market as the state’s economic recession continued 

(WPRFMC 1999). From 2001 through 2003, however, the price differential between MHI and 

NWHI fish widened considerably, possibly a result of the large increase in imported bottomfish 

substituting in the market for NWHI fish. The 2003 inflation-adjusted per pound price for NWHI 

fish was the lowest ever recorded. This was in marked contrast to the inflation-adjusted prices 

received for MHI bottomfish, which reached their highest level in 13 years. 
95

Table 33: Inflation-Adjusted BMUS Revenue and Price, MHI and NWHI, 1984–2003. 

Year MHI Revenue 

($1,000)

NWHI Revenue

($1,000)

MHI 

Price

NWHI 

Price

1984 3,179 2,388 4.21 3.61 

1985 3,341 3,078 4.65 3.33 

1986 3,432 3,178 4.53 3.66 

1987 3,733 3,661 5.00 3.61 

1988 4,940 2,254 4.46 3.61 

1989 4,396 1,075 4.68 3.56 

1990 2,978 1,416 4.99 3.35 

1991 2,123 1,305 4.15 3.37 

1992 2,180 1,485 4.02 3.50 

1993 1,762 1,336 4.13 3.47 

1994 2,009 1,548 4.09 3.50 

1995 1,992 1,161 3.81 3.14 

1996 1,719 1,067 4.23 3.45 

1997 1,703 1,185 3.63 3.43 

1998 1,631 993 3.73 3.19 

1999 1,482 1,173 3.65 3.64 

2000 1,717 944 3.84 3.85 

2001 1,309 750 3.79 3.21 

2002 1,396 777 4.13 3.39 

2003 1,460 716 4.35 3.13 

Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 
96

Inflation-Adjusted Revenue and Prices

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1984 1989 1994 1999

Year

Revenue (1000 

Dollars)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dollars

MHI REVENUE (1,000$) NWHI REVENUE (1,000$)

MHI PRICE NWHI PRICE

Figure 22: Annual Revenues and Average Prices by Bottomfish Management 

Zone. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

Table 34: MHI Bottomfish Prices by Month and Year for the Deep 7 

Species (2000–2004). 

 

 

Onaga 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 6.61 5.94 6.21 6.19 6.54 

February 5.12 6.34 6.19 6.46 6.37 

March 6.07 5.73 6.46 5.85 6.77 

April 7.55 6.95 5.59 6.20 6.90 

May 7.05 7.13 6.81 6.24 6.91 

June 6.78 6.61 7.74 6.25 7.39 

July 8.09 7.48 8.09 7.77 7.22 

August 7.48 8.42 7.43 6.73 8.06 

September 5.64 6.78 5.70 5.23 6.70 

October 6.03 5.57 5.50 5.34 5.99 

November 7.05 4.98 5.62 6.25 5.70 

December 6.05 7.54 6.16 7.72 6.93 

 
97

 

Ōpakapaka 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 5.09 4.33 5.24 5.67 5.57 

February 4.14 4.68 5.38 5.20 5.24 

March 4.62 4.55 5.72 4.76 5.63 

April 6.07 5.02 4.76 5.47 5.54 

May 5.02 5.18 5.57 5.38 5.27 

June 4.86 4.75 6.03 5.00 5.56 

July 5.30 5.11 6.08 5.52 5.39 

August 5.20 5.62 5.81 5.24 5.41 

September 4.40 4.94 4.93 5.05 5.36 

October 4.59 4.75 4.70 4.78 4.81 

November 5.31 4.34 4.48 5.12 4.69 

December 4.29 5.76 4.84 6.12 5.73 

 

Ehu 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 4.65 3.82 4.52 4.81 4.57 

February 3.60 4.52 5.20 4.16 4.92 

March 4.42 4.09 4.99 4.39 5.34 

April 5.27 5.05 4.27 5.12 5.24 

May 4.58 4.85 4.72 4.24 4.53 

June 4.36 4.62 5.74 4.10 4.78 

July 5.80 5.09 6.84 5.13 3.16 

August 5.21 5.26 5.54 5.37 5.27 

September 4.22 5.06 4.50 4.13 5.61 

October 4.64 4.92 4.55 4.40 4.78 

November 4.80 4.11 4.50 5.24 4.34 

December 4.43 5.61 4.32 6.08 5.35 

 

Lehi 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 3.21 2.98 3.48 3.61 4.06 

February 3.03 3.19 3.43 3.65 3.38 

March 3.48 2.63 3.46 3.54 3.24 

April 3.43 2.78 3.02 2.97 3.05 

May 3.01 2.32 3.08 2.70 2.39 

June 2.68 2.47 1.87 2.65 3.83 

July 2.81 3.43 4.59 2.62 2.95 

August 3.16 3.62 2.38 2.87 3.48 

September 3.15 2.71 2.95 3.06 3.19 

October 3.09 2.84 2.87 2.76 4.10 
98

November 3.49 2.50 2.67 3.16 3.51 

December 3.03 3.19 3.02 3.27 3.54 

 

Kalekale 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 3.75 2.69 3.15 2.91 3.39 

February 2.58 3.23 3.77 3.21 3.37 

March 2.92 3.23 4.32 3.02 4.35 

April 3.49 3.27 3.22 3.33 3.73 

May 3.31 3.07 3.14 2.81 3.70 

June 3.25 2.94 3.29 3.10 3.93 

July 3.64 2.97 3.98 1.42 3.10 

August 3.49 3.69 4.11 2.89 3.87 

September 2.87 3.12 3.34 3.19 4.14 

October 3.28 3.44 3.31 3.16 3.42 

November 3.54 2.64 2.88 3.18 2.93 

December 2.74 3.39 2.64 3.93 3.21 

 

Gindai 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 4.36 3.03 3.41 3.17 3.30 

February 3.48 3.98 4.02 3.39 3.86 

March 3.46 3.59 4.19 3.16 3.87 

April 3.77 4.02 3.62 2.87 3.58 

May 3.93 3.30 3.43 2.91 3.84 

June 3.67 2.79 4.17 2.50 3.95 

July 4.11 3.58 4.65 3.92 3.34 

August 4.08 3.68 3.66 3.82 3.61 

September 3.65 3.60 3.16 3.62 4.25 

October 3.52 3.52 3.40 3.74 3.58 

November 3.75 2.89 3.03 3.66 3.74 

December 3.29 3.32 3.08 4.28 3.55 

 
99

 

Hapuupuu 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

January 3.37 3.07 4.65 4.40 4.99 

February 3.57 3.79 4.40 4.12 5.43 

March 3.78 3.55 4.64 4.16 4.67 

April 4.69 4.25 4.24 4.05 5.06 

May 3.60 3.73 3.89 4.67 4.50 

June 3.46 4.42 6.47 3.73 4.27 

July 4.25 4.35 3.55 4.51 4.62 

August 4.74 4.79 3.68 5.07 4.71 

September 3.81 3.97 4.24 4.40 5.31 

October 3.36 4.22 3.92 3.97 3.86 

November 3.05 3.90 4.25 4.91 4.58 

December 3.22 4.77 4.06 5.09 5.04 

 

Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales 2005c. 

MHI 2004

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

$/lb

hapu kale paka ehu onaga lehi gindai

Figure 23: Average Prices by Species by Month for the MHI. Source: Kawamoto and 

Gonzales 2005c. 
100

Hoomalu Zone 2003

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

$/lb

hapu kali paka ehu onaga gindai

Figure 24: Average Prices by Species by Month for the Hoomalu Zone. Source: 

WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report.

Mau Zone

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

$/lb

hapu kali paka ehu onaga lehi gindai

Figure 25: Average Prices by Species by Month for the Mau Zone. Source: WPRFMC 

2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 
101

3.4.5 Processing and Marketing 

A market for locally caught bottomfish was well-established in Hawaii by the late nineteenth 

century. Today, fresh bottomfish continues to be important seafood for Hawaii residents and 

visitors. Nearly all bottomfish caught in the NWHI fishery are sold through the Honolulu fish 

auction (United Fishing Agency, Ltd.). Prices received at the auction change daily, and the value 

of a particular catch may even depend on the order in which it is placed on the floor for bidding 

(Hau 1984). Bottomfish caught in the MHI fishery are sold in a wide variety of market outlets 

(Haight et al. 1993a). Some are marketed through the fish auction in Honolulu and intermediary 

buyers on all islands. Sales of MHI bottomfish also occur through less formal market channels. 

For example, local restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, and individual consumers are important 

buyers for some fishermen. In addition to being sold, MHI bottomfish are consumed by 

fishermen and their families, given to friends and relatives as gifts, and bartered in exchange for 

various goods and services. 

Figure 26: Hawaii Bottomfish Demand (Annual, Inflation-Adjusted Ex-Vessel 

Price and Supplies [Domestic Landings and Imported Fresh 

Snapper]), 1980–2003. Source: WPRFMC 2005c, 2003 Bottomfish 

Annual Report. 

Historically, the demand for bottomfish in Hawaii has been largely limited to fresh fish. Seventy 

years ago Hamamoto (1928) remarked on the fact that fish dealers in Honolulu refused to buy 

fish that had been harvested in the NWHI and frozen on board because the demand for this 

product was so low. In the last few years the price differential between frozen and fresh product 

has narrowed for some species of bottomfish, but it remains substantial for onaga and ehu, the 

two highest priced fish. Until the market for frozen bottomfish develops, participants in the 

NWHI fishery will be caught in the same ongoing dilemma, they must stay out long enough to 

cover trip expenses, but keep the trips short enough to deliver a readily saleable, high-quality 

product (Pan 1994). In the past, bottomfish catches from the MHI have tended to command 

higher aggregate prices than those caught in the NWHI, reflecting the greater freshness required 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002

2003p

Year

Pounds 

(1,000lbs)

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

Local

Price ($/lb)

Pounds landed Imported snappers Price*
102

by the “sashimi” grade market. Bottomfish caught around the MHI are iced for only 1 to 2 days 

before being landed, whereas NWHI fresh catches may be packed in ice for 10 days or more. By 

the late 1990s, however, the prices appeared to converge, perhaps due to the softness of the 

upscale part of the Hawaii market as the state’s economic recession continued (Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council 1999). 

Catches of bottomfish around the MHI typically consist of plate-sized fish preferred by 

household consumers in Hawaii and by restaurants where fish are often served with the head on. 

Medium to large bottomfish from the MHI are often targeted for export markets and local highend specialty restaurants that demand the highest sashimi grade quality. Bottomfish caught 

around the NWHI tend to be the medium to large fish (over 5 pounds) preferred for the 

restaurant fillet market. Because the percent yield of edible material is high, handling costs per 

unit weight are lower, and more uniform portions can be cut from the larger fish. 

Figure 27: Monthly Imports of Bottomfish into Hawaii, 2000-2004. Source: 

PIFSC 2005, unpublished data.

Pooley (1987) showed that Hawaii auction market prices increase when MHI landings drop. 

However, during the 1990s the relationship between price and volume faltered, perhaps due to an 

increase in imported fresh fish that competed in the market with locally caught bottomfish 

(WPRFMC 1999; Figure 27). According to U.S. Customs data for the Port of Honolulu, 715,000 

pounds of snapper were imported in CY 2002, worth $1.92 million ($2.68 per pound; WPRFMC 

2004). This amount exceeded domestic supplies and thus was a significant factor in ex-vessel 

prices. 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. Fifteen years 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 fresh snapper, with Fiji and New 
103

Zealand also being major sources, but fresh snapper have also been received from Indonesia, 

Samoa, Vietnam, Chad, and Madagascar.10

To further explore the value of Hawaii’s fresh local bottomfish, and the role imports play in the 

market, the Council sponsored a study of the attitudes and beliefs of Hawaii restaurateurs and 

executive chefs (Coffman 2004). The objectives of the study were to (a) determine the value 

added to NWHI bottomfish in Hawaii’s restaurants and (b) determine whether NWHI bottomfish 

are easily substituted for both in chefs’ and customers’ preferences, with bottomfish from other 

places or other types of fish. Table 35 summarizes the quantitative information derived from 

interviews with 24 of Hawaii’s top chefs and six seafood wholesalers. 

Table 35: Hawaii Chefs and Wholesalers Perceptions of Hawaii Bottomfish. 

Interview Result 

Percentage of 

chefs interviewed 

Knew if their fish was from the MHI of the NWHI 0 

Only serve Hawaii-caught bottomfish 19 

Try to serve Hawaii-caught bottomfish 29 

Advertise bottomfish dishes as “Fresh Island Fish” of similar 29 

Volunteered that the price of bottomfish is high and/or rising 29 

Volunteered concern over bottomfish sustainability 73 

Volunteered concern about fishing regulations driving up 

bottomfish prices 

14 

Said customers are willing to pay more for Hawaii-caught 

bottomfish 

42.8 

Said customers are not willing to pay more for Hawaii-caught 

bottomfish 

19 

Said customers expect Hawaii-caught bottomfish to be less 

expensive in Hawaii relative to other fish dishes 

9.5 

Named bottomfish on list of “most desirable fish species” 77.3 

Other Chef 

Responses 

Average percentage of meals that are fish 48.6 

Average percentage of fish meals that are bottomfish 26.5 

Average price of Hawaii-caught bottomfish dish $29.52 

Average price of an imported bottomfish dish $28.46 

Average portion size of a bottomfish dish 6.78 oz 

Average product yield of whole fish (usefulness increases if stock 

made) 

50% 

Average days last month with bottomfish on menu 26.8 

Average days last year with bottomfish on menu 325.4 

Average percentage customers who are visitors to Hawaii 40.7% 

 

10http://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 
104

Percentage of 

Wholesalers 

Interviewed

Said MHI are better in quality than NWHI bottomfish 100 

Said NWHI and imported bottomfish are comparable in quality 33 

Said imported better than NWHI bottomfish 33 

Said quality difference between imported and NWHI bottomfish 

depends on the country of origin 

66 

Said price of bottomfish is high, but steady 33 

 

 Source: WPRFMC 2004. 

The survey found that it was typical for the restaurant to purchase Hawaii-caught bottomfish 

fillets from a wholesaler at a price of $12 to $16 per pound. NWHI bottomfish were more 

suitable for filleting than MHI fish because of their larger size, but the higher quality of MHI fish 

allowed their use for sashimi. Summary conclusions of the study were as follows: 

Bottomfish is a popular dish in most of Oahu’s top-end restaurants. Several of the 

most noted “boutique type” restaurants only serve Hawaii-caught bottomfish. The 

expensive prices as well as the inconsistency of supply of both MHI and NWHI 

bottomfish make it difficult for most restaurants to serve only Hawaii-caught fish. 

Most restaurants serve a combination of Hawaii-caught and imported bottomfish. 

Because of obvious time factors, MHI bottomfish are considered the freshest and 

highest quality by most wholesalers while NWHI bottomfish can be comparable to 

some imports. It seems that some countries’ fishermen are able to come into port 

soon enough, handle the fish well enough, and can fly to bottomfish over to Hawaii 

in a manner timely enough to rival the average quality of a bottomfish boat that 

comes into port for the NWHI every few weeks. The NWHI bottomfish fishery does, 

however, help fill the niche of Oahu restaurants who only serve Hawaii-caught fish. 

3.4.6 Bycatch 

Most fisheries have both nontarget species (not the target of fishing, but kept for consumption or 

sale) and bycatch (discards). If the fish, or any part of it, is used or sold, it is incidental catch of 

non-target species, not bycatch. Thus, for example, in years past, when there was no prohibition 

on fining sharks, the discarded shark carcass was not bycatch. It is also important to note that the 

MSA includes turtles as bycatch, but not marine mammals or seabirds. The discussion below 

focuses on bycatch of fish species. Turtles are discussed later, in the protected species section. 

3.4.6.1 Magnuson–Stevens Act (MSA) Definitions and Requirements 

Bycatch is defined as follows in the MSA (§3[2, 12, 9, and 33]): 

The term “bycatch” means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not 

sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory 
105

discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch 

and release fishery management program. 

The term “fish” means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of 

marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. 

The term “economic discards” means fish which 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. 

The term “regulatory discards” means fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen 

are required by regulation to discard whenever caught, or are required by 

regulation to retain but not sell. 

The National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR 600.350(c)) extend the definition of bycatch to 

include the following: 

Fishing mortality due to an encounter with fishing gear that does not result in 

capture of fish (i.e. unobserved fishing mortality). 

The 1996 SFA amendments to the MSA added two key requirements of FMPs regarding 

bycatch. First, the new National Standard 9 (MSA §301(a)(9)) requires that 

conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (a) 

minimize bycatch and (b) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the 

mortality of such bycatch. 

Second, MSA §303(a)(11) requires that FMPs 

establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of 

bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management 

measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority: 

(a) minimize bycatch; and 

(b) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided. 

3.4.6.2 Available Estimates of Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality 

In Hawaii, there are two separately managed bottomfish fisheries: a strictly commercial fishery 

in the NWHI, and a mixed commercial, recreational and subsistence fishery in the MHI. While 

these fisheries use the same gear and operational methods, the motivation of the fishermen is 

different between the commercial operators and recreational or subsistence fishermen. This 

results in different bycatch characteristics. The NWHI commercial fishermen seek the highest 

economic return on their catch and therefore may release alive lower valued species, especially 

early in a trip, thereby conserving both ice and hold space. 
106

Bottomfish fishermen in the NWHI and the MHI have been voluntarily involved with the State 

of Hawaii’s ulua and multi-species tagging programs. Fishermen have routinely reported that 

even without such a program that they release many unwanted fishes alive (Kawamoto, PIFSC, 

personal communication). Data on bycatch in the NWHI commercial fishery is available from 

the logbook program, from limited observer data, and from NMFS research cruises in the NWHI. 

Because the State of Hawaii and NMFS do not have permit, logbook, or catch reporting system 

for noncommercial marine fishermen, there are no data on bycatch for this sector. 

Recreational or subsistence fishermen may be more inclined to retain a greater variety of species 

for home consumption or distribution to relatives and friends, thus their bycatch percentages are 

likely substantially less that that of the commercial sector (Kawamoto, PIFSC, personal 

communication). 

Bottomfish gear types and fishing strategies are highly selective for desired species and sizes. 

Management measures that serve to further reduce bycatch in the bottomfish fishery include 

prohibitions on the use of bottom trawls, bottom gillnets, explosives, and poisons. 

3.4.6.3 Bycatch in the Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery 

A summary of the bycatch in the main Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fishery is given in Figures 

29 and 30. This information is from catch and effort data submitted to HDAR by MHI 

commercial bottomfish fishery participants during 2003 and 2004. Bycatch as defined by the 

MSA and the National Standard Guidelines includes not only discards but unobserved mortality, 

which is defined as “mortality due to an encounter with fishing gear that does not result in 

capture of the fish.” The State of Hawaii catch and effort report collects information on “lost” 

fish, i.e. fish that were lost after being hooked. In the deepwater bottomfish fishery the species 

identification and number of “lost” fishes are questionable as they were lost for various or 

unknown reasons during retrieval at depths that are not directly observable. Therefore the 

positive identification by species and an accounting of numbers are likely inaccurate but are 

necessarily used. The percentage of mortality of these “lost” fish is unknown and it is likely that 

not all die from the encounter. Therefore the fish “lost” numbers are considered conservative as 

under the MSA they are all counted as unobserved mortalities (including those that survive). 

Overall, bycatch in the MHI bottomfish fishery is low, with only 8.5 percent of the catch falling 

into the bycatch category (Figure 28). 
107

Figure 28: Ratio of Bycatch to Catch in the MHI. Source: Kawamoto and 

Gonzales 2006. 

The average bycatch ratios and composition of the MHI bottomfish catch for 2003 and 2004 

combined are presented in Figure 28. The total bycatch in the fishery for the combined years is 

8.5 percent. Each individual set of species (PMUS, BMUS, and miscellaneous) contributes to 

this overall percentage. 

PMUS catches comprise under one percent (0.9 percent) of the total catch with less than one 

percent (0.3 percent of total catch) being considered bycatch. The majority of the pelagic bycatch 

are composed of sharks (88 percent of PMUS bycatch). 

The targeted BMUS species in the MHI bottomfish fishery are six snappers and one grouper, 

collectively known in Hawaii as the Deep 7 species complex. Very little of the targeted Deep 7 

species catch (3.3 percent) is reported as bycatch. Looking at the entire BMUS complex (Deep 7 

and other BMUS) the bycatch percentage rises to 7.5 percent. The majority of the BMUS 

bycatch is composed of kahala, butaguchi, and white ulua. All of these species are members of 

the jack family (Carangidae) and are not included in the Deep 7 species complex. Ninety three 

percent of all kahala (Seriola dumerili and S. rivoliana) were reported as bycatch. Release of 

kahala are high because they are known to be ciguatoxic and therefore have no market value in 

Hawaii. 

The miscellaneous species category includes over 30 species of near-shore and pelagic fishes 

that are occasionally caught while bottomfish fishing. Miscellaneous species account for less 

than one percent (0.7 percent) of the overall bycatch while comprising 4.4 percent of the overall 

catch. 

MHI Bottomfish 2003-04 Bycatch Percentage

Bycatch

8.5%

Catch 91.5 %
108

Table 36: Bycatch Percentage by Species Grouping for 2003-2004. 

# pieces 

caught 

# 

release 

# 

damage

# 

lost 

tot # 

caught 

percent 

bycatch 

percent 

of 

catch 

PMUS 317 122 0 4 443 0.3 0.9

BMUS 

"Deep 7" 39569 61 0 1541 41171 3.3 86.0

Other BMUS 2147 1950 0 47 4144 4.2 8.7

total BMUS 

(D-7+Other) 41716 2011 0 1588 45315 7.5 94.7

Misc. species 1760 26 0 304 2090 0.7 4.4

Totals 43793 2159 0 1896 47848 8.5 100.0

 

Source: Kawamoto and Gonzales 2006. 

At recent public meetings conducted in support of this proposed management action, numerous 

comments were heard by fishermen from Hilo to Kauai regarding the significant increase in the 

last 3 years of fish loss to shark predation. Several fishermen reported that during certain times, 

no fish can be brought to the surface without it being taken by sharks. 

3.4.6.4 Bycatch in the NWHI Bottomfish Fishery 

The major discard species in the NWHI bottomfish fishery are given in Table 36. It should be 

noted that a large percentage of the snappers and the grouper listed are included as bycatch 

because of damage from sharks. Logbook data (State of Hawaii), and observer programs 

conducted by NMFS indicate that total discards (including damaged target species) account for 

approximately 8 to 23 percent of the total catch in bottomfish fisheries in the Hawaiian 

archipelago (Nitta 1999; WPRFMC 1998a). Carangids, sharks, and miscellaneous reef fish 

(pufferfish, moray eels, etc.) are the most numerous discard species. Two species in particular, 

kahala (Seriola dumerili, S. rivoliana) and butaguchi (Pseudocaranx dentex), make up the 

majority of the bycatch. It is believed that the discarding of these types of fish (e.g. sharks, jacks) 

does not result in mortality as these types of fish do not suffer from barotraumas effects when 

brought up from depth. Most species are not kept by vessels because of their unpalatability, 

however some carangids (large jacks and amberjacks) are also discarded because of concerns of 

ciguatera poisoning.11 Butaguchi, which commands a low price in the Hawaii market, may be 

discarded in the early days of a fishing trip because this species has a poor product shelf-life. The 

major discard species in the NWHI bottomfish fishery as reported by NMFS observers are given 

in Table 37. It should be noted that a large percentage of the snappers and the grouper listed are 

included as bycatch because of damage from sharks. 

 

11 Ciguatera fish poisoning results from eating a fish containing a neurological toxin produced by a microscopic 

dinoflagellate algae. The algae grow epiphytically on benthic macroalgae (seaweeds) and are ingested by 

herbivorous fish that in turn are eaten by larger carnivorous fish, with each step concentrating the toxin. In 

humans, ciguatera poisoning may cause severe illness or even death. 
109

In bottomfish fishing operations, the largest proportion of lost fish and gear is attributable to 

interactions with sharks (Nitta 1999). From time to time some fishing areas are dominated by 

sharks such that the majority of hooked fish are either stolen or damaged. It appears that the time 

periods of high incidences of predator damage to the catches are not constant over years or even 

areas. Predator abundance and fishery losses vary and the reasons for this occurrence are 

unknown. The estimated economic losses experienced by fishermen as a result of shark 

interference with fishing operations are substantial (Kobayashi and Kawamoto 1995). In the 

NWHI, the gray reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhnchos) is believed to be the species of shark 

that interferes most with the bottomfish catch. 

Data collected by NMFS during research bottomfish fishing cruises indicate the potential species 

composition of bycatch in the NWHI bottomfish fishery (Figure 29). Research bottomfish 

fishing is less likely to exclusively successfully target commercial species; however Figure 29 

indicates the specific families of species that may be caught in association with bottomfish 

fishing operations. 

The most recent data available (WPRFMC 2004) reinforce the trends described above, including 

the differences in strategy between Mau and Hoomalu Zone operations. In both zones in 2002, 

100 percent of the sharks and kahala were discarded. In the Mau Zone, butaguchi was frequently 

discarded in 2002 (22 percent), unlike in 2001 when only 1 percent was discarded. The only 

other significant discard was omilu (Caranx melampygus) at 9 percent, down from 38 percent in 

2001. 

Table 37: Percent Discards From Bottomfish Trips with NMFS Observers, 1990–1993. 

Species No. Caught No. Discarded % Discarded

Kahala 2,438 2,266 92.9

Kalekale (yellowtail) 40 22 55

Sharks 176 92 52.3

Miscellaneous fish 115 59 51.3

Ulua (white) 127 62 48.8

Miscellaneous 

snapper/jack 

189 91 48.1

Butaguchi 3,430 1,624 47.3

Ulua (black) 23 10 43.5

Taape 110 40 36.4

Miscellaneous fish 

unidentified 

174 26 14.9
110

Species No. Caught No. Discarded % Discarded

Kalekale 874 52 6

Opakapaka 5,092 107 2.1

Ehu 1,185 20 1.7

Uku 2,209 28 1.3

Hapuupuu 1,593 19 1.2

Gindai 459 3 0.7

Onaga 1,141 8 0.7

Alfonsin 1 0 0

Armorhead 1 0 0

Lehi 3 0 0

Source: Nitta 1999. 

Scombidae - 3%

Berycidae - 3%

Muraenidae - 3%

Ballistidae - 7%

Polymixidae - 7%

Mullidae - 10%

Scorpaenidae - 17%

Sharks - 21%

Holocentridae - 29%

Figure 29: NMFS Research Cruise Estimates of Bottomfish Bycatch in Hawaii. 

Note: Percent of total number; Source: WPRFMC 1998a. 
111

In the Hoomalu Zone, several lesser valued species were commonly discarded, including 

kalekale (48 percent in 2002 and 24 percent in 2001), butaguchi (20 percent in 2002 and 32 

percent in 2001) and white ulua (C. ignoblis; 63 percent in 2002, 70 percent in 2001). Tables 38 

and 39 summarize information from the Mau and Hoomalu Zones, respectively for bycatch in 

2002 and compare rates to those of 2001. 

Table 38: Mau Zone Bycatch by Species in 2001 and 2002. 

Species No. 

Released in 

2002 

No. Sold in 

2002 

% Bycatch 

2002 

No. 

Released in 

2001 

% Bycatch 

in 2001 

Pelagic MUS 

Shark 57 0 100 55 100 

Tiger shark 3 0 100 1 100 

Bottomfish MUS 

Ehu 2 2,070 <1 8 <1 

Hapuupuu 12 1,254 1 0 0 

Butaguchi 184 641 22 10 1 

Black Ulua 2 81 2 0 0 

Kahala 226 0 100 653 100 

Miscellaneous Species 

Æmilu 20 193 9 30 38 

Barracuda 1 9 10 0 0 

Table 39: Hoomalu Zone Bycatch by Species in 2001 and 2002. 

Species No. 

Released in 

2002 

No. Sold in 

2002 

% Bycatch 

2002 

No. 

Released in 

2001 

% Bycatch 

in 2001 

Pelagic MUS 

Shark 8 0 100 34 100 

Tiger shark 4 0 100 3 100 

Bottomfish MUS 

Æpakapaka 1 2206 <1 1 <1 

Kalekale 439 474 48 264 24 

Butaguchi 303 1248 20 767 32 

White Ulua 221 128 63 532 70 

Kahala 1610 0 100 3360 100 

Miscellaneous Species 

Æmilu 43 0 100 41 82 

Source: PIFSC, unpublished data. 

The Council’s supplement to the bycatch provisions of Amendment 6 (WPRFMC 2002b) 

includes four types of nonregulatory measures aimed at further reducing bycatch and bycatch 
112

mortality and improving bycatch reporting: (a) outreach to fishermen and engagement of 

fishermen in management, including research and monitoring, in order to raise their awareness of 

bycatch issues and of options to reduce bycatch; (b) research into fishing gear and method 

modifications to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality; (c) research into the development of 

markets for discarded fish species; and (d) improvement of data collection and analysis systems 

to better measure bycatch. 

3.4.7 Recreational Fishery 

Statistics for this fishery are very limited; there are no requirements for saltwater fishing licenses 

or catch reporting for noncommercial fishermen in Hawaii and hence there is no system for 

collecting quality data. Over the years, occasional surveys have been fielded, but no systematic 

collection of noncommercial fisheries data has been sustained. The NMFS Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Statistical Survey, active in other parts of the country, collected data for a period 

ending about 20 years ago, but was discontinued in Hawaii. Recently, this program has returned 

to Hawaii as the Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey (HMRFS), and is collecting 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. 

The state’s bottomfish fishing registration requirement, however, does offer one way to compare 

the commercial and noncommercial sectors of the fishery. Each applicant is required to specify 

commercial or noncommercial status. As of mid-2003, there were 3,194 vessels registered to fish 

for bottomfish in Hawaii. The breakdown for each island is shown in Table 40. 

Table 40: Registered Commercial and Noncommercial Bottomfish Vessels by Island. 

 Kauai Oahu Molokai Lanai Maui Hawaii 

Commercial 271 519 1 5 271 757 

Non-commercial 109 921 25 16 107 174 

Total by Island 380 1443 26 21 378 933 

Total Commercial 1,824

Total 

Noncommercial 

1,352

% 

Noncommercial 

by Island 

28.7 63.8 96.2 76.2 28.3 18.6 

Total % 

Noncommercial 

42.6

Note. Source: HDAR presentation to WPRFMC. 

Included in the state’s 1998 bottomfish regulations was a control date for a possible future 

limited entry bottomfish fishery. Some fishermen registered to protect their right to participate in 

the bottomfish fishery if they should so choose in the future. Some others registered because it 
113

was not clear to them that reef fish were not included in the regulations. The proportions of 

respondents in these categories are not known, and it is not known whether they registered as 

commercial or noncommercial vessels. From Table 39, it appears that about 40 percent of the 

registered bottomfish fishing vessels in Hawaii are noncommercial. Registered vessels range in 

size from 8 feet to 65 feet in length. However, the vast majority of the registered vessels lie in 

the range 14 feet to 30 feet in length. The largest size class is 19 feet, with about 380 vessels 

represented (HDAR presentation to WPRFMC). 

Recently, the HDAR surveyed Hawaii’s registered bottomfish vessel owners by mail. The return 

rate was about 20 percent. Of the 722 completed questionnaires, only 38 percent said they 

actually fished for deep-water bottomfish in the previous year. Forty-eight percent said they 

sometimes fish for deep-water bottomfish, but hadn’t done so during the previous year. Fourteen 

percent said they don’t bottomfish at all. Forty-four percent had either electric or hydraulic 

bottomfish line pullers. 38 percent had GPS units and 46 percent had depth sounders. Of those 

who fished, most fished with another person (range one to five), fished two lines (range one to 

five) with, most often, five hooks per line (range one to thirteen). Bottomfish fishing effort 

varied cyclically over an annual cycle with most effort during November and December, and 

least effort during April and May. Weekends and holidays were the favored days for bottomfish 

fishing. State grid number 52 (331) was by far the preferred fishing area. 

Two hundred and seventy-six of the respondents (38 percent) claimed commercial status, 

although not all had current licenses. If this proportion holds true for the entire database, then by 

this estimate, 62 percent of the registered vessels are noncommercial. 

From these two estimates we can crudely estimate that about half the registered bottomfish 

fishing vessels are noncommercial. Landings of onaga and ehu by the noncommercial sector are 

now restricted to five total per person, but other species are not subject to catch limits. 

Nevertheless, it is likely those landings by noncommercial bottomfish vessels average much less 

than their commercial counterparts because of differences in vessel capability, fishing skill, and 

avidity. At this time it is not possible to estimate what the total noncommercial landings are. In 

the future, more bottomfish fisherman intercepts conducted in the HMRFS may provide this 

estimate. 

3.5 Protected Species 

Protected species include those species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, all 

marine mammals listed or not as they are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), and seabirds listed or not as they are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Appropriate information on the species’ life histories, habitats and distribution, and other factors 

necessary to their survival, is included in the Bottomfish FEIS and is incorporated here by 

reference. In particular, the status of the Hawaiian monk seal and potential interactions with the 

NWHI bottomfish fishery are extensively discussed in the FEIS. That material is incorporated 

here by reference and a summary of the species’ current status is included below. 

In March 2002, NMFS completed a formal consultation under ESA Section 7 and released its 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Bottomfish FMP. The BiOp concluded that the bottomfish 
114

fisheries of the Western Pacific Region are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species under NMFS’ jurisdiction, or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

3.5.1 Marine Mammals 

Protected marine mammals fall into two categories: species listed under the ESA and those 

species that are not listed but otherwise protected under the MMPA. Cetaceans and pinnipeds are 

discussed separately in the sections below. 

3.5.1.1 Listed Cetaceans 

There are six species of cetaceans listed under the ESA that occur within the area of operation of 

the bottomfish fishery of the Western Pacific Region. These species are the blue whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

Although these whales may be found within the action area and could interact with the U.S. 

fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, no reported or observed incidental takes of these species 

have occurred in the bottomfish fishery. Therefore, NMFS determined that there is no impact to 

these cetaceans from the bottomfish fishery. 

3.5.1.2 Other Cetaceans 

Species of marine mammals that are not listed under the ESA but are protected under the MMPA 

and occur in the areas of the Western Pacific Region where bottomfish fisheries operate are as 

follows: 

• Blainsville beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

 • Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

 • Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) 

 • Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) 

 • Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus) 

 • False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) 

 • Killer whale (Orcinus orca) 

 • Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) 

 • Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) 

 • Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) 

 • Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

 • Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 

 • Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) 

 • Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) 

 • Spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) 

 • Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) 

 • Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 

 • Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 
115

 • Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) 

 • Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) 

 • Longman’s beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) 

 

Of the above species, the bottomfish fishery has been documented to interact with only one 

species, the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trucatus; Nitta and Henderson 1993). Although the 

other species listed above may be found within the action area and could interact with bottomfish 

fisheries in the Western Pacific Region, no reported or observed incidental takes of these species 

have occurred in these fisheries. Therefore, NMFS determined that the bottomfish fishery is not 

likely to adversely affect these cetaceans. Although bottlenose dolphins have been observed 

stealing hooked fish off of bottomfish lines, the extent of such interactions are not known, but 

believed to be low. The impact of the bottomfish fishery on the behavior or foraging success of 

bottlenose dolphins is unknown, but not believed to be adverse. 

3.5.1.3 Listed Pinniped: The Hawaiian Monk Seal 

The following, which was taken from the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan (2005), 

summarizes the current status of the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). 

The Hawaiian monk seal was listed as an endangered species under the ESA on 

November 23, 1976 (FR 51612) and remains listed as endangered. Based on recent 

counts the current population is approximately 1300 individuals. Most of the Hawaiian 

monk seal population is distributed throughout the NWHI in six main reproductive 

subpopulations at FFS, Laysan and Lisianski Islands, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and 

Midway and Kure Atolls. Small numbers also occur at Necker, Nihoa, and the MHI, 

primarily at Niihau. Initial studies of genotypic variation (Kretzmann et al. 1997) suggest 

that the species is characterized by low genetic variability, minimal genetic 

differentiation among subpopulations and, perhaps, some naturally occuring local 

inbreeding. Seals have been observed on each of the main eight islands. There were at 

least 45 seals in the MHI in 2000 and at least 52 in 2001, based on aerial surveys of all 

MHI coastlines supplemented by sightings of seals from the ground (Baker and Johanos, 

2004). Moreover, annual births in the MHI have evidently increased since the mid-1990s. 

It is possible that Hawaiian monk seals may be re-colonizing the MHI, which may have 

been part of their historic range. Regardless, the MHI habitat appears to be favorable for 

continued increases of this endangered species. Identified threats to the survival of the 

Hawaiian monk seal include, but are not limited to, habitat degradation, marine debris 

entanglement, human disturbance, disease, shark predation, vessel groundings, and 

interactions with fisheries. 

3.5.1.4 Other Pinniped: The Northern Elephant Seal 

Although uncommon in the action area of the bottomfish fishery, the northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris) has been observed in the MHI and the NWHI. In 2002 a yearling 

appeared on the island of Hawaii, was captured, and transported to the Marine Mammal Center 

in California for rehabilitation and reintroduction to the wild. 
116

Although this species may occasionally be found within the action area and could interact with 

the U.S. fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, no reported or observed incidental takes of this 

species have occurred in the bottomfish fishery. There is no current expectation of future 

interactions between this species and the bottomfish fishery and therefore, this species will not 

be considered further in this document. 

3.5.2 Sea Turtles 

All sea turtles are designated as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. The five species 

of sea turtles known to be present in the region in which bottomfish vessels operate are: the 

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), the olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and the green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas). 

Leatherback turtles and hawksbill turtles are classified as endangered. The breeding populations 

of Mexico olive ridley turtles are currently listed as endangered, while all other olive ridley 

populations are listed as threatened. The loggerhead turtles and the green turtles are listed as 

threatened (note that the green turtle is listed as threatened under the ESA throughout its Pacific 

range, except for the endangered population nesting on the Pacific coast of Mexico). 

Leatherbacks have the most extensive range of any living reptile and have been reported 

circumglobally from latitudes 71°N to 42°S in the Pacific and in all other major oceans. The diet 

of the leatherback turtle generally consists of cnidarians (i.e. medusae and siphonophores) in the 

pelagic environment. They lead a completely pelagic existence, foraging widely in temperate 

waters except during the nesting season, when gravid females return to beaches to lay eggs. 

Typically, leatherbacks are found in convergence zones and upwelling areas in the open ocean, 

along continental margins, and in archipelagic waters. 

The loggerhead turtle is a cosmopolitan species found in temperate and subtropical waters and 

inhabiting continental shelves, bays, estuaries and lagoons. Major nesting grounds are generally 

located in warm temperate and subtropical regions, generally north of 25°N or south of 25°S 

latitude in the Pacific Ocean. For their first several years of life, loggerheads forage in open 

ocean pelagic habitats. Both juvenile and subadult loggerheads feed on pelagic crustaceans, 

mollusks, fish and algae. 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. 

The olive ridley is one of the smallest living sea turtles (carapace length usually between 60 and 

70 cm) and is regarded as the most abundant sea turtle in the world. Since the directed take of sea 

turtles was stopped in the early 1990s, the nesting populations in Mexico seem to be recovering, 

with females nesting in record numbers in recent years. The olive ridley turtle is omnivorous and 

identified prey include a variety of benthic and pelagic items such as shrimp, jellyfish, crabs, 

snails, and fish, as well as algae and sea grass. 

The hawksbill turtle is rapidly approaching extinction in the Pacific, primarily due to the 

harvesting of the species for its meat, eggs, and shell, as well as the destruction of nesting 

habitat. Hawksbills have a relatively unique diet of sponges. 
117

Green turtles in Hawaii are genetically distinct and geographically isolated, which is 

uncharacteristic of other regional sea turtle populations. Both nesting and foraging populations of 

green turtles in Hawaii appear to have increased over the past 20 years. In Hawaii, green turtles 

nested historically on beaches throughout the archipelago, but now nesting is restricted primarily 

to beaches in the NWHI. More than 90 percent of the Hawaiian population of the green turtle 

nests at FFS. Satellite tagging of these animals indicates that most of them migrate to the MHI to 

feed, and then return to breed. The four other species of sea turtles are seen in the waters of the 

NWHI only on rare occasions. 

3.5.3 Seabirds 

Although there are several seabird colonies in the MHI, the NWHI colonies harbor more than 90 

percent of the total Hawaiian Archipelago seabird population. The NWHI provide most of the 

nesting habitat for more than 14 million Pacific seabirds. More than 99 percent of the world’s 

laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) and 98 percent of the world’s black-footed albatross 

(P. nigripes) return to the NWHI to reproduce. Of the 18 species of seabirds recorded in the 

NWHI, only the short-tailed albatross (P. albatrus) is listed as endangered under the ESA. The 

short-tailed albatross population is the smallest of any of the albatross species occurring in the 

North Pacific. Land-based sighting records indicate that 15 short-tailed albatrosses have visited 

the NWHI over the past 60 years. Five of these visits were between 1994 and 1999 (NMFS 

1999). 

3.5.4 Bottomfish Fisheries Interactions with Protected Species 

Since October 2003, the Hawaii-based bottomfish fishery has been monitored under a mandatory 

observer program. Data for seven calendar quarters are available on the PIRO website. During 

this time, observer coverage has averaged 21.4 percent. There have been no observed 

interactions with sea turtles or marine mammals. There have been a total of six seabird 

interactions, including two unidentified boobies, one brown booby, one black-footed albatross 

and two Laysan albatrosses. Only the black-footed albatross interaction occurred during 

bottomfish fishing operations. All of the other interactions were observed in transit during 

trolling operations. 

3.6 Economic, Social, and Cultural Setting 

3.6.1 Hawaii Overview 

Income generation in Hawaii is characterized 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, Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism estimated that 

direct and indirect visitor contribution to the state economy was 22.3 percent. A bit less than half 
118

of that (10.2 percent) 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 in Hawaii in 2002 were $4,293,459,000. Defense 

expenditures in Hawaii are expected to increase significantly in the near future. These 

expenditures fall into two broad categories: monies for the pending arrival of the Stryker force, 

which requires changes in facilities and additional facilities; and the renovation of old military 

housing as well as the construction of new military housing. As of late July 2004, Hawaii is 

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, not including funds for day to day operations 

or payroll (Inouye 2004). 

Agricultural products include sugarcane, pineapples (which together brought in $269.2 million in 

1997), 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. This change may be due to the increasing use of lots zoned for agriculture for 

construction of high-end homes, a trend that is evident throughout the state. 

Table 41 summarizes trends in Hawaii’s gross state product by industry. The fishing industry is 

lumped together with agriculture, forestry, and hunting. That sector of the economy generated 

$383 million in 2003. 

Table 41: Hawaii Gross State Product by Industry, 1997–2003 ($Million). 

Industry 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Total, all industries 37,546 37,614 38,702 40,176 41,720 43,806 46,671

Private industries total 29,254 29,267 30,128 31,480 32,636 33,886 36,088

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting 363 359 374 365 347 372 383

Mining 17 16 17 18 17 15 17

Utilities 868 859 860 829 876 819 878

Construction 1,687 1,662 1,627 1,817 1,911 2,099 2,329

Manufacturing 858 823 835 838 811 784 842

Wholesale trade 1,331 1,320 1,360 1,372 1,444 1,530 1,640

Retail trade 2,955 2,849 2,903 3,018 3,144 3,302 3,544

Transportation & 

warehousing 1,621 1,632 1,748 1,847 1,892 1,640 1,623

Information 1,149 1,189 1,262 1,328 1,340 1,283 1,303

Finance and insurance 1,770 1,679 1,670 1,863 1,938 2,062 2,176
119

Industry 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Real estate, rental, and 

leasing 6,154 6,219 6,555 6,674 6,993 7,334 7,806

Professional and 

technical services 1,634 1,671 1,669 1,710 1,856 1,983 2,155

Management of 

companies and 

enterprises 

463 466 457 431 406 483 508

Administrative and 

waste services 959 974 1,073 1,166 1,261 1,405 1,541

Educational services 355 366 373 403 417 443 466

Health care and social 

assistance 2,372 2,471 2,517 2,666 2,838 2,986 3,216

Arts, entertainment, 

and recreation 485 493 488 492 508 552 574

Accommodation and 

food services 3,197 3,150 3,264 3,560 3,507 3,638 3,861

Other services 1,016 1,069 1,075 1,082 1,128 1,156 1,226

Government total 8,292 8,347 8,574 8,696 9,085 9,921 10,582

Source: DBEDT 2004 
120

The latest economic trends analysis (Bank of Hawaii, October 2005) concluded the following: 

Strong Hawaii employment data through August 2005 confirm recently reported first 

half Honolulu inflation, yielding strong Hawaii real personal income growth, 

suggesting that good economic momentum continued into third quarter 2005. 

Flattening summer tourism numbers against seasonal capacity constraints, combined 

with a stronger dollar and continued travel cost pressure from rising fuel costs, 

support the forecast of slower visitor arrivals growth going into 2006. As noted with 

last month’s semiannual construction forecast revisions, construction growth is also 

expected to slow during 2006 because of completion of the military construction 

ramp-up and decreases in private authorizations. But strong overall economic growth 

should spill over from 2005 to 2006 for Hawaii, with only a modest slowing in the 

local expansion’s pace. 

3.6.1.1 Fishing-Related Economic Activities 

The harvest and processing of fishery resources play a minor role in Hawaii’s economy. The 

most recent estimate of the contribution of the commercial, charter and recreational fishing 

sectors to the state economy indicated that in 1992, these sectors contributed $118.79 million of 

output (production), $34.29 million of household income, and employed 1,469 people (Sharma et 

al. 1999). These contributions accounted for only 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). However, 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 

during the past decade. 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. 

Hawaii’s commercial fishing sector includes a wide array of fisheries. The Hawaii longline 

fishery is by far the most important economically, accounting for 73 percent of the estimated exvessel value of the total commercial fish landings in the state in 1999 (Table 42). As shown in 

that table, the NWHI and MHI bottomfish fisheries account for a relatively small share of the 

landings and value of the state’s commercial fisheries. 
121

Table 42: Volume and Value of Commercial Fish Landings in Hawaii by Fishery, 1999. 

Fishery

Pounds 

Landed 

(1,000s)

Percent of Total 

Pounds Landed

Ex-vessel 

Value 

($1,000s)

Percent of Total Exvessel Value

Pelagic longline 28,300 75% 47,400 73% 

Troll 2,960 8% 4,550 7% 

Pelagic handline 2,340 6% 3,950 6% 

Aku pole and line 1,450 4% 1,850 3% 

MHI bottomfish 

handline 420 1% 1,300 2% 

NWHI bottomfish 

handline 370 1% 1,210 2% 

NWHI lobster 

trap 260 1% 1,040 2% 

All other fisheries 1,650 4% 3,330 5% 

Total 37,750 100% 64,630 100% 

Source: Data compiled by PIFSC. 

Another perspective on the role of bottomfish in Hawaii is to compare landings with pelagic, reef 

fish, and other fish. Table 43 shows the changing patterns from 2000 to 2003 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service 2004). 

Table 43: Annual Estimated Commercial Landings in Hawaii (1,000 lbs), 2000–2003. 

Year Pelagic Fish Bottomfish Reef Fish Other Fish

2000 26,763 718 199 957 

2001 22,011 660 250 591 

2002 22,330 621 345 662 

2003 21,993 602 315 661 

Estimates of the economic activity in the various sectors (commercial, charter, and recreational) 

of Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery can be obtained from various published data. According to the 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (1999), for the period 1994 to 1998, the 

ex-vessel value of annual commercial landings in the NWHI and MHI bottomfish fisheries 

averaged about $1,096,200 and $1,625,800, respectively. Based on data collected in a recent 

cost-earnings study of Hawaii’s charter fishing industry (Hamilton 1998), it is estimated that the 

charter boat fleet earns about $342,675 per year from taking patrons on bottomfish fishing trips. 

Finally, based on information gathered in a recent cost-earnings study of Hawaii’s small boat 

fishery (Hamilton and Huffman 1997), it is estimated that annual personal consumption 
122

expenditures for recreational vessels engaged in bottomfish fishing total about $2,827,096. 

Recreational vessels are fishing boats that do not sell any portion of their catch. 

However, the above values reflect only the direct revenues and expenditures in the various 

sectors of the bottomfish fishery. They do not take into account that employment and income are 

also generated indirectly within the state by commercial, recreational, and charter fishing for 

bottomfish. The fishery has an economic impact on businesses whose goods and services are 

used as inputs in the fishery, such as fuel suppliers, chandlers, gear manufacturers, boatyards, 

tackle shops, ice plants, bait shops, and insurance brokers. In addition, the fishery has an impact 

on businesses that use fishery products as inputs for their own production of goods and services. 

Firms that buy, process, or distribute fishery products include seafood wholesale and retail 

dealers, restaurants, hotels, and retail markets. Both the restaurant and hotel trade and the charter 

fishing industry are closely linked to the tourism base that is so important to Hawaii’s economy. 

Finally, people earning incomes directly or indirectly from the fishery make expenditures within 

the economy as well, generating additional jobs and income. 

A more accurate assessment of current contributions of the bottomfish fishery to the economy 

can be obtained using the Type II output, income and employment multipliers calculated by 

Sharma et al. (1999) for Hawaii’s (non-longline) commercial, charter and recreational fishing 

sectors. Applying these multipliers to an approximation of the final demand in each of the sectors 

involved in bottomfish fishing, it is estimated that this fishing activity contributes $10.78 million 

of output (production) and $2.51 million of household income to the state economy and creates 

the equivalent of 113 full-time jobs (Table 44). 

Table 44: Estimated Output, Household Income, and Employment Generated by 

Bottomfish Fishing Activity in Hawaii. 

Fishery Sales 

($)

Final 

Demand 

($)

Output 

($)

Household 

Income 

($)

Employment 

(jobs)1

NWHI bottomfish fishery 

Commercial vessels2 1096200 580,986 1,382,747 482,218 25

MHI bottomfish fishery 

 Commercial vessels2 1625800 861,674 2,050,784 715,189 36

 Charter vessels3 305664 293,437 760,002 269,962 14

 Recreational vessels4 2,827,096 6,587,134 1,046,026 38

Total 10,780,667 2,513,431 113
123

1

 Calculated as full-time jobs. The input–output model assumes that fishing accounts for 20 

percent of the employment time of part-time commercial fishermen (Sharma et al. 1999). 

2

Average annual sales estimate for 1994–1998 from Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council (1999). 3

Sales estimate based on the following assumptions: 199 active 

vessels; average annual sales of $76,800 per vessel from charter fees and mount commissions; 

and two percent of total sales attributed to bottomfish fishing trips (Hamilton 1998). 

4

Expenditure estimates based on the following assumptions (Hamilton and Huffman 1997; Pan et 

al. 1999): 

Number of recreational boats 2,490 

Annual number of bottomfish fishing trips 3.81 

Average trip costs 84.75 

Average fixed costs: apportioned according 

to ratio of bottomfish fishing trips to total 

number of trips 

213 

3.6.2 Fishing Communities 

The 1996 SFA amendments to the MSA added a definition of “fishing community” (MSA §(16)) 

and required that fishing communities be considered in the fishery impact statement (§303(a)(9)) 

and in certain other contexts, such as any proposal for limited access to a fishery (§303(b)(6)) 

and any plan to end overfishing (§304(e)(4)). 

The MSA defines “fishing community” (§3(16)): 

 The term “fishing community means a community which is substantially dependent on or 

substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and 

economic needs, and included fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and U.S. fish 

processors that are based in such community. 

The SFA also added National Standard 8 (§301(a)(8)), which states the following: 

 Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation 

requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and the rebuilding of 

overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities 

in order to (a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities and (b) to the extent 

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 

The National Standard Guidelines further specify that (50 CFR 600.345): 

 A fishing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a specific 

location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing or 

on directly related fisheries-dependent services and industries (e.g. boatyards, ice suppliers, 

tackle shops). 
124

And furthermore: 

The term “sustained participation” means continued access to the fishery within the constraints 

of the condition of the resource. 

To address the requirements of the SFA, the Council prepared a comprehensive document with 

amendments to all four of its FMPs. Amendment 6 to the Bottomfish FMP, Amendment 8 to the 

Pelagics FMP, Amendment 10 to the Crustaceans FMP, and Amendment 4 to the Precious 

Corals FMP were published in September 1998 and submitted to NMFS for review. NMFS only 

partially approved the amendments, as described in a Federal Register notice published on April 

19, 1999 (64 FR 19067). Three components of the amendments were disapproved: the bycatch 

provisions (MSA §301(a)(9), §303(a)(11), and other sections) for the Bottomfish and Pelagics 

FMPs, the overfishing provisions (§303(a)(10) and other sections) for the Bottomfish, Pelagics, 

and Crustaceans FMPs, and for all four FMPs, the description of the State of Hawaii as a single 

fishing community (MSA §301(a)(8), §303(a)(9), and other sections). 

The Council prepared and submitted supplements to the amendments to address the disapproved 

sections of Bottomfish FMP Amendment 6, Pelagic FMP Amendment 8, Crustaceans FMP 

Amendment 10, and Precious Corals Amendment 4 regarding the identification of fishing 

communities. The fishing communities supplement (WPRFMC 2002c) reconsidered the original 

identifications and identified a new set of fishing communities within Hawaii. It provided 

additional background and analysis to justify those identifications. It does not modify the 

identification of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam as fishing 

communities, as these definitions were approved in the original SFA amendments. 

With respect to Hawaii, the findings indicated that fishing and related services and industries are 

important to all of Hawaii’s inhabited islands that the social and economic cohesion of fishery 

participants is particularly strong at the island level, and that fishing communities are best not 

distinguished according to fishery or gear type. The most logical unit of analysis for describing 

the community setting and assessing community-level impacts is the island. In each of the four 

FMP amendments, each of the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 

Hawaii is identified as a fishing community for the purposes of assessing the effects of fishery 

conservation and management measures on fishing communities, providing for the sustained 

participation of such communities, minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities, 

and for other purposes under the MSA. These definitions were subsequently approved by NMFS. 

The social analysis provided in this section is driven by the SFA requirement that impacts to 

fishing communities be considered in the context of fishery management decisions and by the 

NEPA requirement that the social and cultural effects of alternatives be discussed (40 CFR 

1508.8). Section 3.6 of this EIS provided an overview of the standard socioeconomic variables 

typically found in an EIS, including a summary of income and employment data for the affected 

area. The present section includes data on population size and ethnicity and a description of the 

sociocultural setting of the bottomfish fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. 

The sociocultural aspects of a fishery include the shared technology, customs, terminology, 

attitudes and values related to fishing. While it is the fishermen that benefit directly from the 
125

fishing lifestyle, individuals who participate in the marketing or consumption of fish or in the 

provision of fishing supplies may also share in the fishing culture. An integral part of this 

framework is the broad network of interpersonal social and economic relations through which 

the cultural attributes of a fishery are transmitted and perpetuated. The relations that originate 

from a shared dependence on fishing and fishing-related activities to meet economic and social 

needs can have far-reaching effects in the daily lives of those involved. For example, they may 

constitute important forms of social capital, that is, social resources that individuals and families 

can draw on to help them achieve desired goals. 

The products of fishing supplied to the community may also have sociocultural significance. For 

instance, beyond their dietary importance fish may be important items of exchange and gift 

giving that also help develop and maintain social relationships within the community. 

Alternatively, at certain celebratory meals various types of seafood may become imbued with 

specific symbolic meanings. 

Finally, the sociocultural context of fishing may include the contribution fishing makes to the 

cultural identity and continuity of the broader community or region. As a result of this 

contribution the activity of fishing may have existence value for some members of the general 

public. Individuals who do not fish themselves and are never likely to fish may derive 

satisfaction and enjoyment from knowing that these fisheries exist. They may value the 

knowledge that the traditions, customs and life ways of fishing are being preserved. 

3.6.2.1 Population Size and Ethnicity 

The 1990 census listed the population of Hawaii as 1,108,229. This figure rose to 1,179,198 in 

1995 and to 1,211,537 in 2000. The population increased by a rate of 6.9 percent between 1990 

and 1999. 

The state of Hawaii is divided into five counties. The county of Maui includes the islands of 

Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui and Molokai. The county of Honolulu encompasses the island of Oahu 

and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands excluding Midway Atoll. Kauai County consists of the 

islands of Kauai and Niihau. The population of each county is provided in Table 45. 

Table 45: Hawaii Population by County. 

Area 1990 Census 2000 Census

Hawaii State 1,108,229 1,211,537 

Honolulu County, HI 836,231 874,154 

Hawaii County, HI 120,317 148,677 

Kauai County, HI 51,177 584,63 

Maui County, HI 100,374 128,094 

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 
126

The 2000 Census redefined the way race is measured in a number of ways, allowing individuals 

to identify themselves as one race or a combination of races, as well as having a separate 

classification system for Hispanic or Latino and race. As a result, describing the makeup of 

Hawaii’s population is more complex. Perhaps the most accurate way to describe Hawaii’s 

population is to report the proportions of race alone or in combination with one or more other 

races. In 2000, 39.3 percent of Hawaii residents described themselves as white, 2.8 percent as 

black or African American, 2.1 percent as American Indian or Alaska native, 58 percent as 

Asian, 23.3 percent as native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and 3.9 percent as some other 

race. These proportions add up to more than 100 percent because many individuals reported 

more than one race. Of the 78.6 percent of residents who reported just one race, 24.5 percent 

listed White, 1.8 percent Black or African American, 41.6 percent Asian (including 4.7 percent 

Chinese, 14.1 percent Filipino, 16.7 percent Japanese, 1.9 percent Korean, and 0.6 percent 

Vietnamese), and 9.4 percent Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander. 

In 1995 and 1996, Hamilton and Huffman (1997) conducted a survey of small-boat owners who 

engage in Hawaii’s commercial and recreational fisheries, including the troll, pelagic handline 

and bottomfish handline fisheries. The survey found that the three largest ethnic groups 

represented in the sample were Japanese (33 percent), mixed with part Hawaiian (16 percent) 

and Caucasian (12 percent). Hamilton and Huffman (1997) speculated that the high proportion of 

Japanese and part Hawaiians in the sample reflects the traditional connections that these two 

ethnic groups have with the sea. These sociocultural connections are discussed further in the 

following section. 

With specific regard to the NWHI bottomfish fishery, a 1993 survey of 15 owner-operators and 

hired captains who participate in the fishery found that 87 percent were Caucasian and 13 

percent were part Hawaiian (Hamilton 1994). However, it is likely that the ethnic composition of 

the deckhands aboard these vessels is much more mixed and reflects the highly diverse ethnic 

character of the state’s total population 

3.6.2.2 Sociocultural Setting 

Over the past 125 years, the sociocultural context of fishing in Hawaii has been shaped by 

multiethnic participants in local fisheries. Although certain ethnic groups have predominated in 

Hawaii’s fisheries in the past and ethnic enclaves continue to exist within certain fisheries, the 

fishing tradition in Hawaii is generally characterized by a partial amalgamation of multicultural 

attributes. An examination of the way in which the people of Hawaii harvest, distribute and 

consume seafood reveals remnants of the varied technology, customs and values of Native 

Hawaiians and immigrant groups from Japan, China, Europe, America, the Philippines, and 

elsewhere. 

3.6.2.3 Social Aspects of Fish Harvest 

Commercial fishing first became important in the Hawaiian Islands with the arrival of the British 

and American whaling fleets during the early nineteenth century. The whalers made the islands 

their provisioning and trading headquarters because of their central location in the Pacific 

(Nakayama 1987). This trade reached its zenith in the 1850s when more than 400 whaling 
127

vessels arrived in Honolulu annually (Shoemaker 1948). European- and American-owned trading 

concerns, called “factors,” were established to service the whalers and gradually became the 

dominant enterprises in Honolulu. The significance of whaling to Hawaii’s economy waned 

considerably during the late nineteenth century by which time plantation agriculture centered on 

sugar and pineapple production had grown in importance. A number of the trading companies 

that supported the whaling industry, however, adjusted to these economic changes and remained 

at the heart of Hawaii’s industrial and financial structure (Shoemaker 1948). 

The introduction of a cash economy into Hawaii and the establishment of communities of 

foreigners in the islands also led to the development of a local commercial fishery. As early as 

1832, it was the custom for fish and other commodities to be sold in a large square near the 

waterfront in Honolulu (Reynolds 1835). In 1851, the first regular market house for the sale of 

fishery products was erected (Cobb 1902). The territorial government replaced this market in 

1890 with an elaborate structure that Cobb (1902, p. 435) referred to as “one of the best [market 

houses] in the United States.” Other fish markets were established on the islands of Maui and 

Hawaii. Locally caught bottomfish were in high demand at these markets. In Bryan’s (1915) list 

of seafood preferences by the various “nationalities” in Hawaii, all of the bottomfish species 

listed (i.e., hāpu‘upu‘u, kāhala, ‘ōpakapaka and uku) were among the types of fish purchased by 

all social groups. Bryan (1915, p. 371) noted that some of the snappers “may be procured almost 

every day, there being more than a hundred thousand pounds sold annually in the Hawaiian 

markets.” Jordan and Evermann (1902) wrote of uku: “This fish is common about Honolulu, 

being brought into the market almost every day. It is one of the best of food-fishes.” Gindai is 

also referred to as “one of our best food fishes” by Brigham (1908, Cobb (1902) reported that 

‘ula‘ula, uku, and ulua were among the five species of fish taken commercially on all the islands. 

Titcomb (1972) wrote that ‘ōpakapaka was one of the most common fish on restaurant menus 

prior to World War II. 

Initially, commercial fishing in Hawaii was monopolized by Native Hawaiians, who supplied the 

local market with fish using canoes, nets, traps, spears, and other traditional fishing devices 

(Cobb 1902; Jordan and Evermann 1902; Konishi 1930). However, the role that Native 

Hawaiians played in Hawaii’s fishing industry gradually diminished through the latter half of the 

nineteenth century. During this period, successive waves of immigrants of various races and 

nationalities arrived in Hawaii, thus increasing the non-indigenous population from 5,366 in 

1872 to 114,345 in 1900 (Office of Hawaiian Affairs 1998). The new arrivals included 

Americans, Chinese, Portuguese, and Filipinos, but particularly significant in terms of having a 

long-term impact on the fishing industry was the arrival of a large number of Japanese. The 

Japanese, like the majority of the early immigrants, were contracted to work on Hawaii’s 

sugarcane plantations. When contract terms expired on the plantations, many of the Japanese 

immigrants who had been skilled commercial fishermen from the coastal areas of Wakayama, 

Shizuoka, and Yamaguchi Prefectures in Japan turned to the sea for a living (Okahata 1971). 

Later, experienced fishermen came from Japan to Hawaii for the specific purpose of engaging in 

commercial fishing. The bottomfish fishing gear and techniques employed by the Japanese 

immigrants were slight modifications of those traditionally used by Native Hawaiians. 

During much of the twentieth century, Japanese immigrants to Hawaii and their descendants 

were preeminent in Hawaii’s commercial fishing industry. The tightly knit communities that the 
128

first Japanese immigrants formed both helped ease the transition to American society and 

retarded the process of acculturation (Tamura, 1994). The Japanese were able to maintain their 

separate communities in Hawaii more effectively than any other immigrant group. Among those 

Japanese communities of particular significance were the settlements of commercial fishermen 

and their families in the Palama, River Street, and Kākā‘āko areas of Honolulu adjacent to the 

harbor (Lind 1980). 

The adherence of Japanese immigrants to traditional cultural practices included Japanese 

religious observances, and many of the religious activities of communities such as Kākā‘āko 

were centered on fishing (Miyasaki 1973). Various traditional Japanese taboos and rituals 

directed how a new fishing boat was to be launched, when a vessel could leave or return to port, 

what items could be brought on board a boat, and many other aspects of fishing behavior 

(Hamamoto 1928; Katamoto 1984). Over the years, succeeding generations of fishermen of 

Japanese ancestry in Hawaii became more “Americanized,” but many Japanese fishing traditions 

persisted. For example, Japanese immigrant fishermen brought from Japan the Shinto practice of 

building a jinsha (shrine) dedicated to a deity such as Konpira-sama or Ebisu-sama (Kubota 

1984; Miyasaki 1973). Today, an Ebisu jinsha constructed at Maalaea on the island of Maui 

during the early 1900s still stands, and fishermen of Japanese ancestry as well as others who 

share a common bond in fishing continue each year to ceremonially bless individual fishing 

vessels (Kubota 1984; T. Arine, personal communication 2000. Maui Jinsha). 

In addition to ethnic and community ties, the physical danger of fishing as an occupation also 

engendered a sense of commonality among fishermen. Describing the captains and crews of the 

early sampan fleet in Hawaii, Okahata (1971, p. 208) wrote the following: “It is said that the 

fishermen were in a clan by themselves and were imbued with a typical seaman’s reckless daring 

spirit of ‘death lies only a floor board away.’” The extreme isolation of the NWHI and the 

limited shelter they offered during rough weather made fishing trips to these islands particularly 

hazardous. The perils of fishing in the NWHI for bottomfish and other species captured the 

attention of the public media (e.g. Inouye 1931; Lau 1936). 

As late as the 1970s, the full-time professional fishermen in Hawaii were predominately of 

Japanese descent (Garrod and Chong 1978). However, by that period hundreds of local residents 

of various ethnicities were also participating in Hawaii’s offshore fisheries as part-time 

commercial and recreational fishermen. In addition, a growing number of fishermen from the 

continental United States began relocating to Hawaii. Many of the new arrivals came to the 

islands because declining catch rates in some mainland fisheries had led to increasingly 

restrictive management regimes. 

Today, the people who participate in Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery and other offshore fisheries 

make up an ethnically mixed and spatially dispersed group numbering several hundred 

individuals, although actual numbers are difficult to ascertain. Most are year-round residents of 

Hawaii, but some choose to maintain principal residences elsewhere. Participants in the 

bottomfish fishery do not reside in a specific location and do not constitute a recognizable 

fishing community in any geographical sense of the term. There are a few rural villages in the 

state where most residents are at least partially economically dependent on fishing for pelagic 

species (Glazier 1999). In general, however, those who are dependent on or engaged in the 
129

harvest of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs do not include entire cities and 

towns, but subpopulations of metropolitan areas and towns. These subpopulations make up 

fishing communities in the sense of social groups whose members share similar lifestyles 

associated with fishing. 

Most of the vessels that participate in the NWHI bottomfish fishery utilize harbor facilities at 

Kewalo Basin, a harbor located in the metropolitan Honolulu area. Three vessels operate from 

Port Allen Harbor on Kauai. Nearly all of the participants in the NWHI bottomfish fishery 

reprovision in Honolulu and offload their catch at the fish auction. In addition, most of the largevolume, restaurant-oriented wholesalers that buy, process, and distribute fishery products are 

located in the greater Honolulu area. Businesses whose goods and services are used as inputs in 

Hawaii’s offshore commercial fisheries, such as ice plants, marine rail ways, marine suppliers, 

welders, and repair operations, are similarly concentrated in Honolulu. However, the 

contribution of the harvesting and processing of fishery resources to the total economic fabric of 

Honolulu is negligible in comparison to other economic activities in the metropolitan area, such 

as tourism. In other words, Honolulu is the center of a major portion of commercial fishingrelated activities in the state, but it is not a community substantially dependent upon or 

substantially engaged in fisheries in comparison to its dependence upon and engagement in other 

economic sectors. 

The bottomfish fishing fleet that concentrates its effort in the waters around the MHI consists 

mainly of vessels trailer operating from numerous launching facilities scattered throughout the 

state (Hamilton and Huffman, 1997). Glazier (1999) identified 55 ramps and harbors used by 

commercial and recreational fishing boats. This number does not include several private boat 

mooring and launching facilities. Many of these harbors and ramps offer minimal shore-side 

support services, and even some of the large, well-developed harbors are remote from any central 

business district or residential area. However, the extensive network of launching sites provides 

fishermen living anywhere on a given island ready access to multiple fishing grounds (Glazier, 

1999). 

The motivations for fishing among contemporary Hawaii fishermen tend to be mixed even for a 

given individual (Glazier 1999). In the small boat fishery around the MHI, the distinction 

between “recreational” and “commercial” fishermen is extremely tenuous (Pooley 1993a). 

Hawaii’s seafood market is not as centralized and industrialized as U.S. mainland fisheries, so it 

has always been feasible for small-scale fishermen to sell any or all of their catch for a 

respectable price. Money earned from part-time commercial fishing is an important supplement 

to the basic incomes of many Hawaii families. 

It is also important to note that many people in Hawaii who might be considered commercial 

fishermen hold non-fishing jobs that contribute more to their household income than does fishing 

(Pooley 1993a). For some fishermen, non-fishing jobs are not a choice, but a necessity because 

of the inability to earn an adequate return from fishing. Many participants in Hawaii’s offshore 

fisheries often catch insufficient fish to cover even fuel, bait, and ice expenses, but they continue 

fishing simply for the pleasure of it. Some go so far as to pursue non-fishing occupations that 

allow them to maximize the time they can spend fishing regardless if it is profitable or not 

(Glazier 1999). 
130

Even those fishermen who rely on fishing as their primary source of income have other reasons 

for their occupational choice besides financial gain. For example, a 1993 survey of owner–

operators and hired captains who participate in the NWHI bottomfish fishery found that 

enjoyment of the lifestyle or work itself is an important motivation for fishing among fishery 

participants (Table 46). 

 
131

Table 46: Motivations of 1993 Active Vessel Captains and Owners in the NWHI Bottomfish Fishery. 

Mau Zone Hoomalu Zo

Hired captain vessels 

N = 3 

All vessels 

N = 4 

Owner-operated 

vessels 

N = 5 Captain Owner 

Motivation

Most 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important

Most 

Important

Somewhat 

Important 

Most 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Most 

Important 

Som

Imp

Enjoy the lifestyle 

20% 60% 67% 33% NA NA 5

Enjoy the work 20% 67% NA NA 25% 2Primary source of income 

60% 40% 33% 50% 2

Source of additional income 

 20% 33% 

No other source of employment 

 20% 

Long-term family tradition 

 33% 5

Long-term investment goals 

20% 20% NA NA 33% 33% 5

Tax write off NA NA 33% Cover a portion of fixed costs 

20% NA NA 

Recreational purposes 

 NA NA 33% 

Plan to operate it myself 

NA NA NA NA 33% 

Source: Hamilton (1994). 
132

Fulfillment of social obligations may also at times be an important reason for fishing. Fish are an 

important food item among many of the ethnic groups represented in Hawaii, especially during 

various social events. Fishermen are expected to provide fish during these occasions and may 

make a fishing trip especially for that purpose (Glazier 1999). 

Finally, some Hawaii fishermen feel a sense of continuity with previous generations of fishermen 

and want to perpetuate the fishing lifestyle. The aforementioned 1993 survey of participants in 

the NWHI bottomfish fishery found that half of the respondents who fish in the Hoomalu Zone 

were motivated to fish by a long-term family tradition (Table 46). This sense of continuity is also 

reflected in the importance placed on the process of learning about fishing from “old timers” and 

transmitting that knowledge to the next generation. A recent sociocultural survey of small 

trolling vessel captains in Hawaii found that many of those interviewed either descend from 

long-time fishing families or have worked in fishing or fishing-related work since they were in 

their teens (Glazier 1999). The average captain had almost 18 years of offshore fishing 

experience. The survey found that 35 percent of boat captains were taught how to fish by their 

fathers, grandfathers, or uncles, while 32 percent reported being taught by friends (Glazier 1999). 

Only 14 percent indicated that they taught themselves. Most Hawaii fishermen consider 

knowledge and experience to be more important factors in determining fishing success than 

high-tech gear. An example of the value placed on information passed down from previous 

generations of fishermen is the monument that one town on Oahu has recently proposed to 

commemorate the kūpuna (elders) of that area who are recognized for their fishing skills and 

knowledge (Ramirez 2000). 

Whatever the motivations for fishing, the contributions of friends and family members to these 

efforts are often substantial. Small boat fishing in Hawaii is almost always a cooperative venture 

involving friends or relatives as crew members (Glazier 1999). In addition, wives, in particular, 

often play an essential role in shore-side activities such as the transport of fish to markets, 

purchase of ice, vessel maintenance, bookkeeping, and so forth (Glazier 1999). 

In Hawaii, during the past several years there have been a number of highly publicized clashes 

between the owners of large and small fishing boats and between fishermen who are newcomers 

and those who are established residents (Glazier 1999). The reasons for these conflicts are 

complex, but the perception that the state’s marine resources are being damaged and depleted by 

certain groups of fishermen is a central factor. Fish landing statistics support the notion that catch 

rates in some fisheries are on the decline. Many fishermen have found that fishing is no longer a 

profitable enterprise and have dropped out of the industry (Glazier 1999). The situation is 

aggravated by a depressed state economy that has made it more difficult for many fishermen to 

find the financial resources to support marginal fishing operations. 

In some cases, government regulations have helped alleviate competition among fishermen. In 

1991, for example, a longline vessel exclusion zone ranging from 50 to 75 nautical miles was 

established around the MHI to prevent gear conflicts between large longline vessels and small 

troll and handline boats. However, government regulations have also added to the level of 

tension and feelings of frustration among fishermen. For instance, many fishermen in Hawaii 

have adjusted to natural variations in the availability of various types of fish by adopting a multispecies, multi-gear, highly flexible fishing strategy. However, this strategy is increasingly 
133

constrained by the implementation of limited access programs in Hawaii’s major commercial 

fisheries (Pooley 1993a). 

Despite this highly competitive and divisive environment, fishermen have been able to develop 

and maintain networks of social relations that foster collaboration and mutual support. For 

example, fishermen’s attempts at organizing to promote their shared interests, whether in the 

market or lobbying government for changes in policy have generally been fragmented. 

Nevertheless, some fishermen in Hawaii are represented by a hui or organization, and these 

voluntary associations often facilitate coordination and cooperation for the mutual benefit of 

their members. A case in point is the Maui Cooperative Fishermen’s Association, which 

comprises bottomfish fishermen, many of whom are part timers. The Association negotiates 

product prices with one or more seafood distributors who, in turn, supply local hotels and 

restaurants with fresh fish. 

Glazier (1999) observed that membership in a Hawaii fishing hui can instill a strong feeling of 

camaraderie and solidarity among fishermen. The cohesion within these organizations constitutes 

available social capital for both their members and the broader community. For example, fishing 

clubs often organize or participate in community service projects (Glazier 1999). Examples of 

more ad hoc forms of cooperation among fishermen are also common. For instance, fishermen 

may take turns trucking each other’s fish from distant landing sites to the central fish auction in 

Honolulu, thereby reducing transportation costs (Glazier 1999). 

Close social relationships also continue to be maintained between some fishermen and fish 

buyers. For example, small-boat fishermen on Kauai and the Kona side of the island of Hawaii 

tend to sell their catch directly to local buyers who, in turn, sell it to restaurants or retail markets 

(Glazier 1999). By sending their fish directly to dealers fishermen not only avoid the commission 

charged by the auction but also enjoy the price stability over the long-term that comes with an 

established reciprocal relationship. As Peterson (1973, p. 59) noted, “A fisherman feels that if he 

is ‘good to the dealer’ in supplying him with fish that he needs to fill his order, ‘the dealer will 

be good to him’ and give him a consistently fair price for his fish.” 

3.6.2.4 Social Aspects of Fish Distribution and Consumption 

Archaeological evidence indicates that seafood was part of the customary diet of the earliest 

human inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands (Goto 1986). An early European visitor to Hawaii 

observed that “there is no animal food which a Sandwich Islander esteems so much as fish” 

(Bennett 1840, p. 214). Nineteenth century immigrants to Hawaii from Asia also possessed a 

culture in which fish was an integral part of the diet. Despite the “exorbitant” fish prices that 

Hawaii residents have often encountered in the markets, the level of consumption of seafood in 

the islands has historically been very high. One early commentator noted the following: 

In the Honolulu market 2,000,000 pounds of fresh salt water fish valued at 

$5,000,000 are sold annually. These figures represent a high price for a food that 

abounds in the waters all around the Islands, yet the people of this community, 

who are great lovers of the products of the sea, will gratify their tastes even at this 

expense (Anon 1907). 
134

Today, per capita seafood consumption in Hawaii is still at least twice as high as the national 

average (Shomura 1987). 

Because seafood was such a significant item in the diets of local residents, the fish markets 

themselves became important institutions in Hawaii society. Dole (1920, p. 20) noted that the 

fish market located in the busiest section of Honolulu was more than a commercial 

establishment, it was also “Honolulu’s political center where impromptu mass meetings were 

held; it was, in a way, a social center also, especially on Saturdays for then business was at its 

height.” Much of the retailing of fish now occurs through self-service supermarkets, but 

Honolulu’s fish markets have endured and continue to be centers of social interaction for some 

island residents. 

The fish markets comprise retail units the majority of which are single proprietorship, familytype operations. Close social connections have developed between retailers and consumers, as 

the success of the dealers is largely a function of their ability to maintain good relations with 

their customers and maintain a stable clientele (Garrod and Chong 1978). One journalist wrote of 

the Oahu Market, where fresh fish and produce have been sold for nearly a century, “In the 

hustle and bustle of daily life in downtown Honolulu, many people are drawn to Oahu Market 

because of its informal charm and the feeling of family one gets while shopping there” (Chinen 

1984). 

Early in the last century Bryan (1915) developed a list of the various fish purchased in the 

Honolulu market by each of Hawaii’s principal nationalities. The ethnic identification of 

Hawaii’s kamaaina (long-time residents) with particular species has continued to the present 

day. The large variety of fish typically offered in Hawaii’s seafood markets reflects the diversity 

of ethnic groups in Hawaii and their individual preferences, traditions, holidays, and 

celebrations. 

Many of the immigrant groups that came to Hawaii brought with them cultures in which fish are 

not only an integral part of the diet but are given symbolic and even transformative connotations. 

Certain fish communicate messages of solidarity, favor, opulence, and the like or are believed to 

impart specific desirable traits to the diners (Anderson 1988; Baer-Stein 1999). For example, 

some types of bottomfish that are red in color have found acceptance within the Japanese 

community in Hawaii as a substitute for red tai (sea bream, Pagrus major)—a traditional 

Japanese symbol of good luck and, therefore, an auspicious fish to be served on festive occasions 

(Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources 1979; Shoji 1983). The red color of these fish also 

symbolizes prosperity and happiness.12 The December peak in landings of opakapaka, onaga, 

kalekale, and ehu reflect the demand for them as an important dish in feasts celebrating 

Oshogatsu (Japanese New Year’s), considered the most important cultural celebration for people 

of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii. Serving these fish is also important during non-seasonal events 

such as wedding and birthday banquets. For Hawaii residents of Chinese descent, fish or yu is an 

important item during feasts celebrating Tin nien (Chinese lunar New Year) and other ritual 

observances, as it is a homophone for abundance (Choy 1989). Fish also symbolize regeneration 

 

12 The reason tai is regarded as a celebratory fish among Japanese is thought to be due not only to its beauty of form 

and color but also because tai suggests the word medetai, meaning auspicious (Shoji 1983). 
135

and freedom because of their rapid ability to propagate as well as their speed and unconfined 

lifestyle (Baer-Stein 1999). Fish with white, delicately flavored flesh are in particularly high 

demand by the Chinese community during New Year celebrations and other festive occasions 

(Peterson 1973). 

An insistence on quality, as well as quantity and variety, has also long been a hallmark of 

Hawaii’s seafood markets. For example, the Japanese immigrants to Hawaii came from a society 

in which fishermen, fish dealers, and even cooks typically handle prized fish with considerable 

care (Joya 1985). Hawaii seafood consumers continue to demand fresh fish. Both the 

discriminating tastes of local residents and the symbolic meaning with which some fish are 

imbued are linked to the importance of fish as gifts from one person or family to another. In 

Hawaii, various types of high-priced fish such as red snapper are highly regarded as gifts 

(Peterson 1973). Such sharing and gift giving may play an important role in maintaining social 

relations, as exemplified by the traditional Japanese obligation to engage in reciprocal exchanges 

of gifts according to an intricate pattern of established norms and procedures (Ogawa 1973). 

Those who neglect the obligation to reciprocate risk losing the trust of others and eventually their 

support. 

The sharing of fish among members of the extended family and community is also an early 

tradition of the indigenous people of Hawaii. The social responsibility to distribute fish and other 

resources among relatives and friends remains a salient feature of the lives of many Native 

Hawaiians that is enacted on both a regular basis and during special occasions (Glazier 1999). 

Among Native Hawaiians, fish is considered a customary food item for social events such as a 

wedding, communion, school graduation, funeral, or a child’s first birthday (baby luau; Glazier 

1999). 

3.6.2.5 Social Significance of Fishing to the Broader Community 

Commercial fishing has been part of Hawaii’s economy for nearly two centuries. Longestablished fishing-related infrastructure in Honolulu such as the fish markets and Kewalo Basin 

mooring area has helped define the character of the city. Moreover, for some major ethnic groups 

in Hawaii such as the Japanese and Native Hawaiians, the role that their forebears played in the 

development of commercial fisheries in the islands remains an important part of their collective 

memory. In 1999, for example, the Japanese Cultural Center of Honolulu organized an exhibition 

commemorating the past involvement of Japanese in Hawaii’s commercial fishing industry. 

Given the historical significance of commercial fishing in Hawaii, it likely that some local 

residents consider the fishing industry to be important in the cultural identity and heritage of the 

islands. Individuals who have never fished and do not intend to may nonetheless value the 

knowledge that others are fishing and that this activity is continuing to contribute to Hawaii’s 

social, cultural, and economic diversity. This existence value may be expressed in various ways. 

For example, some individuals may engage in vicarious fishing through the consumption of 

books, magazines, and television programs describing the fishing activities that others are 

pursuing in the waters around Hawaii. 

 
136

Just as Hawaii’s fishing tradition is an integral part of the islands’ heritage and character, the 

image of Hawaii has become linked with some types of locally caught seafood. Among the fish 

species that have become closely identified with Hawaii are bottomfish such as ōpakapaka and 

onaga. The continued availability of these seafoods in Hawaii has important implications for the 

mainstay of the state economy—tourism. Many Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii want to enjoy 

the traditional foods and symbols of prosperity of Japan while they vacation in Hawaii, including 

various types of high-quality fresh fish (Peterson, 1973). Hawaii tourists from the U.S. mainland 

and other areas where fish is not an integral part of the customary diet typically want to eat 

seafood because it is perceived as part of the unique experience of a Hawaii vacation. For both 

Japanese and U.S. mainland tourists, the experience of consuming fish in Hawaii may be 

enriched if the fish eaten is actually caught in the waters around Hawaii. Suryanata (2000) 

observed that markets within the state for “grown in Hawaii” products have expanded in the past 

decade through the proliferation of gourmet restaurants that feature “Pacific Rim” and “Hawaii 

Regional Cuisine.” This marketing strategy eschews traditional symbols constructed by the 

tourism industry in favor of inciting an appreciation of the social relationships and physical 

environment that make Hawaii n unique place. 

Suryanata (2000) also noted that place-based specialty food can retain its appeal to buyers 

beyond a vacation period or even attract buyers who have never been to the place in question. 

Just as a consumption of organic food may signify a commitment to a certain environmental and 

social values, a consumption of products from Hawaii can symbolize a partial fulfillment of a 

desire to experience or relive a Hawaii vacation. According to a national seafood marketing 

publication, the power of this constructed value to influence prospective buyers has not been lost 

on Hawaii’s seafood dealers: 

When it comes to selling seafood the Hawaiians have a distinct advantage. Their 

product comes with built-in aloha mystique, and while they’ve emphasized the 

high quality of the fish taken from their waters, they’ve also taken full advantage 

of the aura of exotic Hawaii itself in promotion on the mainland and, now, in 

Europe (Marris 1992, p. 75). 

Local production of food as opposed to a reliance on imports also creates opportunities to foster 

social connections between consumers and their food producers. As noted above, much of the 

retailing of fish in Hawaii now occurs through supermarkets, and a large quantity of the seafood 

sold is imported. However, there still exists in Hawaii personal connections between consumers 

and the individuals who harvest and retail fish. Such connections may have broad public value. 

For example, a recent article by agricultural researchers identified proximity as one of the key 

attributes of a sustainable food system: 

A sustainable food system is one in which “food is grown, harvested, processed, 

marketed, sold, [and] consumed as close to home as possible.” An emphasis on 

locally grown food, regional trading associations, locally owned processing, local 

currency, and local control over politics and regulation is found within a 

proximate system. A proximate food system will have “grocery stores close to 

home which carry local items with little or no corporately owned products to 
137

compete,” and would provide “specialty items that characterize the bioregion” 

(Kloppenburg et al. 2000, p. 182). 

3.6.6.6 Native Hawaiian Community 

Executive Order 12898, signed in 1994, requires federal agencies to address the environmental 

effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of federal actions on minority 

populations and low-income populations. This section describes environmental justice 

considerations and supplements the socioeconomic analyses in other sections of the EIS. 

As discussed in Section 3.7.1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, May 2005, the individuals who 

participate in Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery and other offshore fisheries make up an ethnically 

mixed group. A survey by Hamilton and Huffman (1997) of small-boat owners who engage in 

Hawaii’s commercial and recreational fisheries, including the troll, pelagic handline, and 

bottomfish fisheries, found that the overall distribution of survey participants’ ethnicities is 

similar to that found in Hawaii’s statewide population in that the three most common ethnicities 

are Japanese, part Hawaiian, and Caucasian. Part Hawaiians made up 16 percent of the smallboat owners surveyed. 

Vessels used in the NWHI bottomfish fishery were not included in the Hamilton and Huffman 

(1997) survey, but information on the ethnicity of some participants in this fishery is available 

from a 1993 survey conducted by Hamilton (1994). This earlier survey of 15 owner–operators 

and hired captains who participate in the NWHI bottomfish fishery found that 87 percent were 

Caucasian and 13 percent were part Hawaiian. However, it is likely that the ethnic composition 

of the deckhands aboard these vessels is much more mixed and reflects the highly diverse ethnic 

character of the state’s total population. 

With regard to the income levels of small-boat owners in Hawaii, Hamilton and Huffman (1997) 

reported that the mean household incomes of the survey respondents are above the state average, 

although the income levels of full-time fishermen tend to be less than those of recreational 

fishermen. Information on the household income of participants in the NWHI bottomfish fishery 

is unavailable. 

The public scoping process for the FEIS as well as this DSEIS identified people of Hawaiian 

ancestry as being both a minority population and a low-income population with a particular 

interest in the use of the marine resources in Hawaii, including the bottomfish resources. These 

interests arise from complex historical and contemporary economic, social, cultural, and political 

circumstances that are discussed below. Given the significance of these special circumstances, 

impacts on the Native Hawaiian community were made a separate impact topic in the 

Environmental Consequences section of this document. 

At present, people of Native Hawaiian ancestry make up about 21 percent of Hawaii’s 

population (Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 1999). By most 

statistical measures, they have the lowest incomes and poorest health of any ethnic group in the 

state. Native Hawaiians have long been among the most economically disadvantaged ethnic or 
138

racial group in Hawaii in terms of standard of living, degree of unemployment, dependence on 

transfer payments, and limited alternative employment opportunities. In recent years, Native 

Hawaiians have had the highest proportion of individuals living below the poverty line. In 1989, 

6 percent of all the families in the state had incomes classified below the federal poverty level 

(Office of Hawaiian Affairs 1998). During the same period, 14 percent of Native Hawaiians 

lived below the poverty line. Nearly 15 percent of Native Hawaiian households receive public 

assistance income, compared with 6.8 percent of households in the State (Office of Hawaiian 

Affairs 1998). In several residential areas, more than one third of Native Hawaiian households 

receive public assistance. 

For centuries, Native Hawaiians relied on seafood as their principal source of protein. However, 

the availability of many traditional seafoods has been significantly diminished. Over exploitation 

and ecological degradation of inshore areas by pollution have had a pronounced negative impact 

on Native Hawaiian marine subsistence practices. Shomura (1987), for instance, noted that 

between 1900 and 1986, the harvest of coastal fish species in Hawaii declined by 80 percent, and 

catches of neritic-pelagic species declined by 40 percent. The changes in diet that resulted from 

loss of access to sea resources have contributed to the poor health of Native Hawaiians. Of all 

racial groups living in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians are the group with the highest proportion of 

multiple risk factors leading to illness, disability, and premature death (Look and Braun 1995). 

There is abundant historical and archaeological evidence of the social importance of fishing in 

traditional Hawaiian culture. With specific regard to bottomfish, this significance was of both an 

economic and ritual nature (Iversen et al. 1990). Bottomfish such as kāhala, ulua, and ‘ula‘ula 

(onaga) are specifically mentioned in traditional prayers used by fishermen, and fishing for these 

species was associated with religious rites. The cultural significance of bottomfish species to 

Hawaiian society is also indicated by the growth stage names for ‘ōpakapaka, white ulua, kāhala, 

and the varietal names for ‘ula‘ula and uku. 

There may continue to be a strong cultural and religious connection between contemporary 

Native Hawaiians and certain species of bottomfish (Iversen et al. 1990). Some present-day 

Native Hawaiian consumers of these bottomfish may still associate these fish with traditional 

beliefs and with their dependence upon the fish for food. Because of the high cost of some 

bottomfish, they may be frustrated in maintaining such a traditional connection. Industry sources 

report that Native Hawaiians purchase proportionally less bottomfish than other ethnic groups, 

possibly because other types of fish cost less, and if Native Hawaiians have less disposable 

income to spend on fish, they would likely opt to purchase less costly species (Iversen et al. 

1990). 
139

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

For each alternative, the potential direct and indirect impacts (those that occur later in time or 

farther removed in distance) on each of the affected components of the human environment are 

described in Sections 4.1 through 4.5. The potential cumulative impacts of the alternatives are 

described in Section 4.6. 

It is difficult to assess the full ramification of any of the alternatives considered because of a 

data-poor environment in relation to several of the environmental resource categories. Where 

data are lacking, a qualitative assessment of the possible consequences is presented.

4.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

Alternative 1 is to take no federal action; that is, no federal management measures would be 

recommended by the Council at this time. 

Under this and all other alternatives, the State of Hawaii’s bottomfish management measures, 

which were established in 1998 under Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) 

administrative rule (HAR Chapter 13-94) may remain in place or could be changed by DLNR. 

The state’s current bottomfish management regime includes: (i) 19 Bottomfish Restricted 

Fishing Areas (BRFAs) throughout the MHI, (ii) a recreational bag limit of 5 ehu and/or onaga 

per trip per person, (iii) required bottomfish vessel registration, and (iv) prohibited use of bottom 

longline, nets, traps, and trawls to take bottomfish. Seven species, including deep-slope snappers 

and a grouper, were identified for management under the state regulations. The state’s current 

BRFAs were delineated according to bottom topography, location of reported bottomfish 

landings, proximity to access points and points of observation for ease of enforcement, and 

recommendations from fishermen, with the primary purpose being to protect critical bottomfish 

habitat and presumed spawning and nursery habitat areas. 

This alternative would also allow continued open access for entry into the MHI fishery, and 

commercial fishermen would continue to be required to submit catch reports. Recreational 

fishermen would continue not to be required to submit catch reports, and the recreational catch 

component would continue to be unknown. 

Based on new mapping information of bottomfish habitat, HDAR is in the process of reviewing 

its bottomfish management regime, with a focus on the BRFAs. According to HDAR, the 

proposed changes to the BRFAs include reducing their number, modifying their locations, 

standardizing their boundaries to corresponding minutes of latitude and longitude, and increasing 

their size. Factors being considered by HDAR include facilitating GPS navigation around 

BRFAs, locating BRFAs close to shore to facilitate monitoring and enforcement, increasing 

habitat protection, and supporting larval transport and recruitment between banks and islands. 

Also under consideration are modifications to HDAR’s existing Commercial Fisheries Statistical 

Area reporting grids to allow for better evaluation of the effectiveness of existing and new 

BRFAs. As detailed in Section 3.4.3.2.2, there are numerous shortcomings associated with the 

existing commercial fisheries statistical reporting grid system in relation to bottomfish habitat 
140

and location of BRFAs. The current shortcomings do not allow for evaluation of the BRFAs’ 

effectiveness. Problems include BRFA boundaries that straddle multiple reporting grids or 

occupy only a portion of a single grid and reporting grid boundaries that parallel or are adjacent 

to 100-fathom depth contour lines. 

According to HDAR, potential changes to its administrative rules regarding the BRFAs may be 

finalized in late 2006. As currently described, these changes would modify the 19 existing 

BRFAs into 12 larger BRFAs dispersed throughout the MHI. 

Absent new State actions, federal action by the Secretary of Commerce would be required to end 

the bottomfish overfishing. 

4.1.1 Target Species 

Uncertainty about the effectiveness of the State’s existing RFAs, about the final configuration of 

any new RFAs (and related changes to existing area closures) and fishermen’s responses to them, 

as well as uncertainty about trends in factors external to the fishery management regime (such as 

market demand and prices for fresh MHI bottomfish), hamper reliable estimations of future 

fishing activity. However it can be reasonably anticipated that catches of target species will be 

reduced if prime fishing areas are designated as new RFAs. 

Absent new State actions, short-term fishing activities under Alternative 1 would continue as 

described in Chapter 3. If the trend of declining commercial fishing activity, apparent for the past 

20 years, continues, this would lead to an end of overfishing by proxy. There is, however, no 

reason to assume this scenario would occur as 2004 information indicates that this downward 

trend may have flattened. Thus fishing pressure (e.g. overfishing) would likely increase at least 

over the mid-term, as high fuel costs are believed to cause fishermen to switch from trolling to 

bottomfish fishing. Under this scenario the abundance of target species would further decline and 

federal action would likely be required to end overfishing. If the overfishing of bottomfish in 

Hawaii is allowed to continue, the potential is high for reaching an ‘“overfished” state in the 

bottomfish fishery, which left unchecked could cause the fishery to collapse and require the 

implementation of a rebuilding plan. 

4.1.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Nontarget species are those that are caught incidentally, but retained for consumption or sale. 

Bycatch are those species that are caught incidentally but are not retained (i.e. discarded). 

As described in Section 3.4.6, bycatch is not well reported in the MHI bottomfish fishery, but is 

believed to be small (8.5 percent of the total catch). Hawaii bottomfish fishing gears are highly 

selective and skilled bottomfish fishermen target particular species, reducing capture of nontarget 

species and bycatch. 

Fish may be discarded because they are associated with ciguatera poisoning (e.g. kahala), are 

unpalatable (e.g. moray eels), are damaged (e.g. shark bites), or because they have a shorter shelf 

life or may fetch a relatively low price in the market (e.g. ulua). Unlike others, commonly 
141

discarded species (i.e. jacks, including ulua and kahala) are believed to not suffer baurotrama 

(death from air pressure differences) effects when brought up from depth and are often released 

alive (Kelley and Moffit 2004). 

Bycatch rates in the NWHI are not directly comparable to the MHI bottomfish fishery as the 

latter is primarily a day trip fishery with little chance of catches exceeding available storage 

space. In addition there is significant recreational effort in the MHI, which may not be as adept at 

targeting (thus leading to higher catches of nontarget fish) and does not focus on marketable fish 

(believed to result in less discards of damaged or other unmarketable but still edible fish). 

As described in Section 4.1.1, it can be reasonably anticipated that catches of target species will 

be reduced if prime fishing areas are closed under HDAR’s modified BRFAs. If the decline 

results in a reduced market supply of fresh local bottomfish, currently low priced species may 

attain a higher value, with an associated greater incentive to land and sell fish that are currently 

discarded (e.g. butaguchi), thereby leading to possible shifting of commercial targets and 

concurrent reductions in bycatch. 

At recent public meetings and in HDAR’s bottomfish survey conducted in 2005, fishermen 

commented that they are experiencing more frequent catches of the introduced invasive blue line 

snapper or taape (Lutjanus kasmira). Increased catches of this non-indigenous nuisance species, 

however, are not an immediate management concern. 

Under Alternative 1, information would continue to be collected only from the commercial 

fishery, and the impact of the recreational fishery on nontarget stocks would remain unknown. 

4.1.3 Protected Species 

General impacts to protected species under Alternative 1 were analyzed in detail in the May 

2005 FEIS and are briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please refer to Section 

4.1.3 of the FEIS. The following discussion summarizes the anticipated impacts from Alternative 

1. 

ESA Listed Species 

Impacts to listed species are mitigated through adherence to the conservation recommendations 

outlined in the 2002 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. In that opinion, NMFS concluded that the bottomfish fishery is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk seal or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. NMFS also found that the bottomfish 

fishery does not adversely affect any listed whales or sea turtles. Offshore bottomfish fisheries in 

the MHI are not known to interact with endangered species; however the 2002 Biological 

Opinion describes several monk seals that have been found with embedded hooks mostly of the 

type used by the shoreline ulua fishery, but monks seals have also been found with hooks similar 

to the type used in the bottomfish fishery (NMFS 2002)
142

Non-ESA Marine Mammals 

The Hawaii bottomfish fishery is listed as a Category III fishery under Section 118 of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972. A Category III fishery is one that has a low likelihood or no 

known incidental takings of marine mammals. Observer data from the NWHI Protected Species 

Study Zone taken in 1990 to 1993 recorded few interactions between marine mammals (monk 

seals and bottlenose dolphins) and bottomfish gear, primarily in the form of removal of fish and 

bait from fishing lines without any hookings or entanglements (Nitta and Henderson 1993). 

These interactions have been determined by NMFS to constitute a low-level risk to bottlenose 

dolphins. Observer coverage of the NWHI fishery from 2003 to the present has not recorded any 

interactions with marine mammals. The MHI offshore bottomfish fishery is believed not to 

interact with marine mammals. 

Seabirds 

The NWHI bottomfish fishery observer program recorded three interactions with seabirds in 

2003, all of which were disentangled and released. This low level of interactions is expected to 

continue in the NWHI under the no-action alternative. These interactions may affect a limited 

number of seabirds; however, they would not be expected to result in impacts to seabird 

distribution, survival, or population structure. No interactions between seabirds and MHI 

bottomfish vessels have reported or observed, therefore it is believed MHI bottomfish fishing 

activities pose little to no threat to Hawaii seabird populations. 

4.1.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

Essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) that were designated 

for all MUS under the Council’s existing FMPs are presented in Table 5. Impacts to substrate 

EFH and HAPC from bottomfish fishing may occur if weighted lines or baited hooks rest on the 

bottom substrate. This does occur during some bottomfish fishing operations; however larger 

onaga and opakapaka are often targeted at depths 20 meters from the bottom which reduces the 

opportunity for gear interactions with the substrate (Kelley and Moffit 2004). Lost fishing gear 

including anchor lines and anchors from bottomfish fishing activities also have the potential to 

impact the substrate. Research conducted in the NWHI and MHI found counts of this type of 

fishing debris to be low at the studied NWHI bottomfish fishing sites (Raita and St. Rogatien 

Banks), however no data were presented for the MHI sites (Kelley and Moffit 2004). 

Potential impacts to water column EFH and HAPC from bottomfish fishing include the activity 

of sending a weighted handline with baited hooks and a small chum bag to bottom depths 

generally to 50 fathoms and below (see Section 3.4.2). This activity has been found not to 

adversely affect the EFH and HAPC of the water column (G. Davis, PIRO, personal 

communication). The use of chum has been theorized to potentially introduce parasites or disease 

into the water column however this has not been reported to be a problem in Hawaii’s bottomfish 

fisheries (Kelley and Moffit 2004). 

The use of explosives, poisons, trawl nets, and other destructive gears that may adversely affect 

EFH and HAPC is prohibited under the Bottomfish FMP. 
143

Deep-water precious coral beds designated as EFH or HAPC are well below the depths fished or 

anchored in by the bottomfish fishery and thus neither direct or indirect impacts from bottomfish 

fishing activities are expected to affect deep-water precious corals or their habitat. Shallower 

black coral beds occur within the depth range fished for bottomfish and individual colonies of 

black coral species and could be damaged or destroyed by anchors or weights on the terminal 

end of the fishing line. Because black coral has a resilient exoskeleton it is unlikely that it would 

be damaged by any bottomfish fishing related gear except a direct hit to its base by an anchor 

(Kelley and Moffit 2004). 

 

Areas of EFH and HAPC for crustacean and coral reef MUS are relatively shallow compared 

with the typical depths where bottomfish harvests occur. However, when fishing in deeper 

waters fishermen may anchor their vessels in order to maintain a position over productive fishing 

areas. Anchoring is generally conducted at depths from 80 to 120 meters (40 to 60 fm). At these 

depths, anchor damage is believed to be minimal, as much of the habitat consists of a mosaic of 

sandy low-relief areas and rocky high-relief areas. It is also important to note that the anchor 

typically used to maintain a vessel’s position over a rocky area is constructed of 3/4 in. steel 

reinforcing rod (“rebar”) fashioned in the shape of a four-sided J-hook. Because the rebar is 

bendable, this design helps prevent the anchor from becoming inextricably lodged on the bottom 

and has the added benefit of reducing damage to habitat during recovery. 

Indirect impacts to water column EFH or HAPC could occur through pollutant discharges from 

bottomfish fishing vessels. The day-to-day operations of a fishing vessel can produce a number 

of waste products, including oil, sewage, and garbage that may potentially affect marine habitat. 

To the extent that these activities and events are subject to environmental regulations, their 

effects on EFH and HAPC are likely to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

The impact of a bottomfish fishing vessel striking the bottom could physically destroy habitat in 

the immediate area. The possible subsequent breakup of the vessel and release of fuel and oil 

could result in pollution of habitat and mortality of marine life. Such groundings are rare events, 

and therefore are not believed to be a significant threat to EFH or HAPC. 

For the reasons mentioned above, the continuation of Hawaii bottomfish fisheries under 

Alternative 1 is not expected to adversely affect the EFH and HAPC for any MUS managed 

under the FMPs of the Western Pacific Region. Potential changes to the State’s BRFAs may 

further reduce the potential for bottomfish fishing impacts to EFH and HAPC in the MHI. 

It is believed that bottomfish fishing activities do not significantly impact bottom-dwelling 

invertebrates such as cnidarians (e.g. non–reef building corals), sponges, sea stars, and urchins 

(Kelley and Moffit 2004). The impacts of bottomfish fishing on competitors of target species 

(e.g. kahala, ulua) are not well understood especially because some species may simultaneously 

be competitors, predators, prey, and bycatch, but recent studies conducted in the NWHI do not 

suggest significant impacts to competitors (Kelley and Moffit 2004). The effect of bottomfish 

fishing on prey availability is also not well understood. However, Kelly and Moffit (2004) found 

that impacts on prey species are not likely to be significant at the NWHI sites they studied. 
144

The nature of bottomfish fishing in Hawaii as a hook-and-line fishery is considered to have low 

collateral impacts (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). In addition, existing data from studies in the 

MHI and NWHI have indicated bottomfish fishing activities are not significantly impacting the 

deep-benthic ecosystem in terms of bycatch removal, marine debris or derelict fishing gear, 

biodiversity, and competitor or predator release (Kelley and Moffit 2004). According to a recent 

interagency study, the coral reef ecosystem of the NWHI has been found to be in “pristine” 

condition (Maragos and Gulko 2002) despite decades of bottomfish fishing activities in the 

NWHI.

Under Alternative 1 current bottomfish fishing activities and (lack of) impacts would continue. 

However potential changes to the State’s BRFAs may further reduce the potential for bottomfish 

fishing impacts to ecosystem functions and biodiversity in the MHI. 

4.1.5 Fishery Sectors 

Uncertainty about the effectiveness of the State’s existing RFAs, about the final configuration of 

any new RFAs (and related changes to existing area closures) and fishermen’s responses to them, 

as well as uncertainty about trends in factors external to the fishery management regime (such as 

market demand and prices for fresh MHI bottomfish), hamper reliable estimations of future 

fishing activity. However it can be reasonably anticipated that catches of target species will be 

reduced if prime fishing areas are designated as new RFAs. The distribution of these losses 

among fishery sectors will largely be a function of where new area closures are located, and the 

proximity and viability of remaining open areas. 

Absent new State action short-term fishing activities under Alternative 1 would continue as 

described in Chapter 3. If the trend of declining commercial fishing activity, apparent for the past 

20 years, continued, this could lead to an end of overfishing by proxy. There is, however, no 

reason to assume this scenario would occur. Preliminary 2004 information indicates that this 

downward trend may have flattened. 

Fishing pressure (e.g. overfishing) would likely increase at least over the mid-term, as high fuel 

costs are believed to be causing fishermen to switch from trolling to bottomfish fishing. If this 

continues, bottomfish stocks and catch rates will further decline and fishery participants in all 

sectors will see lower returns both in financial and nonmarket (e.g. angler satisfaction, protein 

sources, and social benefits) terms. If the overfishing of bottomfish in Hawaii is allowed to 

continue, the potential is high for reaching an ‘“overfished” state in the bottomfish fishery, which 

left unchecked could cause the fishery to collapse and require the implementation of a rebuilding 

plan under which little or no bottomfish fishing would be allowed for an extended period of time. 

4.1.6 Fishing Communities 

As described in Section 3.6.2, on the basis of the requirements of the 1996 SFA amendments to 

the MSA, the Council designated under its FMPs each of the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, 

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii as fishing communities. The impact of Alternative 1 on some 

or all of these fishing communities would potentially be significant. If the State implements new 

RFAs that effectively close all available fishing areas within reach of a given community, that 
145

community or those portions thereof that rely on the bottomfish fishery to provide direct and 

indirect economic and cultural benefits (see Sections 3.6.2.3 to 3.6.2.5) for fishermen and their 

families, seafood consumers, and the broader island community, will no longer be able to 

participate in the bottomfish fishery. Absent new State actions, federal action would likely be 

required to end overfishing. If the overfishing of bottomfish in Hawaii is allowed to continue, the 

potential is high for reaching an ‘“overfished” state in the bottomfish fishery, which left 

unchecked could cause the fishery to collapse. An overfished resource and subsequent collapsed 

fishery would likely result in significant negative impacts on Hawaii’s fishing communities. 

4.1.7 Native Hawaiian Community 

In the short term, Alternative 1 would allow Native Hawaiians participating in Hawaii’s 

bottomfish fisheries to fish at current levels and in current locations, thus providing economic 

and cultural benefits (Sections 3.6.2.3 to 3.6.2.5). Impacts of any new RFAs would vary 

depending on their size and location. Absent new State actions, federal action would likely be 

required to end overfishing. If the overfishing of bottomfish in Hawaii is allowed to continue, the 

potential is high for reaching an ‘“overfished” state in the bottomfish fishery, which left 

unchecked could cause the fishery to collapse. Under this scenario, the economic and cultural 

benefits observed from sustainable bottomfish resources for Native Hawaiian communities 

would cease, thereby negatively impacting the ability of Native Hawaiians to gain economically 

from catching bottomfish as well as their ability to perpetuate their cultural traditions of fishing 

and fish sharing among community members. 

4.1.8 Administration and Enforcement 

Under Alternative 1 the existing management costs of Hawaii’s federal bottomfish fisheries 

would continue. These include the administration and enforcement costs of management of the 

NWHI bottomfish fishery with its limited entry system, permit requirements, gear restrictions, 

and at-sea observer coverage requirements. 

4.2 Alternative 2: Area Closures 

Alternative 2a: Penguin and Middle Banks (Secondarily Preferred) 

Under Alternative 2a, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) in or from federal waters around Penguin Bank and Middle 

Bank. All vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI 

would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to obtain 

permits as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing effort, 

and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, each 

vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its registration 

number. 

This alternative can be implemented by federal action as the Penguin and Middle Banks occur 

entirely in federal waters (Figure 3). Together these areas represent between 16 percent and 20 

percent of MHI bottomfish landings as compared to the 2003 baseline (Kawamoto et al. 2005: 
146

based on 1998-2004 and 1990-2004 data respectively, see Figure 30). The effectiveness of the 

area closures in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational 

and commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

 

Figure 30: Landings from Penguin and Middle Banks as a Percentage of Total MHI 

Landings (Deep 7 Species). Source: Kawamoto et al. 2005. 

The effectiveness of the closed areas in increasing the stock biomass of the Deep 7 species would 

be monitored and analyzed through a combination of fishery dependent (i.e. catch reports) and 

fishery independent data. Fishery independent data would be collected via controlled sampling 

experiments, submersible surveys, remote cameras (e.g. “Bot-Cam”) and other methodologies. 

Alternative 2b: Overlay Federal Closures on Proposed HDAR Restricted Fishing Areas 

Under Alternative 2b, all recreational and commercial fishermen would be prohibited from 

targeting, possessing, landing, or selling any of the Deep 7 species (onaga, opakapaka, ehu, lehi, 

gindai, kalekale and hapuupuu) in or from federal waters in HDAR’s proposed Bottomfish 

Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFA). Most of the proposed BRFAs have some component in federal 

waters (3-200 nm). BRFA P is entirely in federal waters on Penguin Bank. Existing HDAR 

prohibitions on the use of bottom longline, net, trap, or trawl gear to fish for the Deep 7 species, 

a recreational bag limit of five onaga/ehu total per fisherman per trip, and a requirement for 

vessel owners to register their vessels for bottomfish fishing would continue, as amended in the 

state’s proposed modifications to their MHI bottomfish management plan. 

Maps of the current and proposed BRFAs are in Appendix 3. It is estimated that the proposed 

closures will reduce fishing effort and mortality (landings) by at least 15 percent. The reduction 

was calculated from commercial fishing data. It is estimated the proposed BRFAs will reduce 
147

recreational fishing effort and mortality as well. HDAR has committed to maintaining this level 

of fishing mortality reduction as a minimum in their proposal, even if some of the proposed 

BRFAs may be modified or relocated, as they proceed through their administrative rule process 

to amend their existing regulations (HDAR 2006). 

The assumptions and analysis of the State of Hawaii’s proposed revisions to the BRFAs, 

Alternative 2b, are complex and it is difficult to predict the associated impacts. Although 

recognized as a valid management tool, there is more uncertainty in predicting the impacts 

associated with the proposed BRFA revisions when compared to the other alternatives. 

4.2.1 Target Species 

Alternative 2a would be expected to reduce MHI landings by up to 20 percent (as compared to 

the 2003 baseline) based on historical from Penguin and Middle Banks (Figure 30). Deepwater 

bottomfish within the closed areas would be protected but fishing effort (and associated 

mortality) could be displaced to open areas, thus reducing the potential benefits of the closures. 

However subsequent mortality rates may be lower if open areas have lower catch rates than 

Penguin and Middle Banks. The extent of effort moving to open areas is unknown, but several 

key factors suggest a shifting of effort would likely occur. Oahu bottomfish landings represent 

approximately 30 percent of the commercial MHI landings (Figure 31), and harvests from 

Penguin Bank make up a significant proportion of those landings. In addition, because MHI 

bottomfish tend to command higher aggregate prices than NWHI or imported bottomfish, a 

shifting of effort to other areas within the MHI is likely to occur. 

Middle Bank represents about 0.5 percent of annual MHI bottomfish landings. Because of its 

location, it is believed that mostly Kauai-based fishermen target bottomfish at Middle Bank. 

Based on commercial data of the Deep 7 species from 2000 to 2003, landings from Middle Bank 

were about 5 percent of Kauai landings. 

The closure of Penguin and Middle Banks would provide refuge for targeted species to the extent 

that fish remain in the closed areas. Adult bottomfish are thought to have a relatively limited 

range, but there is substantial variation in the extent of movement by different species during 

various life stages. For example, opakapaka is believed to move greater distances than onaga and 

unlike juvenile opakapaka, which have been found to occupy shallower depths than adults, 

juvenile onaga and ehu are found in the same depths and habitat as were adults. In addition, 

tagging studies conducted by HDAR from 1989 to 1994 found that adult opakapaka move 

extensively within their habitat range and cross deep inter-island channels and move between 

banks. 
148

Landing by Island (1998-2004)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Hawaii Maui Lanai Molokai Oahu Kauai

Island

Percent

 

Figure 31: Percentage of MHI Commercial Landings by Island (1998 to 

2004). Source: Kawamoto and Tau 2005. 

Monitoring the effectiveness of this alternative in reducing fishing mortality would be difficult 

under the current catch reporting system which uses fairly large reporting grids. This is 

particularly problematic when Penguin Bank is considered. The edge of the Penguin Bank 

reporting grid (Grid 331; Figure 32) parallels the bank slope that meanders through prime 

bottomfish habitat. Adjacent grids, such Grid 429, include additional bottomfish habitat off the 

east coast of Oahu. Thus fish reported caught in Grid 429 could have either come from Makapuu 

Point off of east Oahu or from the western edge of Penguin Bank. However active bottomfish 

fishermen who frequent Penguin Bank have indicated that all catches taken in the Penguin Bank 

area are generally reported as coming from Grid 331. In addition, the size of Grid 331 does not 

allow for finer spatial reporting of fish caught from different locations on Penguin Bank. Without 

improved spatial reporting, precise estimates of reductions in fishing mortality due to the 

implementation of area closures would be difficult to achieve. 

Reporting requirements for recreational fishermen under Alternative 2a would provide 

information on the catch and effort by this group. Such information is not currently collected and 

thus fishery scientists and managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having 

complete information (whether spatially detailed or not) would improve the scientific 

understanding of influences on Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve 

fishery management. 
149

Figure 32: Commercial Fisheries Statistical Chart of Penguin Bank Area. 

Alternative 2b: Federal Closures on Proposed HDAR Restricted Fishing Areas 

The proposed BRFAs have been estimated by HDAR to reduce fishing mortality by at least 15 

percent. Additionally, the bottomfish stock biomass may increase in the closed areas over time, 

because as according to HDAR, the BRFAs are being sited to protect potentially important 

habitat areas where the fish aggregate for feeding and spawning (HDAR 2006). Area closures 

have the potential advantage of providing year-round protection for the target species located 

within the closed area. Similar to Alternative 2a, this protection is dependent on the degree to 

which the target species move in and out of the closed areas. 

It is expected that some shifting of effort would occur because of the proposed BRFAs. Some of 

the areas would be situated over currently fished bottomfish grounds and effort would shift to 

some of the current BRFAs that would be opened or to other open areas. It is difficult to 

determine the magnitude of the effort shift. However, because the areas that are proposed to be 

closed by the HDAR were selected based on much improved mapping, habitat, and fishing data, 

relative to data available when the current BRFAs were established in 1998, the areas that will be 

closed are estimated to be more effective at protecting quality habitat and may provide increased 

protection of bottomfish in those areas. 

Prior to the establishment and following the implementation of the proposed BRFAs, state and 

federal agencies will need to develop and implement monitoring methodology that will allow for 

an accurate determination of how fishing mortality, biomass and size distribution of bottomfish 

are influenced by the BRFAs. This monitoring will include both fishery-dependent (i.e. 

commercial and recreational catch reports) and fishery-independent (e.g. baited bottom cameras) 

components. 
150

4.2.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Under Alternative 2a and 2b the catch of nontarget species as well as bycatch would be 

eliminated in the closed areas. Assuming that incidental catch rates are consistent throughout the 

MHI bottomfish fishery, this would achieve up to a 20 percent reduction (compared to the 2003 

baseline) in catch of nontarget species. If the associated reduction in catches of target species 

results in a reduced market supply of fresh local bottomfish, currently low priced species may 

attain a higher value, with an associated greater incentive to land and sell fish that are currently 

discarded (e.g. ulua), thereby leading to possible shifting of commercial targets and concurrent 

reductions in bycatch. In addition, if fishing effort shifts to new or less productive open areas, 

nontarget catch and bycatch could increase as fishermen explore and discover new fishing 

grounds or techniques (i.e. shallow-water bottomfish fishing or trap fishing). 

As noted in Section 4.2.1, recreational fishermen, in general, are expected to have less targeting 

skill than commercial fishermen, and therefore may have higher nontarget catches. They should, 

however, be less influenced by market value and therefore may be expected to retain more 

nontarget species than commercial fishermen. 

Reporting requirements (including information on nontarget catches and bycatch) for 

recreational fishermen under Alternative 2a and 2b would improve the scientific understanding 

of influences on nontarget stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

4.2.3 Protected Species 

In the 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that the bottomfish fishery is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk seal or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical habitat. NMFS also found that the bottomfish fishery does not 

adversely affect any listed whales or sea turtles. Offshore bottomfish fisheries in the MHI are not 

known to interact with endangered or other protected species. The 2002 Biological Opinion 

mentions that several monk seals that have been found with embedded hooks mostly of the type 

used by the shoreline ulua fishery, however, monk seals have also been found with hooks similar 

to the type used in the bottomfish fishery (NMFS 2002). Alternatives 2a and 2b are not expected 

to result in any significant impacts to listed species or other protected species. 

4.2.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

Alternative 2a would implement an area closure around Penguin Bank and Middle Bank. As 

discussed in Section 4.1.4 bottomfish fishing activities have been found to not adversely affect 

EFH and HAPC for any MUS managed under the FMPs of the Western Pacific Region. 

Bottomfish vessels may potentially impact the environment through groundings or the release of 

pollutants and the closure of Penguin Bank and Middle Bank would eliminate such potential 

impacts to those areas. The effect of transferred bottomfish fishing effort and vessel activities 

from Penguin and Middle Banks to other areas with EFH and HAPC, as well as to other 

ecosystems, is unknown but not expected to be significant due to the low impacts of this fishery. 
151

Alternative 2b would implement a wide network of area closures throughout the main Hawaiian 

Islands. The proposed BRFAs would enclose more than 765 square kilometers of bottomfish 

EFH (100 to 400 m depth) as identified by HDAR, of which about 50 percent is in federal 

waters. According to HDAR, this represents more than 13 percent of the total bottomfish EFH 

area in the main Hawaiian Islands. HDAR has stated that the proposed BRFAs also protect more 

than 25 percent of Potentially Important Habitat Areas, which are areas identified by HDAR as 

possessing underwater features such as pinnacles, cliffs, slopes, etc. and believed to be where 

bottomfish are generally found to aggregate or shelter. 

Under Alternatives 2a and 2b, local biodiversity and ecosystems may experience some positive 

effects because cessation of bottomfish fishing activity within the closed areas by allowing for 

fish growth, undisturbed spawning, juvenile settlement and grow-out, and other benefits of noncapture within those areas. 

4.2.5 Fishery Sectors 

As described above, based on historical catches from Penguin and Middle Banks, it is estimated 

that Alternative 2a would reduce MHI landings of the Deep 7 species by up to 20 percent. There 

is potential for fishing effort to be displaced to open areas, although the extent of such moves is 

unknown. Given that approximately 30 percent of the MHI reported commercial bottomfish 

landings are from Oahu, and that Penguin Bank is the source of 46 percent of these landings, 

some shifting of effort is anticipated to occur. However, because Penguin Bank is the largest, 

most productive, and best known bottomfish fishing area around Oahu, it is likely that relocating 

fishing effort would realize reduced catch rates and thus be less attractive to fishery participants. 

In addition, those that do relocate would have to fish for longer periods to yield the same catches 

they are able to achieve from Penguin Bank. The combination of these factors implies that there 

is unlikely to be a complete replacement of catches due to relocated effort. 

Impacts on the commercial, charter, and recreational (including subsistence) fishery sectors 

would be evenly distributed under Alternative 2a. However, operations based on Oahu and Kauai 

would be expected to be disproportionately impacted as compared with those on the other 

islands. 

Alternative 2b may negatively impact small boat recreational and commercial fishermen as they 

may be displaced from their traditional fishing grounds which would be closed under the new 

BRFAs. This may force small boat vessels to travel farther in search of open fishing grounds, 

which may increase costs for fuel or pose safety risks. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under Alternative 2a and 2b would represent an 

ongoing burden for commercial sectors. However, the burden of submitting catch reports for the 

recreational sector would be new, but not expected to be significant. In the long term the increase 

in information available to fishery scientists and managers should result in increased fish 

abundance and improved fishing opportunities. 
152

4.2.6 Fishing Communities 

As described above, this alternative would likely have disproportionate effects on the fishing 

communities of Oahu and Kauai. Closure of these areas may result in Oahu and Kauai fishing 

communities facing reductions in the direct and indirect economic and cultural benefits (Sections 

3.6.2.3–3.6.2.5) for fishermen and their families, seafood consumers, and their broader island 

community. As fishermen from Oahu and Kauai will likely find new areas to fish or switch to 

other known bottomfish fishing areas, the direct impact to fishing communities under this 

alternative is unknown, but is thought to be more negatively substantial for Oahu because of its 

large population and limited available fishing areas. The Molokai fishing community could be 

impacted if Oahu vessels displaced from Penguin Bank relocate to areas off Molokai and 

compete with Molokai bottomfish fishers. Although Penguin Bank is close to Molokai, Molokai 

fishermen do not often bottomfish there because it is usually crowded with vessels from Oahu 

and the trip back to Molokai is generally rough due to high seas (Molokai fisherman, personal 

communication, January 7, 2006 public scoping meeting). 

The effects of Alternative 2b on fishing communities is difficult to assess as Hawaii’s fishing 

communities may respond different to the proposed BRFAs. For example, the fishing community 

of Maui may not be as negatively affected as the Molokai fishing community because the state is 

proposing to close only one area directly off Maui (near Hana), whereas the Molokai community 

is facing closures of three nearby bottomfish fishing grounds (i.e. 2nd and 3rd fingers of Penguin 

Bank, Kalaupapa, and south Molokai). Loss of access to traditional fishing grounds may 

negatively affect fishing communities as it may deter people from going fishing, thus reducing 

the social benefits of fish sharing amongst the community. Loss of specialized fishing knowledge 

within a fishing community can also been viewed as negative as it is a reduction in social capital 

that is difficult to regain by future generations. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under Alternative 2a and 2b are not expected to 

have negative impacts on fishing communities despite the time commitments required. In the 

long term, positive impacts to fishing communities may occur from more accurate information 

on how many boats are bottomfish fishing, the amount of bottomfish they catch, and enhanced 

enforcement capabilities. Improved management of Hawaii’s bottomfish would ensure that 

future opportunities to fish sustainable bottomfish stocks are provided for Hawaii’s fishing 

communities. 

4.2.7 Native Hawaiian Community 

The impact of a year-around closure of Penguin and Middle Banks under Alternative 2a would 

likely have similar impacts on Oahu and Kauai Native Hawaiian fishermen as experienced by 

Oahu and Kauai commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors, as well as Oahu and Kauai 

fishing communities. For Native Hawaiians, however, who once exercised sovereignty and selfdetermination in the Hawaiian Archipelago, and whose activities were governed by customary 

and traditional practices, any curtailment or reduction of access rights and cultural practices 

reduces their ability to practice and continue their culture. The loss of any access and or 

traditional practice could be viewed as a permanent loss of culture for Native Hawaiian 
153

communities. On the other hand, the objective of the area closures is to reduce fishing mortality, 

thereby ensuring a sustainable resource. A sustainable and accessible bottomfish resource would 

provide positive impacts to Native Hawaiians. 

The impacts on Native Hawaiians communities from Alternative 2b are expected to greater for 

those communities that are located near a proposed BRFA (e.g. Hana, Waianae, Ka`u). The loss 

of any access and or traditional practice could be viewed as a permanent loss of culture for those 

Native Hawaiian communities. 

4.2.8 Administration and Enforcement 

Administration and enforcement of Alternative 2a and 2b would require the expansion of the 

current reporting requirements to include requirements for recreational participants. All MHI 

vessel owners who target bottomfish are already required to register their vessels, however under 

this alternative they would be required to renew their registration annually. The vessel 

registration system would need to be expanded accordingly. This will provide current 

information on the maximum number of fishery participants and ease enforcement by removing 

the “BF” markings from vessels no longer actively participating in the fishery. 

In order to enforce the closed areas under Alternative 2a, additional enforcement actions would 

be required. As shore-based determination of the origin of MHI bottomfish landed or sold would 

nearly be impossible, at-sea enforcement and air surveillance by the USCG and NMFS OLE 

would be necessary to ensure compliance. Penguin Bank is a single large area that is located 

relatively close to Oahu, which is the base of U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operations in the area. 

These factors would facilitate at-sea enforcement of the Penguin Bank closure. Due to its more 

remote location, Middle Bank would have to be monitored via aerial surveillance by the USCG. 

According to the USCG District 14 (Honolulu), aerial surveillance is problematic because it is 

difficult to determine from the air if lines are in the water. At-sea enforcement can also be 

difficult as well because it may be possible for fishermen to cut their lines and toss any illegal 

catch overboard prior to an enforcement vessel arriving on the scene. If the regulations 

prohibited any “BF” vessel from stopping within a closed area, enforcement capabilities would 

be increased, however this would obviously prevent these vessel operators from targeting 

shallow-water bottomfish or any other species (e.g. pelagic fish) within the closed areas.. 

Alternative 2b would also require at sea enforcement and air surveillance by the USCG and 

NMFS OLE. Problems with the current level of state enforcement for the exiting BRFAs have 

been noted and are primarily related to lack of resources and staff (section 3.4.3.2.3) According 

to HDAR, there is an incentive to place the proposed BRFAs closer to shore, to the extent 

possible, and design them with straight-line boundaries, making it easier for both fishermen and 

enforcement officers to determine whether fishing takes place inside or outside the closed areas. 

In order facilitate a adequate enforcement of the closed areas proposed in Alternative 2b, state 

and federal enforcement agencies would likely have to sign a Joint Enforcement Agreement as 

well as allow for cross-deputization of state and federal agents. Cross-deputization allows federal 

agents to enforce state laws and state agents enforce federal laws. 
154

NMFS OLE Pacific Island Division (PID) currently has five agents working in the entire 

Western Pacific Region, and no enforcement assets (i.e. boats or planes). NMFS OLE PID has 

indicated that at their currently funding and staffing levels, it would be impossible to adequately 

enforce Alternative 2b (J. Fogarty, NMFS OLE PID, personal communication). NMFS OLE has 

suggests that both aerial and at-sea enforcement of multiple small closed areas with open areas in 

between make is very difficult as it enables cheating as a vessel could quickly enter and exit a 

closed area. The USCG District 14 has also indicated given their current resources adequate atsea enforcement as well as air surveillance of the closed areas would nearly be impossible. Both 

NMFS OLE and the USCG have indicated that moving the BRFAs closure to shore does not 

facilitate enforcement as indisputable evidence is difficult to gather from shore and boat based 

operations would still be necessary. 

4.3 Alternative 3: Seasonal Closure 

Under Alternative 3, an annual summer closure would be implemented from May 1 to August 31 

of each year for the entire MHI bottomfish fishery (both commercial and recreational vessels). 

Targeting, possessing, landing, or selling MHI Deep 7 species would be prohibited during the 

closed season; however, the NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. All vessel operators 

(both commercial and recreational) targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register 

their vessels on an annual basis and would be required to complete and submit reports of their 

catch, fishing effort, and area fished. In addition, each vessel would be required to be marked on 

an unobstructed upper surface with its registration number. To achieve the needs and objectives 

of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), the State of Hawaii would need to 

establish a parallel summer closure for state waters. The effectiveness of the seasonal closure in 

reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and commercial 

reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

4.3.1 Target Species 

Based on historical MHI landings, an annual MHI closure from May through August would be 

expected to reduce MHI landings by up to 17 percent as compared to the 2003 baseline 

(Kawamoto et al. 2005: Figure 33). Deepwater bottomfish throughout the MHI would be 

protected during the closed season. However, fishing effort could shift to open periods reducing 

the potential benefits of the closures. The extent of effort shifting to open periods is unknown. 

However, given that during the open period there would only be the remaining calendar days 

would be available to fish, combined with the sensitivity of the bottomfish fishery to adverse 

weather conditions, shifting of effort is expected to be minimal as compared to historical trends. 

Historically, the highest levels of bottomfish fishing effort occur in the winter months when there 

is high demand for bottomfish during the holiday season. Market forces may also be an 

important factor to deter effort if price per pound values drop as a result in market flooding 

during the open period. In addition, the closure would occur during the time when bottomfish 

activity has been historically low as fishermen switch to other fisheries. Both the pelagic troll 

(e.g. yellowfin) and the hook-and-line mackerel (akule and opelu) fisheries are at their peak 

during the summer period and therefore represent various recreational and commercial fishing 

opportunities during the bottomfish closed season. 
155

Figure 33: Percentage of MHI Landings by Month (Deep 7 Species). Source: Kawamoto 

and Gonzales 2005. 

Although bottomfish spawn year round, there is evidence that spawning is greatest during the 

summer months (Haight et al. 1993). An annual May through August closure could provide 

additional benefits by prohibiting fishing during the peak spawning period and thus reducing 

fishing mortality of spawning bottomfish. 

Reporting requirements for recreational fishermen under Alternative 3 would provide 

information on the catch and effort by this group. Such information is not currently collected and 

thus fishery scientists and managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having 

complete information (whether spatially detailed or not) would improve the scientific 

understanding of influences on Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve 

fishery management. 

4.3.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Under Alternative 3 the catch of nontarget species and bycatch would be eliminated in the closed 

season. Regulatory bycatch is not expected because fishermen would most likely not be targeting 

bottomfish below depths of 30 fm. For example, trolling for uku often occurs at around 15 fm, 

therefore it would highly unlikely to catch an onaga while trolling for uku. If the associated 

decline in catches of target species results in a reduced market supply of fresh local bottomfish, 

currently low priced species may attain a higher value, with an associated greater incentive to 

land and sell fish that are currently discarded (e.g. ulua), thereby leading to possible shifting of 

commercial targets and concurrent reductions in bycatch. In addition, if fishing effort shifts to 

new or less productive open areas, nontarget catches and bycatch could increase as fishermen 
156

explore and discover new fishing grounds or techniques (i.e. shallow-water bottomfish fishing or 

trap fishing). 

 

As noted in Section 4.2.1, recreational fishermen, in general, are expected to have less targeting 

skill than commercial fishermen, and therefore may have higher nontarget catches. They should, 

however, be less influenced by market value and therefore may be expected to retain more 

nontarget species than commercial fishermen. 

Reporting requirements (including information on nontarget catches and bycatch) for 

recreational fishermen under Alternative 3 would improve the scientific understanding of 

influences on nontarget stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

4.3.3 Protected Species 

In the 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that the bottomfish fishery is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk seal or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical habitat. NMFS also found that the bottomfish fishery does not 

adversely affect any listed whales or sea turtles. Offshore bottomfish fisheries in the MHI are not 

known to interact with endangered or other protected species. The 2002 Biological Opinion 

mentions that several monk seals that have been found with embedded hooks mostly of the type 

used by the shoreline ulua fishery, however, monk seals have also been found with hooks similar 

to the type used in the bottomfish fishery (NMFS 2002). Alternatives 3 is not expected to result 

in any significant impacts to listed species or any other protected species. 

Limited interactions in the NWHI bottomfish fishery (Section 3.5.4) would have the potential to 

increase if NWHI fishing activity increased to fill unmet market demand, however this is not 

anticipated to significantly impact protected species due to the rarity of NWHI interactions and 

the fact that the NWHI is a limited entry fishery with only eight currently active vessels. Closing 

down all bottomfish fishing in the MHI during the summer months would be expected to result 

in fewer MHI bottomfish fishing vessels leaving port during this time period. It is possible that 

fishery participants would continue to fish by switching to trolling for pelagic species; however 

NMFS has concluded that the MHI pelagic small-boat (i.e. non-longline) fishery is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (NMFS 2004). The MHI pelagic smallboat fishery is listed as a Category III fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, with a 

low to no likelihood of interactions with marine mammals. Thus the relocation of MHI 

bottomfish effort to the pelagic small-boat fishery is not expected to result in any impacts to 

protected species not already considered. 

4.3.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

As discussed in Section 4.1.4 bottomfish fishing activities have been found to not adversely 

affect EFH and HAPC for any MUS managed under the FMPs of the Western Pacific Region. 

Implementing a seasonal closure under Alternative 3 is not expected to adversely affect EFH or 

HAPC due to the low impacts of this fishery. The potential for increased bottomfish fishing 

effort in the open season is not expected to significantly affect EFH or HAPC because hook-andline bottomfish fishing is considered to have low collateral impacts on bycatch and habitat. 
157

Similarly, the impacts of any increased pelagic effort during the closed season are expected to be 

negligible due to the use of hook-and-line gears in this fishery. 

Under Alternative 3 local biodiversity and ecosystems may experience some short term positive 

effects because cessation of bottomfish fishing activity for the four-month period would allow 

for fish growth, undisturbed spawning, and other benefits of non-capture. 

4.3.5 Fishery Sectors 

As described above, based on historical MHI landings, it is estimated that a May–August closure 

of the MHI bottomfish fishery would result in up to a 17 percent reduction in landings of the 

Deep 7 species as compared to the 2003 baseline. As with the closed area, fishery participants 

may increase their fishing during the open season to compensate. However, given that May to 

August has historically been a time of lower bottomfish fishing activity (Figure 33), significant 

increases in effort during the open season are unlikely. Immediate impacts of the closure on the 

commercial, charter, and recreational (including subsistence) fishery sectors would be evenly 

distributed under Alternative 3. However, because this alternative would lead to an increased 

reliance on imported bottomfish during the closed season, it would be anticipated to have 

negative impacts on the entire commercial fishery sector as market channels for fresh MHI 

bottomfish would be lost and have to be regained each year. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under Alternative 3 would represent an ongoing 

burden on all sectors. In the long term the increase in information available to fishery scientists 

and managers should result in increased fish abundance and improved fishing opportunities. 

4.3.6 Fishing Communities 

Alternative 3 is not expected to result in significant or disproportionate negative impacts on 

fishing communities throughout Hawaii. As seen in Figure 34 the summer months between May 

and August represent the lowest amounts of monthly bottomfish landings, with the winter 

months of December through February having the highest landings. There would, however, 

likely be some number of bottomfish fishers from each community who would be negatively 

impacted by a summer closure as there are those who prefer year-round bottomfish fishing to 

other types of fishing and others who prefer summer fishing to other times of year. Under this 

alternative, fishery participants among the state’s fishing communities will be allowed to fish for 

bottomfish during the remaining eight months of the year and would be able to fish for other 

types of fish (i.e. troll for ahi) during the summer bottomfish closure. Thus, the direct and 

indirect economic and cultural benefits (Sections 3.6.2.3 to 3.6.2.5) for fishermen and their 

families, seafood consumers, and their broader island communities are expected to be generally 

maintained under this alternative. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under Alternative 3 are not expected to have 

negative impacts on fishing communities despite the time commitments required. In the long 

term, positive impacts to fishing communities may occur from more accurate information on 

how many boats are bottomfish fishing, the amount of bottomfish they catch, and enhanced 

enforcement capabilities. Improved management of Hawaii’s bottomfish would ensure that 
158

future opportunities to fish sustainable bottomfish stocks are provided for Hawaii’s fishing 

communities. 

4.3.7 Native Hawaiian Community 

A May-August bottomfish closure would likely have similar impacts on Native Hawaiian 

fishermen as by experienced commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors, and Hawaii’s 

fishing communities. For Native Hawaiians, however, who once exercised sovereignty and selfdetermination in the Hawaiian Archipelago, and whose activities were governed by customary 

and traditional practices, any curtailment or reduction of access rights and cultural practices, 

albeit for relatively short period during the closure, reduces their ability to practice and continue 

their culture. The loss of any customary access and practice has resulted could be viewed as a 

permanent loss of culture for Native Hawaiian communities. On the other hand, the objective of 

the seasonal closure is to reduce fishing mortality, thereby ensuring a sustainable resource. A 

sustainable and accessible bottomfish resource would provide positive impacts to Native 

Hawaiians. Seasonal restricted fishing periods for a variety of marine organisms were practiced 

under the ahupuaa system of traditional Native Hawiian resource management. 

4.3.8 Administration and Enforcement 

Administration and enforcement of Alternative 3 would require the expansion of the current 

commercial reporting requirements to include similar requirements for recreational participants. 

All MHI vessel owners who target bottomfish are already required to register their vessels, 

however under this alternative they would be required to renew their registration annually. The 

vessel registration system would need to be expanded accordingly. This will provide current 

information on the maximum number of fishery participants and ease enforcement by removing 

the “BF” markings from vessels no longer actively participating in the fishery 

Enforcing the summer closed season would require that a parallel closure occur in State waters 

because shore-based determinations of the origin (i.e. from State vs. federal waters) of MHI 

bottomfish landed or sold would be impossible. In addition, enforcement of this alternative 

would require significant shore-based monitoring of landings and sales. This would ensure that 

only imported bottomfish, or bottomfish harvested by federally permitted NWHI vessels, were 

sold during the closure period. Without parallel rules, enforcement of Alternative 3 would 

require extensive at-sea monitoring of federal waters during the closure period. 

4.4 Alternative 4: Catch Limits 

Alternative 4 includes two variations that would limit the commercial catch of MHI bottomfish. 

Alternative 4a would establish a fleet-wide total allowable catch (TAC) of bottomfish for all 

commercial fishing vessels in the MHI, while Alternative 4b would establish vessel-specific 

individual fishing quotas (IFQs) for Deep 7 bottomfish for all commercial fishing vessels in the 

MHI. Once either quota was reached, no targeting, possessing, landing or selling of MHI Deep 7 

bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be permitted. The NWHI bottomfish fishery 

would remain open. 
159

Under both variations, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) targeting 

bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis and to 

obtain permits, as well as to complete and submit catch reports including their catches, fishing 

effort, and area fished. To facilitate recognition of bottomfish registered vessels from the air, 

each vessel would be required to be marked on an unobstructed upper surface with its 

registration number. 

To achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), 

the State of Hawaii would need to establish a parallel requirement as both State and federal 

waters would have to be closed once the limit was reached. The effectiveness of the catch limits 

in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and 

commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

Alternative 4a: TAC 

Under Alternative 4a, a TAC of 198,484 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all species combined), 

representing a 15 percent reduction from the 2003 fleet-wide MHI bottomfish catches of these 

species (Kawamoto et al. 2005), would be applied to the entire MHI commercial bottomfish 

fishery. The bottomfish fishing year would start on October 1 and continue until the TAC was 

reached. Thereafter, no fishing for Deep 7 bottomfish (commercial or recreational) would be 

permitted in the MHI. The NWHI bottomfish fishery would remain open. 

Alternative 4b: IFQs 

Under Alternative 4b, IFQs would be established for each MHI commercial bottomfish 

fisherman, allowing them to catch 85 percent of their 2003 catch of the Deep 7 species, based on 

reported landings. The bottomfish fishing year would start on January 1. The number of 

participants would likely be limited to past participation in the fishery and quota amounts would 

likely be determined based on individual historical catches. Once a commercial fisherman had 

landed his respective IFQ, that person would not be permitted to fish for, possess, or sell any 

bottomfish until the following year. The recreational fishery would remain open. 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish participant with an IFQ would be issued a set of nontransferable bottomfish stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of 

bottomfish and all the stamps totaling the fisherman’s total IFQ. The fisherman would be 

required to submit a stamp to the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman sold fish in excess 

of the number of bottomfish pounds for one stamp, he would be required to surrender a second 

stamp to the dealer. Once all the stamps were submitted the fisherman would be prohibited from 

fishing until the next open season. 

Under this variation, fishermen would be required to continue reporting their catches and to stop 

fishing when their individual quota was reached. Fishery data would need to be analyzed in real 

time to ensure that fishermen did not exceed their quota and to penalize those that did. 

IFQs could be implemented in a number of ways, two methods are outlined here: 
160

1. Provide equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) to all historical 

participants. Under this alternative, historical highliners would get the same quota as part-time 

fishermen, and vice versa. Variations could provide equal quotas to a subset of all historical 

participants, such as those most active in recent years. 

2. Provide individual quotas that are equal to 85 percent of each and every fisherman’s historical 

catch. Under this alternative, fishermen’s quotas would be relative to their individual historical 

catches. Variations could provide similar quotas to a subset of all historical participants, such as 

those most active in recent years. 

4.4.1 Target Species 

Both options under Alternative 4 would provide direct control of fishing mortality. However, 

determining appropriate allowable harvest levels on an ongoing annual basis would be difficult 

as to date not even one comprehensive stock assessment has been completed for this fishery. 

PIFSC has recently initiated a process to complete a comprehensive stock assessment, however 

the date of completion is unknown and the assessment model would unlikely be able to predict 

allowable harvest levels on an annual basis. There is also a paucity of fishery independent data, 

as well as difficulty in adjusting available CPUE data as highliners leave the fishery. 

Incorporating the existence of area closures such as the State’s RFAs has also proven 

problematic as the RFAs are generally designed to close the most productive fishing areas, thus 

reducing available CPUE in remaining open areas. 

High-grading would also be a concern under both versions of Alternative 4. High-grading to 

maximize value can occur within species (e.g. discarding small fish in favor of larger fish) or 

between species (e.g. discarding low-value species in favor of higher-value species). Deep-slope 

bottomfish generally have a high mortality rate resulting from embolism as they are brought to 

the surface. If, and to what extent, high-grading occurs, additional bottomfish mortality may 

occur. 

A quota-based program may also lead fishery participants to make sure that they achieve quotas 

out of fear that future quotas (or their share of them) may otherwise be reduced. This can result 

in increased impacts on target species as compared to other management approaches. 

As discussed above, either type of quota-based system would be expected to result in some highgrading by species and size. However, high-grading of target species would more likely occur in 

an IFQ system than in a TAC. Under a TAC system, fishermen would compete against each 

other and time to land as many of the Deep 7 species as possible before the TAC is filled. This 

competition would likely discourage discarding of Deep 7 species. Under the IFQ system, 

fishermen would have the luxury of time to sort through their catch to maximize profit, 

potentially resulting in increased bycatch rates of, and impacts on, target species. 

Reporting requirements for recreational fishermen under Alternative 4 would provide 

information on the catch and effort by this group. Such information is not currently collected and 

thus fishery scientists and managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having 
161

complete information would improve the scientific understanding of influences on Hawaii’s 

bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

4.4.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Fishing strategies applied under a TAC or IFQ system are expected to result in different fishing 

strategies and impacts to targeted species and bycatch. Fishing under a fleet-wide TAC has been 

observed to create a “race to the fish” in which each fisherman attempts to maximize their 

individual harvest of the quota species in the shortest time period possible (i.e. before they are 

harvested by others). Due to limited storage capacity, this may lead to increased discards of less 

desirable species resulting in higher bycatch rates. 

Under an IFQ system, fishermen can catch their quota of the Deep 7 species throughout the year 

without time constraints or pressure of competition and can limit their fishing to periods of 

favorable weather or high market prices. An IFQ system could encourage higher retention of 

nontarget species that could result in a reduction of bycatch. As fishermen know their overall 

Deep 7 catch will be limited, they will seek opportunities to maximize their fishing time by 

retaining marketable nontarget species that may have not been previously retained. 

As noted in Section 4.2.1, recreational fishermen, in general, are expected to have less targeting 

skill than commercial fishermen, and therefore may have higher nontarget catches. They should, 

however, be less influenced by market value and therefore may be expected to retain more 

nontarget species than commercial fishermen. 

Reporting requirements (including information on nontarget catches and bycatch) for 

recreational fishermen under Alternative 4 would improve the scientific understanding of 

influences on nontarget stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

4.4.3 Protected Species 

In the 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that the bottomfish fishery is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk seal or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical habitat. NMFS also found that the bottomfish fishery does not 

adversely affect any listed whales or sea turtles. Offshore bottomfish fisheries in the MHI are not 

known to interact with endangered or other protected species. The 2002 Biological Opinion 

mentions that several monk seals that have been found with embedded hooks mostly of the type 

used by the shoreline ulua fishery, however, monk seals have also been found with hooks similar 

to the type used in the bottomfish fishery (NMFS 2002). Alternatives 4a and 4b are not expected 

to result in any significant impacts to listed species or any other protected species. 

Limited interactions in the NWHI bottomfish fishery (Section 3.5.4) would have the potential to 

increase if NWHI fishing activity increased to fill unmet market demand, however this is not 

anticipated to significantly impact protected species due to the rarity of NWHI interactions and 

the fact that the NWHI is a limited entry fishery with only eight currently vessels. Closing down 

some or all bottomfish fishing in the MHI once quotas were achieved would be expected to result 

in fewer MHI bottomfish fishing vessels leaving port until the next fishing season. It is possible 
162

that fishery participants would continue to fish by switching to trolling for pelagic species, 

however NMFS has concluded that the MHI pelagic small-boat (i.e. non-longline) fishery is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (NMFS 2004). The MHI pelagic 

small-boat fishery is listed as a Category III fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

with a low to no likelihood of interactions with marine mammals. Thus the relocation of MHI 

bottomfish effort to the pelagic small-boat fishery is not expected to result in any impacts to 

protected species not already considered. 

4.4.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

As discussed in Section 4.1.4 bottomfish fishing activities have been found to not adversely 

affect EFH and HAPC for any MUS managed under the FMPs of the Western Pacific Region. 

Implementing a quota system under Alternative 4 is not expected to adversely affect EFH or 

HAPC. The precise effects of a potential “race for the fish” situation under Alternative 4a are 

unknown but are not be expected result in significant impacts as hook-and-line bottomfish 

fishing is considered to have low collateral impacts on bycatch and habitat. Implementing catch 

limits via a TAC or IFQs would impact the number of bottomfish removed, which could either 

result in fewer fish caught, or if high-grading occurs, in more fish caught. The former would 

have positive impacts on overall abundance with corresponding impacts on the ecosystem, while 

the latter would have negative impacts. The impacts of any increased pelagic effort by displaced 

bottomfish fishermen are expected to be negligible due to the use of hook-and-line gears in the 

small-boat pelagic fishery. 

Under Alternative 4 local biodiversity and ecosystems may experience some positive effects due 

to reductions in bottomfish harvests. 

4.4.5 Fishery Sectors 

Alternative 4a 

The use of a commercial fleet-wide TAC under Alternative 4a would be anticipated to result in a 

bunching of fishing effort at the beginning of each fishing year (October 1) as fishery 

participants would be aware that once the TAC was reached the fishery would be closed to all 

sectors. Given that the majority of commercial landings are already made during the winter 

season this is not likely to radically change these operations, however it may lead to market 

“floods” which temporarily reduce fresh fish prices and adversely impact commercial fishermen. 

Once the TAC was reached, this alternative may lead to an increased reliance on NWHI or 

imported bottomfish. However, the continued NWHI bottomfish fishery is likely to be subject to 

reduced catch limits pending the designation of the NWHI National Marine Sanctuary. 

Therefore, an increased reliance on imported bottomfish would be anticipated to have negative 

impacts on the entire commercial fishery sector as market channels for fresh MHI bottomfish 

would be lost and have to be regained each year. 

Fishery sectors (both commercial and recreational) and participants may be differentially 

impacted depending on their ability and willingness to “race to the fish” and some may upgrade 

their vessels (e.g. buy large vessels or more powerful engines for existing vessels) or fish during 
163

adverse weather in order to achieve high catches before the TAC is reached. These responses 

would be anticipated to result in over-capitalization (i.e. otherwise unnecessary investments to 

upgrade vessels) of the fishery and threats to the safety of fishery participants. 

Alternative 4b 

The impacts of Alternative 4b on the commercial fishery sector would vary depending on how 

the IFQs were implemented. If equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) 

were provided to each participant, highliners would get the same quota as part-time fishermen, 

and vice versa. This would leave some without enough quota, while others would have unused 

quota. Without a method to transfer (trade) quota between fishermen, this would have 

disproportionately adverse impacts on the highliners. If equal quotas were provided to a subset of 

all historical participants, such as those most active in recent years, those included would each 

have a higher quota, while those excluded would have none. The recreational (including 

subsistence) fishery sector would not be impacted under this alternative. 

If individual quotas (equal to 85 percent of each fisherman’s individual historical catch) were 

provided, all commercial participants would be anticipated to experience proportionately equally 

adverse impacts, and it is likely that more of the total quota would be used even if there were no 

method to transfer quota between fishermen. If individual quotas were provided to a subset of all 

historical participants, such as those most active in recent years, the individual quotas would not 

change, but some historical participants would not have any quota. The recreational (including 

subsistence) fishery sector would not be impacted under this alternative. 

Because this alternative would also lead to an increased reliance on imported bottomfish as the 

commercial IFQs were reached, it would be anticipated to have negative impacts on the entire 

commercial fishery sector as market channels for fresh MHI bottomfish would be lost and have 

to be regained each year. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under both variations of Alternative 4 would 

represent an ongoing burden on all sectors. In the long term the increase in information available 

to fishery scientists and managers should result in increased fish abundance and improved 

fishing opportunities. 

4.4.6 Fishing Communities 

Alternative 4a 

Because Alternative 4a would be applied fleet-wide throughout the MHI, it is likely that much of 

it would be harvested by Oahu-based fishermen, because that fishing community has the highest 

number of participants. Fishing communities from other islands could be affected if it was 

perceived that Oahu fishermen, for example, were harvesting most of the fish. This sentiment 

could lead participants from non-Oahu fishing communities to go fishing in bad weather to 

ensure that they get their fair share. This can result in the loss of vessels and human life and 

reduce the direct and indirect positive impacts fisheries communities receive from the fishery. A 
164

race to the fish situation could also flood local fish markets with bottomfish, thereby, positively 

impacting consumers, but negatively impacting fishermen because of low prices. 

Alternative 4b 

The impacts of Alternative 4b on Hawaii’s fishing communities would vary depending on how 

the IFQs were implemented. Providing equal IFQs to all participants could impact fishing 

communities if the result is to remove highliners from them. Although there are likely to be 

relatively small numbers of highliners within any one fishing community, their loss would likely 

result in reduced availability of bottomfish to local markets, family members and social circles. It 

would also represent a significant loss of fishing knowledge from the active fishery. 

 

Highliners would be less likely to leave the fishery if their respective IFQs were based on their 

individual historical catch. Therefore, the anticipated impacts on fishing communities would not 

be expected to be negatively significant, as fishing opportunities for commercial MHI bottomfish 

participants within all of Hawaii’s fishing communities would be maintained at 85 percent of 

their current levels. Also maintained would be the direct and indirect economic and cultural 

benefits (Sections 3.6.2.3 to 3.6.2.5) for fishermen and their families, seafood consumers and 

their broader island communities. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under both variations of Alternative 5 are not 

expected to have negative impacts on fishing communities despite the time commitments 

required. In the long term, positive impacts to fishing communities may occur from more 

accurate information on how many boats are bottomfish fishing, the amount of bottomfish they 

catch, and enhanced enforcement capabilities. Improved management of Hawaii’s bottomfish 

would ensure that future opportunities to fish sustainable bottomfish stocks are provided for 

Hawaii’s fishing communities.

4.4.7 Native Hawaiian Community 

Alternative 4a 

The implementation of a fleet-wide bottomfish TAC could result in a fishery closure before some 

Native Hawaiian fishermen caught the comparable amount of bottomfish as in previous years. 

This could adversely impact Native Hawaiian fishermen who depend on catching bottomfish to 

supplement their income or to perpetuate their culture and share with their community. Broader 

level cultural impacts would be anticipated once the TAC is met and both commercial and 

recreational bottomfish fishing is prohibited until October 1. For Native Hawaiians, who once 

exercised sovereignty and self-determination in the Hawaiian Archipelago, and whose activities 

were governed by customary and traditional practices, any curtailment or reduction of access 

rights and cultural practices reduces their ability to practice and continue their culture. The loss 

of any customary access and practice has resulted could be viewed as a permanent loss of culture 

for Native Hawaiian communities. On the other hand, the objective of the TAC is to reduce 

fishing mortality, thereby ensuring a sustainable resource. A sustainable and accessible 

bottomfish resource would provide positive impacts to Native Hawaiians. 
165

Alternative 4b 

The implementation of IFQs would result in negative impacts to any Native Hawaiians who do 

not have documented records of their historical participation in the fishery. Native Hawaiian 

fishermen would be adversely impacted if they are given IFQs that are below their historical 

catches. 

For Native Hawaiians, who once exercised sovereignty and self-determination in the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, and whose activities were governed by customary and traditional practices, any 

curtailment or reduction of access rights and cultural practices reduces their ability to practice 

and continue their culture. The loss of any customary access and practice has resulted could be 

viewed as a permanent loss of culture for Native Hawaiian communities. On the other hand, the 

objective of the IFQs is to reduce fishing mortality, thereby ensuring a sustainable resource. A 

sustainable and accessible bottomfish resource would provide positive impacts to Native 

Hawaiian communities. 

4.4.8 Administration and Enforcement 

Administration and enforcement of Alternative 4 would require the expansion of the current 

reporting requirements to include requirements for recreational participants. All MHI vessel 

owners who target bottomfish are already required to register their vessels, however under this 

alternative they would be required to renew their registration annually. The vessel registration 

system would need to be expanded accordingly. This will provide current information on the 

maximum number of fishery participants and ease enforcement by removing the “BF” markings 

from vessels no longer actively participating in the fishery 

Both variations of Alternative 4 would require that appropriate TACs or IFQs be determined, 

analyzed and published in a timely manner prior to each start of the fishing season (although it is 

known that current fishing mortality needs to be reduced by 15 percent, this number is likely to 

change over time as fishery harvests are reduced and stocks increase). As described in Section 

4.4.1, the ongoing determination of these quotas would be difficult as to date not even one 

comprehensive stock assessment has been completed for this fishery. Problem areas include the 

lack of fishery independent data, difficulty in adjusting available CPUE data as highliners leave 

the fishery and incorporating the existence of area closures into stock assessment calculations. 

The bottomfish stamp system under Alternative 4b would be administratively burdensome, both 

to implement and to monitor compliance as it would likely involve thousands of stamps. 

Enforcement of this alternative would include increased and real time shore-based monitoring of 

commercial landings and sales to determine when the TAC was reached under Alternative 4a, or 

when each commercial participant’s IFQ was reached under Alternative 4b. Shore-based 

federal/state enforcement will also be required to monitor compliance of the bottomfish stamp 

system under Alternative 4b as dealers cannot be held wholly responsible for monitoring 

bottomfish stamps. Because bottomfish from the NWHI and imported bottomfish would still be 

available, a system to certify these fish as non-MHI fish would need to be implemented. 

Additional at-sea enforcement would not be required but occasional monitoring would 

supplement shore-side monitoring when the TAC or IFQs were reached. All vessel owners 
166

would be required to mark their vessels with the registration number to be visible from aircraft to 

facilitate enforcement and vessel monitoring. Joint efforts between the State of Hawaii and 

federal law enforcement capacities would greatly enhance enforcement of this alternative.

4.5 Alternative 5: Combination Measures 

Alternative 5 would mitigate the potentially negative impacts of the above stand-alone 

alternatives above by combining modifications of them. Alternative 5 includes two variations: 

Alternative 5a would combine a seasonal bottomfish closure with bottomfish IFQs for a limited 

number of MHI commercial fishing vessels during the seasonal closure, while Alternative 5b 

would combine a seasonal MHI closure with a year-round closure of the southern portion of 

Penguin Bank. 

Under both versions of Alternative 5, all vessel operators (both commercial and recreational) 

targeting bottomfish in the MHI would be required to register their vessels on an annual basis 

and would be required to obtain permits as well as to complete and submit catch reports 

including their catches, fishing effort, and area fished. 

To achieve the needs and objectives of this action (i.e. a 15 percent in MHI fishing mortality), 

the State of Hawaii would need to establish parallel requirements as fishing limits and closures 

would be required in both state and federal waters. The effectiveness of the combined measures 

in reducing bottomfish fishing mortality would be monitored through recreational and 

commercial reporting as well as enforcement activities. 

The effectiveness of Alternative 5b’s closed area in increasing the stock biomass of the Deep 7 

species would be monitored and analyzed through a combination of fishery dependent (i.e. catch 

reports) and fishery independent data. Fishery independent data would be collected via 

controlled sampling experiments, submersible surveys, remote cameras (e.g. “Bot-Cam”) and 

other methodologies. 

Alternative 5a: Seasonal Closure and IFQs 

Under Alternative 5a, the MHI bottomfish fishery would be closed during an expanded seasonal 

closure from May 1 to September 30 of each year, except for a small number of full-time 

commercial bottomfish fishermen. The exempt fishermen would each receive IFQs for the Deep 

7 species that they could use during the otherwise closed season (May–September). Once each 

exempted fisherman’s quota was landed, he would be required to stop fishing until the next open 

season. The combined total of all IFQs would equal 23,946 pounds of the Deep 7 species (all 

species combined) as this is the amount that could be made available for harvest during the 

otherwise closed season and still maintain the overall annual reduction of 15 percent from the 

2003 baseline for the entire MHI (Table 47). 
167

Table 47: Estimated Reductions and Available Pounds under Alternative 5a. 

Target 

Reduction 

MHI Closure Months Estimated Reduction in 

MHI Landings due to MaySeptember closure 

Pounds Available to 

Harvest and Still Meet 15 

Percent Target Reduction 

15 percent 

35,027 pounds 

May–September 25.25 percent 

58,973 pounds 

23,946 pounds 

Each MHI commercial bottomfish fisherman exempted from the summer closure would be 

issued a set of bottomfish stamps, with each stamp representing a certain number of pounds of 

bottomfish and all the stamps totaling the vessel’s IFQ for the otherwise closed season. The 

fisherman would be required to submit a stamp to the dealer at the point of sale. If the fisherman 

sold fish in excess of the number of bottomfish pounds for one stamp, he would be required to 

surrender a second stamp to the dealer. Once all the stamps were submitted the fisherman would 

be prohibited from targeting, possessing, landing or selling MHI Deep 7 bottomfish until the next 

open season. 

As in Alternative 4, IFQs could be calculated and provided in equal amounts to all qualifying 

fishermen, or they could be calculated and provided such that each qualifying fisherman’s quota 

was proportionate to his historical catch. However, in either case, the sum of the IFQs would not 

exceed the 23,946 pounds available. 

Alternative 5b: Seasonal Closure and Area Closure 

Alternative 5b would combine a seasonal closure from June 1 to August 31 of each year for the 

MHI with a year-round partial closure of Penguin Bank. All MHI bottomfish fishermen would be 

prohibited from targeting, possessing landing or selling the Deep 7 species from the MHI during 

the summer closure. However, the year-round partial closure of Penguin Bank would enable the 

length of the summer closure to be reduced as compared to other alternatives. Based on historical 

MHI landings of deep-slope bottomfish, a summer closure from June through August would 

reduce landings by up to 11 percent as compared to the 2003 baseline (Kawamoto et al. 2005). 

Based on 1998 to 2004 historical data indicating that federal waters around Penguin Bank are the 

source of 16 percent of MHI Deep 7 catches as compared to the 2003 baseline (Kawamoto et al. 

2005) and lacking spatially detailed catch and effort data for this area, the closure of the 

southwestern quarter of Penguin Bank would be estimated to further reduce landings by an 

additional 4 percent. Thus the combination of the seasonal and area closures under Alternative 

5b would be expected to achieve the 15 percent reduction target. 

4.5.1 Target Species 

Alternative 5a 

Under Alternative 5a, deepwater bottomfish throughout the MHI would be protected during the 

closed season with the exception of the limited commercial harvest by exempted fishermen. 

Those fishermen who do not receive a summer quota could shift their effort to open periods, thus 

potentially reducing the benefits of the closures. However, shifting is expected to be low because 

the closure would occur during the time when bottomfish activity has been historically low as 
168

fishermen switch to other fisheries (Figure 34). Both the pelagic troll (e.g. yellowfin) and the 

hook-and-line mackerel (akule and opelu) fisheries are at their peak during the summer period. 

In addition, some bottomfish participants would receive IFQs and could thus continue fishing 

during the otherwise closed season. Those who did not may be reluctant to increase their 

bottomfish fishing activity during the winter months when waters are generally rougher. 

Although bottomfish spawn year round, there is evidence that spawning is greatest during the 

summer months (Haight et al. 1993). An annual June through August closure could provide 

additional benefits by prohibiting fishing during the peak spawning period and thus reducing 

fishing mortality of spawning bottomfish. 

Reporting requirements for recreational fishermen under Alternative 5a would provide 

information on the catch and effort by this group. Such information is not currently collected and 

thus fishery scientists and managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having 

complete information would improve the scientific understanding of influences on Hawaii’s 

bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

Alternative 5b 

Under Alternative 5b deepwater bottomfish throughout the MHI would be protected during the 

closed season. Fishing effort could shift to open periods, potentially reducing the benefits of the 

closures. The extent of effort shifting to open periods is unknown. However, given that the 

closure period is timed when bottomfish activity has been historically low, participation by 

fishermen who in other fisheries is high (i.e. yellowfin troll fishery and hook-and-line akule and 

opelu), and the fisheries dependence on suitable weather, significant shifting of effort to open 

areas is not likely to occur. The annual June through August closure could provide additional 

benefits by limiting fishing during the peak spawning periods of some bottomfish species. 

Alternative 5b would further protect targeted species within the year-round closed area on the 

southern portion of Penguin Bank. In this scenario, fishing effort could be displaced to open 

areas, thus reducing the benefits of the closures. The likely extent of such moves is unknown but 

given that 30 percent of the commercial MHI landings are made by Oahu-based boats (with 

Penguin Bank representing a significant proportion of these landings), and that the market 

demand will continue for fresh MHI bottomfish, some shifting of effort is likely to occur. 

The partial closure of Penguin Bank would provide a refuge for the targeted species to the extent 

that they remain in the closed area. Adult bottomfish are thought to have a relatively limited 

range, but there is substantial variation in the extent of movement by different species during 

various life stages. For example, opakapaka are believed to move greater distances than onaga 

and unlike juvenile opakapaka, which have been found to occupy shallower depths than adults, 

juvenile onaga and ehu were found in the same depths and habitat as were adults. In addition, 

tagging studies conducted by HDAR from 1989 to 1994 found that adult opakapaka move 

extensively within their habitat range and cross deep inter-island channels and move between 

banks. 
169

As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the shortcomings associated with reporting bottomfish based on 

the commercial fisheries statistical grids are particularly problematic regarding Penguin Bank. 

Without improved spatial reporting, precise estimates of reductions in fishing mortality due to 

the implementation of the area closure would be difficult to achieve. 

Reporting requirements for recreational fishermen under Alternative 5b would provide 

information on the catch and effort by this group. Such information is not currently collected and 

thus fishery scientists and managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having 

complete information (whether spatially detailed or not) would improve the scientific 

understanding of influences on Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve 

fishery management. 

4.5.2 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Alternative 5a 

Under Alternative 5a, nontarget species throughout the MHI would be protected during the 

closed season with the exception of catches associated with the limited commercial harvest by 

exempted fishermen. Those fishermen who do not receive a summer quota could shift their effort 

to open periods, thus potentially reducing the benefits of the closures to nontarget species. 

However, shifting is expected to be low because the closure would occur during the time when 

bottomfish activity has been historically low as fishermen switch to other fisheries (Figure 33). 

If the reduction in catches of target species results in a reduced market supply of fresh local 

bottomfish, currently low priced species may attain a higher value, with an associated greater 

incentive to land and sell fish that are currently discarded (e.g. ulua), thereby leading to possible 

shifting of commercial targets and concurrent reductions in bycatch. In addition, if fishing effort 

shifts to new or less productive time periods, nontarget catches and bycatch could increase as 

fishermen explore and discover new fishing grounds or techniques (i.e. shallow-water bottomfish 

fishing or trap fishing). 

As noted in Section 4.2.1, recreational fishermen, in general, are expected to have less targeting 

skill than commercial fishermen, and therefore may have higher nontarget catches. They should, 

however, be less influenced by market value and therefore may be expected to retain more 

nontarget species than commercial fishermen. 

Reporting requirements (including information on nontarget catches and bycatch) for 

recreational fishermen under Alternative 5a would improve the scientific understanding of 

influences on nontarget stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

Alternative 5b 

Under Alternative 5b nontarget species throughout the MHI would be protected during the 

closed season. As discussed above, fishing effort could shift to open periods, potentially reducing 

the benefits of the closures. 
170

Alternative 5b would further protect nontarget species within the year-round closed area on the 

southern portion of Penguin Bank. As discussed above, in this scenario fishing effort could be 

displaced to open areas, thus reducing the benefits of the closures. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the shortcomings associated with reporting bottomfish based on 

the commercial fisheries statistical grids are particularly problematic regarding Penguin Bank. 

Without improved spatial reporting, precise estimates of reductions in fishing mortality due to 

the implementation of the area closure would be difficult to achieve. 

Reporting requirements (including information on nontarget catches and bycatch) for 

recreational fishermen under Alternative 5b would provide information on the catch and effort 

by this group. Such information is not currently collected and thus fishery scientists and 

managers do not know the total fishery removals taking place. Having complete information 

(whether spatially detailed or not) would improve the scientific understanding of influences on 

Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks and would be expected to improve fishery management. 

4.5.3 Protected Species 

Alternative 5 has two variations, each is a combination of other alternatives already discussed. 

Alternatives 5a and 5b are not expected to result in any significant impacts to listed species or 

any other protected species .In the 2002 Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that the 

bottomfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk seal 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. NMFS also found that 

the bottomfish fishery does not adversely affect any listed whales or sea turtles. Offshore 

bottomfish fisheries in the MHI are not known to interact with endangered or other protected 

species. The 2002 Biological Opinion mentions that several monk seals that have been found 

with embedded hooks mostly of the type used by the shoreline ulua fishery, however, monk seals 

have also been found with hooks similar to the type used in the bottomfish fishery (NMFS 2002). 

4.5.4 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

As discussed in Section 4.1.4 bottomfish fishing activities have been found to not adversely 

affect EFH and HAPC for any MUS managed under the FMPs of the Western Pacific Region. 

Implementing either variation of Alternative 5 is not expected to adversely affect EFH or HAPC 

due to the low impacts of this fishery. The potential for increased bottomfish fishing effort in the 

open season is not expected to significantly affect EFH or HAPC because hook-and-line 

bottomfish fishing is considered to have low collateral impacts on bycatch and habitat. Similarly, 

the impacts of any increased pelagic effort during the closed season are expected to be negligible 

due to the use of hook-and-line gears in this fishery. 

Under Alternative 5 local biodiversity and ecosystems may experience some short term positive 

effects because cessation of bottomfish fishing activity for the 5-month period would allow for 

fish growth, undisturbed spawning, and other benefits of non-capture. 
171

4.5.5 Fishery Sectors 

Alternative 5a 

The expanded (May–September) summer closure would impact all fishery sectors; however, this 

is believed to normally be a period of lower bottomfish fishing activity because of the increased 

availability of pelagic fish, so this impact may be relatively low. The provision of equal IFQs for 

use by a subset of commercial fishermen during the otherwise closed season will offset the 

impacts on this group. However, as discussed under Alternative 4, the allocation of equal quotas 

to each qualifying participant would likely leave some without enough quota, while others could 

have unused quota. Without a method to transfer (trade) quota between fishermen, this would 

have adverse impacts on the qualifying highliners. Because the sum of the IFQs cannot exceed 

the 23,946 pounds available, the size of each fisherman’s quota would be inversely related to the 

total number of fishermen who received IFQs (the more who are included, the smaller each one’s 

share must be). Quotas that are too small to support even one fishing trip are clearly likely to go 

unused. Impacts on those commercial, sport, and recreational (including subsistence) fishermen 

who do not qualify for an IFQ would be adverse. As compared with alternatives that would result 

in time periods during which no MHI bottomfish were landed (resulting from seasonal closures 

or TACs or universal IFQs), this alternative would be expected to have a strongly positive impact 

on the entire commercial fishery sector. It would provide a continuous supply of fresh MHI 

bottomfish to local markets, thus maintaining open market channels that would otherwise be 

expected to be filled by increased imports during the closed season. Experience has shown that if 

imports come to dominate market channels, it can be difficult for local producers to regain their 

market share as wholesalers and retailers can be reluctant to forgo their now-established supply 

chains. 

Table 47 presents a preliminary analysis of the number of fishery participants anticipated to 

qualify for IFQs under various minimum landing requirements. These requirements range from 

minimum landings of at least one pound up to 5,001 pounds of BMUS from the MHI made 

between May and September of any one year between 1998 and 2004 (inclusive). Based on the 

information available in Table 48, all minimum landing thresholds would result in qualifying 

participants receiving IFQs below their historical landings and would thus be expected to result 

in full utilization of the available quota. Information on the mean historical landings by 

participants who caught more than 5,001 pounds is unavailable due to confidentiality 

requirements which prohibit the publication of data submitted by less than three individuals or 

operations. 
172

Table 48: Anticipated Participation and IFQ Levels under Various Minimum Landing 

Requirements. 

Minimum landing 

requirement to qualify for 

May-Sept IFQ 

Anticipated number of 

qualifying participants 

(based on reported 

May-Sept MHI landings, 

1998-2004) 

Anticipated 

May –Sept. IFQ 

per qualifying 

participant (lbs) 

Historical MaySept. mean landings 

by qualifying 

participants (lbs) 

1-500 lbs 970 25 89 

501-1000 lbs 91 263 691 

1001-2000 lbs 43 557 1,385 

2001-5000 lbs 12 1,995 3,085 

More than 5001 lbs 2 11,973 confidential 

Source: PIFSC unpublished data.

Alternative 5b 

The impacts of Alternative 5b would be generally evenly spread across fishery sectors as it does 

not differentiate between commercial, sport, and recreational (including subsistence) fishermen. 

As compared with Alternative 5a, the impacts of the summer closure would be reduced due to its 

shortened duration. However, the year-round closure of the southern portion of Penguin Bank 

would disproportionately affect fishing operations based on Oahu and Kauai. Because this 

alternative would lead to an increased reliance on imported bottomfish during the closed season, 

it would be anticipated to have negative impacts on the entire commercial fishery sector as 

market channels for fresh MHI bottomfish would be lost and have to be regained each year. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under both variations of Alternative 5 would 

represent an ongoing burden on all sectors. In the long term the increase in information available 

to fishery scientists and managers should result in increased fish abundance and improved 

fishing opportunities. 

4.5.6 Fishing Communities 

The seasonal closure under Alternative 5a is not expected to significantly negatively impact 

fishing communities in Hawaii, but would impact some fishermen in all communities. As seen in 

Figure 33, summer months between May and August represent the lowest amounts of monthly 

bottomfish landings, with the winter months of December through February having the highest 

landings. Also, under Alternative 5a, a small number of full-time commercial bottomfish 

fishermen would be exempt from the seasonal closure, and these exempt fishermen would each 

receive IFQs. As described in Alternative 4b, these IFQs could be calculated and provided in 

equal amounts to all qualifying fishermen, or they could be calculated and provided such that 

each qualifying fisherman’s quota was proportionate to his historical catch. Because the IFQs 

would likely be provided to qualifying full-time commercial bottomfish fishermen, less negative 

impacts to fishing communities are expected if there is equal representation of exempted 

fishermen among fishing communities. However, more negative impacts could be expected if 
173

there is not equal representation. For example, if 70 percent of the exempted IFQ fishermen are 

Oahu-based and 30 percent are from Maui, the fishing communities of Niihau, Kauai, Molokai, 

Lanai, and Hawaii would not receive the social benefits of having fishery participants catching 

fish during the seasonal closure as would Oahu and Maui. In this scenario resentment could 

occur between fishing communities. 

Similarly, the seasonal closure under Alternative 5b (June 1 to August 31) is not expected to 

significantly negatively impact fishing communities in Hawaii, but would impact some 

fishermen in all communities. Alternative 5b combines the seasonal closure with a year-around 

closure of the southern portion of Penguin Bank. As discussed in Section 4.2.7, Penguin Bank is 

primarily used by Oahu bottomfish fishermen. A reduction in available fishing areas to Oahu 

fishermen could lead them to fish in areas closer to Oahu or in areas they previously did not, 

such as closer to Molokai. A year-around partial closure of Penguin Banks could also impact 

Oahu’s and Molokai’s fishing communities if the closure results in significant competition for 

available open areas. 

Both scenarios under Alternative 5 would require all vessel operators (commercial and 

recreational) targeting bottomfish to (a) register their vessels on annual basis, (b) obtain permits 

(c) complete and submit catch reports, and (d) mark their vessels on an unobstructed upper 

surface are not expected to negatively impact fishing communities. Although these provisions 

would require fishery participants to take time out of their schedule to register their vessel, fill 

out their permit application and catch reports, and mark their vessels, the level of impact on 

individual fishermen is not expected to be significant. In the long term, positive impacts to 

fishing communities may result because of fishery managers obtainment of accurate information 

on how many boats are bottomfish fishing and the amount of bottomfish being caught (from all 

sectors), as from mechanisms to enhance enforcement. This in turn is believed to improve 

management of Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks so that future opportunities to fish sustainable 

bottomfish stocks are provided for Hawaii’s fishing communities. 

Vessel registration and reporting requirements under both variations of Alternative 5 are not 

expected to have negative impacts on fishing communities despite the time commitments 

required. In the long term, positive impacts to fishing communities may occur from more 

accurate information on how many boats are bottomfish fishing, the amount of bottomfish they 

catch, and enhanced enforcement capabilities. Improved management of Hawaii’s bottomfish 

would ensure that future opportunities to fish sustainable bottomfish stocks are provided for 

Hawaii’s fishing communities. 
174

4.5.7 Native Hawaiian Community 

Alternative 5a 

The impact of Alternative 5a on Native Hawaiians is anticipated to be similar to that which 

would be expected under Alternatives 3 and 4b. That is, negative economic and cultural impacts 

would result if Native Hawaiian commercial fishermen do not meet the criteria and are not 

awarded IFQs to fish during the seasonal closure. The seasonal closure may also impact Native 

Hawaiian bottomfish fishermen who historically have caught bottomfish during the summer 

months. Reduced access rights and cultural practices impact the ability of Native Hawaiians to 

practice and continue their culture. The loss of any customary access and practice could be 

viewed as a loss of culture for Native Hawaiians. 

On the other hand, the objective of the measures is to reduce fishing mortality, thereby ensuring 

a sustainable resource. A sustainable and accessible bottomfish resource would provide positive 

impacts to Native Hawaiians. 

Alternative 5b 

The seasonal closure would impact Native Hawaiian bottomfish fishermen who historically have 

caught bottomfish during the summer months. The year-around closure of the southern portion of 

Penguin Bank may disproportionately affect Native Hawaiian fishermen from Oahu due to its 

close proximity. 

Reduced access rights and cultural practices may potentially impact the ability of Native 

Hawaiians to practice and continue their culture. The loss of any customary access and practice 

could be viewed as a loss of culture for Native Hawaiians. 

On the other hand, the objective of the measures is to reduce fishing mortality, thereby ensuring 

a sustainable resource. A sustainable and accessible bottomfish resource would provide positive 

impacts to Native Hawaiians. 

4.5.8 Administration and Enforcement 

Administration and enforcement of Alternative 5 would require the expansion of the current 

reporting requirements to include requirements for recreational participants. All MHI vessel 

owners who target bottomfish are already required to register their vessels, however under this 

alternative they would be required to renew their registration annually. The vessel registration 

system would need to be expanded accordingly. This will provide current information on the 

maximum number of fishery participants and ease enforcement by removing the “BF” markings 

from vessels no longer actively participating in the fishery 

Alternative 5a would require that appropriate IFQs be determined, analyzed and published in a 

timely manner prior to each start of the fishing season (although it is known that current fishing 

mortality needs to be reduced by 15 percent, this number is likely to change over time as fishery 
175

harvests are reduced and stocks increase). As described in Section 4.4.1, the ongoing 

determination of these quotas would be difficult as to date not even one comprehensive stock 

assessment has been completed for this fishery. Problem areas include the lack of fishery 

independent data, difficulty in adjusting available CPUE data as highliners leave the fishery and 

incorporating the existence of area closures into stock assessment calculations. 

Enforcement of this Alternative 5a would include increased and real time shore-based 

monitoring of commercial landings and sales to determine when each commercial participant’s 

IFQ was reached. Commercial fishermen in the MHI who are exempt from the summer closure 

would be issued stamps representing a certain number of pounds to track their IFQ that would 

place some administrative burden on the fishermen and the dealers to track and account for 

landings with regards to not exceeding the IFQ. Because bottomfish from the NWHI, and 

imported bottomfish would still be available, a system to certify these fish as non-MHI fish 

would need to be implemented. 

 

Enforcing the seasonal closures under both variations of Alternative 5 would require that a 

parallel closure occur in State waters because shore-based determinations of the origin (i.e. from 

State vs. federal waters) of MHI bottomfish landed or sold would be impossible. Without parallel 

rules, enforcement of the seasonal closures would require extensive at-sea monitoring of federal 

waters during the closure period. Joint efforts between the State of Hawaii and federal law 

enforcement capacities would greatly enhance enforcement of this alternative. 

4.6 Impacts to the Regional Economy 

The economic effects of implementing conservation measures for MHI bottomfish fisheries 

depend largely on how fishermen and the seafood market react to those measures. For the 

fishermen, we expect they will adjust to the extent possible by shifting their effort to other timearea strata. For the market, the same applies in terms of finding substitutes for decreases in their 

supply of MHI bottomfish. Their primary alternatives are as follows: NWHI bottomfish, 

imported bottomfish, other species (non-bottomfish). 

For the fishermen, the management objective is to reduce bottomfish catch in the main Hawaiian 

Islands by 15 percent, roughly 35,000 pounds of the deep snapper/grouper complex1

 or $110,000 

ex-vessel. The aggregate impact on Hawaii’s economy would be small. Using an input/output 

approach,2

 as a rough order of magnitude, the total economic impact would be $300,000 in 

business sales with a loss of $120,000 in income. 

However, fishermen would have the ability to offset some of this cost by substituting different 

target species and to adjust their fishing patterns accordingly. Obviously the distribution of this 

cost across currently active (or potentially newly active) participants would differ by their 

current levels of fishing effort, but if there are roughly 300 active commercial bottomfish 

 

1 This analysis focuses on the seven species subject to special management consideration by the State of Hawaii. 

Other important bottomfish species are not included in this analysis (e.g. uku and ulua) and hence the totals here 

are lower than those based on the entire BMUS complex. 

2 Modifying Leung and Pooley (2002) analysis of the pelagic longline fishery. 
176

fishermen in the MHI, the average impact is minimal ($354 per fishermen).3 The same would be 

true, without the dollar figure, for recreational fishermen. The extent of that substitution cannot 

be estimated in advance, but the above figures would indicate the maximum cost for the fleet and 

per vessel. 

Much of the importance of the Hawaii bottomfish fishery is that it provides a relatively unique 

product with the potential for a high added value in the processing chain through its appearance 

on the menus of white tablecloth restaurants. NWHI bottomfish would presumably be the 

primary source of substitution for MHI bottomfish. 

 

Imports have averaged 750,000 pounds in recent years (2003 to 2004), with the primary sources 

of imported snapper being Australia and Tonga.13 Increasing imports for the year by 35,000 

pounds would represent a 5 percent increase in imports and is within the variability of that time 

series. The peak season for imports is May to August, which corresponds to the proposed 

seasonal alternative. There is also a strong negative correlation between imports and MHI 

landings, suggesting that when MHI landings decline, imports increase. Increasing imports for 

these 4 months would amount to a 12 percent increase in imports over that time period. 

There is a consumer price element in which any decrease in the supply of bottomfish would be 

expected to increase prices by a certain percentage. Pooley (1987) computed the price flexibility 

coefficient to be 42 percent, meaning that a 15 percent decrease in supply would increase price 

by 6 percent or roughly 18 cents with an attendant decrease in consumer satisfaction. 

In addition, the Hawaii bottomfish fishery is also important culturally, a value not entirely 

reflected by the seafood market. Again, NWHI bottomfish would be considered in many cases a 

close substitute, but substituting different snapper species from imports would not be a close 

cultural substitute. More research would be required on the implications of this effect on 

Hawaii’s communities, but the proposed seasonal closure alternatives do miss the primary 

cultural celebration (i.e. New Years). Figure 34 shows the average monthly landings of Hawaii 

Bottom fish. Figure 35 shows the average monthly snapper imports into Hawaii. 

 

3 This figure can be compared WITH average ex-vessel returns for small boat fishermen in Hawaii of $42,000 

(Hamilton 1997). 

13 NMFS foreign trade statistics: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/index.html 
177

Snapper Imports

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Pounds

Hawaii Bottomfish Landings

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

HOOMALU Zone MAU Zone MHI

Figure 34: Average Monthly Landings of Hawaii Bottomfish. Source: WPRFMC 

2005c, 2003 Bottomfish Annual Report. 

 

Figure 35: Average Monthly Snapper Imports to Hawaii. Source: PIFSC Unpublished Data. 
178

4.7 Environmental Justice 

On February 11, 1994, President William Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898) 

titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” E.O. 12898 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 that agency action may also affect subsistence 

patterns of consumption and indicate the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and Indian 

tribes. 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.”14

Impacts of the proposed bottomfish management actions on Native Hawaiians were identified 

through the scoping process as an issue that may have environmental justice considerations. The 

impacts to Native Hawaiians of each of the alternatives are discussed in Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.7, 

4.3.7, 4.4.7, and 4.5.7, and 4.8.10.

 

14 Memorandum from the President to the Heads of Departments and Agencies. Comprehensive Presidential 

Documents No. 279 (Feb. 11, 1994). 
179

Table 49: Summary Impact Comparisons of the Alternatives. 

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Target Species (-) Continued 

overfishing. (-) Does not meet MSA requirements. (?) The impact of a revised State of Hawaii bottomfish management regime. (-)Recreational fishermen would continue not to be required to submit catch reports, and the recreational catch component would continue to be unknown.

2a: (+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 20 percent based on historical catch. 2b: (+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 15 percent based on 2004 catch. (+) Closed areas may be able to replenish stocks in adjacent habitat (i.e. spillover). (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. (-) Fishing effort may increase in open areas reducing benefits of closures & depressed CPUE in those areas fished. 

(+) Anticipated to reduce landings by up to 17 percent based on historical catch.  (+) May protect bottomfish summer spawning aggregations & reduce mortality on spawning fish increasing biomass over time. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. (-) Fishing effort may increase during open periods reducing overall benefit. 

(+) Anticipated reduce landings up to 15 percent based on historical catch. (+) Sets hard limits on amount of fish caught.  (+) Recreational and commercial catch data collection would be improved with new, timely reporting requirements. (-) Lack of robust stock assessments may lead to errors in setting harvest limits. (-) Poor, missing data on catch especially in recreational fishery may leato errors in setting harvest limits. (-) May lead to high-grading and thus no net decrease in mortality. 

Legend: (+) positive, (-) negative, (?) unknown, (n) neutral 
180

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

(n/+) If the decline in fishing effort continues, there may be a decline in catch of nontarget spp. (n) Bycatch data in the MHI has only recently been reported, but is estimated to be minimal, and disproportionately limited to a few number of species which likely survive when discarded. 

(+) Catch of nontarget spp. would be eliminated in closed areas. (n/-) Increased effort in open areas may locally increase catch of nontarget species and bycatch in those areas. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. 

(n/-) Increased effort during open period may lead to increased catches of nontarget species and bycatch, especially for species more abundant during the open season. (+) The minimal bycatch levels would be eliminated during closed period. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. 

(-) If annual quota is met, effort to catch normally nontarget species may increase. (n) Bycatch in deep handlinfishery is minimal so reduction in bycatch would be minimal. (-) Highgrading may increase bycatch, including that of target species. (+) Recreational catch data collection would be improved with new reporting requirements. 

Protected Species (n) Rare interactions between bottomfish 

fishers and protected species. A decline in bottomfish fishing, it is expected that there will be a proportional reduction in the potential of an interaction. 

(+) Potential minor benefits in preventing possible interactions in closed areas. (n) Impact of potential increased effort in open fishing areas likely negligible as interactions are rare. 

(+) The possibility of protected species interactions would be eliminated during closed period. 

(n/+) An enforced reduction in landings and possible shortened season may resulin a proportional reduction of potential interactions. 
181

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

EFH, Biodiversity, & Ecosystem 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (n/+) Negligible or slightly positive effects by less fishing effort in closed areas. (?/-) Potential for localized negative effects if bottomfish fishing effort is too highly concentrated in open areas with suitable habitat. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (+) Potential negative impacts on EFH, biodiversity, and ecosystems would be eliminated during closure 

period. (?/n) The impacts of a potential increased level of effort during open season are unknown, but likely minimal. 

(n) Bottomfish fishing has a negligible impact on habitat due to gear and methods used, nor significant adverse effects on biodiversity or ecosystems. (+/n) No likely effect on EFH or slight positive effect by less fishing presence once the TAC is reached. 
182

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Fishing Sectors (-) Continued 

overfishing would lead to decreased landings. 

2a: (-) Closure of Penguin Bank, the most productive bottomfish area in the MHI, may result in failure of fulltime bottomfish fishing and multi-fishery operations. 2a: (-) Impact to all sectors will not be distributed evenly throughout the islands; greatest impact will be to Oahu and Kauai based fishermen. 2b: (-) Proposed closures may impact small boat recreational and commercial fishermen throughout state if forced to travel farther to bottomfish because historical fishing grounds closed. 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly throughout all fishing sectors. (+) Pelagic troll or other fisheries are viable alternatives for MHI bottomfish fishers during closed season. (n) Historically there are higher monthly bottomfish landings during the proposed open season. 

(+) Commercial bottomfish fishers who have correctly reported their catch will lose less than those who have noreported or have underreported their catches. (-) Fishermen with poorly documented catch records may be squeezed out of the fishery. (-) May restrict new entry into the fishery. 
183

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Fishing Communities 

 (-) Continued overfishing may reduce the social and economic benefits of maintained fishing opportunities. 

2a: (-) Disproportionate localized economic and social impacts to Oahu and Kauai fishing communities. 2b: (-) Potential negative impact on communities located near proposed area closures... 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly across the state. (+) The fishery would not be closed during holiday season when red bottomfish are most desired by local communities. (-) Marginal impact if seasonal closure is implemented during historically low periods of fishing effort and landings. 

4a: (+) A TAC would likely affect all fishing communities equally. 4b: (+) Distribution of IFQs recognizes past participation and experience in fishery. 4b: (-) For those fishing communities whose commercial fishermen have poorly documented catch records may be squeezed ouof the fishery. 
184

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Native Hawaiian Communities 

(-) Continued overfishing would lead to decrease in CPUE and available bottomfish. 

(-) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture, especially for those Native Hawaiians. 2b (-): Potential negative impact on those Native Hawaiian communities located near proposed area closures. 

(+) Impacts distributed evenly across state. (n/-) Marginal impact if seasonal closure is implemented during historically low periods of fishing effort.  (-/n) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture; however seasonal closures were historically used by Native Hawaiians to manage marine resources. 

(-) Any government curtailment or reduction of access rights & cultural practices may be seen as a permanent loss of culture. 
185

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Administration and Enforcement 

(+) No impacts or additional costs. (n) Continue to monitor the status of the fishery. (-) Would continue to have limited data, especially for recreation fishing effort & landings hindering future management efforts. 

2a: (+) Penguin Bank is a large area close to Oahu that will make it easier to enforce and monitor. 2a: (-) Middle Bank is farther from Oahu and would likely be monitored via air surveillance (costly) than by boat by USCG. (-) Requires a research monitoring program to be implemented to measure effectiveness. (-) Enforcement of closed areas requires at-sea and air enforcement, which is costly. 2b: (+,-) May allow the force of federal jurisdiction to enhance state jurisdiction in the MHI, but multiple relatively small closed areas with open areas in between are difficult to enforce. 2b: (-) Historically, DOCARE has been underfunded and lacked the ability to enforce the existing BRFAs. Burdening the USCG with enforcing the proposed closed areas could negatively affect them as they have other important missions (e.g. Homeland security). 

(n/-) Requires enhanced state and federal coordination. Similar rules would need to be established by both state and federal agencies. (-) Certification of imported and NWHI bottomfish will be needed. (-) Administrative and enforcement costs will increase over current levels. (+) At-sea and air enforcement, which is costly, would be minimal; can be enforced through dockside enforcement or monitoring of markets and dealers. Could use existing dealer reporting program to check sales and landings 

4a: (-) Closely monitoring ocatch reports may require more resources.  4a: (+) Costly at-sea and air enforcement not required unless quota is met. 4a: (-) All bottomfish sold would have to be tracked to point of sale because imported. 4b: (-) Implementing and monitoring IFQs would likely require additional resources. 4b: (-) Enforcement would be difficult catch fishermen who exceed their IFQ. 
186

Alternative 1: 

No Action

Alternative 2: 

Area Closures 

Alternative 3: 

Seasonal Closure 

Alternative 4: 

Catch Quotas 

Regional Economy (-/n) Continued 

overfishing may eventually lead to a collapse of the bottom fishery in the MHI. 

2a: (-/n) Closure of Penguin and Middle Banks may slightly affect the economy of Oahu and Kauai. 2b: (-) Statewide closures may have slight effects on economy statewide. (-) May encourage importation of lesser quality products that will further erode the market for local bottomfish in local markets (-) May encourage increased importation of similar products that may facilitate the supplanting of the traditionally high-priced local bottomfish species. 

(+) Seasonal closure would be during period of historically slow bottomfish fishing activity. (+) Winter months and important holiday seasons would remain open when red fish is most desired by local communities. (-) MHI bottomfish product would be eliminated from market during closure period. (-) MHI Bottomfish fishermen may lose foothold due to higher levels of imports. 

(-) With reduced bottomfish landings there will be a loss of revenue. (-) If quotas are met, importof bottomfish are likely to increase above the current level of an average 750,000 pounds. 
187

4.8 Cumulative Effects 

This section describes the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and the alternative 

actions considered. The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

NEPA defines cumulative effects as the impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.25). The intent of the cumulative effects analysis is to capture 

the total effects of many actions over time that would be missed by evaluating each action 

individually. This cumulative effects analysis also describes the additive and synergistic results 

of the actions considered in this DSEIS as they interact with factors external to the proposed 

actions. This evaluation addresses the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives as well as 

other factors that affect the physical, biological, and socioeconomic components associated with 

Hawaii Archipelago. 

4.8.1 History of Bottomfish Fishing in Hawaii 

As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the history of bottomfish fishing in Hawaii is extensive. Native 

Hawaiians were bottomfish fishing long before European explorers first visited the Hawaiian 

Islands, but the subsequent European colonization of Hawaii led to the development of a local 

cash economy and commercial fishing operations. By the beginning of the twentieth century, and 

after successive waves of immigrants arrived in Hawaii, the bottomfish fishery was dominated 

by Japanese fishermen who fished in the MHI as well as in NWHI. World War II effectively 

ceased bottomfish fishing in Hawaii, but by the late 1940s vessels were again plying the waters 

of the MHI and the NWHI in search of bottomfish. By the 1980s, Hawaii’s bottomfish markets 

were paying premium prices and vessel participation in the MHI peaked at 583 in 1985. 

Although the average price of bottomfish has remained relatively stable since the mid-1980s (see 

Section 3.4.4.4), the number of vessels participating in the MHI bottomfish fishery has decreased 

since then as has their CPUE (see Sections 3.4.4.1 and 3.4.4.3). 

4.8.2 Past Bottomfish Management Actions Potentially Contributing to Cumulative Effects 

In 1986, the Bottomfish FMP was implemented to manage bottomfish fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region. The Bottomfish FMP established a list of MUS as well as prohibited destructive 

fishing techniques (e.g. explosives, trawl nets, poisons). In 1989, the Council developed 

regulations under the FMP that divided the fishing grounds of the Hawaii Archipelago in 

following three bottomfish management sub-areas: (a) Hoomalu Zone, (b) Mau Zone, and (c) 

MHI (See Figure 1). Limited access programs were established for the Hoomalu Zone and Mau 

Zone in 1988 and 1999, respectively, to avoid “economic overfishing” (Pooley 1993b; Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1998b). 

In 1998, concerns about decreasing catch rates led the State of Hawaii to close certain areas 

around the MHI to bottomfish fishing, including areas of Penguin Bank within waters of federal 

jurisdiction (i.e. the 3 to 200 nm offshore; EEZ). In addition, the State of Hawaii established a 

recreational bag limit of five onaga or ehu, or a mix of both, per day per (recreational) fisherman. 
188

On December 4, 2000, President Clinton issued E.O. 13178, establishing the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (Reserve). The executive order was revised and 

finalized by E.O. 13196, issued January 18, 2001. In establishing the Reserve, the executive 

orders set forth a number of conservation measures, including the creation of Reserve 

Preservation Areas in which commercial fishing is prohibited unless otherwise specified.5 The 

executive orders also directed NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program to under go a 

process (pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000) to designate the 

Reserve area (generally 3 to 50 nm offshore around the NWHI) as a the nation’s fourteenth 

national marine sanctuary.. 

On September 29, 2005, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle signed administrative rules (Chapter 13 

60.5; Department of Land and Natural Resources) to establish all state waters (0 to 3 nm 

offshore) in the NWHI as a marine refuge. The rules set aside 100 percent of state waters from 

extractive uses, including commercial and recreational fishing, and require an entry permit for all 

other activities. 

4.8.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Council, NMFS, and State of Hawaii Activities 

4.8.3.1 Hawaii Bottomfish Stock Assessment 

In the spring of 2006, the NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center will conduct a new 

stock assessment for the bottomfish MUS complex of the Hawaiian Islands. The new stock 

assessment will rely heavily on the information collected by the State of Hawaii’s Division of 

Aquatic Resource commercial marine license catch reporting program. At this point, it is 

uncertain if the new stock assessment will require further reductions in bottomfish fishing effort 

or mortality. 

4.8.3.2 Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) 

The Council is currently developing place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans (American Samoa 

Archipelago FEP, Hawaii Archipelago FEP, Mariana Archipelago FEP, Pacific Pelagic FEP, and 

Pacific Remote Island Area FEP) for areas within the Western Pacific Region. These plans 

provide the institutional structure from which future fishery ecosystem management decisions 

will be built. As ecosystem science in the region progresses, the development and utilization of 

ecosystem indicators and models are likely to be powerful tools for fishery ecosystem 

management. In addition, the Council shift toward a place-based approach will rely on enhanced 

opportunities for communities to participate in management (e.g. monitoring, cooperative 

research). 

 

5 The executive orders include provisions that allow commercial bottomfish fishing and commercial and recreational 

trolling for pelagic species within portions of the Reserve Preservation Areas around certain islands and banks. 
189

4.8.3.3 Hawaii Archipelago Ecosystem Research Plan 

The Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) is leading an effort to develop a plan that 

will guide ecosystem research in the Hawaii Archipelago well into the future. The plan that is 

currently in preparation is likely to address ecosystem issues including the following: 

connectivity; invasive species; resource utilization; indicators of change (biological and 

physical); ecosystem modeling and forecasting; and ecosystem sustainability, resilience, and 

recovery. PIFSC is collaborating with the following organizations on the development of the 

research plan: Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, State of Hawaii, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Hawaii, and the Council. 

The research plan is expected to be available for public review by summer 2006. 

4.8.3.4 State of Hawaii Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas 

HDAR is currently evaluating its existing 19 bottomfish RFAs that are scattered throughout the 

state and has produced a proposal to modify and consolidate the existing closed areas (see 

Section 2.2.2 and Appendix 3) The proposed fifteen bottomfish restricted fishing areas would 

reduce fishing mortality by at least 15 percent. The proposed areas are distributed statewide and 

encompass state and federal waters. An amended Hawaii Administrative Rule to establish the 

modified closed areas is expected as early as the end of 2006. 

4.8.3.5 NWHI National Marine Sanctuary 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is currently developing a Draft EIS and draft 

management plan for the proposed NWHI sanctuary. Although scientifically, the small NWHI 

bottomfish fishery is believed to have little impact on Hawaii’s bottomfish overfishing problem, 

as well as minimal impacts to the greater NWHI coral reef or deep slope ecosystems, NOAA is 

currently contemplating the amount fishing, if any, is appropriate for the pending NWHI 

National Marine Sanctuary. Based on a January 19, 2006 letter from VADMR Conrad 

Lautenbacher, NOAA Administrator, the Council was provided an opportunity to recommend 

commercial and recreational fishing regulations under the MSA for bottomfish and pelagic 

fisheries that operate within the boundaries of the proposed NWHI sanctuary. At its 131st

meeting (March 13 to 16, 2006), the Council recommended a limit of 14 commercial bottomfish 

permits for the NWHI (7 for the Mau Zone and 7 for the Hoomalu zone), and a bottomfish 

harvest limit of 391,850 pounds, which represents 85 percent of the NWHI bottomfish maximum 

sustainable yield At this time, it is unknown whether fishing (commercial or recreational) will be 

allowed within the NWHI sanctuary. 

4.8.4 Cumulative Effects to Target Species 

Past Management Actions 

The past management actions (i.e. catch reports, closed areas, catch limits, and limited entry) 

have all served to increasingly regulate the bottomfish fisheries in Hawaii and thus can be 

viewed as positive actions for the sustainability of Hawaii’s archipelagic bottomfish multi-
190

species stock complex. However, as indicated in the purpose and need of this DSEIS, Hawaii 

bottomfish resources are experiencing overfishing; thus, further management action to reduce 

fishing effort on the stocks is required. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Federal Actions 

The future actions identified in Section 4.8.3 could positively impact target species as they 

involve possible actions taken to gain a better understanding of the life histories and status of 

bottomfish resources, the human utilization of such resources, and the ecosystem effects from the 

harvest of bottomfish species in Hawaii. 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Target Species 

External factors (outside of bottomfish management actions) that may have positive or negative 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on bottomfish resources include the following: (a) habitat 

degradation from sedimentation, (b) pollution, (c) vessel fuel prices (higher prices may result in 

shift from trolling to bottomfish fishing), (d) market (i.e. supply and demand) variability in price 

per pound as well as quantity of imported fish, (e) degradation of Hawaii’s boat ramps, and (f) 

artificial habitat. 

It is uncertain to what degree, if any, sedimentation or pollution have negatively impacted 

targeted BMUS. As described in Chapter 3, bottomfish generally are associated with areas of 

high relief and exposure to currents that carry prey items. The extent that natural events or non–

fishing related activities have increased sedimentation of high-relief areas important to 

bottomfish is unknown, but is not believed to be substantial (C. Kelly, personal communication). 

Similarly unknown is if non-fishing activities resulting in pollution have impacted bottomfish 

stocks. Examples of pollution are dumping of dredge material in the ocean and discharge of 

wastewater from cruise ships. To the extent that activities associated with sedimentation and 

pollution are subject to environmental regulations, their effect on target species could be 

avoided, minimized, or mitigated. However, an increase over current levels in sedimentation or 

pollution in areas where BMUS occur would likely be detrimental to discrete bottomfish stocks, 

but their impact on Hawaii Archipelagic bottomfish stocks is unknown. 

The effect of rising fuel prices could lead to more bottomfish fishing effort as it is generally 

recognized that bottomfish fishing (i.e. anchoring or drifting) uses less fuel than trolling, and 

therefore it is less expensive (HDAR Bottomfishers’s Survey 2005, unpublished data). As fuel 

prices in Hawaii have greatly fluctuated in the previous 6 months, their impact on fishermen is 

believed to be substantial. If fuel prices are extremely high, however, fishermen may decide to 

not go fishing at all, resulting in positive impacts to bottomfish stocks. Medium-to-high fuel 

prices may encourage fishermen to bottomfish rather than to troll, which might negatively impact 

bottomfish stocks. In relation, medium-to-high fuel prices may encourage commercial 

bottomfish fishermen to fish for longer periods to catch more fish to help offset costs incurred 

from high fuel prices. Because of the recent volatile fuel prices, their indirect impact on Hawaii 

Archipelagic bottomfish stocks is unknown. 
191

As described in Chapter 3, average bottomfish prices per pound fluctuate by species, by month, 

by season, and by year. Therefore, market forces such as supply and demand can also indirectly 

impact bottomfish where high average prices could lead to increased bottomfish fishing effort, 

and lower prices could lead to reduced effort. 

Discussions with bottomfish fishermen in recent scoping meetings yielded opinions that 

Hawaii’s boat ramps are in disrepair and are consequently affecting fishermen’s ability to launch 

their boats. In view of target species, this deterrent to fishing can be seen as positive as it could 

decrease fishing effort. 

The use of artificial reefs may provide potential positive impacts to target species; however, the 

extent to which several coordinating agencies will be able to successfully work together to create 

such reefs remains to seen. 

Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Target Species 

As described in Section 4.5, all of the alternatives considered with the exception of Alternative 1 

(no action) are designed to reduce the excessive fishing mortality rate on the Deep 7 species of 

concern within the MHI by at least 15 percent of current levels. Therefore, Alternatives 2 to 5 are 

expected to positively impact bottomfish target stocks. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Target Species 

As described above, PIFSC is in the process of conducting a new Hawaii bottomfish stock 

assessment, which is anticipated in the spring of 2006. Such work, however, is not expected to 

have any direct effect on target species. As the stock assessment has yet to be completed, the 

results are unknown, and its effect on the status determination of Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks is 

also unknown. The implementation of a Hawaii Archipelago FEP will initially maintain current 

fishery regulations. However, future fishery management under the FEP is expected to positively 

impact target stocks as predicting ecosystem variability will likely play an increasingly important 

role in fisheries management. 

The effect of a NWHI National Marine Sanctuary on target species is unknown as the amount of 

fishing to occur within the sanctuary is unknown. However, it is unlikely that fishing will be 

expanded above historical levels so the sanctuary could be viewed as contributing to positive 

cumulative effects on targeted species within Hawaii’s bottomfish multi-species complex. The 

level at which external factors such as sedimentation, pollution, vessel fuel prices, and market 

forces potentially impact BMUS is currently unknown, but is not expected to be significant. The 

alternatives being considered (minus Alternative 1) are expected to reduce the excessive fishing 

mortality rate on the Deep 7 species of concern in the MHI. The overall cumulative effect of this 

and other actions described earlier on Hawaii’s bottomfish multi-species stock complex is 

expected to be positive.
192

4.8.5 Nontarget Species and Bycatch 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Federal Future Actions 

The Council’s Bottomfish FMP (1986) prohibits the use of explosives, poisons, trawl nets, and 

other destructive gears that may indiscriminately kill or capture nontarget or bycatch species. 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries only use hook and line fishing gear, which is considered to have 

low collateral impacts on habitat and bycatch. 

 

The amount of nontarget species and bycatch within Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries is evaluated 

through two management and monitoring programs: (a) mandatory commercial catch reporting 

and (c) the observer program. As mentioned in Section 3.4.6.2, the State of Hawaii changed its 

commercial marine landings (CML) forms in 2002 to include data fields describing the number 

of fish released. PIFSC and the State of Hawaii have a cooperative data sharing agreement from 

which PIFSC is able to evaluate bottomfish catch data including nontarget species and bycatch 

information. The Pacific Island Regional Office’s Observer Program monitored the NWHI 

bottomfish fishery from 1990 to 1993 and is currently monitoring the fishery since 2003. 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Nontarget and Bycatch Species 

One of the most important external factors regarding whether a nontarget species is retained or 

discarded (i.e. bycatch) is Hawaii’s seafood markets. For example, the largest percentage of 

bycatch within the fishery is attributed to amberjack/kahala (Seriola dumerili). One hundred 

percent of kahala is discarded because of fears of ciguatera poisoning. Before the United Fishing 

Agency (Hawaii’s primary fish auction) ceased selling kahala in 1983, nearly 72,500 pounds of 

kahala were landed annually in Hawaii (Dalzell, WPFMC, personal communication). Currently, 

the only kahala being sold in the state are ones that are farm-raised in a controlled environment 

and devoid of ciguatera. From the NWHI bottomfish fishery, butuguchi (Psudeocaranx dentex) 

are sometimes retained and sometimes discarded, and likely dependent on market price and when 

the fish was caught during the fishing trip; that is, early in the trip butaguchi may be discarded as 

it has poor shelf life (Section 3.4.6.2). 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Nontarget and Bycatch Species 

As all of the alternatives (except Alternative 1) are expected to reduce bottomfish fishing effort 

by at least 15 percent, total catches of nontarget and bycatch species are expected to decrease 

proportionately. For the alternatives that deal with seasonal closures (Alternatives 3, 5a, 5b) for 

the Deep 7 species, depending on market demand, the targeting of uku (Aphareus rutilans) could 

increase during the closed period. The impact this could have on uku stocks is unknown, but it is 

not expected to be significant. 

Potential Cumulative Impacts on Nontarget and Bycatch Species 

Given the low amount of bycatch associated with Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries, and the fact that 

the largest percentage of species discarded (kahala, ulua) do not suffer from barotrauma (bloating 
193

of the swim bladder when raised from deep depth to the surface (high to low pressure, usually 

resulting in fish death), the effects of the alternatives added to the effects of market forces are not 

expected to negatively impact nontarget and bycatch species. 

4.8.6 Protected Species 

Marine Mammals 

Hawaiian monk seals and bottlenose dolphins are the only species of marine mammals that have 

been identified as potentially impacted by Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries. For this reason, the 

cumulative impacts on those species are considered in this analysis. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Past Federal Management Actions 

The Bottomfish FMP (1986) and its amendments have established management measures to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate interactions with protected species, especially the Hawaiian monk 

seal. For example, the Bottomfish FMP requires new Mau Zone or Hoomalu Zone permit holders 

to complete a protected species workshop to learn on ways to best avoid interactions. Recently, 

bottomfish permit holders have voluntarily agreed to attend protected species workshops 

conducted by NMFS, as well as agreed to a voluntary fish retention program to reduce the 

possibility of Hawaiian monk seals following their fishing vessels. The Bottomfish FMP also 

allows the NMFS Regional Administrator to place observers on NWHI bottomfish vessels, 

which occurred from 1990 to 1993 and from 2003 to present. The NWHI limited entry programs 

under the Bottomfish FMP limited the number of vessels that could participate in the fishery, 

which thereby decreases the overall potential for interactions with protected species in the 

NWHI. 

Future Federal Management Actions 

No management actions are being considered or planned by the Council or NMFS that may 

negatively impact Hawaiian monk seals or their critical habitat. The PIFSC will continue its 

efforts to monitor the Hawaiian monk seal population, and the PIRO will continue efforts to 

mitigate interactions between humans and Hawaiian monk seals. 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Hawaiian Monk Seals 

A comprehensive discussion on the external factors affecting Hawaiian monk seals is provided in 

Section 3.3.1.3 of the Bottomfish FEIS (2005). The external factors discussed include natural 

occurrences such as male aggression and mobbing, shark predation, disease, ecosystem 

productivity regime shifts, as well as anthropogenic sources such as sea wall entrapments, 

hookings, research activities, marine debris, and vessel groundings. 
194

Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Hawaiian Monk Seals 

In 2002, NMFS found that Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Hawaiian monk seal or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its 

critical habitat (NMFS 2002). NMFS made these findings because the bottomfish fishery is 

expected to result in low rates of hooking and seemingly low levels of competition for fishery 

resources between monk seals and the bottomfish fishery. As the alternatives considered in the 

DSEIS would either maintain the status quo, or reduce effort of bottomfish fishing in the MHI, 

none of the alternatives are expected to jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian monk 

seals or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Hawaiian Monk Seals 

The Hawaiian monk seal population is far below historic levels and has declined 1.1 percent yr ̄1 

on average for the past decade (NMFS 2004). NMFS has concluded that the Hawaiian monk seal 

total abundance is too small to protect this species from extinction in the foreseeable future 

(NMFS 2002). Further declines of this species may be linked to the various external factors 

mentioned above; however, it does not appear that Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries will play a 

significant role in the future status of this species. NMFS will continue to monitor monk seal 

populations as well as monitor for any signs of impact on monk seals from Hawaii’s bottomfish 

fisheries. 

Bottlenose Dolphins 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Federal Actions 

From 1990 to 1993 and from 2003 to present, the NWHI bottomfish fishery has been observed 

by NMFS’ observer program. A main objective of NMFS’ observer program is to monitor 

fisheries for interactions with protected species. As mentioned in Section 3.3, between 1990 and 

1993 NMFS’ NWHI bottomfish observer program observed bottlenose dolphins stealing hooked 

fish off bottomfish lines. Interaction rates between dolphins and the NWHI bottomfish fishery 

have been estimated based on observer coverage conducted from 1990–1993, and indicate that 

an average of 2.67 dolphin interactions, most likely involving bottlenose and rough-toothed 

dolphins, occurred for every 1,000 fish brought on board (Kobayashi and Kawamoto 1995). 

Theses interactions did not involve hookings or entanglements, but involved dolphins stealing 

hooked fish or bait of bottomfish lines. Between 1994 and 2002, two bottlenose dolphins were 

observed hooked or entangled in the Hawaii-based longline fishery outside of U.S. EEZ waters 

(Forney 2004). 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries have not been found to cause mortality or serious injury to 

bottlenose dolphins and therefore have been classified by NMFS as a Category III fishery under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
195

External Factors Potentially Impacting Bottlenose Dolphins 

Because exogenous factors on bottlenose dolphins in Hawaii have not been readily identified, for 

the purposes of this analysis, exogenous factors identified as common to cetaceans are used and 

include the following: (a) incidental take in fisheries; (b) ship traffic, ship disturbance, and ship 

noise, and (c) marine debris and wastes disposal. 

Incidental Take in Fisheries 

 Nearshore gillnet fisheries in Hawaii have been reported that interact with bottlenose dolphins; 

however, the rate of interactions or severity of interactions is not well known (Forney 2004). 

Ship Traffic, Disturbance, and Anthropogenic Noise 

Collisions with vessels and disturbance from low-frequency noise are potential threats to 

cetaceans. The 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, and will likely release a report 

sometime in 2006.15

Marine Debris and Waste Disposal 

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 bioaccumulation 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, thus 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.

Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Bottlenose Dolphins 

As discussed earlier, Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries have not been found to cause mortality or 

serious injury to bottlenose dolphins and therefore have been classified by NMFS as a Category 

III fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As Alternative 1 would maintain the status 

quo, and the other alternatives would reduce fishing effort in the MHI bottomfish fishery, the 

alternatives considered in this DSEIS are not expected to significantly impact bottlenose 

dolphins. 

 

15 http://www.mmc.gov/sound/ 
196

Potential Cumulative Effects on Bottlenose Dolphins 

The potential cumulative effects on bottlenose dolphins mostly involve impacts associated with 

external factors. As the Hawaii bottomfish fisheries have not been found to hook or entangle 

bottlenose dolphins, these fisheries are unlikely contributing to cumulative impacts on bottlenose 

dolphins. 

Sea Turtles 

As discussed in Section 4.3, interactions between sea turtles and Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries 

have not been reported or observed, and therefore it is surmised that bottomfish fishing 

operations do not adversely affect sea turtles. For this reason, the cumulative impact to sea turtles 

is not further discussed in this analysis. For a complete discussion on cumulative impacts to sea 

turtles, see the 2001 FEIS on the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region, which is available on the Council’s website at www.wpcouncil.org. 

Seabirds 

Historically, the only types of birds that have interacted with fisheries managed under Council 

FMPs have been boobies and albatrosses. Although many other species of seabirds exist in 

Hawaii and Western Pacific Region, this analysis is limited to these two species. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Federal Actions 

 

From 1990 to 1993 and from 2003 to the present, the NWHI bottomfish fishery has been 

observed by NMFS’ observer program. A main objective of NMFS’ observer program is to 

monitor fisheries for interactions with protected species. Prior to 1999, the Hawaii-based 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 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. Between 1999 and 2003, the shallow-set component of the Hawaiibased longline fishery was not in operation, and in those years seabird interactions were lower 

than they were prior to 1999. In 2005, 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 by at least 95 percent of pre-1999 levels. 

External Factors 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 
197

external factor substantially impacting seabird populations. However, detailed estimates are 

unknown. 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Seabirds 

PIRO observer data indicate that since 2003, six interactions (three boobies, one black-footed 

albatross, and two Laysan albatrosses) have occurred between the seabirds and the NWHI 

bottomfish fishery. Out of the six, only one of those interactions occurred while operating 

bottomfish fishing gear, while the other five occurred while trolling. On the basis of these 

figures, bottomfish fishing in the NWHI constitutes a negligible risk to seabirds in the NWHI as 

populations of these seabirds in the NWHI range from tens of thousands (boobies, black-footed 

albatross) to hundreds of thousands (Laysan albatross; NMFS 2005). As seabird populations are 

substantially higher in the NWHI than in the MHI, and no interactions between seabirds and 

bottomfish fishing gear have ever been observed or reported in the MHI, the alternatives 

considered in this DSEIS are believed to pose no additional threat to seabird populations. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Seabird Populations 

As Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries pose a negligible threat to seabird populations, maintaining 

their current populations or rebuilding those populations that were once substantially greater will 

depend on to what extent external factors impacting seabirds are reduced or mitigated. 

4.8.7 EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

Past Federal Actions 

Pursuant to the 1996 Sustainable Fishery Act amendments to the MSA, the Council has 

designated EFHs and HAPCs for each MUS listed under the Council’s five FMPs (64 FR 19068; 

see Section 3.3.1). The Council and NMFS must ensure that any activities conducted in such 

areas do not adversely affect, to the extent possible, EFH or HAPC for any 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 are prohibited under the Council’s FMPs. No fishery under 

Council management or jurisdiction has been found to adversely affect the EFH or HAPC of any 

Western Pacific Region MUS. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Federal Actions Potentially Affecting EFH, Biodiversity, 

and Ecosystems 

There are no actions being planned by the Council or NMFS that are expected to adversely affect 

EFH or HAPC in the Western Pacific Region. The Council has begun a process to develop and 

implement place-based FEPs for areas within its jurisdiction. Future fishery ecosystem 

management actions will build upon the place-based FEPs framework and incorporate ecosystem 

management approaches (e.g. multi-species management, ecosystem indicators and models, and 

community-based management) as appropriate. 
198

External Factors or Actions Potentially Affecting EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

External factors or actions that may potentially impact bottomfish EFH, biodiversity, and 

ecosystems are land-based pollution and sedimentation, ocean drilling and mining, vessel wastes, 

vessel groundings, oil spills, ocean dumping of toxic wastes, marine debris including derelict 

fishing gear, and military exercises with live ammunition. To what degree these past actions have 

had on bottomfish EFH, biodiversity, or ecosystems are unknown, but they are suspected to be 

minimal. To the extent that these or potential activities and events are subject to environmental 

regulations, their effects on EFH, biodiversity, and ecosystems are likely to be avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated. 

Potential Effects of the Alternatives on EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

Submersible surveys conducted on bottomfish fishing areas in the NWHI found that bottomfish 

fishing operations have negligible effects on EFH, biodiversity, and the benthic ecosystem. None 

of the alternatives considered in this DSEIS would modify the existing regulations prohibiting 

the destructing fishing methods. Fishing vessel activities can produce potential negative 

environmental impacts from lost oil, sewage, garbage and debris, and groundings. However, 

none of these factors are believed to have occurred and resulted in significant negative impacts 

on EFH, biodiversity, or benthic ecosystems on a broad or archipelagic scale. Neither are they 

believed to occur frequently, thereby adversely affecting EFH and ecosystems in an additive 

manner. Therefore, the alternatives considered in this DSEIS are not expected to have any 

adverse impacts on EFH, biodiversity, and benthic ecosystems. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on EFH, Biodiversity, and Ecosystems 

On the basis of the above discussion, the effects of continued bottomfish fishing in Hawaii, albeit 

with reduced effort in the MHI over recent years, combined with external factors are not 

expected to result in significant negative cumulative impacts to EFH, biodiversity, and benthic 

ecosystems. 

4.8.8 Fishery Sectors 

Past Federal Management Actions 

Generally, the objectives of past fisheries management measures were intended to promote 

sustainable fisheries and are expected to have positive impacts on fishery participants in the 

long-term from the benefit of maintained fishing opportunities. Nevertheless, it is believed that 

many fishermen in Hawaii have the sense that government regulations are “boxing them in” and 

reducing their ability to maintain their characteristic highly flexible fishing strategy (Hamilton et 

al. 1996; Polovina and Haight 1999; Pooley 1993a). This flexibility is important for many 

smaller and medium-sized fishing operations because of the way natural rhythms and variability 

influence the occurrence and season availability of various targeted species. 
199

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Federal Management Actions 

Fisheries management is an adaptive process, and fisheries management decisions potentially 

affecting Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery sectors could arise at any time. Currently, the Council is 

developing FEPs for the Western Pacific Region. Future fisheries management decisions will 

build upon the institutional framework of place-based FEPs. Essential to successful 

implementation of fisheries ecosystem management are opportunities for community 

participation. The Council anticipates working closely with fishing communities as well as 

fishery sectors in furthering fishery ecosystem management in Hawaii. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is currently developing a Draft EIS and draft 

management plan for the proposed NWHI sanctuary. At this time, it is unknown whether fishing 

(commercial or recreational) will be allowed within the NWHI sanctuary. 

As identified during public scoping, commercial bottomfish fishermen in Hawaii expressed 

interest in learning best practices and methods associated with seafood handling, so as to 

maintain a high quality product and maximize price per pound values. Dependent on 

Congressional funding, the Council and NMFS may coordinate seafood handling workshops for 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fishermen. 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Fishery Sectors 

Fuel Costs 

Perhaps the single external factor most affecting Hawaii’s bottomfish fishing sectors are the 

volatile gas prices observed earlier in 2005. Although bottomfish fishing is considered less 

expensive than pelagic trolling, for many areas in Hawaii, traveling to and from bottomfish 

fishing grounds is still expensive considering fuel costs (HDAR Bottomfishers’s Survey 2005, 

unpublished data). If fuel prices continue to increase, Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery sectors could 

see more competition from fishermen switching to bottomfish fishing over trolling. As fuel 

prices in Hawaii have greatly fluctuated in the previous 6 months, their impact on fishermen is 

believed to significant. When fuel prices are extremely high, many fishermen decide not to go 

bottomfish fishing or trolling (HDAR Bottomfishers’s Survey 2005, unpublished data). 

Seafood Imports 

For Hawaii’s commercial bottomfish sector, the effect of markets importing bottomfish from 

places such as Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and Tonga impacts market prices for Hawaii 

bottomfish. As mentioned in Section 3.4.5, nearly 750,000 pounds of bottomfish are annually 

imported to Hawaii each year, with a strong negative correlation observed between MHI 

landings and imports—when MHI bottomfish landings are low, bottomfish imports increases. 

Construction Jobs 

An external factor that might be positively impacting Hawaii’s fishing sector is a stronger 

Hawaii economy over recent years. Some islands in Hawaii have experienced dramatic increases 
200

in construction jobs over the last ten years, contributing in low unemployment rates. Within the 

past several years, Hawaii’s construction industry has boomed and so has its high-value housing 

market, which has likely benefited many part-time commercial bottomfish fishermen (M. 

Mitsuyasu, personal communication). As seen in Section 3.4.4.1, the number of MHI bottomfish 

vessels and the number of bottomfish fishing trips have declined in recent years. Although one 

cannot determine that this is directly attributable to Hawaii’s construction boom, part-time 

commercial fishermen may not be supplementing their income with bottomfish catches as readily 

as in years past. The benefit to Hawaii’s fishery sectors is less competition for catches at popular 

bottomfish grounds. 

Boat Ramps and Harbors 

Discussions with bottomfish fishermen in recent scoping meetings have yielded the fact that 

Hawaii’s boat ramps and harbors are in disrepair and affect fishermen’s ability to launch or berth 

their boats. Fishermen have stated that the dilapidated boat ramps and harbors in need of repair 

are found everywhere in the MHI (M. Mitsuyasu, personal communication). 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Fishery Sectors 

Alternative 1 (no action) would likely result in further decline of catch rates, and fishery 

participants in all sectors would see lower returns both in financial and nonmarket (e.g. angler 

satisfaction, food, and social benefits) terms. Alternative 2a (area closures around Penguin and 

Middle Banks) would be expected to disproportionately impact Oahu and Kauai fishery sectors 

as compared with those on the other islands. Alternative 2b is expected to negatively affect small 

boat fishermen of all sectors if they are displaced from there traditional, close to home fishing 

grounds. Alternative 3 (seasonal closure) is not expected to significantly impact commercial, 

charter, and recreational (including subsistence) fishery sectors as proposed closure is during the 

summer months when bottomfish landings are historically the lowest. 

Alternative 4a (TAC) is expected to impact all fishery sectors proportionately, unless a situation 

developed in which commercial fishermen increased their effort and the TAC was 

disproportionately caught by commercial fishermen over recreational and charter sectors. 

However, given that the majority of commercial landings are already made during the winter 

season, this is not likely to highly change these operations. Because of the lack of detailed 

information on recreational (including subsistence) fishing patterns, and the varying motivations 

within these groups, it is not known whether they would increase effort in light of a TAC. The 

impacts of Alternative 4b (IFQs) on the commercial fishery sector would vary depending on how 

its IFQs were implemented. If equal quotas (totaling 85 percent of the fleet-wide 2003 catch) 

were provided, highliners would get the same quota as part-time fishermen, and vice versa. This 

would leave some without enough quota, while others would have unused quota. Without a 

method to transfer (trade) quota between fishermen, this would have disproportionately adverse 

impacts on the highliners. If equal quotas were provided to a subset of all historical participants, 

such as those most active in recent years, those included would each have a higher quota, while 

those excluded would have none. In this case, part-time commercial fishermen that have not been 

active in recent years would not have IFQs and therefore would not be able to commercially sell 
201

their fish, of which the impact could be significant. The sport and recreational (including 

subsistence) fishery sectors would not be impacted under this alternative. 

Alternative 5a (May–September closure) would impact all fishery sectors; however, this is 

believed to normally be a period of lower bottomfish fishing activity due to the increased 

availability of pelagic fish so this impact may be relatively low. The provision of equal IFQs for 

use by a subset of commercial fishermen during the otherwise closed season will offset the 

impacts on this group. However, as discussed above, the allocation of equal quotas to each 

qualifying participants will likely leave some without enough quota, while others could have 

unused quota. Impacts on those commercial, sport, and recreational (including subsistence) 

fishermen who do not qualify for an IFQ would be adverse. 

The impacts of Alternative 5b (June–August closure and year-around Penguin Bank partial 

closure) would be evenly spread across fishery sectors as it does not differentiate between 

commercial, sport, and recreational (including subsistence) fishermen. The year-round partial 

closure of Penguin Bank would disproportionately affect fishing sectors based on Oahu; 

however, to what degree is unknown. 

Potential Cumulative Impacts on Fishery Sectors 

As seen in the above discussion, the impacts of the proposed alternatives when combined with 

external factors suggest that Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery sectors are facing substantial 

cumulative impacts. To what extent these cumulative impacts have on sustained opportunities for 

Hawaii’s bottomfish fishery sectors remains to be seen. 

4.8.9 Fishing Communities 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Future Federal Actions 

As described in Section 3.6.2, based on the requirements of the 1996 SFA amendments to the 

MSA, the Council designated under its FMPs, that each of the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, 

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii is designated as a fishing community. 

External Factors Impacting Hawaii’s Fishing Communities 

Hawaii’s Economy 

Some islands in Hawaii have experienced dramatic increases in construction jobs over the last 

several years, contribution low unemployment rates in Hawaii. Because of more available jobs, 

fishing communities on some islands may have reduced their dependence on fisheries. However, 

for islands that have experienced little growth (e.g. Molokai), fishing is still a major economic 

and social force within the community. 
202

Boat Ramps and Harbors 

Discussions with bottomfish fishermen in recent scoping meetings have yielded that Hawaii’s 

boat ramps and harbors are in disrepair and affecting fishermen’s ability to launch or berth their 

boats. Fishermen have stated that the dilapidated boat ramps and harbors in need of repair are 

found within in each of Hawaii’s fishing communities (M. Mitsuyasu, personal communication). 

Fuel Costs 

Hawaii’s recently volatile gas prices are impacting Hawaii’s fishing communities. Although 

bottomfish fishing is considered less expensive than pelagic trolling, for many areas in Hawaii, 

traveling to and from bottomfish fishing grounds is still expensive considering fuel costs (HDAR 

Bottomfishers’s Survey 2005, unpublished data). If fuel prices continue to increase, Hawaii’s 

fishing communities could be impacted as it could become simply too expensive to fish. 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Fishing Communities 

The short term affects of no action by the Council under Alternative 1 are expected to impact 

Hawaii’s fishing communities proportionately. However, the management action by the 

Secretary of Commerce through NMFS is unknown and therefore its impact on Hawaii’s fishing 

communities is also unknown. Alternative 2 is expected to disproportionately affect the fishing 

communities of Oahu and Kauai as it would close Penguin Banks and Middle Banks to 

bottomfish fishing for the Deep 7 species. The effect of Alternative 2b on fishing communities is 

difficult to assess as Hawaii’s fishing communities may respond differently to the proposed 

BRFAs. Loss of access to traditional fishing grounds may negatively affect fishing communities 

as it may deter people from going fishing, thus reducing the social benefits of fish sharing 

amongst the community. Loss of specialized fishing knowledge within a fishing community can 

also been viewed as negative as it is a reduction in social capital that is difficult to regain by 

future generations. 

Alternative 3 is expected to proportionately impact all of Hawaii’s fishing communities. 

However, significant impacts are not expected as the fishing season would open during the 

months that have historically recorded the highest bottomfish landings. Alternative 4a would 

affect Hawaii’s fishing communities proportionately, unless there was race to fish situation 

whereby the TAC was consumed disproportionately by one or more fishing communities. 

Depending on how the IFQs are allocated under Alternative 4b, fishing communities may be 

affected proportionately or disproportionately; however, the impacts are not expected to be 

significant. Alternative 5a is not expected to impact a fishing community, even if the IFQs are 

not distributed evenly throughout Hawaii’s fishing communities as the open season would occur 

during the months that bottomfish landings are historically the highest. The year-around partial 

closure of Penguin Banks is expected disproportionately affect Oahu’s fishing community, as 

Penguin Banks is the primary bottomfish fishing grounds for Oahu’s bottomfish fishermen. 
203

Potential Cumulative Effects on Hawaii’s Fishing Communities 

The external factor of Hawaii’s relatively booming economy and low unemployment rate may be 

offsetting the impact of rising fuel costs or the need for members of Hawaii’s fishing 

communities to supplement their incomes or diets with catches of bottomfish. None of the 

alternatives are expected to significantly affect Hawaii’s fishing communities; however the 

response of fishing communities to a seemingly increasing regulatory environment is unknown. 

Given rising fuel prices, increased regulations, and degraded access points (i.e. boat ramps), 

members of Hawaii’s fishing communities are likely facing reduced fishing opportunities. 

Reduced fishing opportunities may impact Hawaii’s fishing communities by reducing the 

economic and social benefits that these communities derive from fishing and the harvest of 

marine resources. 

4.8.10 Native Hawaiian Communities 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Federal Actions 

The MSA attempted to address native, indigenous rights to resources managed by the Council 

through Section 305 (i) (2), the Western Pacific Community Development Program (CDP) 

Section 305 note, and the Western Pacific Community Demonstration Project Program (CDPP). 

The CDP provides an opportunity for the Council to make programmatic changes to fisheries it 

manages to address inequities in participation in these fisheries by native fishers, however, no 

money is appropriated for this program. The CDPP is a regional grant program for which 

Congress has appropriated $500,000 per year for three to five demonstration projects by 

qualified native communities. These programs acknowledge that native people in the Western 

Pacific Region have had barriers to their full participation in fisheries managed by the Council 

and therefore exist to enhance their participation in fisheries. 

Although the regulations have not been finalized by NMFS, the Council (1999) recommended 

that one fifth or 20 percent of the target number of Mau Zone limited entry permits (ten) be 

allocated for Native Hawaiians under the Council’s CDP. 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Native Hawaiians 

Although there are likely other external factors affecting Native Hawaiians, two of the most 

common recognized are discussed below. 

Diet and Health 

Native Hawaiians die at younger ages than other ethnic groups residing in Hawaii; have a higher 

prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and asthma than other ethnic groups; and have a higher rate 

of being overweight (Johnson et al. 2003). Obesity is implicated as a significant risk factor in 

many chronic diseases. Changing dietary behaviors to reduce obesity is a fundamental aim of 

most weight loss programs, including several Traditional Hawaiian Diet programs developed and 

tested in Hawaii over the past two decades. These programs emphasize the health and cultural 

values of native foods. The majority of the participants realized short-term weight loss and 
204

improvements in health, but few individuals sustained a significant weight loss. Barriers to 

accessing fresh, affordable food is cited as one of the major barriers to long-term adherence to 

traditional Hawaiian diets. Changes that would support healthier lifestyles include “increase(d) 

access by Native Hawaiians to the land and ocean” and support of local food producers (Fujita et 

al. 2004). 

Education 

Native Hawaiian students are perceived, by the standards of contemporary education, to be 

underperformers (Pacific American Foundation/Hui Malama o Mo’omomi 2003). Personalized 

environments and experience-based learning have been identified as two critical factors for 

success in the schooling of Native Hawaiian students (Kawakami and Aton 2000). For 

Hawaiians, the lesson and the learning of the lesson are ultimately interwoven with the situation 

and the environment of the learner; that is, every situation is a learning opportunity. Western 

educators recognized 60 years ago that Native Hawaiians have never conceived of education in 

terms of schooling alone or regarded education as separate from living (Wist 1940). 

Kupuna (elder) wisdom is one of the essential components of the traditional Hawaiian learning 

that is neglected in contemporary education (Bartram et al. 2004). Unlike modern societies they 

typically receive information through a variety of sources such as writing and multi-media, 

Native Hawaiians depend on their kupuna to pass on cultural wisdom. 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Native Hawaiians 

If the Council did not take action (Alternative 1), it is probable that the Secretary of Commerce 

through NMFS would take unilateral action to impose management measures designed to end 

overfishing in federal waters. It is not possible to predict what those measures would consist of, 

but they would have to reduce MHI bottomfish fishing mortality (e.g. catches) by at least 15 

percent to successfully end overfishing. Depending on what measures were implemented, it is 

unlikely that special provisions would be conceded to Native Hawaiians. 

If no management action occurred by the Council or by NMFS, and the current overfishing 

condition led to an overfished condition resulting in significantly low bottomfish biomass levels, 

the bottomfish fishery would likely collapse. Under this scenario, the economic and cultural 

benefits observed from sustainable bottomfish resources for Native Hawaiian communities 

would cease, thereby negatively impacting the ability of Native Hawaiians to gain economically 

from catching bottomfish as well as their ability to perpetuate their cultural traditions of fishing 

and fish sharing amongst community members. Similarly for the remainder of the alternatives, a 

reduction of access rights and cultural practices can be viewed as impacting Native Hawaiians by 

reducing their ability to practice and continue their culture. The loss of any customary access and 

practice could be viewed as a permanent loss of culture for Native Hawaiian communities. 

Potential Cumulative Impacts to Native Hawaiians 

As mentioned above, Native Hawaiians are facing significant impacts from relatively poor diet 

and health and education. Bottomfish management alternatives that reduce access to locally 
205

produced fish would add to cumulative adverse effects on Native Hawaiian diet and health as 

well as to further reduce fishing opportunities that allow for intergenerational teaching of Native 

Hawaiian youth. The cumulative effect of the proposed management alternatives in combination 

with the external factors is unknown, but is seemingly not positive for Native Hawaiian 

communities. 

4.8.11 Administration and Enforcement 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Federal Actions 

The Council has been involved in managing fisheries of the Western Pacific Region since the 

promulgation of the MSA in 1976. Since that time, the Council has developed, and the Secretary 

of Commerce has approved, the following five species-based management plans: Precious Corals 

(1983), Crustaceans (1983), Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish (1986), Pelagics (1987), and 

Coral Reef Ecosystems (2004). With the exception of the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP, each 

FMP has undergone a series of amendments. In the fall of 2005, the Council underwent a process 

to develop and implement place-based fishery ecosystem plans, thereby amending and 

reorganizing the species-based FMP regulations into place-based regulations. 

In 2004, Congress appropriated funds to NMFS to establish the Pacific Islands Region, whereby 

the fishery resources occurring in the EEZ around U.S. Pacific Islands would no longer be under 

the administrative purview of NMFS’ Southwest Region. Also during this transformation, the 

Honolulu Lab became the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and the NMFS’ Office of 

Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division was established. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is currently developing a Draft EIS and draft 

management plan for the proposed NWHI sanctuary. At this time, it is unknown whether fishing 

(commercial or recreational) will be allowed within the NWHI sanctuary. If fishing is allowed in 

the NWHI sanctuary, it is unknown what agency will manage and administer such activity and 

under what authority (i.e. MSA vs. NMSA). 

External Factors Potentially Impacting Administration and Enforcement 

External factors that potentially impact Council and NMFS management and administration are 

new legislation, annual budgets, and litigation. External factors potentially affecting NMFS 

Office of Law Enforcement include annual budgets and balancing enforcement priorities. 

Exogenous factors that impact the USCG include shifting priorities for which Homeland 

Security, search and rescue, as well as annual budgets impacting staffing and the maintenance 

and acquisition of assets are included. 

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives on Administration and Enforcement 

Alternative 1 (no action) would not impact administration and enforcement in the short term; 

however, no action in the long term could result in litigation or failure to manage bottomfish in a 

sustainable manner. The area closures under Alternatives 2a and 2b would not significantly 

impact administration, although it requires the promulgation of area closure regulations. 
206

Alternatives 2a and 2b, however, would significantly impact enforcement agencies as adequate 

enforcement of the measure would entail at-sea or air surveillance operations. Alternative 3 

would insignificantly impact administration as it would entail new regulations to be promulgated 

reflecting the closed season. Enforcement agencies would not be significantly impacted as 

enforcement during the closed season would mostly involve shore-based monitoring of landings 

and sales of the Deep 7 bottomfish species of concern. Alternatives 4a, 4b, and 5a would impact 

administration and enforcement as they would entail careful monitoring of fish catch data and an 

appropriate enforcement response. Alternative 5b would not significantly impact administration 

as it would entail seasonal and partial closure. However, enforcement agencies may be impacted 

as they would need to monitor the area closure by sea or by air. 

Potential Cumulative Impacts to Administration and Enforcement 

From the above discussion, the impacts of the management actions considered in this DSEIS, 

and taken in combination with past, present, and reasonably future Council and NMFS actions as 

well as external factors such as Congressional funding, are not expected to significantly impact 

administration and enforcement. However, as more and marine resource regulations are 

implemented and more closed areas are established, the responsibilities of the USCG and NMFS 

OLE also increase. This could be burdensome, especially if these enforcement agencies are 

forced to operate on budgets that do not account for added marine resource enforcement 

responsibilities. In other words, unfunded mandates can significantly burden enforcement 

agencies tasked with multiple missions (e.g. USCG and Homeland Security). 
207

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives and 

Mitigation Measures 

The alternatives are distinguished by the amount and/or locations of bottomfish fishing in the 

MHI. The vessels used to target bottomfish consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels 

and electricity. None of the alternatives are expected to result in the consumption of significant 

amounts of energy. 

5.2 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential of the 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures 

Except for the no-action alternative, all of the alternatives are designed to reduce fishing effort 

on Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks by at least 15 percent from 2003 levels. 

5.3 Urban Quality, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Design of the Built 

Environment Including the Reuse and Conservation Potential of the Alternatives and 

Mitigation Measures 

None of the alternatives would have an appreciable effect on urban quality or design of the built 

environment because of the small size of the bottomfish fishing fleet and its shore-side 

supporting infrastructure. 

5.4 Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and Other Land Use Plans 

The preferred alternative considered in this EIS does not conflict with the objectives nor 

provisions of the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve or the proposed NWHI sanctuary 

process because the existing FMP provides for a sustainable fishery with little bycatch and 

minimal effect on protected species or ecosystem integrity. 

5.5 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 

None of the alternatives propose measures that produce unavoidable adverse impacts. 

5.6 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment and 

the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

With the exception of Alternative 1 (no action), all of the alternatives considered are designed to 

reduce fishing pressure on Hawaii’s bottomfish stocks. The objective of reducing fishing effort 

in the MHI is to enhance the long-term productivity of Hawaii’s bottomfish populations. 
208

5.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Involved in the Proposed 

Action 

Nonrenewable resources consumed in the industry include the energy used in fishing operations 

and ancillary businesses, as well as the materials used to construct the physical assets used in the 

industry, although some of the latter would be available for reuse if taken out of use in 

bottomfish fishing. 

5.8 Permits, Licenses, and Approvals Necessary to Implement the Proposed Action 

No permits outside purview of the NMFS and State of Hawaii HDAR are required for this 

action. However, besides Alternative 1 (no-action) and Alternative 2a (closure of Penguin and 

Middle Banks) the remaining alternatives require close coordination between NMFS and the 

State of Hawaii as well as parallel regulations in order for successful implementation and 

enforcement. Close coordination involves data sharing agreements (which already exist), 

developing appropriate research and monitoring plans, as well as entering into Joint Enforcement 

Agreement. 
209

CHAPTER 6: PREPARERS AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DSEIS 

6.1 Preparers of the DSEIS 

This document was prepared with significant contributions from the following: 

NMFS PIRO: Walter Ikehara (Sustainable Fisheries Permit Coordinator) 

NMFS PIFSC: Dios Gonzales (Computer Specialist) 

David Hamm (Chief, Fishery Monitoring and Socioeconomic Division) Kurt 

Kawamoto (Fishery Biologist), 

Dr. Robert Moffitt (Stock Assessment Biologist) 

Dr. Minling Pan (Economist) 

Dr. Sam Pooley (Director, PIFSC) 

Michael Quach (Information Technology Specialist) 

Penglong Tao (Information Technology Specialist). 

WPRFMC: Tony Beeching (Fisheries Analyst) 

Paul Dalzell (Chief Scientist) 

Joshua DeMello (Fisheries Analyst) 

Marcia Hamilton (Economist) 

Eric Kingma (NEPA Coordinator) 

Mark Mitsuyasu (Program Officer) 

HDAR: Joanne Kushima (Aquatic Biologist) 

 Reginald Kokubun (Statistician) 

Dr. Kimberely Lowe (Aquatic Biologist) 

Alton Miyasaka (Aquatic Biologist) 

TEC Inc: George Krasnick 

Contractor: Kelly Finn, Paul Bartram 

Everyone listed under Section 6.1 contributed to various sections of the document, the primary authors for 

the DSEIS chapters are as follows: 

Chapter 1: Introduction Eric Kingma 

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives Tony Beeching, Kelly Finn, Marcia 

 Hamilton, Eric Kingma, 

 Mark Mitsuyasu, and, Walter Ikehara 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Tony Beeching, Kelly Finn, Marcia 

 Hamilton, George Kransick, Eric Kingma, 

 Mark Mitsuyasu, Paul Dalzell 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Tony Beeching, Paul Dalzell, Kelly Finn, 

 Marcia Hamilton, Eric Kingma, Walter Ikehara 

 Mark Mitsuyasu, Paul Bartram (4.8.10) 

Chapter 5: Environmental Management Issues Eric Kingma, 

Chapter 6: Preparers and Public Review Tony Beeching, Eric Kingma, 

 Mark Mitsuyasu, 

Chapter 7: References Eric Kingma, Kelly Finn 

Appendix 1: NMFS 

Appendix 2: PIFSC 

Appendix 3: HDAR 
210

6.2 Distribution of the DSEIS 

The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were provided review copies of the 

DSEIS. 

Federal Agencies 

Director NMFS PIFSC 

Chief NMFS Office of Law Enforcement Pacific Islands Division 

Administrator NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office 

General Counsel Pacific Islands Region NOAA 

Admiral U.S. Coast Guard (14th District) 

Regional Administrator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Chairman Marine and Fisheries Advisory Council 

Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Congressional Delegation 

Representative Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Senators State of Hawaii 

Representatives State of Hawaii 

Representative Territory of Guam 

Representative Territory of American Samoa 

State/Territory/Commonwealth Agencies/Organizations 

Governor State of Hawaii 

Director American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 

Director CNMI Division of Fish & Wildlife 

Director CNMI Division of Environmental Quality 

Director Division of Aquatic Resources, DLNR 

Director Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

Director Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program 

Director Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 

Director Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control 

Administrator Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

Director Public Libraries Hawaii 

Other Organizations 

Director Center for Marine Conservation 

Director Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund 

Director Environmental Defense 

President Hawaii Audubon Society 

President Hawaii Bottomfish Association 
211

President Hawaii Fishermen’s Foundation 

President Hawaii Seafood Industry Association. 

President Hawaii Sport Fishing Club 

President Kawaihae Fishing Club 

President Keehi Sport Fishing Club 

Director Living Oceans Program, National Audubon Society 

President Māalaea Boat & Fishing Club 

Commodore Maui Trailer Boat Club 

President Marine Conservation Biology Institute 

Director The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii 

President The Ocean Conservancy 

Director Sierra Club, Hawaii 

Director United Fishing Agency, Hawaii 

Director University of Hawaii School of Law, Environmental Law 

Director University of Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology 

Director Western Pacific Fisheries Coalition 

President Windward Sport Fishing Club 

 

Council Groups 

Executive Directors Regional Fishery Management Councils 

Council Members Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

Members WPRFMC Bottomfish & Seamount Groundfish Plan Team 

Members WPRFMC Commercial Advisory Panel 

Members WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Plan Team 

Members WPRFMC Crustaceans Plan Team 

Members WPRFMC Demonstration Projects Advisory Panel 

Members WPRFMC Ecosystem & Habitat Advisory Panel 

Members WPRFMC Pelagics Plan Team 

Members WPRFMC Precious Corals Plan Team 

Members WPRFMC Recreational Advisory Panel 

Members WPRFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee 

Members WPRFMC Subsistence/Indigenous Advisory Panel 

Media 

News Editor Associated Press, Hawaii 

Editor Environment Hawaii 

Editor Hawaii Fishing News 

Editor Hawaii Tribune-Herald 

Editor Honolulu Advertiser (Oahu, Kauai, and Maui offices) 

Editor Honolulu Star Bulletin (Oahu, Kauai, and Maui offices) 

Editor Honolulu Weekly 

Editor Kauai Times 

Editor Maui News 

Editor Molokai Advertiser-News 
212

Editor The Garden Island, Kauai 
213

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES 

Anderson, E. 1988. The food chain of China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Anon. 1907. Home fisheries. The Paradise of the Pacific. 20(9):16–17. 

Anon. 1924. Midway Island yields $2,000 cargo of fish. The Honolulu Advertiser, 28 February, 

p. 1. 

Baker, J.D. and T.C. Johanos. 2003. Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. Biol. Conserv. 116: 103-110. 

 

Baer-Stein, T. 1999. You eat what you are: People, culture and food traditions. Buffalo, NY: 

Firefly Books. 

Bartram, P. K., K. Kamalu Poepoe, and Kelson K. Poepoe. 2004. Traditional knowledge of 

natural cycles and resource rhythms: Connecting teachers, students and the wisdom of 

elders through Native Hawaiian educational curriculum. Paper presented at National 

Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. April 1–3, 

2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 10 pp. plus appendix. 

Beckley, E. 1883 Hawaiian Fisheries and Methods of Fishing. Advertiser Press, Honolulu, HI.. 

Bennett, F. 1840. Narrative of a whaling voyage around the globe: 1833 to 1836 (Vol. 1). 

London. 

Brigham, W. 1908. “The Roosevelt fish”. The Paradise of the Pacific 21(5):17. 

Bryan, W. 1915. Natural history of Hawaii: Being an account of the Hawaiian people, the 

geology and geography of the islands, and the native and introduced plants and animals 

in the group. Honolulu, HI: The Hawaiian Gazette Co. 

Carter, B. 1962. Sam + pan. Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Advertiser, July 29, 1962, p. 12. 

Chinen, K. 1984. Welcome back! Oahu Market. The Hawaii Herald, October 5, pp. 8–9. 

Choy, C. 1989. A symbol is a symbol. In M. Chung, D. Luke, and M. Lau (Eds.), A booklet of 

Chinese customs and folk practices in Hawaii (Vol. 2). Honolulu, HI: Associated Chinese 

University Women. 

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. 

Coffman, M. 2004. The value of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands bottomfish in Hawaii’s 
214

restaurants. A report prepared for the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management 

Council. 

Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT). 1999. The state of 

Hawaii data book 1998. Honolulu, HI: State of Hawaii, Department of Business, 

Economic Development and Tourism. 

Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT). 2004. 

Dole, S. 1920. The old fish market. Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical 

Society. 

Forney, K.A. 2004. Estimates of cetacean mortality and injury in two U.S. Pacific longline 

fisheries, 1994_2002.Admin. Rep. LJ-04-07. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037. 

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.” NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla 

Friedlander and P. Dalzell. 2004. In: Status of Hawaii’s coastal fisheries in the new millennium, 

revised. A.M. Friedlander (ed.). Proceeding of the 2001 fisheries symposium sponsored 

by the American Fisheries Society, Hawaii Chapter. Honolulu, HI. 

Fujita, R., K. L. Bryan, and C. K. Hughes. 2004. The traditional Hawaiian diet: A review of the 

literature. Pacific Health Dialog. 11(2):250–259. 

Gaffney, R. 2000. Evaluation of the status of the recreational fishery for ulua in Hawai`i 

and recommendations for future management. DAR Technical Report 2002. Honolulu, 

HI: Division of Aquatic Resources. 

Garrod, P., and K. Chong. 1978. The fresh fish market in Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii: Agricultural 

Experiment Station, College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawaii, Departmental 

Paper 23. 

Glazier, E. 1999. Social aspects of Hawaii’s small vessel troll fishery. Seattle, WA: School of 

Marine Affairs, University of Washington. 

Goto, A. 1986. Prehistoric ecology and economy of fishing in Hawaii: An ethnoarchaeological 

approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Goto, H., K. Sinoto, and A. Spoehr. 1983. Craft history and the merging of tool traditions: 

carpenters of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii. Hawaiian Journal of History. 17:156–184. 

Haight, W. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater snappers 

(Lutjanidae) at Penguin Bank, Hawaii. Master’s thesis, University of Hawaii. 
215

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. 

Hamamoto, H. 1928. The fishing industry in Hawaii. Bachelor of science thesis, University of 

Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Hamilton, M. 1994. Northwestern Hawaiian Island bottomfish fishery 1993 vessel activities, 

costs and economic returns (NMFS Southwest Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Center 

Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-94-1C). Honolulu, HI: NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Center. 

Hamilton, M. 1998. Cost-earnings study of Hawaii’s charter fishing industry 1996–1997

(SOEST 98-08/JIMAR Contribution 98-322). Honolulu, HI: Pelagic Fisheries Research 

Program, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, 

Honolulu. 

Hamilton, M., and S. Huffman. 1997. Cost-earnings study of Hawaii’s small boat fishery, 1995–

1996 (SOEST 97-06/JIMAR Contribution 97-314). Honolulu, HI: Pelagic Fisheries 

Research Program, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of 

Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Harman, R., and A. Katekaru. 1988. 1987 Hawaii commercial fishing survey. Honolulu, HI: 

State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu. 

Hau, S. 1984. Economic analysis of deep bottomfishing 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 

Miscellaneous Report UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01) 

Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. 1979. Hawaii Fisheries Development Plan. Honolulu, 

HI: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

Inouye, S. 1931. Honolulu’s sampan fishers brave perils and hardships to garner finny harvest. 

The Honolulu Advertiser, 9 September. 

Inouye, D. 2004. Congress passes bill with nearly half-billion dollars for defense related 

initiatives in Hawaii. Accessed July 30, 2004, http://inouye.senate.gov. 

Iversen, R., T. Dye, and L. Paul. 1990. Native Hawaiian fishing rights: Phase 2 Main Hawaiian 

Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council. 
216

Japanese Consulate. 1913. Annual report on trade in Hawaii for the period July 1, 1912 through 

June 30, 1913 (Report submitted to the Japanese Foreign Office by the Japanese 

Consulate under date of September 30, 1913). 

Johnson, D., N. Oyama, L. LeMarch, and L. Wilkens. 2003. A millennium update on Native 

Hawaiian health, 2000. Honolulu, HI: Papa Ola Lokahi. 

Johnson, A. M., and E. Kridler. 1983. Interisland movement of Hawaiian monk seals. 'Elepaio 

44(5):43-45. 

Jordan, D., and B. Evermann. 1902. An investigation of the fishes and fisheries of the Hawaiian 

Islands: A preliminary report (Extracted from the U.S. Fish Commission Report for 

1901). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Joya, M. 1985. Mock joya’s things Japanese. The Japan Times, Tokyo. 

Juvic, S. P., and J. O. Juvic. 1998. Atlas of Hawaii (3rd ed.). University of Hawaii Press. 

Kahaulelio, A. 1902. Fishing lore. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. 

Katamoto, U. 1984. Usaburo Katamoto: Honolulu boat builder. In M. Kodama-Nishimoto, W. 

Nishimoto, and C. Oshiro (Eds.), Hanahana: An oral history anthology of Hawaii’s 

working people (Ethnic Studies Oral History Project). Honolulu, HI: University of 

Hawaii, Manoa. 

Kawakami, A. J., and K. K. Aton. 2000. Ke a’o Hawai’i (Critical elements for Hawaiian 

learning): Perceptions of successful Hawaiian educators. Pacific Education Research 

Journal. 11(1):53–66. 

Kawamoto, K. and D.Gonzales. 2005. Summary of bottomfish landings in the Hawaiian Island 

Archipelago, 1996–2004 (Pacific Islands Fisheries Scientific Center Internal Report IR05-023, 9 p.). 

Kawamoto, K. and D.Gonzales. 2005b. Summary of Reported Main Hawaiian Island Catch 

Disposition in the Bottomfish Fishery, 2003-2004. (Pacific Islands Fisheries Scientific 

Center Internal Report IR-05-023, 9 p.). 

Kawamoto, K. and D.Gonzales. 2005c. Monthly Summary of Price Per Pound for 7 Deep Water 

Bottomfish Management Unit Species in the Main Hawaiian Islands, 2000-2004. (Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Scientific Center Internal Report IR-05-024, 7p.). 

Kawamoto, K., D. Hamm, D. Gonzales, M. Quach, and P. Tao. 2005. Summary of bottomfish 

landings in the Main Hawaiian Islands, 1990–2004 (Pacific Islands Fisheries Scientific 

Center Internal Report IR-05-017, 8 p.). 
217

Kawamoto, K., and P. Tao. 2005. Summary of bottomfishing effort in the Main Hawaiian Islands 

by Commercial Marine License Holders, 2000–2003 (Pacific Islands Fisheries Scientic 

Center Internal Report IR-05-011, 5 p.). 

Kelley, C. and R. Moffitt. 2004. The impacts of bottomfishing on the Raita and West. St. 

Rogatien reserve preservation areas in the Northwestern Hawaain Islands Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Reserve. Final Report submitted to the National Marine Sanctuaries Program 

Kloppenburg, J., S. Lezburg, K. DeMaster, G. Stephenson, and J. Hendrickson. 2000. Tasting 

food, tasting sustainability: Defining the attributes of an alternative food system with 

competent, ordinary people. Human Organization. 59(2):177–185. 

Kobashi. F. and H. Kawamura. 2002. Seasonal variation and instability nature of the North 

Pacific Subtropical Countercurrent and the Hawaiian Lee Countercurrent. J. of 

Geophyscial Research.107(C11):3185. 

Kobayashi, D. and R. Moffitt. 2005. Documentation of the Maximum Sustainable Yield 

Calculations for the Bottomfish Fishery in the Hawaiian Archipelago. PIFSC Internal 

Report IR-05-019. Issued 28 October 2005. 

Kobayashi, D. 1998. Inferred patterns of Hawaiian bottomfish larval transport using a 

combination of advection-diffusion models and high resolution bottom topography

(Report to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu). 

Kobayashi, D., and K. Kawamoto. 1995. Evaluation of shark, dolphin, and monk seal 

interactions with Northwestern Hawaiian Island bottomfishing activity: A comparison of 

two time periods and an estimate of economic impacts. Fisheries Research. 23:11–22. 

Konishi, O. 1930. Fishing industry of Hawaii with special reference to labor. Unpublished 

manuscript, Hamilton Library Pacific Collection, University of Hawaii. 

Kubota, G. 1984. Ebisu Matsuri: A Shinto tradition on Maui. The Hawaii Herald, 20 January, p. 

6. 

Lau, R. 1936. Iron men on wooden ships. The Paradise of the Pacific. 48(8):22–24. 

Leis, J. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers 

(Lutjanidae). In J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston (Eds.), Tropical snappers and groupers: 

Biology and fisheries management(189—237 pp). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Leung, P.S. and S.Pooley. 2002. Economy-wide impacts of reductions in fisheries production: a 

supply-driven approach. Marine Resource Economics 16(4): 251-262 

Lind, A. 1980. Hawaii’s people. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. 
218

Look, M., and K. Braun. 1995. A mortality study of the Hawaiian People 1910–1990. Honolulu, 

HI: The Queens’s Health Systems. 

Markrich, M. 1994. Status report on the economic characteristics of ocean recreation in Hawaii.

Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 

Marris, K. 1992. The allure of aloha. Seafood Business. July/August:75. 

Meyer Resources. 1987. A report on resident fishing in the Hawaiian Islands (NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Center Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-87-8C). Honolulu, HI:

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Center. 

Miyaski, G. 1973. The Japanese tuna fishermen of Hawaii. The Hawaii Herald, 25 May, p. 4. 

Moffitt, R., and F. Parrish. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper 

Pristipomoides filamentosus. Pacific Science. 50(4):371–381. 

Morgan, L.E. & R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting Gears. Addressing the collateral impacts of 

fishing methods in U.S. waters. PEW Science Series. Island Press Publication Series. 

Nakashima, L. 1934. “Little known jobs in Hawaii: Capt. Sakuyo Otani, veteran Hawaii 

fisherman.” Honolulu Star Bulletin, 24 March. P. 4. 

Nakayama, M. 1987. Maritime industries in Hawaii: A guide to historical resources. Honolulu, 

HI: The Humanities Program of the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts in 

cooperation with The Historical Society. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Biological assessment: Effects of the Hawaiibased domestic longline fishery on the short-tailed albatross around the Hawaiian 

Islands. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Area Office, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation [for Management of the Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region According to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region]. Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southwest Region, Pacific Islands Area 

Office. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Accessed July 6, 2004, 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Seabird interaction mitigation methods and pelagic squid fishery management under the 

Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. National 

Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Regional Office. 
219

Nitta, E. 1999. Draft: Summary report: Bottomfish observer trips in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands, October 1990 to December 1993. Honolulu, HI: NMFS Pacific Islands Area 

Office, Pacific Islands Protected Species Program. 

Nitta, E., and J. Henderson. 1993. A review of interactions between Hawaii’s fisheries and 

protected species. Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):83–92. 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs. 1998. The native Hawaiian data book. Honolulu, HI: State of Hawaii 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs. 

Ogawa, D. 1973. Jan Ken Po: The world of Japanese Americans. Honolulu, HI: Japanese 

American Research Center. 

Okahata, J. (ed.). 1971. A history of Japanese in Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: The United Japanese 

Society of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Pacific American Foundation/Hui Malama o Mo’omomi. 2003. ‘Imi ‘Ike (Search for knowledge).

Honolulu, HI: (Completion report for Native Hawaiian Education Program, U.S. 

Department of Education). 

Pan, M. 1994. Vessel operating efficiency of commercial bottomfish fishing in Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Master’s thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Pan, M., P. Leung, F. Ji, S. Nakamoto and S. Pooley. 1999. “Multilevel and multiobjective 

programming model for the Hawaii fishery: model documentation and application 

results.” SOEST 99-04/JIMAR Contribution 99-324, Pelagic Fisheries Research 

Program, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Parrish, F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fisheries Bulletin. 

87:1001–1005. 

Peterson, S. 1973. Decisions in a market: A study of the Honolulu fish auction. Doctoral 

dissertation, University of Hawaii. 

PIFSC (NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center). 2005. Summary of Hawaii 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Stocks, September 2005. 18 pp. 

Polovina, 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(1):15–21. 

Polovina, 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 AK-SG. 
220

Polovina, J. et al. 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. 2005. Climate variation, regime shifts, and implications for sustainable fisheries. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2): 233-244. 

Pooley, S. 1987. Demand considerations in fisheries management—Hawaii’s market for bottom 

fish. In J. Polovina and S. Ralston (Eds.), Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and 

fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Pooley, S. 1993a. Hawaii’s marine fisheries: Some history, long-term trends and recent 

developments. Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):7–19. 

Pooley, S. 1993b. Economics and Hawaii’s marine fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):93–

101. 

Pooley, S., and K. Kawamoto. 1990. Economic analysis of bottomfish fishing vessels operating 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1984—1988 (NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Southwest Fisheries Center Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-88-12C). 

Honolulu, HI: NMFS Southwest Fishery Center. 

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. 

Fisheries Bulletin. 84(1):141–155. 

Ramirez, T. 2000. Waimanalo anglers remember their elders. The Honolulu Advertiser, 27 

February, p. A23. 

Restrepo, V. R. (convener) et al. 1998. Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary 

Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. (NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-F/SPO-31, 

NOAA/NMFS, Washington, DC.) 

Reynolds, J. 1835. Voyage of the United States Frigate Potomac under the Command of 

Commodore John Downes, during the circumnavigation of the globe, in the years 1831, 

1832, 1833, and 1834. New York: Harper and Brothers. 

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). Honolulu, HI: Pelagic 

Fisheries Research Program, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Shoemaker, J. 1948. The economy of Hawaii in 1947. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 
221

Shoji, S. 1983. Sea bream. In Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan. New York: Kodansha 

International. 

Shomura, R. 1987. Hawaii’s marine fishery: Yesterday and today (NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Center Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-87-21). Honolulu, HI: NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Center. 

Suryanata, K. 2000. Products from paradise: The social construction of Hawaii crops. 

Agriculture and Human Values. 17:181–189. 

Tamura, E. 1994. Americanization, acculturation and ethnic identity: The Nisei generation in 

Hawaii. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 

Titcomb, M. 1972. Native use of fish in Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. 

Walker, J. 1996. Sociology of Hawaii charter boat fishing (SOEST 97-02/JIMAR Contribution 

97-309). Honolulu, HI: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, Joint Institute of Marine and 

Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1986. Fishery Management Plan, 

Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review for the Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu, HI: Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1996. Draft Amendment 5 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region: Main Hawaiian Islands Closed Federal Area for Onaga and 

Ehu. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1998a. Magnuson–Stevens Act 

definitions and required provisions. Amendment 6 to the Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, Amendment 8 to the Pelagic Fishery 

Management Plan, Amendment 10 to the Crustaceans Fishery Management Plan, 

Amendment 4 to the Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan. Honolulu, HI: Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1998b. Amendment 5 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery: Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands Mau Zone Limited Access System. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1999. Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 1998 Annual Report. Honolulu, HI: 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 
222

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council). 2000. Draft Fishery Management Plan 

for Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region (including regulations; Vol. 1) 

Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2002a. Magnuson–Stephens Act 

Definitions and Required Provisions: Overfishing Provisions. Amendment 6 to the 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan (Supplement) and 

Environmental Assessment. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2002b. Magnuson–Stephens Act 

Definitions and Required Provisions: Bycatch Provisions. Amendment 6 to the 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan (Supplement) and 

Environmental Assessment. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2002c. Magnuson–Stephens Act 

Definitions and Required Provisions: Fishing Community Definitions. Amendment 6 to 

the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan (Supplement) and 

Environmental Assessment. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, Honolulu. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2003. Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Annual Report, 2001. Honolulu, HI: Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2004. Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Annual Report, 2002. Honolulu, HI: Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2005a. Towards an Ecosystem 

Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery Management 

Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Western Pacific. 

Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2005c. Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fishery of the Western Pacific Annual Report, 2003. Honolulu, HI: Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Wist, B. O. 1940. A century of education in Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Educational Review. 
223

The World Travel and Tourism Council. 1999. WTTC tourism report 1999: How travel and 

tourism affects Hawaii’s economy. New York: World Travel and Tourism Council. 

Yamamoto, T., (ed.). 1970. The Rainbow: A History of the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of 

Commerce. Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Honolulu, 1970.
224
225

APPENDIX 1: RELEVANT LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND 

AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORTIY IN 

THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or 

MSA) is the primary law governing fisheries resources and fishing activities in federal waters. 

Originally enacted as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, it has been 

amended frequently since 1976; most recently in 1996, by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The 

primary goals at the time of enactment of the MSA were the conservation and management of 

U.S. fishery resources, the development of United States domestic fisheries, and the phasing out 

of foreign fishing activities within the U.S. EEZ. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is the foundation of modern American 

environmental protection in the United States and its commonwealths, territories, and 

possessions. NEPA requires that federal agency decision makers, in carrying out their duties, use 

all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist 

in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future 

generations of Americans. NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for federal agencies to 

consider all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of their proposed actions and to 

involve and inform the public in the decision-making process. NEPA compliance for fisheries 

management actions is further guided by regulations issued by the Council on Environmental 

Quality and those issued by the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Administrative Order 216-6, Implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants that are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions 

are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat 

for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking 

actions that may jeopardize listed species, and contains exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and 

civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of 

marine mammals in U.S. and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine 

mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. The MMPA gives the Secretary 

authority and duties for all cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and 

sea lions, except walruses). The MMPA requires the NMFS to prepare and periodically review 
226

stock assessments of marine mammal stocks. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) authorizes collection of fisheries data and 

coordination with other agencies for environmental decisions affecting living marine resources. 

Both formal and informal consultations, cooperative research, and data gathering programs are 

routinely pursued. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is designed to encourage and assist states in 

developing coastal management programs, to coordinate state activities, and to safeguard 

regional and national interests in the coastal zone. Section 307(c) of the CZMA requires that any 

federal activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state’s coastal zone be 

consistent to the maximum extent possible with the enforceable policies of the affected state’s 

approved coastal management program. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires federal agencies to give the public prior 

notice of rule making and an opportunity to comment on proposed rules. General notice of 

proposed rule making must be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject to the 

rule have actual notice of the rule. Proposed rules published in the Federal Register must include 

reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed and explain the nature of the 

proposal including what action is proposed, why, what are its intended effect, and any relevant 

regulatory history that provides the public with a well-informed basis for understanding and 

commenting on the proposal. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires federal agencies to assess the impacts of their 

proposed regulations on small entities and to seek ways to minimize economic effects on small 

entities that would be disproportionately or unnecessarily adversely affected. The most recent 

amendments to the RFA were enacted on March 29, 1996, with the Contract with America 

Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121). Title II of that law, the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), amended the RFA to require federal agencies 

to determine whether a proposed regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. For a federal agency, the most significant effect of 

SBREFA is that it made compliance with the RFA judicially reviewable. 

Freedom of Information Act 

The original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allowed the public to obtain government 

information, provided that the information is not protected by one of the nine specific FOIA 

exemptions, and required that an agency respond to a FOIA request within specified time limits. 
227

Exempted information includes the following: classified secret matter of national defense or 

foreign policy, internal personnel rules and practices, information specifically exempted by other 

statutes, trade secrets and commercial and financial information, privileged interagency or 

intraagency memoranda or letters, personal information affecting an individual’s privacy, and 

investigatory records for law enforcement purposes. 

In 1996, the Electronic FOIA (E-FOIA) amendments changed FOIA by (among other things) 

extending the time limit that agencies had to respond to FOIA requests and requiring agencies to 

make reports available to the public by computer telecommunications or other electronic means, 

including listing their major information systems and a guide for obtaining information and 

establishing an electronic reading room that includes agency policies, staff manuals, and an 

index of records released under FOIA requests. NMFS compliance with FOIA is also guided by 

NOAA Administrative Order 205-14. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the Secretary is authorized to designate 

discrete areas of the marine environment as National Marine Sanctuaries to protect distinctive 

natural and cultural resources whose protection and beneficial use require comprehensive 

planning and management. The National Marine Sanctuary Program is administered by the 

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 

The mission of the National Marine Sanctuary Program is to identify, designate, and manage 

areas of the marine environment of special national significance because of their conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic qualities. The goals of the 

program are to provide enhanced resource protection through conservation and management of 

the sanctuaries that complements existing regulatory authorities; to support, promote, and 

coordinate scientific research on, and public awareness of, the site-specific marine resources of 

the sanctuaries; to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the 

marine environment; and to facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of 

resource protection, multiple uses of the national marine sanctuaries. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) of 1966 provides for the 

administration and management of the national wildlife refuge system, including wildlife 

refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866 was signed by the president on September 30, 1993, published October 

4, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and replaced E.O. 12291 and E.O. 12498. Its purpose, among other 

things, is to enhance planning and coordination with respect to new and existing regulations, and 

to make the regulatory process more accessible and open to the public. In addition, E.O. 12866 
228

requires agencies to take a deliberative, analytical approach to rule making, including assessment 

of costs and benefits of the intended regulations. For fisheries management purposes, it requires 

NMFS to prepare (a) a regulatory impact review for regulatory actions and (b) a unified 

regulatory agenda twice a year that inform the public of the agency’s expected regulatory 

actions. 

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, requires that federal agencies incorporate environmental 

justice into their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas 

On May 26, 2000, this executive order, signed by then President Clinton and published on May 

31, 2000 (65 FR 34909), directs the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior 

to jointly develop a national system of marine protected areas (MPAs). The purpose of the 

system is to strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing protected areas 

and establish new or expanded MPAs. The MPA system is to be scientifically based, 

representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems and the nation’s natural and cultural resources. 

Establishing such a system is intended to reduce the possibility that MPAs are harmed by 

federally approved or funded activities. 

Executive Orders 13178 and 13196: Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve 

On December 4, 2000, then President Clinton issued E.O. 13178 establishing the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Amendments Act of 2000. The executive order was revised and finalized by Executive Order 

13196, issued January 18, 2001. The principal purpose of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve is 

the long-term conservation and protection of the coral reef ecosystem and related marine 

resources and species of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in their natural character. 

The seaward boundary of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve is 50 nautical miles from the 

approximate center geographical positions of Nihoa Island, Necker Island, French Frigate 

Shoals, Gardner Pinnacles, Maro Reef, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, 

Midway Atoll, and Kure Island. The inland boundary of the Reserve around each of these land 

areas is the seaward boundary of Hawaii State waters and submerged lands, and the seaward 

boundary of the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. 

Marine Jurisdictions and Boundaries Issues 

This section briefly discusses the complex issues surrounding marine boundary jurisdictions in 

the Hawaiian Archipelago. Overlaps in boundary jurisdictions and the varying regulatory 

authorities can create challenges in the management of fisheries. Additional information on the 
229

jurisdictions within the marine environment may be found in Appendix G of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement—Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Western 

Pacific Region, dated May 2005. 

State of Hawaii 

The State of Hawaii consists of all islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial 

waters, which were included in the Territory of Hawaii under the Organic Act of 1900. Under the 

Admissions Act of 1959, Congress granted to Hawaii the status of statehood and all amenities of 

a state, which included the reversion of title and ownership of the lands beneath the navigable 

waters from the mean high-tide line seaward, out to a distance of 3 miles, as stated by the 

Submerged Lands Act of 1953. Congress excluded Palmyra Atoll Kingman Reef and Johnston 

Atoll, including Sand Island, from the definition of the State of Hawaii in 1959. The federal 

government also retained 1,765 acres of emergent land in the NWHI, which had been set aside 

by E.O. 1019 in 1909, establishing the Hawaiian Islands Reservation (HIR). The HIR was later 

renamed the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (HINWR). The State of Hawaii claims 

jurisdiction beyond its territorial seas of 0 to 3 nautical miles by claiming archipelagic status 

over channel waters between the Main Hawaiian Islands. The federal government does not 

recognize the State’s claim of archipelagic jurisdiction, but interprets the State’s seaward 

authority to stop at 3 nautical miles from the baseline (Feder 1997). 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve and Proposed Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

In May 2000, then President Clinton issued a Memorandum to implement a U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force recommendation and comprehensively protect the coral reef ecosystem of the NWHI. 

The memorandum directed the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce, in cooperation with the 

State of Hawaii, and in consultation with the Council, to develop recommendations for a new, 

coordinated management regime to increase protection for the NWHI coral reef ecosystem and 

provide for sustainable use. After considering their recommendations and comments received 

during the public visioning process on this initiative, then President Clinton issued E.O. 13178 

on December 4, 2000, establishing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve, pursuant to the NMSA. The executive order was revised and finalized by E.O. 13196, 

issued January 18, 2001. Pursuant to E.O. 13178 and the NMSA, NOAA is initiating the process 

to designate the reserve as a national marine sanctuary (66 FR 5509, January 19, 2001). Given 

the ongoing nature of the sanctuary designation process, this Draft SEIS does not address the 

outcome of that process or possible impacts of the proposed sanctuary on all components of the 

human environment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been given authority to manage a number of 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) within the Hawaii Archipelago. The USFWS asserts the 

authority to manage marine resources and all activities, including fishing activities within refuge 

boundaries pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and other 
230

authorities. 

Executive Order 1019 reserved and set apart the islands reefs and atolls from Nihoa to Kure 

Atoll, excluding Midway, “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds” to be 

administered by the Department of Agriculture. The HIR was transferred to the Department of 

the Interior in 1939 and in 1940 renamed the HINWR through Presidential Proclamation 2466, 

with control transferred to the USFWS. 

Within the HINWR, the USFWS asserts management authority over all marine resources to a 

depth of 10 fathoms with the exception of Necker Island, where it asserts a 20-fathom boundary. 

The USFWS acknowledges that all HINWR islands are part of the State of Hawaii, but asserts 

federal administrative authority over the NWR. 

Midway Atoll NWR, established under E.O. 13022 in 1996, is located in the NWHI. The 

USFWS defines the refuge boundary as approximately 12 miles seaward from the shoreline, 

although the exact boundary is disputed. The U.S. Navy established a Naval Air Facility at 

Midway in 1941 and the USFWS established an overlay refuge in 1988 to manage fish and 

wildlife on the atoll. Through the Base Alignment Closure Act of 1990, as amended, the Naval 

Air Facility closed in 1993 and the property was transferred to the USFWS in 1996. 

References 

Feder, J. J. 1997. Memorandum from Judson Feder, NOAA General Counsel, Southwest Region 

to Kitty Simonds, Executive Director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council. October 17, 1997. 
231

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF HAWAII BOTTOMFISH AND SEAMOUNT 

GROUNDFISH STOCKS (SEPTEMBER 2005) 

 1

Summary of Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Stocks 

September 2005 

GENERAL BACKGROUND 

Bottomfish

• Hawaiian bottomfish are a collection (“complex”) of deep slope snappers, groupers, and 

jacks. 

• Fishery features a range of vessel sizes 

(15-70 feet in length) that fish in deep 

waters (200-1,200 feet) using vertical 

handlines (hook and line, not longline 

or trawls). 

• Northwestern Hawaiian Island 

(NWHI) bottomfish is highly valued in 

the Hawaii fresh fish market due to 

larger sizes of fish (for fillets), 

important for tourism-based 

restaurants and local cultural holiday 

activities. 

• Fishery has been in operation at 

various levels since 1913. Currently 

there are 9 active commercial 

bottomfish vessels in the NWHI, 325 

commercial vessels in the MHI. 

• Fishery features minimal finfish bycatch and very few protected resource 

interactions. The most recent observer 

placements (2004-2005) did not 

observe any protected resource 

interactions. Submersible surveys at 

two NWHI bottomfishing banks found 

very little damage that could be 

associated with fishing activities. 

• Imports of snappers and groupers have 

varied over the years in terms of 

volume, value, and location. In 2004, using U.S. Customs data, 765,000 pounds 

($1,959,000) were imported, most from Tonga (44%), Australia (29%), and New Zealand 

(18%), compared to a total of 494,600 pounds ($2,177,000) from the Hawaii bottomfish 

fishery as a whole in 2004. 

Seamount Groundfish

• Seamount groundfish fishery at Hancock Seamounts is distinct from NWHI bottomfish 

fishery – different species – different locations – different habitat – different gear. 

– A different complex of species (armorhead, alfonsin, and Japanese butterfish) 

Bottomfish Stock Status Statistics 

Management Zones

MHI Mau 

Hoomalu 

Full 

Archipelago 

These are current values in real units. 

2003 CPUE 190 476 488 - 

2003 Effort 1628 199 305 - 

These are the reference values in real units. 

MSY CPUE 407 470 431 - 

MSY Effort 868 208 789 - 

These are current values expressed as ratio of the 

reference values. 

CPUE Ratio 0.47 1.01 1.13 0.82 

Effort Ratio 1.88 0.96 0.39 1.13 

Full archipelago ratios use weighting factors based on 

bottomfish habitat in the management zones.

Weights 0.447 0.124 0.429 - 

These are the threshold values for MSST and MFMT. 

MSST (CPUE Ratio) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

MFMT (Effort Ratio) 1 1 1 1 

(at CPUE ratios < 0.7, MFMT declines linearly from 1 to 0.) 

Definitions: 

CPUE = catch per unit effort (pounds per day) 

Effort = fishing effort (days) 

MSST = minimum stock size threshold, overfished defined as 

lower than this threshold 

MFMT = maximum fishing mortality threshold, overfishing 

defined as higher than this threshold
 2

– Caught with different types of fishing gear (trawls) in deeper waters by distant-water 

foreign fishing vessels. 

– Most of the fishery was in international waters but some fishing was within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at Hancock Seamounts – roughly 150 miles west of 

Kure Atoll in the far western end of the NWHI. 

– Seamount groundfish fishery has been subject to a fishing moratorium since 1986, when 

the fishery was determined to be over-fished due to over-harvesting by foreign trawlers 

prior to implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSFCMA) in 1976. 

– No Federal permits were issued to domestic or foreign entities for this fishery. 

BOTTOMFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

• Managed under the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council’s (WPRFMC’s) 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). [See 

http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish.htm] 

• 3 bottomfish fishery management zones in Hawaii established to distribute local fishing 

effort (see Figure 1): 

– All zones include the same multispecies bottomfish stock complex (see Appendix A). 

– Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) – waters surrounding inhabited Hawaiian Islands 

 80% of MHI fishing grounds are inside State waters. The zone is managed by the 

State of Hawaii although the WPFMC has made recommendations to the State over 

time concerning management in the MHI. 

 Unlimited entry; approximately 3,600 vessels are registered with the State of Hawaii 

to conduct bottomfishing in the MHI. Of these vessels, commercial landings are 

reported from only 325 vessels. No other licenses or permits are required. 

 Maximum landings occurred in 1988, at 1,166,000 pounds ($3,288,000). 

 Essentially impossible to separate MHI commercial catch into State and Federal 

portions with the existing data (State of Hawaii catch reports) which record catch in 

reporting “blocs” which range from 0 to 2 miles, 2 to 20 miles, and 20 miles out. 

 Recreational bottomfish catch data are just now being collected by the cooperative 

NMFS and State of Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (HMRFSS) 

intercept creel census program, but few bottomfish fishers have been intercepted by 

the HMRFSS field staff to date. No estimates have yet been compiled of recreational 

bottomfish landings in Hawaii. 

 The State of Hawaii and the WPRFMC are also supporting a targeted survey of 

registered bottomfish fishers to: 1) determine the level of recreational bottomfishing 

in the MHI; and 2) obtain comments on bottomfish management options for MHI. 

This survey is on-going. 
 3

– Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI)

 Mau zone – a small zone at the eastern end of the NWHI encompassing the islands of 

Nihoa and Necker. The fishery operates on trips lasting up to 2 weeks). 

 Essentially 100% of habitat in Federal waters. 

 Managed under the WPRFMC’s Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP. 

 4 vessels had permits to fish in the Mau zone when the zone was established in 1988. 

Maximum number of vessels was 14 in 1990-1991. 

 In 1999, limited entry program established with 7 vessels participating. 

 Currently, a total of 5 vessels can be permitted and 5 are currently permitted. 

 Maximum landings occurred in 1990 (14 active permitted vessels) at 249,000 pounds 

($630,000). 

– Ho‘omalu zone – a larger limited entry zone at the center and western end of the NWHI 

ranging from French Frigate Shoals to Kure Atoll. The fishery is a distant water fishery 

and fishing activity is limited by weather and the fresh seafood nature of the fishery. 

 Essentially 100% of habitat in Federal waters. 

 Managed under the WPRFMC’s Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP. 

 In 1987, fishery established with limited entry program; 12 vessels participating at 

that time. 

 Currently, a total of 4 vessels can be permitted and 4 are currently permitted 

 Maximum landings were in 1992 (5 active permitted vessels) at 353,000 pounds 

($1,030,760). 

• Other management measures include limitations on vessel size, prohibitions on certain gear 

types, mandatory catch reporting, and mandatory observer coverage in the NWHI. 

• Status of the fishery and stocks is assessed annually, and management measures enacted as 

deemed necessary. 

Despite delineation of these three management zones, Hawaiian bottomfish are evaluated 

under MSFCMA National Standard 1 guidelines as a single archipelagic-wide multispecies 

stock complex or population. Management criteria, such as whether the stock complex is 

overfished or whether overfishing is occurring, apply to the stock complex as a whole 

population rather than to individual management zones. 

However, historically and currently bottomfish population status indicators have been 

compiled for each of the three zones as a guide to local fishery management.

HAWAII BOTTOMFISH STOCK STATUS 

Historical Stock Status and Trends

• Fishery status was evaluated based on a species-specific 20% SPR threshold (spawning 

potential ratio, an index of the reproductive capability of the stock), from 1986-2003. 

Species-specific SPR values were reported for the archipelago, as well as individual zones, 
 4

but stock status was determined at the archipelago level. While there are limitations to the 

SPR approach, it was the best available method for tracking year-to-year changes in the 

fishery until mid-2003 when the revised National Standard 1 guideline approach was put in 

place. 

• Under the SPR approach: 

– No stocks of bottomfish in the Hawaiian archipelago were overfished. However, in the 

MHI, ehu and onaga populations were reported to be locally depleted. This led to a suite 

of State of Hawaii regulations in 1998, including recreational bag limits and 20 closed 

areas throughout the MHI. 

– In the NWHI, local depletion was not reported for any species. SPRs were well above 

20% for all species. 

Based on the SPR measures, the bottomfish stock complex was not overfished in any year 

from 1986 to 2003. 

Current Stock Status

• After mid-2003, under the new MSFCMA National Standard 1 guidelines, “overfishing” and 

“overfished” definitions were established for the Hawaii bottomfish fishery. Hawaii 

bottomfish are assessed as a single archipelagic multispecies stock complex for these 

purposes, however the status of bottomfish in each of the 3 zones continues to be assessed 

annually to facilitate effective conservation and management decision making. 

• National Standard 1 guidelines define: 

– Overfishing -- too much fishing (relative to fishing mortality at maximum sustainable 

yield (MSY)); we use fishing effort (expressed as days fished) as a proxy for fishing 

mortality and assess overfishing annually by comparing the current overfishing metric to 

an established threshold (maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)) for bottomfish. 

– Overfished -- not enough fish (relative to biomass at MSY); we use catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) expressed as pounds caught per day as a proxy for abundance; overfished status 

is determined annually by comparing the current overfished metric to an established 

threshold (minimum stock size threshold (MSST)) for bottomfish. 

• Under the National Standard 1 guidelines: 

– The Hawaiian bottomfish stock is not overfished (the biomass standard); however, 

overfishing (the fishing mortality standard using fishing effort as a proxy) is occurring as 

reported in the 2003 annual report of the WPRFMC and in the 2004 NOAA Fisheries 

Status of Stocks report to Congress 

[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/index.htm]. 

– The WPRFMC is currently developing options within its Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish FMP to address this situation. Under the MSFCMA, the WPRFMC has one 

year to develop a plan to address this overfishing concern. 
 5

In summary: 

Based on nationally- and legally-accepted definitions, in 2003, overfishing was

occurring on the Hawaii bottomfish stock complex on an archipelagic basis but the 

bottomfish stock complex was not overfished, i.e., sufficient biomass remained. 

Further, as reported below, this over-fishing situation is reflected by the situation in 

the MHI, not the NWHI. 

Projected Stock Status and Trends

• Archipelago-wide trends: 

– The fishing mortality ratio indicator (i.e., fishing effort) for the archipelago has 

experienced significant fluctuations; since 1998 it has continually declined (see Figure 2). 

– The biomass ratio indicator for the archipelago has manifested a more stable trend with 

no significant change (see Figure 2). 

– Mean weights for individual fish are declining, which is expected with fishing; however, 

mean weights in both NWHI zones remain significantly higher than those in the heavily 

fished MHI. Alternative explanations exist for changes in captured fish size, such as gear 

configuration, gear competition, size targeting, fishing location, and fishing ability. 

Anecdotal information from fishermen and submersible observations of size/age related 

segregation of fish over the fishing grounds tend to confirm that weights are associated 

with fishing style. 

– Trends in landings of particular species are not used as a measure of abundance or fishery 

health because landings of one species can change dramatically with species targeting, 

market incentives, gear competition, or natural changes in the ecosystem. Good 

examples are the pig-lipped ulua (butaguch, a jack) and uku (a grey snapper), which are 

targeted at various times of the year in response to seasonal fluctuations in demand. 

• Trends in the MHI (see Figure 3) 

– CPUE in the MHI is relatively stable over the past decade. 

– Since 1998, reported commercial fishing effort in the MHI zone has declined by 50%; 

commercial participation also has declined. 

– Because of the overfishing status of the Hawaii bottomfish fishery, the WPRFMC is 

currently evaluating effort reduction alternatives in the EEZ portion of the MHI. 

• Trends in the Mau Zone (see Figure 4) 

– CPUE in the Mau zone was relatively stable over the past decade but has been increasing 

in recent years as participation has dropped. 

– Participation in the Mau zone has declined by approximately 70% from 14 vessels in 

1990 to 5 vessels in 2003 as anticipated under the limited entry system. 

 Participation is capped at current participants (however, regulatory changes have been 

proposed by the WPFMC to enable new Mau zone entrants) 

 Further attrition is anticipated due to current use-or-lose permit policy and the ongoing uncertainty in the status of the NWHI fishery under the Executive Order. 
 6

– Significant restrictions in or closure of the Mau zone bottomfish fishing grounds are 

expected to concentrate effort in open areas, possibly causing further depletion in the 

MHI. 

• Trends in the Ho‘omalu Zone (see Figure 5) 

– CPUE has declined over time as consistent with a sustainable fisheries population 

dynamics model. 

– Since 1990, participation has remained fairly constant, while effort has fluctuated and 

shows no discernible trend. 

– Significant restrictions in or closure of the Ho‘omalu zone bottomfish fishing grounds 

would be expected to concentrate effort in open areas, possibly causing increased 

depletion in the MHI. 

DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

Stock Assessment Data Sources and Data Collection Frequency

• PIFSC scientists conduct bottomfish biological stock assessments annually; these 

assessments are conducted under “data poor” conditions. Data poor refers to the quantity of 

data, not quality, and suitable assessment methodologies are available for application under 

such conditions. 

• From 1984 to 1990, NMFS relied on shoreside monitoring at the Honolulu auction to 

estimate catch per trip and to track fishing effort (number of trips). 

• Currently, PIFSC uses two sets of State of Hawaii commercial fishery-dependent catch data: 

– Fishing “bloc” data compiled per vessel per day for the MHI 

– Logbook data for the NWHI (available since 1991) 

• From1984-1990 PIFSC utilized shoreside monitoring to compile size composition and other 

biological and economic information from the NWHI; recently electronic data reporting 

through Honolulu seafood dealers has come on-line and is available for this purpose. 

• The results of the stock assessments are presented to the WPRFMC’s Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish plan team for review and compiled in an annual report by the 

WPRFMC (see http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish.htm #AnnualReports) 

• The most current annual report is for the data year 2003. Data for 2004 are currently being 

compiled and evaluated. 

Data and Methodology Uncertainties, Gaps, Needs

• To date, NWHI CPUEs have been reported in terms of catch per day and have not been 

standardized by vessel fishing power 

– NWHI fleets are extremely small (5 vessels in the Mau zone and 4 vessels in the 

Ho‘omalu zone). Entry or departure of one or more vessels can greatly influence the 

overall fishing performance of the fleet, the resultant CPUE, and as a result, estimates of 

biomass based on those CPUEs. 

– As a result, current CPUEs in this very small and very specialized handline fishery may 

be related more to fishing ability or skill, rather than fish abundance; careful 

standardization of commercial catch data is necessary prior to interpretation 
 7

– CPUE data at the line-hour level (optimal) for each NWHI vessel can be generated from 

1997 to the present from new State of Hawaii logbook 

– PIFSC staffers have developed algorithms to incorporate this improved data and will 

have results by November 2005 to use these new measures in calculating National 

Standard 1 reference points 

• In January 2004, a Bottomfish Stock Assessment Workshop was held in Honolulu cosponsored by the WPFMC and PIFSC, bringing together an independent scientific panel of 

stock assessment experts 

– The objective of the workshop was to evaluate the existing bottomfish data and stock 

assessment techniques and make recommendations for future assessments 

– Some of the recommendations included: 

 Collect biological data such as length, weight, sex, maturity, and age for key species 

in order to update important life history parameters 

 Implement a tagging program to determine the extent of movements 

 Initiate a routine fishery-independent survey to provide unbiased estimates of 

abundance (biomass) 

 Apply several stock assessment models to the data 

 If feasible, create an operational model of the fishery 

 Assess the extent of spatial structuring in Hawaiian bottomfish populations and 

incorporate this complexity in future assessment and management models 

– The results from this workshop are in the midst of being implemented with the assistance 

of independent academic stock assessment experts under contract to PIFSC who will: 1) 

evaluate existing bottomfish data collection programs and if necessary provide 

recommendations to enhance these programs; and 2) advance population modeling and 

stock assessment methodologies through the incorporation of spatial structure and 

ecosystem principles 

• In the future, PIFSC will be conducting a three-stage peer-reviewed process to development 

of significant stock assessments: 1) a detailed review and “certification” of the available 

data; 2) evaluation and testing of the stock assessment models and assumptions; and 3) 

review of stock status and implications. This will require more formality in the stock 

assessment process, and as a result, lengthier time-frames until the new procedures are 

routinized. 

-- Compiled by PIFSC fishery biology staff, September 2005, from public information sources 
 8

Glossary: 

CPUE – Catch per unit effort, an index of fishing performance often utilized as a measure of fish 

abundance, after careful standardization. 

EEZ -- Exclusive economic zone, generally the region 3 to 200 miles offshore. 

FMP – federal Fishery Management Plan. 

HMRFSS – Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey. 

MHI – Main Hawaiian Islands, the inhabited islands in the lower portion of the Hawaiian 

Archipelago (Middle Bank, Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui, Lanai, Hawaii). 

MFMT – Maximum fishing mortality threshold, a reference point for overfishing status in the 

NMFS National Standard 1 guidelines, values higher than this threshold are overfishing by 

definition. 

 

MSFCMA – Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976 as 

subsequently amended). 

MSST – Minimum stock size threshold, a reference point for overfished status in the NMFS 

National Standard 1 guidelines, values lower than this are overfished by definition. 

MSY – Maximum sustainable yield, a reference point in fisheries describing a degree of resource 

utilization which allows maximum removal while ensuring long term sustainability. 

NWHI – Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the portion of the Hawaiian Archipelago stretching 

from Nihoa to Hancock Seamount. 

PIFSC – NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

SPR – Spawning potential ratio, a stock assessment index related to the reproductive health of a 

stock, no longer utilized by NMFS as a measure of “overfished” status, but remains an important 

stock indicator and remains in the Control Rule as a second (species specific) layer. 

WPRFMC – Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, the policy-making 

organization for the management of fisheries in the EEZ around the Territory of American 

Samoa, Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and US Pacific island possessions. 
 9

Convenient information sources 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/

NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/index.htm

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

http://www.wpcouncil.org/
 10

Figure 1. Map of Hawaiian Archipelago showing location of bottomfish management zones. 
 11

Figure 2. Hawaii bottomfish effort and biomass ratios (archipelago-wide, including all 

management zones). 

Hawaiian Bottomfish Effort and Biomass Ratios

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Ratio of current to MSY values

Effort

Biomass
 12

Figure 3. MHI zone fishery time series [nominal data] 

Catch per unit effort

0

100

200

300

400

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Catch per unit effort (lbs per day)

Effort

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Fishing effort (days fished)

Participation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Participation (# of vessels)
 13

Figure 4. Mau zone fishery time series [nominal data] 

Fishing Effort

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Fishing effort (days fished)

Participation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Participation (# of vessels)

Catch per unit effort

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Catch per unit effort (lbs per day)
 14

Figure 5. Ho‘omalu zone fishery time series [nominal data] 

Fishing Effort

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Fishing effort (days fished)

Participation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Participation (# of vessels)

Catch per unit effort

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Catch per unit effort (lbs per day)
 15

Appendix A: Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Species 

Scientific English Common Hawaii Common 

Bottomfish: 

Aphareus rutilans red snapper/silvermouth lehi 

Aprion virescens gray snapper/jobfish uku 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally/jack white ulua/pau'u 

C. lugubris black trevally/jack black ulua 

Epinephelus fasciatus blacktip gouper 

E. quernus sea bass hapu'upuu 

Etelis carbunculus red snapper ehu 

E. coruscans red snapper onaga 

Lethrinus amboinensis ambon emperor 

L. rubrioperculatus redgill emperor 

Lutjanus kasmira blueline snapper ta'ape 

Pristipomoides auricilla yellowtail snapper yellowtail kalekale 

P. filamentosus pink snapper opakapaka 

P. flavipinnis yelloweye snapper yelloweye opakapaka 

P. seiboldi pink snapper kalekale 

P. zonatus snapper gindai 

Pseudocaranx dentex thicklip trevally butaguchi/pig ulua 

Seriola dumerili amberjack kahala 

Variola louti lunartail grouper 

 

Seamount 

Groundfish: 

 

Beryx 

splendens

 

alfonsin 

 

kinmedai (Japanese) 

Hyperoglyphe japonica ratfish/butterfish medai (Jap.) 

Pseudopentaceros richardsoni armorhead kusakari tsubodai (Jap.) 

 
NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Summary of Hawaii Bottomfish Stocks 09-20-05.doc Pag

Representative Summary Statistics from the NWHI Mau Zone  2 figures attached based on data from the WPFMC annual reports 
NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Summary of Hawaii Bottomfish Stocks 09-20-05.doc Pag

Mau Zone Average Weight

02468

1012141618

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Pounds per Fish

Opaka Hapuu Uku
NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Summary of Hawaii Bottomfish Stocks 09-20-05.doc Pag

Mau Zone Percent Immature

05

1015202530

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20

% Immature

Opaka Hapuu Uku
233

APPENDIX 3: HDAR’S ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN EFFORT AND 

LANDINGS FROM THE PROPOSED BRFAS 

Appendix 3 - 1 

Appendix 3 

Estimated Reduction from Present Day Fishing 

Effort and Catch in the Bottomfish Fishery with Alterative 2b. 

Provided by the Division of Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii 

Background 

In 1998, the Department of Land & Natural Resources’, Division of Aquatic Resources 

(DLNR/DAR) implemented the State of Hawaii’s Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFAs), 

which were designed to conserve marine resources and habitat. The DLNR/DAR has proposed 

changes in the BRFAs, which are based on an evaluation of landings data, interviews with fishers 

and completed surveys and mapping of bottomfish depth range and habitat throughout the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (MHI). As proposed by the state, Alternative 2b would create12 new BRFAs 

(Appendix Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3). Additionally, current closed areas outside of the proposed 12 

BRFAs would be reopened. The evaluation of these proposed BRFAs show that they should reduce 

the mortality on bottomfish in the MHI by at least 15 percent from 2004 levels. 

Rationale 

Bottomfish habitat depth range has been defined as the “Essential Fish Habitat” definition provided 

by NOAA Fisheries (Essential Fish Habitat is within 100 and 400 meters). Since catch (and effort) 

should be reduced from current levels, and reporting compliance is often delayed, the most 

complete recent calendar year’s commercial data were used (2004). The measure of fishing effort 

used was the number of licensee-area-trips, based on license number; area fished, and trip end-date. 

Because multiple records exist for each fisher, area and species these values were computed and 

summed separately for each area and for the MHI as a whole. 

Appendix Table 3-1 shows the resulting estimated total numbers of trips and lbs caught for the 

seven key species targeted in State and Federal Management Plans. The estimated reduction in 

fishing effort is 15.11% and there should be a 17.10% reduction in catch. The commercial values 

are shown, but it should be noted that an equivalent reduction in non-commercial catch is expected. 

Appendix Table 3-1, column A shows the amount of catch and effort estimated to be restricted due 

to the proposed BRFAs (estimated by applying the percentage of EFH to 2004 catch and effort in 

corresponding commercial fish catch areas). 

Appendix Table 3-1, column B shows the portion of current catch and effort estimated to open up, 

because some areas currently closed in BRFAs would open up (estimated catch/effort in portions of 

current BRFAs that fall outside proposed areas). 

Appendix Table 3-1, column C shows the net change estimated from current levels, which is 

calculated by subtracting column B from column A. 
Appendix 3 - 2 

Appendix Table 3-1: Estimated Change in Catch and Effort 

A B C 

Estimated Reduction in 

Catch/Effort due to 

Closure of Proposed 

BRFAs 

Estimated Increase in 

Catch/Effort due to 

Opening of Nonoverlapping Portions 

of Current BRFAs 

Estimated Net Change 

in Catch/Effort from 

2004 Levels 

Trips Lbs. Trips Lbs. Trips Lbs. 

Closed Areas 697 58,939 286 17,304 411 41,634

% of Total 25.65% 24.21% 10.54% 7.11% 15.11% 17.10%

Other MHI 2,021 184,498 2,307 201,803

% of Total 74.35% 75.79% 84.89% 82.90%

Total MHI (100%) 2,718 243,437 2,718 243,437

There were several assumptions used in estimating the reduction from present day fishing effort in 

the bottomfish fishery with Alternative 2b. 

Assumption 1 - Commercial Data Represents Non-Commercial Catch & Effort: Since only 

commercial fishers report their catch, complete non-commercial data are not available. Change in 

fishing effort for non-commercial fishers is assumed to be proportional to the amount of change 

estimated for commercial fishers.

Justification(s): Fish distribution is strongly tied to depth and habitat. Since the BRFAs restrict 

access to the fishing grounds equally to both groups, closed areas should apply equally to all fishers. 

Although there are slight differences in areas targeted by highline commercial fishers, highliners 

represent a small percentage of commercial fishers. The vast majority of commercial fishers are 

small-vessel “weekend warriors” who fish similarly to non-commercial fishers, so average 

commercial catch and effort should resemble non-commercial catch and effort for the most part. 

Assumption 2 - Decreases in Fish Catch and Effort will be Proportional to the Change in 

Essential Fish Habitat Contained in Current vs Proposed BRFAs: 

Justification(s): Because of the experience of fishers, and the link between fish distribution and 

habitat, bottomfishing in each commercial fishing area does not occur everywhere but is focused in 

the areas where appropriate depth ranges are found. Not all fishers have the experience to know the 

specific locations of pinnacles, cliffs, etc. identified by DLNR/DAR as Potentially Important 

Habitat Areas (PIHA, see DLNR/DAR website), but fishing by both commercial and noncommercial fishers can be expected to target the appropriate depth range. 
Appendix 3 - 3 

Assumption 3 - Change will be Proportional to Changes in Essential Fish Habitat Enclosed by 

Current vs Proposed BRFAs, with adjustments for “good habitat” targeting and catch 

reporting idiosyncrasies 

Justification(s): Appendix Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 shows the commercial fish catch reporting 

areas and their overlap with existing BRFAs versus recommended BRFAs. The figures also show 

the distribution of EFH. Based on this information, Appendix Table 3-2 shows the fish catch 

reporting areas that include all or part of each BRFA and their corresponding proportion (percent) 

of the EFH in that grid. These percentages were applied to the reported commercial catch and effort 

estimated to take place within each BRFA. EFH percentages were adjusted somewhat in some 

commercial fish catch areas, based on information obtained from interviews with fishers regarding 

the amount of time focused on particular regions (such as “the fingers” of Penguin Bank) and their 

tendency to “lump” catch from areas (such as Penguin Bank, Ka’ula Rock and some of the 

pinnacles) into a single commercial fish catch area (not split it with geographic specificity, relying 

on maps provided by DLNR’s Division of Aquatic Resources). 

Assumption 4 - Total MHI Trips Equal Sum of Area-Trips 

Justification(s): These results are based on using total Area-Trips and reported pounds caught as 

the 100 percent value for both areas and the MHI during 2004. Area-specific catch and effort were 

computed for existing and proposed BRFAs and added for the whole MHI. While total catch is not 

in question, total trips may be somewhat overestimated to the extent there is same-trip overlap 

between nearby areas. This important of this difference was minimal (5 to 10 percent). It should be 

noted that including the overlap increases the total MHI effort estimate, which decreases the overall 

proportion of effort attributable to any given area. Thus, any differences between MHI trips and 

area-specific trips would tend to increase DLNR/DAR’s estimate of overall effort reduction (a 

smaller total number of trips would apply), making the resulting effort reduction a conservative 

estimate. 

Assumption 5 - Catch & Effort Added Back in Where Current and Proposed BRFAs Overlap 

in proportion to Enclosed EFH 

Justification(s): The proportion of estimated catch and effort for existing BRFAs was added back 

in to the current effort estimate (as shown in Table 1). This increase was based on the percentage of 

the current BRFA and corresponding EFH that overlapped with the proposed new BRFAs. 

Additional Considerations 

Enforcement 

In order for area closures to be effective, it is important to have effective enforcement. Problems 

with the current level of enforcement have been noted and were an incentive to place the proposed 

BRFAs closer to shore, to the extent possible, and design them with straight-line boundaries, 

making it easier for both fishers and enforcement officers to determine whether fishing takes place 

inside or outside the closed areas. An additional component of compliance that DAR can control 
Appendix 3 - 4 

directly is to develop an education effort (appropriate signage, brochures, publicity, etc.) to inform 

fishers of the revised BRFAs and how to report a violation. 

In addition, DAR is committed to working closely with DLNR’s Division of Conservation and 

Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) and appropriate federal enforcement agencies to: (1) encourage 

cooperation in monitoring compliance to improve the likelihood that violations will be detected; (2) 

to stated the rule in the most concise and unambiguous legal language possible so that detected 

violations can be prosecuted; (3) testify in legal proceedings to assist in prosecuting violators; and 

(4) if necessary, encourage a raise in the penalty schedule for violations to serve as an adequate 

deterrent to potential violators. 

Monitoring 

Although specific details of a monitoring program remain to be determined, DAR is committed to 

developing and implementing monitoring methodology that will allow us to determine how fishing 

mortality, biomass and size distribution are affected by the BRFAs. This monitoring will include 

both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent components. 

The main source of fishery data will be the existing commercial fish catch data, used to complete 

the evaluation included in this report. The Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey provides an 

additional means to monitor non-commercial catch and effort. This program has expanded to 

include regular fishing surveys on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Hawaii and Kauai. An effort will also be 

made to sub-sample registered non-commercial bottomfish permit holders to evaluate their fishing 

activity, catch and effort. The intent of all this work will be to compile and monitor the range of 

catch and effort to ensure the bottomfish fishery can move away from the over-fishing condition. 

Regarding fishery-independent monitoring, new technology allows DAR to monitor a grid of 

stations within appropriate habitats throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, using baited and 

unbaited video cameras to directly assess species and size-distribution at selected. DAR is 

committed to continue this work in collaboration with the University of Hawaii. Some catch 

sampling will be needed within closed areas. Consideration is being given to developing a 

monitoring effort that will incorporate cooperating fishers as component of a limited sampling 

program to check periodically changes in size distribution and CPUE within the BRFAs. 
Appendix 3 - 5 

Appendix TABLE 3-2: Current/Recommended BRFAs, Commercial Fish Catch Areas & Estimated 

Percent of Reported Fish Catch/Effort 

BRFA Commercial Fish Catch Areas Percentage (%) of Reported Catch/Effort

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

1 505 525 50 100 

A 508 528 90 100 

C 505 525 50 50 

2 503 523 50 40 

3 500 504 520 524 33 25 0 0 

E 500 520 45 100 

F 404 423 424 13 60 23 

4 423 30 

5 407 427 20 35 

6 428 25 

G 408 428 95 95 

7 409 429 25 10 

8 401 421 80 20 

9 420 429 331 15 10 10 

10 328 331 10 20 

H 331 328 60 40 

11 312 332 0 40 

J 313 333 45 20 

12 314 321 10 20 

K 301 314 321 322 10 10 20 10 

13 322 323 33 10 

L 304 324 33 100 

14 304 324 15 10 

M 103 123 70 80 

16 122 25 

17 105 124 125 10 5 25 

N 106 126 50 100 

18 106 126 10 100 

O 108 128 33 100 

19 100 120 45 100 

20 101 121 50 0 
Appendix 3 - 6 

Appendix Table 3-3: Estimated Reduction in Bottomfish Catch and effort by County for Prop

BRFAs Included Amount of Reduction 

County or Bank CATCH 

Current Proposed Lbs. % Trip

Kauai 1, 2, 3 A, C, E 7,937 3.26% 3Honolulu 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 F, G 7,457 3.06 8Penguin Bank 9, 10 H 18,522 7.61 17Maui 11, 12, 13, 14 J, K, L 6,051 2.49 10Hawaii 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 M, N, O 1,667 0.68% 1

SUBTOTALS 

Closed Areas Lbs/Trips 41,634 17.10% 41

Other MHI Lbs/Trips 201,803 82.90% 2,30

TOTALS Lbs/Trips 243,437 2,71

* Values for trips and landings represent the compiled “Estimated Net Change in Catch/Effort from 20

corresponding to column “C” from Table 2, for BRFAs listed within each county 
Appendix 3 - 7 

Appendix Figure 3-1 
Appendix 3 - 8 

Appendix Figure 3-2
Appendix 3 - 9 

Appendix Figure 3-3