Bottomfish Habitat and Restricted Fishing Area Analysis Robert O Conner, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Chris Kelley, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii
Study Area
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Definition The U.S. Congress defined EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)). The EFH guidelines under 50 CFR 600.10 further interpret the EFH definition as follows: Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle. Current EFH Depth Range: 100 to 400 meters within EEZ Adults Juveniles Larvae
Research Based EFH Boundaries Species Recommended EFH Ehu (Etelis carbunculus) 100-400 Onaga (Etelis coruscans) 100-400 Gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus) 100-350 Kale (Pristipomoides sieboldii) 50-350 Opaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus) 30-300300 Hapu (Epinephelus quernus) 30-300 Lehi (Aphareus rutilans) 50-250
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Definition All slopes and escarpments between 40-280 meters. Three known areas of juvenile Opakapaka (two off Oahu and one off Molokai).
Creation of New Reserve Assumptions and Implications Geographic Assumptions There is connectivity between MHI and NWHI (complete larval transport or stepping stone larval transport). There is connectivity between banks of MHI and adult movement is primarily restricted to individual banks. Therefore reserves should exist throughout the MHI and there should be at least one per bank. Species Priority Assumptions Onaga and Ehu are most vulnerable to overfishing (form dense schools, Ehu caught day or night, Onaga are slow to reproduce) Hapu and Paka are next most vulnerable (Hapu are endemic and protogynous while Paka form dense schools and have generally shallower habitats) t Reserves should serve the needs of Onaga, then Ehu, Hapu, and Paka. Reserves should cover entire EFH depth range (50-400 meters).
Creation of New Reserve Assumptions and Implications Habitat Assumptions Bottomfish species prefer hard/rocky substrate. Onaga and Ehus aggregate on top of rocky features and feed in the water column while Hapus and Pakas remain closer to the substrate. Pinnacles, Drowned Reefs/Shorelines, Ridges/Promontories, and Canyons should be candidates for reserves both at deep and shallow depths within the EFH. Connectivity and Enhancement Assumptions Reserve size and location should be such that it benefits surrounding fishing areas. Adult habitats function as natural hatcheries and are a source for eggs and larvae. Reserve design should take into account benefit to other reserves. Connectivity it exists via larval l transport t which h patterns are largely l unknown. Reserves should encompass both pinnacles and portions of slopes
Assumptions Creation of Bottomfish Reserves Enforcement 1) The smaller the number of reserves, the more enforceable 2) The larger the size of the reserves, the more enforceable 3) Reserves closer to land are more enforceable 4) Reserves near population centers or lookouts are more enforceable 5) Violators should be detectable from land 6) Relying on fishermen to report their own is in-effective Implications 1) Reserves should be the smallest number, the largest size, the closest to land, and the closest to population p centers/lookouts as possible
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Examples Based on Geologic Features Canyons Promontories & Ridges Pinnacles Inside EFH Range Pinnacles Outside EFH Range
Data Acquisition
Onaga (Etelis coruscans) Essential Fish Habitat Depth Range
High Slopes
Analysis of Old Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas
Ground Truthing Data
Commercial Bottomfish Catch Data
Example Current Patterns
Federal vs State Boundary Analysis
Main Hawaiian Island Bottomfish Habitat Analysis Proposed RFAWithi Within Federal Waters EFH vs Total Federal Waters EFH
Main Hawaiian Island Bottomfish Habitat Analysis Proposed RFAWithi Within Federal Waters EFH vs Total Federal Waters EFH units = km2 Maui Middle Oahu Niihau Kaula Kauai Big Island Totals total efh 2950.3 85.1 643.9 158.2 28.9 227.5 1646.3 5740.3 fed efh 1699.4 85.1 312.2 20.2 15.5 47.1 710.3 2889.7 stateefh efh 12509 1250.9 00 0.0 3317 331.7 1381 138.1 134 13.4 1805 180.5 9361 936.1 28506 2850.6 fed percentage 57.6% 100.0% 48.5% 12.8% 53.7% 20.7% 43.1% 50.3% state percentage 42.4% 0.0% 51.5% 87.2% 46.3% 79.3% 56.9% 49.7%
MHI Bottomfish Habitat Analysis HAPCs within Existing and Proposed RFAs Onaga and Ehu HAPCs within Existing RFAs Bank RFA Terrace Ingress Egress Pinnacle Combined % flat minor major notch landslide canyon bulge promontory ridge inside outside HAPCs Total Middle - 0 0.0% Kaula - 0 0.0% Niihau 1 1 1 2 4.9% Kauai 2 4 2 6 20.6% Oahu 5 1 1 1 1 2 6 25.1% Maui 6 2 1 2 1 3 9 8.1% Hawaii 5 - - Total 19 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 3 2 3 3 23 5.0% Onaga and Ehu HAPCs within Proposed RFAs Bank RFA Terrace Ingress Egress Pinnacle Combined % flat minor major notch landslide canyon bulge promontory ridge inside outside HAPCs Total Middle 1 1 1 2 2 6 60.0% Kaula 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 11 50.0% Niihau 2 1 2 1 1 2 7 17.1% Kauai 2 1 5 2 1 9 31.0% Oahu 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 33.3% Maui 5 1 1 5 5 2 1 5 6 26 23.0% Hawaii 3 Total 16 0 2 4 2 2 7 14 11 1 12 12 67 28.0% HAPC: Habitat Areas of Particular Concern RFA: Restricted t Fishing Area
Current Commercial Catch Boundaries
Example New Commercial Catch Boundaries
Needs With shallower EFH ranges (to ~ 30 Meters) more bathymetry is needed that is increasingly difficult and therefore expensive to gather. In order for reserves to be effective there must be adequate enforcement and the state lacks additional enforcement resources. Reserve effectiveness could be increased with appropriate penalties for fishing within Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas. Further analysis (Lisbon Effect) Addition of new data (as available)
Acknowledgements Chris Kelley, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL), University of Hawaii State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) & Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) Ocean Currents: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/haw.html