{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Magnuson-Stevens Act Definitions and Required Provisions","Authors":"","Publication date":"1998","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0001022126"},"Pages":["NPRFM C021\nWestern\nPacific\nRegional\nFishery\nManagement\nCouncil\nMagnuson-Stevens Act Definitions and Required Provisions\nAmendment 6 to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan\nAmendment 8 to the Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan\nAmendment 10 to the Crustaceans Fisheries Management Plan\nAmendment 4 to the Precious Corals Fisheries Management Plan\nBathymetry of Guam and CNMI\nN\nBathyretry and Examples of EFH for all FMP's\nw\nE\nS\nPajanu\nAnthan\nPagen\nHamagan\nGigan\nSurger\nAssociation\nTinian\nCNM\nEFH for\nEPH EDE Bettorufain\nHAPC for Polagica\nCHAIN\n4600 Matez Depth\n5000 Meter Depth\n6000 Mater Depth\n7000 Meter Depth\n8000 Metec\n9000 Meter Dept\n9000 Meter Depth\n70\n140 Miles\nSeptember 1998\nWestern Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council\n1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400\nHonolulu, Hawaii 96813","ATMOSPHERE\nAND\nNOAA\nOF\nA publication of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council pursuant to\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Nos. NA87FC0006 and NA87FC0014","Summary\nThis amendment adds new Magnuson-Stevens Act definitions to the fishery management plans\n(FMPs) of the western Pacific region and addresses the requirement of the Act that any FMP\ncontain provisions regarding bycatch, fishing sectors, essential fish habitat (EFH), fishing\ncommunities and overfishing. The amendment compiles the best available scientific information\npertaining to each of these new provisions and incorporates it directly or by reference into the\nWestern Pacific Council's FMPs for bottomfish and seamount groundfish, pelagics, crustaceans\nand precious corals fisheries. In addition, the amendment identifies other scientific data that are\nneeded to more effectively address the new provisions. A summary of the Council's response to\neach provision follows.\nEstablish Reporting Methodology for Bycatch (Section 4.1)\nThe combination of information collected from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)\nobserver programs and research cruises and the various catch reporting systems that comprise the\nWestern Pacific Fishery Information Network (WPacFIN) is sufficient to estimate with some\nconfidence the amount and type of bycatch in FMP fisheries. Although the current focus of catch\nreporting systems is on monitoring the volume and disposition of landed target species, detailed\ndiscard information on target catches is reported by certain vessel types, such as Hawaii-based\nlongline vessels and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish vessels. Modification of\nmethodologies or catch report forms may enhance the ability of existing catch reporting\nsurvey systems to monitor discards for other gear types. However, it will continue to be important to\nsupplement bycatch information collected by catch reporting systems with bycatch data gathered\nfrom observer programs or research cruises conducted by NMFS and other agencies, such as the\nSecretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC).\nScientific Data Needs:\nField testing of modified creel surveys or catch reporting forms to determine if additional\ninformation on the amount and type of bycatch in FMP fisheries can be collected without\nimposing an excessive reporting burden on fishermen.\nContinued and, if possible, expanded research cruises and observer programs to provide\nestimates of the type and amount bycatch that occurs with various gear types.\nMinimize Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality (Section 4.1)\nThe prevalent gear types used in the region are variations of hook and line (with a small amount\nof trapping for lobster in Hawaii) that tend to be fairly selective. However, the amount of bycatch that\nin the region's fisheries can be further reduced by developing and promoting uses for the fish\nare generally discarded. For example, NMFS is currently sponsoring a study to determine\ni","whether markets exist (or can be developed) for the meat, hides, etc. of the sharks caught by\ndomestic longline vessels. With regard to minimizing bycatch mortality, it would be difficult to\nreduce mortality with the gear types currently used in FMP fisheries.\nScientific Data Needs:\nResearch on potential uses of and markets for fish that are currently discarded in order to\nminimize waste and encourage full utilization.\nSurvival rate studies of live discards in order to more accurately estimate bycatch mortality.\nSpecify Data on Commercial, Recreational and Charter Fishing and Quantify Trends in\nLandings in These Sectors (Section 4.2)\nInformation contained in the FMPs and amendments is supplemented and updated by the annual\nreports prepared by the Council for each fishery. Included in the annual reports are data on total\nweight of fish landed by species, weight of fish sold, fishing effort, average price, revenue and\nannual catch per unit effort (CPUE). Such detailed information is collected for both the\ncommercial and charter sectors in all four island areas except for the Northern Mariana Islands,\nwhere the fishery data collection system has been significantly reduced. Information on the size\nand composition of recreational catches of pelagic and bottomfish species in Hawaii is not\ncollected by any ongoing data collection programs. Furthermore, no recreational fishing surveys\nhave been recently conducted in the Pacific Insular Areas to supplement information collected by\ncurrent creel surveys. Currently, the unsold portion of reported catches is considered to be the\nrecreational catch.\nScientific Data Needs:\nMarine recreational fishing surveys in order to more accurately quantify landings in the\nrecreational sector.\nAssistance to the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to re-establish\nthe creel survey program.\nDescribe Essential Fish Habitat and Minimize Adverse Effects (Section 4.3)\nBecause there are large gaps in scientific knowledge about the life histories and habitat\nrequirements of many FMP species, the Council has adopted a precautionary approach in\ndesignating essential fish habitat (EFH). With the exception of the EFH for precious corals, the\ndesignations consist of the depth ranges within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of certain life\nstages of some FMP species. In addition, the Council identified habitat areas of particular\nconcern (HAPC). For adult and juvenile bottomfish species, the water column and all bottom\nhabitat from the shorelines of all islands to a depth of 400 m are designated EFH. For bottomfish\nii","and larvae, the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ to a depth of 400 m are designated\neggs EFH. Slopes and escarpments at a depth of 40 to 280 m and three known areas of juvenile\nbottomfish habitat are designated HAPC. EFH for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish\ncomplex is all waters and bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29°-35°N and longitude\n171°E-179°W between 80-600 m. EFH for eggs, larvae and juveniles is the epipelagic zone of is\nall waters bounded by latitude 29°-35°N and longitude 171°E-179°W. Pelagic species EFH the\nthe shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ to a depth of 1,000 m. In addition, areas outside\nEEZ are considered important habitat. HAPC are all seamounts and banks around islands from\nthe shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ down to 2,000 m. Crustacean larvae EFH is the\nshoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 150 m; adult and juvenile crustacean\nEFH extends to a depth of 100 m. HAPC are Maro Reef, Necker Island, Gardner Pinnacles and\nall other banks in the NWHI with summits less than or equal to 30 m deep. Precious corals EFH\nis confined to the Established, Conditional and Refugia Beds and three known beds for black\ncorals. Precious corals HAPC include the Makapuu bed, Wespac bed, Brooks Bank bed and\nAuau Channel.\nScientific Data Needs:\nSee Appendix 6.\nInclude Impacts on Fishing Communities (Section 4.4)\nGiven the reference in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to the economic importance of fishery\nresources to the island areas within the western Pacific region and taking into account these\nislands' distinctive geographic, demographic and cultural attributes, the Council concluded that it\nis appropriate to characterize each of the island areas within its region as a fishing community.\nThe accompanying regulatory impact reviews for FMPs and amendments submitted to the\nSecretary after October 1, 1990, adequately address the effects of management measures on\nfishing communities in the western Pacific region.\nScientific Data Needs:\nAdditional research on the economic and social importance of fishery resources in each island\narea in order to improve the depth and scope of impact statements for future proposed\nmanagement measures. Specific areas where research is required include an estimation of the\nvalue of shark-fin landings in the western Pacific region; identification of economic or other\nbarriers that have prevented full participation by indigenous island residents in western Pacific\nfisheries; and cost-earnings analyses of small-scale fishing enterprises in the Pacific Insular\nAreas.\niii","Specify Overfishing Criteria and Include Preventive Measures (Section 4.5)\nThe main control rule in the NWHI bottomfish fishery is a limited entry system. Minimum stock\nsize threshold was determined by SPR proxy to range from 20% to 33% for bottomfish, based on\nan analysis of common Hawaiian species. Maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY was\ndetermined as F=0.17-0.69 for bottomfish. Information is insufficient to quantify a value for OY\nat this time, however, a precautionary approach could be to allow a buffer for these MSY\nthreshold values by setting a target level slightly higher until the precision and accuracy of the\nproxy estimator, and information on social, economic and ecological factors are better known.\nResults from recent genetic analyses and related studies, supporting archipelagic stock ranges,\nindicate that no BMUS are overfished based on either a recruitment-based or MSY-based\ndefinition of overfishing. Concurrent with the required change in definition of overfishing from\na\nSPR-based threshold to a MSY-based threshold, overfishing (based on MSY or its SPR proxy) is\nnow calculated based on the stock as a unit throughout its range, as determined by the best\navailable information. Existing measures in the FMP are also sufficient to prevent overfishing at\nthis time.\nThe Council manages its pelagic fisheries to prevent overfishng and achieve OY, as defined in\nAmendments 1 and 7, to the extent practicable. Any control rules to prevent overfishing for\nPMUS will require full international cooperation in assessment and management by Pacific\nfishing nations with the US. Methods to objectively measure MSY and assess overfishing for\npelagics must all be applied on a Pacific-wide basis and be based on sufficient data. For while only a\nfew species are reasonable MSY estimates available. The threshold for FMSY or MFMT,\nunknown for most PMUS stocks, is estimated to be 0.2-1.5 per year, based on FMSY=M. The\nthreshold level for MSST, also not known for most pelagic stocks, is estimated by the proxy\nSPR=20-30% (35-45% for oceanic sharks). The Council maintains that MSY-related definitions\nof overfishing cannot be applied to the US Pacific island EEZs given the Pacific-wide\ndistribution of most pelagic stocks and the current highly uncertain estimates of stock-wide\nMSYs. Information is also insufficient to quantify a value for OY at this time, until social,\neconomic and ecological factors are better known. Existing measures in the FMP are sufficient to\nprevent overfishing and no pelagic stocks are known to be overfished at this time. The Council\nasserts that the new overfishing provision can best be addressed through US participation in\ninternational management initiatives in the Pacific.\nThe NWHI lobster fishery operates under a constant risk of overfishing with associated constant\nharvest rate control rule, through a fleet-wide harvest guideline, that has been effective in\nproducing harvest levels that probably approach OY. The strategy is conservative and risk\naverse. The risk of overfishing is currently set at 10% whch translates to a 13% harvest rate and\nis a more conservative strategy than basing overfishing on MSY or MSST, since it maintains\nsustainable yield well away from the threshold limits. Minimum stock size threshold was\ndetermined by SPR proxy to be 20%. Maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY was\ndetermined as F=0.21-1.25. Under the current control rule the expected SPR is 65%, significantly\nmore conservative than the MSY thresholds. Until studies can be conducted on economic, social\niv","and ecological factors of the lobster fishery, a provisional estimate of OY may be the average\nannual yield associated with the 13% constant harvest rate. Measures contained in the FMP are\nsufficient to prevent overfishing, and no stocks are currently overfished.\nThe precious corals fishery is already managed based on OY quotas (i.e., control rule), calculated the\nby downwardly adjusting MSY estimates. Values for OY quotas are listed as regulations for\nmain species of precious corals. The SPR proxy for minimum stock size threshold that\ncorresponds to MSY is SPR=30%, and is already defined as such in the FMP. If one assumes\nFMSY=M then the maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY is F=0.066. As no harvesting\nhas occurred for 20 years, and nearly full recovery has been attained, no species of precious coral\nis currently overfished in the western Pacific's EEZ.\nScientific Data Needs (Bottomfish Fishery):\nCPUE data for species targeted trips in the NWHI fishery.\nImproved estimates of the size at entry and natural mortality rate to obtain a more reliable MSY\nproxy.\nEstimates of MSY-based overfishing thresholds, or proxies, for BMUS in American Samoa,\nGuam and the Northern Mariana Islands.\nMonitoring and evaluation of the State of Hawaii's management plan to restore locally depleted\nbottomfish in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI).\nDetailed information on economic, social and ecological factors to quantify OY.\nScientific Data Needs (Pelagics Fishery):\nInternational assessments of PMUS stocks in the Pacific and improved estimates of parameters\nto determine MSY or proxies thereof, in order to prevent overfishing.\nMore complete and accurate population dynamics data on PMUS.\nDetermination of limiting or threshold values and the robustness of biological reference points\nthat define overfishing through simulation models.\nEstimates of MSY from results of tagging studies in the Pacific.\nImproved database of time-series information to estimate SPR for PMUS Pacific-wide.\nDetailed information on economic, social and ecological factors to quantify OY.\nV","Scientific Data Needs (Crustaceans Fishery):\nRerunning the population dynamics simulation model using updated parameter values and a\nrevised model structure based on current NWHI lobster fishery information.\nStudies of the stock-recruitment relationship in the NWHI lobster fishery.\nStudies on the feasibility of species-specific and area-specific modeling.\nStudies on economic and social factors in the fishery to improve the estimate of OY.\nScientific Data Needs (Precious Corals Fishery):\nResearch on the distribution, abundance and status of precious corals in the Pacific Insular\nAreas.\nMSY estimates for Conditional Beds and Exploratory Areas.\nMSY estimates for black corals.\nSurveys of Makapuu bed to better define the bed's boundaries, monitor the recovery of corals\n(particularly gold coral) and determine the impacts of fishing activity should it occur.\nImproved and updated information on economic, social and ecological factors to better quantify\nOY.\nvi","Contents\npage\n1\nINTRODUCTION\n1\n1.0\n1.1 Responsible Agencies\n1\n1.2 List of Preparers\n2\n1.3 List of Acronyms\n3\n1.4 Managed Species in the western Pacific region\n5\nBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT\n5\n2.0\n2.1 Summary of Fishery Management Plans and Amendments\n5\n2.1.1 Bottomfish fishery\n5\n2.1.2 Pelagics fishery\n6\n2.1.3 Crustacean fishery\n7\n2.1.4 Precious corals fishery\n8\n2.2 Purpose of Amendment\n8\n2.3 Amendment Coordination\n9\n3.0 NEW DEFINITIONS\n9\n3.1 Bycatch\n9\n3.2 Recreational, Charter and Commercial Fishing\n9\n3.3 Economic Discards and Regulatory Discards\n9\n3.4 Essential Fish Habitat\n9\n3.5 Fishing Community\n9\n3.6 Individual Fishing Quota\n10\n3.7 Optimum\n10\n3.8 Overfishing and Overfished\n10\n3.9 Pacific Insular Area\n11\n4.0 NEW FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS\n4.1 Establish Reporting Methods to Assess Bycatch and Minimize Bycatch\n11\nand Bycatch Mortality\n11\n4.1.1 Bottomfish fishery\n17\n4.1.2 Pelagics fishery\n25\n4.1.3 Crustaceans fishery\n28\n4.1.4 Precious corals fishery\n28\n4.1.5 Discussion and conclusions\n31\n4.2 Commercial, Recreational and Charter Fishing Sectors\n31\n4.2.1 Bottomfish fishery\n35\n4.2.3 Pelagics fishery\n40\n4.2.3 Crustaceans fishery\n40\n4.2.4 Precious corals fishery\n41\n4.2.5 Discussion and conclusions\nvii","41\n4.3 Describe Essential Fish Habitat\n43\n4.3.1 Essential fish habitat designations\n52\n4.3.2 Adverse fishing impacts and conservation measures\n53\n4.3.3 Non-fishing adverse impacts and conservation measures\n54\n4.3.4 Cumulative impacts\n54\n4.3.5 Research Needs\n54\nInclude Impacts on Fishing Communities\n4.4\n55\n4.4.1 Identification of fishing communities\n56\n4.4.2 Economic and social importance of fisheries\n56\n4.4.3 Fishery impact statements\n57\n4.4.4 Discussion and conclusions\n57\nSpecify Overfishing Criteria and Include Preventive Measures\n4.5\n58\n4.5.1 Bottomfish fishery\n69\n4.5.2 Pelagics fishery\n75\n4.5.3 Crustaceans fishery\n87\n4.5.4 Precious corals fishery\n91\n5.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW\n92\n6.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS\n92\n6.1 National Environmental Policy Act\n92\n6.1.1 NEPA compliance\n92\n6.1.2 Environmental assessment\n96\n6.2 Paperwork Reduction Act\n96\n6.3 Coastal Zone Management Act\n96\n6.4 Endangered Species Act\n96\n6.5 Marine Mammal Protection Act\n96\n6.6 Regulatory Flexibility Act\n97\n7.0 REFERENCES\nviii","Appendices\nA1-1\n1. Regional Data Collection Systems\nA2-1\n2. Fisheries Data Forms Used in the Western Pacific Region\nA3-1\n3. Essential Fish Habitat Species Descriptions\nA4-1\n4. Essential Fish Habitat Maps\nA5-1\n5. Non-fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat\nA6-1\n6. Essential Fish Habitat Scientific Data Needs\nix","INTRODUCTION\n1.0\nResponsible Agencies\n1.1\nThe Council was established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to\ndevelop fishery management plans for fisheries operating in the US exclusive economic zone\n(EEZ) around American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and the other US\nPacific Islands. 1 Once an FMP is approved by the Secretary of Commerce, it is implemented by\nFederal regulations that are enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the\nUS Coast Guard, in cooperation with state, territorial and commonwealth agencies. For further\ninformation, contact:\nCharles Karnella\nKitty M. Simonds\nAdministrator\nExecutive Director\nNMFS Southwest Region, Pacific Islands\nWestern Pacific Regional Fishery\nArea Office\nManagement Council\n2570 Dole St.\n1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400\nHonolulu, HI 96822-2396\nHonolulu, HI 96813\nTelephone: (808) 973-2935\nTelephone: (808) 522-8220\nList of Preparers\n1.2\nThis amendment was prepared by (listed alphabetically within agencies):\nWestern Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: Paul Dalzell, Mark Minton, Mark\nMitsuyasu, Robert Schroeder,\nDonald Schug\nChris Boggs, Gerard DiNardo,\nNMFS Honolulu Laboratory:\nDavid Hamm, Donald Kobayashi,\nRobert Moffitt, Jerry Wetherall,\nMike Seki\nJohn Naughton\nNMFS Pacific Island Area Office:\nMark Helvey\nNMFS Southwest Region:\n1. Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Island, Kingman Reef, Palmyra\nAtoll and Wake Island.\n1","List of Acronyms\n1.3\nSpawning biomass\nB\nBottomfish management unit species\nBMUS\nCatch (in numbers)\nC\nCode of Federal Regulations\nCFR\nCrustacean management unit species\nCMUS\nCatch per unit effort\nCPUE\nGuam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources\nDAWR\nDomestic allowable harvest\nDAH\nNorthern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife\nDFW\nAmerican Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources\nDMWR\nExclusive economic zone\nEEZ\nFishing mortality\nF\nFork length\nFL\nFishery management plan\nFMP.\nHabitat areas of particular concern\nHAPC\nHawaii Division of Aquatic Resources\nHDAR\nHarvest rate\nHR\nNatural mortality rate\nM\nMaximum fishing mortality threshold\nMFMT\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nMHI\nMinimum stock size threshold\nMSST\nMaximum sustainable yield\nMSY\nManagement unit species\nMUS\nMaximum yield per recruit\nMYPR\nsouthern Emperor-northern Hawaiian Ridge\nSE-NHR\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nNMFS\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands\nNWHI\nOptimum yield\nOY\nPrecious coral management unit species\nPCMUS\nNMFS Pacific Islands Area Office\nPIAO\nPelagic management unit species\nPMUS\nResource Assessment and Investigation of the Mariana Archipelago\nRAIOMA\nRelative spawning biomass\nRSB\nSecretariat of the Pacific Community (South Pacific Commission)\nSPC\nSpawning potential ratio\nSPR\nTotal allowable foreign fishing\nTALFF\nUnited Fish Agency\nUFA\nWestern Pacific Fisheries Information Network\nWpacFIN\nWestern Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council\nWPRFMC\nYield or catch (in weight)\nY\nYield per recruit\nYPR\n2","Managed Species in the Western Pacific Region\n1.4\nCommon Name (local name)\nScientific Name\nBottomfish\nred snapper/silvermouth (lehi)\nAphareus rutilans\ngray snapper/jobfish (uku)\nAprion virescens\ngiant trevally/jack (ulua)\nCaranx ignobilis\nblack trevally/jack (ulua)\nC. lugubris\nblacktip grouper\nEpinephelus fasciatus\nsea bass (hapuupuu)\nE. quernus\nred snapper (ehu)\nEtelis carbunculus\nred snapper (onaga)\nE. coruscans\nambon emperor\nLethrinus amboinensis\nredgill emperor\nL. rubrioperculatus\nblueline snapper (taape)\nLutjanus kasmira\nyellowtail snapper (yellowtail kalekale)\nPristipomoides auricilla\npink snapper (opakpaka)\nP. filamentosus\nyelloweye snapper (yelloweye opakapaka)\nP. flavipinnis\npink snapper (kalekale)\nP. sieboldii\nsnapper (gindai)\nP. zonatus\nthicklip trevally\nPseudocaranx dentex\namberjack\nSeriola dumerili\nlunartail grouper\nVariola louti\nSeamount Groundfish\nalfonsin\nBeryx splendens\nratfish/butterfish\nHyperoglyphe japonica\narmorhead\nPseudopentaceros richardsoni\nPelagic Species\nmahimahi\nCoryphaena spp.\nwahoo\nAcanthocybium solandri\nIndo-Pacific blue marlin; black marlin\nMakaira mazara; M. indica\nstriped marlin\nTetrapterus audax\nshortbill spearfish\nT. angustirostris\nsailfish\nIstiophorus platypterus\nswordfish\nXiphias gladius\nmoonfish\nLampris spp.\noilfishes\nRuvettus pretiosus; Lepidocybium flavobrunneum\npomfret\nBramidae\noceanic sharks\nAlopiidae; Carcharinidae; Lamnidae; Sphyrnidae\nalbacore\nThunnus alalunga\n3","bigeye tuna\nT. obesus\nyellowfin tuna\nT. albacares\nnorthern bluefin tuna\nT. thynnus\nskipjack tuna\nKatsuwonus pelamis\nkawakawa\nEuthynnus affinis\ndogtooth tuna\nGymnosarda unicolor\nother tuna relatives\nAuxis spp.; Scomber spp.; Allothunnus spp.\nCrustaceans\nPanulirus marginatus,\nPanulirus pencilillatus;\nspiny lobsters\nPanulirus sp.\nslipper lobster\nScyllaridae sp.\nKona crab\nRanina ranina\nPrecious Corals\npink coral\nCorallium secundum\nred coral\nCorallium regale\nred coral\nCorallium laquense\ngold coral\nGerardia sp.\ngold coral\nNarella sp.\ngold coral\nCalyptrophora sp.\ngold coral\nCallogorgia gilberti\nbamboo coral\nLepidisis olapa\nbamboo coral\nAcanella sp.\nblack coral\nAntipathes dichotoma\nblack coral\nAntipathes grandis\nblack coral\nAntipathes ulex\n4","BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT\n2.0\nSummary of Fishery Management Plans and Amendments\n2.1\n2.1.1 Bottomfish fishery\nThe FMP for bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries in the western Pacific region became\neffective in 1986. The FMP prohibits certain destructive fishing techniques, including explosives, of\ntrawl nets and bottom-set gillnets; establishes a moratorium on the commercial harvest for\npoisons, seamount groundfish stocks at the Hancock Seamounts; and implements a permit system\nfor bottomfish in the EEZ around the NWHI. The plan also establishes a management\nfishing framework that includes adjustments such as catch limits, size limits, area or seasonal closures,\nfishing effort limitation, fishing gear restrictions, access limitation, permit and/or catch reporting\nrequirements and a rules-related notice system.\nAmendment 1 includes the establishment of limited access systems for bottomfish fisheries in the\nEEZ surrounding American Samoa and Guam within the framework measures of the FMP.\nAmendment 2 was developed to diminish the risk of biological overfishing and improve the\neconomic health and stability of the bottomfish fishery in the NWHI. The amendment divides the\nEEZ around the NWHI into two zones: the Hoomalu Zone and Mau Zone. A limited access\nsystem was established for the Hoomalu Zone. Access to the Mau Zone remains unrestricted, Zone is\nfor excluding vessel owners permitted to fish in the Hoomalu Zone. The Mau\nexcept intended to serve as an area where fishermen can gain experience fishing in the NWHI, thereby\nenhancing their eligibility for subsequent entry into the Hoomalu Zone.\nAmendment 3 defines recruitment overfishing as a condition in which the ratio of the spawning\nstock biomass per recruit at the current level of fishing to the spawning stock biomass per recruit\nthat would occur in the absence of fishing is equal to or less than 20%. Amendment 3 also\ndelineates the process by which overfishing is monitored and evaluated.\nAmendment 4 requires vessel owners or operators to notify NMFS at least 72 hours before leaving\nif they intend to fish in a 50 nm \"study zone\" around the NWHI. This notification allows\nport Federal observers to be placed on board bottomfish vessels to record interactions with protected\nspecies if this action is deemed necessary.\n2.1.2 Pelagics fishery\nThe management plan for the pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region was published in\n1987. The FMP includes initial estimates of MSY for the stocks and set OY for these fisheries in\nthe EEZ. The MUS at that time were billfish, wahoo, mahimahi and oceanic sharks. The FMP\nprohibits drift gillnet fishing within the region's EEZ and foreign longline fishing within certain\nareas of the EEZ.\n5","Amendment 1 was drafted in response to the Secretary of Commerce Guidelines for the\nAct National Standards requiring a measurable definition of recruitment overfishing the amount\nMagnuson each species or species complex in a FMP. The OY for PMUS was also defined as local\nfor of fish that can be harvested by domestic and foreign vessels in the EEZ without causing\noverfishing or economic overfishing.\nAmendment 2 requires domestic longline vessels to have Federal permits, to maintain Federal\nlogbooks and, if wishing to fish within 50 nm of the NWHI, to have observers placed Mariana on\nfishing board. It also includes under the FMP pelagic fisheries in the EEZ around the Northern\nIslands.\nAmendment 3 creates a 50 nm longline exclusion zone around the NWHI to protect endangered\nHawaiian monk seals. It also contains framework provisions for establishing a mandatory\nobserver program to collect information on interactions between longline fishing and turtles.\nAmendment 4 establishes a three-year moratorium on new entries into the Hawaii-based domestic\nlongline fishery. It also adds a provision for establishing a mandatory vessel monitoring system\nfor domestic longline vessels fishing in the western Pacific region.\nAmendment 5 creates a domestic longline vessel exclusion zone around the MHI ranging from are 50\n75 and a similar 50 nm exclusion zone around Guam and its offshore banks. The zones\nto intended nm to prevent gear conflicts and vessel safety issues arising form interactions closure between\nlongline vessels and smaller fishing boats. A seasonal reduction in the size of the was\nimplemented in October 1992; between October and January, longline fishing is prohibited within\n25 nm of the windward shores of all islands except Oahu, where longline fishing is prohibited\nwithin 50 nm from the shore.\nAmendment 6 specifies that all tuna species are designated as fish under US management\nauthority. It also applies the longline exclusion zones of 50 nm around the island of Guam and the\n50-75 nm zone around the MHI to foreign vessels.\nAmendment 7 institutes a limited entry program for the Hawaii-based domestic longline vessels fishery.\nThe number of vessels allowed into the fishery is limited to 167, and the length of these is\nlimited to 94 feet or less.\n2.1.3 Crustaceans fishery\nInitial provisions of the FMP, adopted in 1983, include a minimum size limit, gear design has\nrequirement, ban on egg-bearing females and mandatory logbook program. The FMP in the EEZ been\namended nine times. Main actions include adoption of State of Hawaii regulations 2);\naround the MHI (Amendment 1); specification of trap opening dimensions (Amendment\nclarification of definitions for minimum size and tail length (Amendment 3); establishment of a\n20-nm closed area (protected species zone) around Laysan Island (Amendment 4);\n6","implementation of a minimum size for slipper lobster and requirement to include escape panels in\ntraps (Amendment 5); definition of recruitment overfishing as SPR < 0.02 (Amendment 6);\nestablishment in the NWHI fishery of a closed season (January-June) and a limited entry program\n(Amendment 7); elimination of \"use-or-lose\" landing requirement and development of a target\nCPUE for forecast quota (Amendment 8); and establishment of an annual harvest guideline based\non constant harvest rate of population at a specified risk of overfishing and implementation of a\n\"retain-all\" fishery (Amendment 9).\n2.1.4 Precious. corals fishery\nThe management plan for the precious corals fishery of the western Pacific region was\nimplemented in 1983. In the FMP, precious coral beds are treated as distinct management units\nbecause of their widely separated, patchy distribution and the sessile nature of individual colonies.\nThe beds are classified as Established, Conditional, Refugia or Exploratory. Established Beds are\nones for which appraisals of MSY are reasonably precise. To date, only Makapuu bed has been\nstudied adequately enough to be classified as Established. Conditional Beds are ones for which\nestimates of MSY have been calculated by comparing the size of the beds to that of the Makapuu\nbed and then multiplying the ratio by the yield from the Makapuu bed. It is assumed that\necological conditions at the Makapuu bed are representative of conditions at all other beds. around Five\nbeds of precious corals are classified as Conditional, all of which are located in the EEZ\nHawaii. Refugia Beds are areas set aside for baseline studies and possible reproductive reserves.\nNo harvesting of any type is allowed in those areas. The single Refugia Bed that has been\ndesignated-the Westpac bed-is also located in the EEZ surrounding Hawaii. Exploratory for Areas\nare the unexplored portions of the EEZ. Separate Exploratory Permit Areas are established\nHawaii, American Samoa and Guam.\nThe FMP permits the use of only selective gear in the EEZ around the MHI, i.e., south and east is of\nline midway between Niihau and Nihoa Islands. Use of both selective and nonselective gear\na permitted on the Conditional Beds of Brooks Bank and the 180 Fathom Bank and throughout the\nExploratory Area of the NWHI. Quotas are established for pink, gold and bamboo coral\npopulations in the Makapuu bed and in the Conditional Beds. Pink coral harvested from the\nMakapuu bed, the Keahole Point bed and the Kaena Point bed must have attained a minimum that\nheight of 10 inches. If tangle net dredges are employed, the weight quota is only 20% of\nallowed for selective harvesting.\nThe FMP establishes a procedure for redesignating coral beds from Exploratory to Conditional\nand from Conditional to Established as new beds are located and more catch/effort data become\navailable that will allow more precise determinations of sustainable yields.\nAmendment 1 applies the management measures of the FMP to the Pacific Insular Areas other\nthan Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands by incorporating them into a\nsingle Exploratory Permit Area; expands the managed species to include Midway deep-sea coral;\n7","and outlines provisions for experimental fishing permits designed to stimulate the domestic\nfishery.\nAmendment 2 defines overfishing with respect to Established Beds as follows: An Established\nBed shall be deemed overfished with respect to recruitment when the total spawning biomass to (all\nspecies combined) has been reduced to 20% of its unfished condition. This definition applies\nall species of precious corals and is based on cohort analysis of the pink coral, Corallium\nsecundum.\nPurpose of Amendment\n2.2\nThe Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs contain provisions regarding bycatch, fishing\nEFH, fishing communities and overfishing. This amendment compiles the best available\nsectors, scientific information pertaining to each of these new provisions and incorporates it directly or by\nreference into the Western Pacific Council's management plans for bottomfish and seamount\ngroundfish, pelagics, crustaceans and precious corals fisheries. In addition, the amendment\nidentifies other scientific data that are needed to more effectively address the new provisions.\nMagnuson-Stevens Act also contains a number of new definitions. This amendment adds\nThe those definitions that are pertinent to western Pacific fisheries to the Council's four management\nplans.\nAmendment Coordination\n2.3\nThis amendment was prepared through an iterative process consisting of a series of meetings of\nthe Council, SSC, FMP teams and fishing industry advisory panels. In addition, the Council\nworked in close cooperation with scientists in the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Service Center,\nHonolulu Laboratory, Pacific Islands Area Office and Southwest Regional Office. Notice of the\navailability of a draft amendment for public review and comment was published in the Federal\nRegister on July 15, 1998. Public meetings and hearings at which this amendment was discussed\nare listed below:\nPublic Hearing on Amendment: July 20, 1998\nCouncil: August 19-21, 1997; Nov. 12-14, 1997; April 13-17, 1998; July 27-29, 1998\nSSC: August 5-7, 1997; Nov. 10-11, 1997; March 24-26, 1998; July 21-23, 1998\nBottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Plan Team: July 28, 1997; March 11-13, 1998\nPelagics Fishery Plan Team: July 30-31, 1997; May 6-7, 1998\nPrecious Corals Fishery Plan Team: July 29, 1997; Jan. 30, 1998; June 4, 1998\nCrustaceans Fishery Plan Team: July 24-25, 1997; March 17-19, 1998\nEcosystem and Habitat Advisory Panel: July 29, 1997; March 20, 1998\nPelagics Fishery Advisory Panel: July 30-31, 1997\nBottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Advisory Panel: July 28, 1997\n8","NEW DEFINITIONS\n3.0\nBycatch\n3.1\nBycatch means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal fish\nuse, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include\nreleased alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program.\nRecreational, Charter and Commercial Fishing\n3.2\nCharter fishing means fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire (as defined in section\n2101(21a) of title 46, United States Code) who is engaged in recreational fishing. Commercial\nfishing means fishing in which the fish harvested, either in whole or in part, are intended to enter\ncommerce or enter commerce through, sale, barter or trade. Recreational fishing means fishing for\nsport or pleasure.\nEconomic Discards and Regulatory Discards\n3.3\nEconomic discards mean fish which are the target of a fishery, but which are not retained because\nthey are of an undesirable size, sex or quality or for other economic reasons. Regulatory discards\nmean fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard whenever\ncaught or are required by regulation to retain but not sell.\nEssential Fish Habitat\n3.4\nEssential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,\nfeeding or growth to maturity.\nFishing Community\n3.5\nFishing community means a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially\nengaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and\nincludes fishing vessel owners, operators and crews and US fish processors that are based in such\ncommunity.\nIndividual Fishing Quota\n3.6\nIndividual fishing quota means a Federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a\nquantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch\nof a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person.\n9","Optimum\n3.7\nOptimum, with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish that (a) will provide\nthe greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and\nrecreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; (b) is\nprescribed as such on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic,\nsocial or ecological factor; and (c) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a\nlevel consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery.\nOverfished and Overfishing\n3.8\nOverfishing and Overfished mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity\nof a stock or stock complex to produce the MSY on a continuing basis.\nPacific Insular Area\n3.9\nPacific Insular Area means American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island,\nHowland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island or\nPalmyra Atoll, as applicable, and includes all islands and reefs appurtenant to such island, reef or\natoll.\n10","NEW FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS\n4.0\nEstablish Reporting Methods to Assess Bycatch and Minimize Bycatch and Bycatch\n4.1\nMortality\nEstablish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch the\noccurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to\nextent practicable and in the following priority-\nminimize bycatch; and\n(A) (B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.\nThis section presents an overview of the type and amount of bycatch in each managed examines fishery and\nthe adequacy of bycatch reporting in terms of the required provision. It also each FMP\nassesses existing and possible new measures to minimize bycatch and mortality of bycatch in\nfishery.\n4.1.1 Bottomfish fishery\nThis fishery is managed under the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP, implemented of the in\n1986. Commercial and recreational bottomfish fishing occurs in the EEZ around all\noccupied islands in the Council's area.\nGear Types\nHawaii commercial and recreational bottomfish fishing are conducted with handlines that with are\nIn set and hauled on electric-, hydraulic- or hand-powered reels. Vessels are usually equipped managed\nsounders, fish echo sounders and satellite navigational devices. Two separately full-\ndepth bottomfish fisheries occur in Hawaii. In the NWHI all participants fish commercially on a data\nor\npart-time basis while in the MHI fishery there are also recreational fishermen. Available since the late\nthat the magnitude of the effort in the MHI fishery has been declining and\nsuggests 1980s. In American Samoa small skiffs and alia catamarans equipped with handlines hand-\npowered reels fish on the deep outer-reef slope. As in Hawaii, this method is relatively and selective, the\ntargeting a mix of snappers, groupers, jacks and emperors. In the EEZ around Guam commercial\nNorthern Mariana Islands deep-water bottomfish fishing is conducted mainly by\nvessels equipped with electric-powered reels. 2 Shallow-water BMUS are also caught on\nseamounts using rod and reel.\n2 Bottomfish fisheries occurring in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands are not\nmanaged under the FMP.\n11","Data Collection\nIn Hawaii landings data for the commercial bottomfish fishery in the MHI and in the EEZ around\nthe uninhabited islands in the Pacific Insular Areas are collected on the Fish Catch Report\n(referred to as the C3 form) administered by the HDAR. (See Appendix 1 for a description C3 form of is\nregional data collection systems and Appendix 2 for copies of the data forms. The the\non p. A2-17). The form requires commercial marine license holders to report\nreproduced number and weight of each species caught and the weight of each species sold. The form does not\nrequire fishermen to provide information on the disposition of unsold catch.\nin the NWHI fishery are required to complete the HDAR NWHI Bottomfish of Trip\nParticipants Log (p. A2-22). The daily log requires fishermen to report the number and weight various\nDaily bottomfish and non-bottomfish species kept, the number released and the number damaged the or\nstolen by marine mammals and sharks. There is also limited space provided for recording type\nand number of other fish kept, released or stolen.\nAmerican Samoa landings data are collected from creel surveys administered by the DMWR.\nIn The Offshore Survey form (p. A2-1) used in the creel surveys records the numbers and weight have of\neach species caught during a trip as well as the disposition of the catch. However, fishermen sold.\nnot been specifically asked to provide information on the disposition of fish that are not\nGuam landings data are collected from creel surveys administered by the DAWR. The Offshore trip\nIn Creel Census (p. A2-4) form records the number and weight of each species caught been during a\nand percentage of the total catch that is kept or sold. However, fishermen have not sold.\nspecifically asked to provide information on the disposition of fish that are not\nthe Northern Mariana Islands from 1988 to 1996 the DFW collected landings data in a creel\nIn The CNMI Offshore Creel Census and CNMI Inshore Creel Census forms and (p.\nsurvey A2-25 and program. A2-27) recorded the number and weight of each species caught during a trip\nof the total catch that was kept or sold. However, fishermen were not specifically\npercentage asked to provide information on the disposition of fish that were not sold. Commercial Commercial bottomfish\nlandings in the Northern Mariana Islands are currently recorded in the DFW's\nPurchase Database (p. A2-29).\nSeveral research cruises in the Hawaiian Islands and other parts of the western Pacific conducted stocks.\nNMFS and other fishery agencies have collected detailed information on bottomfish volume\nby These fishery-independent records are also useful in providing information on the likely\nof bycatch.\nBycatch\nall cases bottomfish are caught on gear that is relatively selective, targeting the\nIn snapper/grouper/emperor complex on outer reef slopes and seamounts. However, the ability to\n12","particular species varies widely depending on the skill of each captain. Experienced\ntarget bottomfish fishermen have the capability to catch desired species with little bycatch or incidental\ncatch. However, it is impossible to completely avoid non-target species.\nTable 4.1 1.a presents HDAR logbook data on the number of fish caught and kept, the number of\nfish discarded and number of fish discarded during 1997. Releases and damaged fish might\nreasonably be designated bycatch; these amounted to only 8% of the total catch of NWHI\nhandline-caught bottomfish. No details were provided about the numbers of fish stolen, as these\nare usually grouped in the 'damaged' category by fishermen. Sharks, oilfish, snake are mackerel, normally not\npufferfish and moray eels are important bycatch species, discarded because they being\nconsidered food fish. In contrast, ulua (Caringidae) and kahala are discarded despite\npalatable (Kasaoka 1990). Ulua are discarded because of their short shelf-life and low market\nvalue. Kahala, once a major component of commercial and recreational landings, are now seldom the\nretained as they have been implicated in incidents of ciguatera. In Hawaii a recent increase in\nmarket demand for shark fins has meant that more sharks are being \"finned\" (the practice of\ncutting off a shark's fins and returning the remainder of the fish to the sea) and fewer are being\ndiscarded as bycatch.\nData collected during NMFS research cruises in Hawaii indicate that species generally regarded as\nbycatch represent about 19% of the total catch (Figure 4.1.a).\nFishery independent data collected during surveys in American Samoa in 1978 and 1988 by and the\nSPC suggest that the catch of non-target species amounts to less than 1% of the total catch\nconsists mainly of snake mackerel (Promethichthys prometheus). Information gathered during the\nNMFS Resource Assessment and Investigation of the Mariana Archipelago (RAIOMA) project\nthat in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands pufferfish, gurnards, beardfish and sharks of\nsuggest are the main bycatch species (Figure 4.1.b). Total potential bycatch comprises only about 1%\nthe total catch.\n13","No. Damaged\nNo. Released\nNo. Kept\nScientific Name\nHawaiian Name\n0\n166\n0\nCarcharhinidae\nMisc. shark,\n0\n5\n0\nGaleocerdo cuvier\nTiger shark\n6\n2,114\n25\nSeriola dumerilli\nKahala\n0\n7\n16\nThunnus alabacares\nAhi\n121\n1,177\n4,396\nCaranx ignobilis\nUlua butaguchi\n50\n16\n3,500\nAprion virescens\nUku\n97\n17\n4,586\nEpinephelus quernus\nHapuupuu\n7\n12\n6,312\nPristopomoides auricilla\nKalekale\n213\n2\n16,554\nPristipomoides filamentosus\nOpakapaka\n98\n0\n6,070\nEtelis carbunculus\nEhu, ulaula\n98\n0\n2,133\nPristipomoides zonatus\nGindai\n37\n0\n8,207\nAprion virescens\nOnaga\n7\n0\n231\nCarangidae\nUlua\n2\n0\n123\nAphareus rutilans\nLehi\n0\n0\n29\nEuthynnus affinis\nKawakawa\n0\n0\n16\nCoryphaena hippurus\nMahimahi\n0\n0\n49\nCarangidae\nOmilu\n0\n0\n1\nCarangidae\nMisc. ulua/papio\n0\n0\n11\nWeke ula,\n0\n0\n9\nLabridae\nAawa\n0\n0\n4\nAweowed\n0\n0\n23\nWahanui\n0\n0\n10\nSphyraenidae\nKaku\n0\n0\n3\nElegatis bipnnulatis\nKamano\n0\n0\n1\nMullidae\nKumu\n0\n0\n2\nMu\n0\n0\n1\nScorpaenidae\nNohu,\n0\n0\n5\nCarangidae\nUlua kagami\n0\n0\n5\nDecapterus spp\nOpelu\n0\n0\n24\nLutjanus kasmira\nTaape\n0\n0\n17\nBramidae\nPomfret\n0\n0\n2\nCarangidae\nUlua dobe\n0\n0\n46\nCarangidae\nUlua gunkan\n0\n0\n224\nCarangidae\nUlua papa\n0\n0\n193\nScorpaenidae\nHogo\n0\n0\n4\nOthers\n736\n3,516\n52.832\nTotal\nTable 4.1.a: Logbook estimates of disposition of catches in the NWHI bottomfish\nfishery, 1997 (Source: NMFS Honolulu Laboratory)\n14","Figure 4.1.a: Research cruise estimates of composition of bottomfish catches in the Hawaiian Islands (percent of total number)\nHolocentridae\n29%\nSharks\n21%\nOthers spp\nScombridae\n3%\nBerycidae\nScorpaenidae\nMuraenidae 3%\n17%\n3%\nBalistidae\n7%\nMullidae\nPolymixidae\n10%\n7%\nLutjanidae\n60%\nTotal bottomfish catch\nOther spp\n(Source: NMFS Honolulu Laboratory)\n3%\nTetraodontidae\n1%\nLabridae\nGempylidae %\nPriacanthidae\n4%\nCarangidae\n2%\n15%\nSerranidae\n14%","Figure 4.1.b: Research cruise estimates of composition of bottomfish catches in the Northern Mariana Islands (percent of total\nTetraodontidae\n50%\nOther spp\nBerycidae\n2%\nMullidae\n3%\nScombrida\nDactylopteridae\n15%\n3%\nSharks\nPolymixidae\n7%\nScorpaenidae\n3%\nBramidae\nDiodontidae\n5%\n7%\n5%\nnumber) (Source: NMFS RAIOMA project, 1982-1984)\nOther spp\n1%\nTotal catch\nLethrinidae\n1%\nSerranidae\n2%\nCarangidae\n4%\nLutjanidae\n92%","4.1.2 Pelagics fishery\nPelagic fish species are managed under the FMP for pelagic fisheries, implemented in 1986.\nCommercial pelagic fisheries are found primarily in Hawaii, but there are recreational, subsistence\nand small-scale commercial fisheries in the other island areas.\nGear Types\nPMUS are caught by longline, troll and handline, pole- and-line and purse seine.\nThe number of longline vessels based in Hawaii are restricted by a license limitation program to\n167. Currently, about 105 vessels are active. These vessels are typically 50-100 ft in length and\nemploy a monofilament mainline 18-60 nm long, with 400-2,000 baited hooks. Longline fishing\nis prohibited in a 50-75 nm exclusion zone around the MHI to prevent competition and gear\nconflicts with troll and handline vessels and in a 50 nm exclusion zone around the NWHI to\nprevent interactions with protected species. In American Samoa the domestic longline fleet mainly\nconsists of small (28-32 ft) catamarans from which a 300-hook longline is set and retrieved by\nhand. In Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands there is no commercial longline fleet.\nHand troll gear is used by commercial, recreational and charter vessels to fish for pelagic species\nthroughout Hawaii. Commercial albacore troll vessels occasionally fish in the waters around\nHawaii. In American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands trolling with baited hooks\nand lures is conducted from catamarans and other small commercial, recreational and charter\nvessels in coastal waters, near seamounts or around fish aggregating devices. Handline fishing\nfrom stationary or drifting vessels is also common in Hawaii.\nA small pole-and-line fleet, which principally targets surface schools of skipjack tuna, operates in\nHawaii.\nUS purse seine vessels operating in the central and western Pacific occasionally fish in the EEZ\naround the uninhabited islands of the Pacific Insular Areas.\nData Collection\nLongline vessels based in Hawaii and American Samoa and those fishing in the waters of Guam,\nthe Northern Mariana Islands and the uninhabited islands of the Pacific Insular Areas are required\nto record catches in the NMFS Western Pacific Daily Longline Fishing Log (p. A2-18). Vessels\nare required to record the number of various PMUS kept during a set and the number not\nkept/released. The form also requires longline fishermen to report the number of sharks finned,\nkept whole and not kept/released. There is also limited space for recording the number of non-\nPMUS kept or not kept/released.\n17","In addition, Hawaii-based longline vessels are required to complete the HDAR Longline Trip\nReport (p. A2-19), which records the number and weight of particular pelagic species caught and\nthe weight of each type sold. There is also limited space for reporting the number and weight of\nother species caught and the weight of those sold. Fishermen are not required to report the\ndisposition of unsold fish. Finally, the form requires fishermen to record the number of dolphins,\nmonk seals, humpback whales, turtles (by species), albatrosses and other protected species\nreleased alive, injured or dead.\nSince 1994, NMFS observers have also been deployed on Hawaii-based longline vessels,\nprincipally to document the interactions between longline gear and marine turtles. The Magnuson-\nStevens Act classifies turtles that are captured and discarded as bycatch. The observers record\nwhether each turtle is alive or dead when released. They have also fitted a number of live released\nturtles with satellite tags that transmit information on the location and depth of the animal. This\ninformation is also being used to determine the post-hooking mortality rate of turtles. Observers\nalso record the type and number of all fish captured in a set.\nLandings data for commercial troll and handline vessels in Hawaii are collected on the state's Fish\nCatch Report (refer to Section 4.1.1 and see p. A2-17). Holders of Hawaii commercial marine\nfishing licenses fishing in the uninhabited islands and landing their catch in Hawaii are also\nrequired to used this form. Some charter and recreational vessels also routinely participate in the\nNMFS Cooperative Billfish Tagging Program on a voluntary. The troll fleet in American Samoa\nemploys the Offshore Survey (p. A2-1) to record catches, while in Guam the Offshore Creel\nCensus, which includes an Offshore Vehicle Trailer Participation Census (p. A2-4 and A2-5), is\nused. The Offshore Creel Census, which included both interview and participation forms, was\nalso used in the Northern Mariana Islands from 1988 until it was discontinued in 1996 (refer to\nSection 4.1.1.2 and see p. A2-24 and A2-25). Commercial troll landings in the Commonwealth\nare currently recorded on the DFW's Commercial Sales Data form (p. A2-29).\nCommercial albacore troll vessels that land their catch in Hawaii are required to complete the\nHDAR Albacore Trolling Trip Report (p. A2-21). This form requires fishermen to report the\nnumber and weight of albacore, skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna, yellowtail snapper and\nmahimahi caught during a trip and the weight of each type sold. There is also limited space for\nrecording the number and weight of other species caught and the weight of those sold. The form\ndoes not require fishermen to report on the disposition of unsold fish.\nPole-and-line catches are recorded on the HDAR Aku Catch Report (p. A2-20). The form requires\nfishermen to report the number and weight of skipjack tuna and mahimahi caught and the weight\nof these species that are sold. The form also requires fishermen to record the number and weight\nof other fish species caught and the weight of these species sold. There is no space for reporting\nhow unsold fish are disposed of.\nPurse-seine vessels complete the South Pacific Regional Purse-Seine Logsheet (p. A2-30)\ndeveloped under the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries between Pacific Island States and the United\n18","States. The form requires fishermen to report the number of yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna\nand other species caught during each set and the number of tuna, marlin and other species\ndiscarded. In addition, observers on US purse seiners from member nations of the South Pacific\nForum complete the South Pacific Regional Purse Seine Observer Set Details form (p. A2-31),\nwhich records details of the catch including species and condition of discards.\nBycatch\nNMFS observers recorded more 60 different species caught by the Hawaii-based longline fleet\nbetween 1994 and 1997. Data collected on the catch and discards of PMUS by Hawaii-based\nlongline fleet in 1997 are presented in Table 4.1.b. Of significance are the 85,523 sharks, of which\nthe majority were blue sharks, caught by the fleet. Up until about five years ago, most sharks\ncaught by longline gear were released alive. However, as a result of the growing demand for shark\nfins in Asian markets the practice of shark finning has increased. Presently, more than half of the\ncaught sharks, including species other than the blue shark, are finned. About 1% of the sharks,\nmainly mako and thresher, are headed and gutted and retained for later sale. However, the\nmajority of longline vessels do not retain blue shark carcasses because they cannot be profitably\nsold. Aside from sharks, there is a small fraction of the total catch that could be sold but is not\nretained for economic reasons. For example, marlins are often discarded at the beginning of a trip\nto leave hold space for more valuable species. Most of these economic discards are released alive.\n19","Discards as %\nNumber\nNumber\nNumber\nNumber\nSpecies\nof Total Catch\nReleased\nKept\nFinned\nCaught\n2.63\n217\n8032\n8249\nBlue marlin\n3.75\n274\n7028\n7302\nSpearfish\n5.46\n689\n11925\n12614\nStriped marlin\n3.38\n1336\n38164\n39500\nSwordfish\n7.08\n121\n1587\n1708\nOther billfish\n42.51\n33,887\n217\n45,608\n79712\nBlue sharks\n25.52\n297\n344\n523\n1164\nMako sharks\n67.17\n1,559\n212\n550\n2321\nThresher sharks\n23.26\n541\n16\n1769\n2326\nOther sharks\n6.51\n4627\n66424\n71051\nAlbacore\n2.99\n2382\n77220\n79602\nBigeye\n8.68\n21\n221\n242\nBluefin\n2.47\n298\n11760\n12058\nSkipjack\n2.42\n702\n28281\n28983\nYellowfin\n16.86\n8316\n40995\n49311\nMahimahi\n2.10\n173\n8068\n8241\nMoonfish\n63.52\n1109\n637\n1746\nOilfish\n0.75\n78\n10345\n10423\nPomfret\n2.07\n172\n8132\n8304\nWahoo\n6.86\n79\n1073\n1152\nNon-PMUS\nTable 4.1.b: Logbook estimates of catch and discards of PMUS by Hawaii-based\nlongline vessels (Source: NMFS Honolulu Laboratory)\nNon-PMUS species captured by the longline fleet are mostly discarded and represent about 6% of\nthe total number of fish caught. Based on NMFS observer data for 1994-1997, which amounts to\nbetween 4% and 5% of the annual total number of longline fishing trips, the discarded non-PMUS and\nspecies include lancet fish, pelagic stingray, snake mackerel, escolar, remora, crocodile shark\nmola mola,, among others (Figure 4.1.c).\nNMFS observers report that loggerhead, olive ridley, leatherback and green turtles are caught be by\nlongline gear, and about 40 turtle interactions are recorded per year. These encounters can\nexpanded statistically to estimate fleet-wide take and kill for individual species (Table 4.1.c).\n20","Others Molamola\nCrocodile\n1%\n3%\nshark\n4%\nRemora\nLancet fish\n11%\n29%\nEscolar\n12%\nPelagic\nSnake\nstingray\nmackeral\n22%\n18%\nFigure 4.1.c: Observer estimates of the composition of non-PMUS that may be discarded by\nthe Hawaii longline fishery, 1994-1997 (percent of total number) (Source: NMFS Honolulu\nLaboratory)\n21","0.03-0.94\n0.1-20\n111-251\n150-435\n23-74\n10-47\n48-175\n1997\n6-54\n0.5\n28\n1997\n50\n178\n7\n284\n111\n29\nTable 4.1.c: Observer estimates of turtle takes and kills in the Hawaii longline fishery (Source: NMFS\n0.03-0.92\n0.1-19\n109-247\n207-502\n32-92\n10-46\n45-170\n1996\n0.5\n5-52\n28\n75\n1996\n7\n109\n175\n426\n29\n0.04-0.94\n0.1-19\n110-249\n10-47\n191-461\n31-83\n45-170\n1995\n0.5\n6-53\n28\n66\n1995\n176\n7\n110\n376\n29\n0.03-0.86\n0.1-18\n101-229\n38-103\n237-558\n41-157\n9-43\n1994\n5-49\nEstimated kills\n0.4\n26\nEstimated takes\n1994\n162\n83\n7\n476\n101\n27\n0.04-0.98\n0.1-20\n58-145\n360-770\n115-261\n10-48\n47-178\n1993\n6-56\n0.5\n102\n29\n1993\n185\n8\n115\n30\n581\n0.04-0.92\n46-117\n0.1-19\n108-245\n295-624\n46-169\n9-46\n1992\n0.5\n5-52\n27\n90\n1992\n173\n7\n108\n514\n28\n0.04-1.01\n119-268\n0.1-21\n11-50\n215-462\n33-85\n49-184\n7-58\n1991\n0.5\n30\n190\n62\n8\n1991\n118\n355\n31\nHonolulu Laboratory)\nOlive Ridley\nLeatherback\nOlive Ridley\nLoggerhead\nLeatherback\nLoggerhead\n95% CL\n95% CL\n95% CL\n95% CL\n95% CL\n95% CL\n95% CL\nSpecies\n95% CL\nGreen\nSpecies\nGreen\n22","The use of a statistically stratified expansion process to generate kill and take estimates means\nthat variables obtained from logbook data prior to the implementation of the observer program can\nbe used to estimate kill and take levels for those years.\nAs for the the troll and handline fishery, there is relatively little information on the nature and\namount of bycatch because of current reporting requirements. However, as the gear in use tend to\nbe selective, bycatch probably constitutes a small part of the catch. Almost all the fish caught by\ntroll and handline vessels, including charter boats, in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the\nNorthern Mariana Islands are either sold or kept for personal consumption. In recent years, fishing\ntournaments, such as the Hawaii International Billfish Tournament, have provided various\nincentives for participants to release their catch. These catch-and-release tournament fish are not\npart of a recreational catch and release fishery management program within the FMP and should\nbe considered bycatch.\nThe albacore troll fishery occurring in the North and South Pacific outside the EEZ has reported\nincidental catches of skipjack tuna, striped marlin, mahimahi and louvars. However, the largest\nbycatch component in this fishery is probably small (< 60 cm) albacore, which are discarded for\neconomic reasons (N. Bartoo, NMFS SW Fisheries Science Center, pers. comm.). The volume of\ndiscards is estimated to be about 10% of the catch.\nThe pole-and-line gear used by that fishery in Hawaii is highly selective. Non-target species that\nare occasionally caught, such as kawakawa, blue and striped marlin and rainbow runner, are\nusually either sold or retained for personal consumption by the crew.\nAccording to Catch Report Form data collected by purse-seine vessels in US EEZ waters in 1997\n(Table 4.1.d), discards amounted to less than 0.5% of the total volume of catch. Purse-seine\nlogbooks indicate that skipjack tuna forms the largest fraction of the discard volume by weight.\nThis data is confirmed by the weight and numbers of discards recorded by observers aboard US\nseiners operating within the US EEZ waters between 1994 and 1997 (Table 4.1.e). Rainbow\npurse runner, triggerfish and mackerel also make significant contributions to purse-seine discards in\nterms of numbers.\n23","Quantity Discarded (mt)\nPercent of\nAll\nPalmyra\nJarvis\nHowland &\nSpecies\nTotal\nIslands\nBaker\nDiscards\n63.64\n87.91\n1.00\n18.72\n68.19\nSkipjack tuna\n2.51\n3.47\n1.92\n1.55\nYellowfin tuna\n10.78\n14.89\n1\n13.89\nMixed\n2.73\n3.77\n0.7\n3.07\nMarlin\n0.25\n0.35\n0.35\nBlue marlin\n0.04\n0.05\n0.05\nSailfish\n0.07\n0.09\n0.09\nSwordfish\n8.39\n11.59\n1.79\n9.8\nShark\n0.01\n0.02\n0.02\nAlbacore\n5.95\n8.22\n0.56\n7.66\n\"Baitfish\"\n0.04\n0.05\n0.05\nBarracuda\n0.12\n0.16\n0.13\n0.03\nDolphinfish\n0.71\n0.98\n0.52\n0.46\nMackerel\n0.11\n0.15\n0.15\nManta ray\n0.05\n0.07\n0.07\nMixed species\n4.43\n6.12\n5.1\n1.02\nRainbow Runner\n0.04\n0.05\n0.05\nWahoo\n0.14\n0.19\n0.19\nUnknown species\n100.00\n138.13\n1.00\n30.6\n106.53\nTOTAL\nTable 4.1.d: Logbook estimates of volume of discards by US purse seiners operating in the\nEEZ around the uninhabited islands of the Pacific Insular Areas, 1997 (Source: NMFS SW\nFisheries Science Center)\n24","% no\n% wt\nNumbers\nWeight (mt)\nSpecies\n36.07\n82.33\n1765\n124.50\nSkipjack Tuna\n34.17\n5.23\n1672\n7.91\nRainbow runner\n13.51\n1.75\n661\n2.65\nTriggerfish\n7.46\n2.16\n365\n3.27\nMackerel\n3.05\n0.98\n149\n1.48\nBigeye Tuna\n2.66\n4.67\n130\n7.07\nYellowfin Tuna\n1.49\n0.06\n73\n0.09\nMahimahi\n0.29\n0.14\n14\n0.22\nBlack marlin\n0.29\n0.14\n14\n0.22\nShark\n0.25\n1.14\n12\n1.73\nBlue marlin\n0.16\n0.00\n8\n0.00\nWahoo\n0.04\n0.02\n2\n0.03\nSailfish\n0.02\n0.09\n1\n0.13\nManta ray\n0.00\n1.21\n0\n1.84\nOther Tuna\n0.55\n0.01\n27\n0.02\nBarracuda\n0.00\n0.05\n0\n0.08\nUnspecified species\nTable 4.1.e: Observer estimates of volume of discards by US purse\nseiners operating in the EEZ around the uninhabited islands of the\nPacific Insular Areas, 1994-1997 (Source: Forum Fisheries Agency,\nHoniara)\n4.1.3 Crustaceans fishery\nThe FMP for the crustacean fisheries of the western Pacific establishes management measures for\nthe spiny and slipper lobster fishery in the NWHI and establishes permit and data reporting\nrequirements for commercial fishing in the EEZ around other islands in the Council's area. The\nNWHI fishery is managed under a limited access program with a maximum of 15 participants and\nsubject to an annual harvest quota, closed season and gear restrictions.\nGear Type\nCommercial fishing for lobster in the NWHI is restricted to traps. Each trap must have eight\nescape vents of specified dimensions. These vents facilitate the escape of small lobster, which\nhave a relatively low market value, and reduce the catch of non-target species. Lobster\nmay fisheries in Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands target mainly reef fisheries lobster\n(Panulirus penicillatus), a species that does not readily enter traps. 3 Consequently,\nthese\ndepend on spearing of lobsters or collection by hand.\nSure fisheries occurring in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands are not\nmanaged under the FMP.\n25","Data Collection\nParticipants in the NWHI fishery are required to complete the NMFS Daily Lobster Catch Report\n(p. A2-13) after each set. The form includes space for recording the number of spiny lobsters,\nslipper lobsters, Kona crab and octopus kept and the number discarded, but no distinction is made of\nbetween animals discarded alive or dead. There is also limited space for recording the number\nother animals kept or discarded. Finally, the form includes a space for recording the number of\nmonk seals, turtles and other protected species observed in the area, observed in the vicinity of the\ngear, interfering with fishing operations, preying on released lobsters, entangled and released alive\nand entangled and released dead.\nParticipants in the NWHI fishery are also required to complete the HDAR Crustaceans Trip\nReport (p. A2-14). This form provides a trip summary of the number and weight caught and\nweight sold of spiny and slipper lobsters, Kona crabs, \"7-11\" crabs, pandalid shrimp and octopus. fish\nThere is also limited space for recording the number and weight caught and weight sold of\nand other organisms.\nThe type and amount of the non-target catch in the NWHI trap fishery can also be estimated from\nexperimental trap fishing information collected during NMFS research cruises in the NWH and by\nobservers deployed on fishing vessels.\nBycatch\nData gathered by NMFS experiment traps from 1984 to 1996 indicate that the non-target species and\ntaken in traps are principally other small crustaceans-such as hermit crabs- and molluscs\nreef fish (Figure 4.1.d). However, unlike the traps used in the commercial fishery, research traps\ndo not contain escape vents. Thus, the amount of bycatch in the research traps is probably higher\nthan the bycatch in commercial traps. Similar results were recorded by observers deployed on\nfishing vessels to record the number of lobsters discarded during the 1997 NWHI lobster season\n(Table 4.1.f).\n26","Other\nSharks\nphyla\n1%\n2%\nHermit\nReef fish\ncrabs\n25%\n34%\nMoray eels\nOther\n11%\nlobsters\nMolluscs\n4%\nCrabs\n1%\n23%\nFigure 4.1.d: Research cruise estimates of\ncomposition of catches of non-target species in\nlobster trap hauls in the NWHI, 1984-1996 (percent\nof total number) (Source: NMFS Honolulu\nLaboratory)\nDiscarded\nRetained\nSpecies\n434\n174,532\nSpiny Lobster\n3\n254,720\nSlipper Lobster\n7\nKona Crab\n48\nOctopus\n117\nOthers\nTable 4.1.f: Observer estimates of type and amount of\ndiscards in the NWHI lobster fishery, 1997 (Source:\nNMFS Honolulu Laboratory)\nBecause lobster fisheries in Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands depend on\nspearing of lobsters or collection by hand-both of which are highly selective methods-the\namount of bycatch is likely to be negligible.\n27","4.1.4 Precious corals fishery\nThe FMP for Precious Corals Fisheries, implemented in 1979, defines selective gear as any gear\nused for harvesting corals that can discriminate between type, size, quality or characteristics of\nliving or dead corals. Non-selective gear is defined as any gear that cannot make this\ndiscrimination or differentiation. Only selective gear may be used in the EEZ seaward of the MHI.\nGear Type\nThe precious coral fishery has been dormant for several years. However, in June 1997 a firm\nreceived a permit to harvest the Makapuu bed in the EEZ around the MHI. The firm has indicated\nthat it intends to employ only selective gear, such as manned and unmanned submersibles.\nData Collection\nAll permit holders in the fishery are required to complete the NMFS Daily Precious Coral Harvest\nLog (p. A2-15). The form contains a provision for reporting the weight of various species of pink,\ngold and bamboo coral harvested during a fishing day. The form does not require harvesters to\nreport how they dispose of harvested coral or the type, amount and disposition of other organisms\nthat may be harvested.\nBycatch\nSince FMP implementation in 1979 precious corals have not been commercially exploited in the\nmanagement area. Thus the type and amount of bycatch cannot be assessed at this time. However,\nif selective gear is used, bycatch is likely to be negligible. The use of non-selective gear would\nresult in a greater level of bycatch. It is estimated that dredges recover only about 40% of what is\ninitially \"knocked down.\" The overall recovery rate may be increased if dredges are repeatedly\ndragged over the same area. In addition, other benthic organisms may be disturbed by dredging.\nThe Council took this lower recovery rate into account by setting the weight quota for non-\nselective harvesting to be 20% of the quota that would apply if selective gear is used.\n4.1.5 Discussion and conclusions\nStandardized Reporting Methodologies\nMost of the data collection systems of the WPacFIN program collect sufficient information on of the\nmain target and incidental species in the managed fisheries. (See Appendix 1 for a description\nthese systems.) However, because these systems focus on commercial landings, which have\nrelatively minor amounts of bycatch, they may in varying degrees inadequately document the\namount and type of bycatch.\n28","It may be possible to improve documentation of bycatch through relatively minor changes in\ncurrent survey methodologies. Currently, creel surveys administered in American Samoa and\nGuam do not ask fishermen to provide information on the disposition of fish that are not sold. In\nHawaii, the space provided on the self-administered catch report forms for recording the type and\nnumber of fish released or discarded in the commercial fisheries is generally very limited.\nIncluding a question regarding bycatch in the creel survey forms and expanding the space for\nreleased or discarded fish in the catch report forms would require only relatively minor changes in\nmethodology. On the other hand, it is important that both forms be kept as brief as possible\nto survey minimize the reporting burden placed on fishermen. Increasing the amount of requested data\nmay reduce the quality and quantity of information fishermen provide on the landings of target\nspecies.\nHDAR is currently developing a series of new catch report forms that require fishermen to record\nthe number of fish released. These new forms are currently being evaluated in trials with\ncommercial fishermen and should be finalized by early 1999. It is uncertain, however, whether the\nrevised forms will provide more reliable estimates of the type and amount of bycatch. A report on\nHawaii's commercial fish catch reporting system notes that none of the fishermen interviewed for\nthe report keep detailed records of their catches while at sea (Kasaoka 1990). Generally, fishermen\nwait until after they have sold their catches and then transcribe information from sales records to\nthe catch report form. Fishermen stated that it is not possible to remember the amount and type of\nspecies that were discarded, eaten or given away.\nGiven the possible shortcomings of relying on creel surveys and fish catch reports to assess the\ntype and amount of bycatch in some fisheries, other existing reporting methodologies are used\nwhen possible. For example, bycatch data is also obtained from observer programs and fishery-\nindependent data collection methods, such as research cruises. Data currently gathered during\nNMFS research cruises provide a means of assessing levels of bycatch in the bottomfish and\nNWHI lobster fisheries. To more accurately estimate bycatch in the lobster fishery, NMFS might\nconsider including a sampling component using traps with escape vents as are used in the\ncommercial fishery. Similarly, data collected by observers deployed on purse seine and Hawaii\nlongline vessels can be used to supplement data collected by logbooks. To date, NMFS observers\nhave been deployed on longline vessels principally to document the interactions between longline\ngear and marine turtles. NMFS should expand the scope of the longline observer program to\nemphasize the monitoring of all types of bycatch. In addition, NMFS should examine the\nfeasibility of establishing observer programs for other gear types, such as troll and handline in the\npelagics fishery. Estimates of bycatch obtained from logbooks, observer programs and research\ncruises should be summarized in the Council's FMP annual reports.\nBecause many of the gear types used in pelagic fisheries throughout the central and western\nPacific target highly migratory species, it is important that bycatch issues be addressed at an\ninternational level. Some progress has been made in this area. For example, data collected by\nSPC's Oceanic Fisheries Program and by observer programs of several SPC member countries are\nbeing analyzed to estimate annual catches of non-target species by longline and purse-seine\n29","vessels fishing in the SPC statistical area. Future work will consider the effect of various fishing-\nrelated factors (e.g., latitude, longitude, year, quarter, target species, etc.) on catch rates of non-\ntarget species.\nDiscards can be returned to the sea either alive or dead. However, it may be unreasonable to\nrequest fishermen to distinguish between live and dead discards. Although a captured fish may\nto a fisherman to be alive at the time of release, the fish may die soon after due to trauma\nappear consumption by predators that take advantage of its weakened or vulnerable condition. There is\nor currently little scientific information available on the survival rates of live discards in the FMP\nfisheries. The survival rate for a particular species will depend partly on the gear used, onboard\nhandling and the depth and area in which it is caught. Additional research on survival rates of live\ndiscards under various fishing conditions would be beneficial.\nMeasures to Minimize Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality\nThe prevalent gear types used in the region to catch BMUS and PMUS are variations of hook and\nline, which tend to be fairly selective. In addition, discussions with bottomfish fishermen revealed\nthat fishermen usually move to another fishing ground if catches of sharks, oilfish, kahala or other\nundesirable fish become excessive, thereby minimizing bycatch. With regard to minimizing\nbycatch in the lobster trap fishery, NMFS evaluated the effectiveness of escape vents of various\nsizes, shapes and placement on the trap, in the laboratory, on research vessels and on commercial\nfishing vessels. Everson et al. (1992) concluded that the current escape vent configuration is\noptimal for reducing the catch of small lobsters and retaining larger lobsters. Only selective gear\ncan be used to harvest coral from the EEZ around the MHI. Consequently, the amount of bycatch\nfrom harvest operations in this area is minimized. The FMP allows either selective or non-\nselective gear to be used to harvest coral from Brooks Bank and 180 Fathom Bank in the NWHI\nand from exploratory areas other than the EEZ off the MHI. However, the only firm that has\nrecently expressed an interest in harvesting precious corals in these areas has indicated that it will\nemploy only selective gear.\nComplete avoidance of non-target species is not possible using current fishing techniques, but the\namount of bycatch in the region's fisheries can be further reduced by developing and promoting\nuses for the fish that are usually discarded. For example, moonfish and pomfrets captured by\nHawaii-based longline vessels were formerly discarded but are now retained. NMFS is currently\nsponsoring a study to determine whether markets exist (or can be developed) for meat, hides and\nother parts of the sharks caught by domestic longline vessels.\nIt would be difficult to develop bottomfish fishing techniques that would reduce the mortality of\nbycatch. Teleost bottomfish brought to the surface typically suffer from swelling of the swim\nbladder, eversion of the stomach and sometimes swelling and extrusion of the eyes. It is possible\nwith some fish to puncture and deflate the swim bladder and to re-insert the stomach. However, it\nis unlikely that this would be a practical option during a commercial fishing operation. Captured\n30","sharks stand a better chance of survival if released, as they lack a swim bladder and are generally\nmore robust than other types of fish.\nIt also would be difficult to reduce bycatch mortality with the gear types currently used to harvest\npelagic species. With pole-and-line gear, fish are flung clear of the water and land on the deck, of\nwhere they sustain serious injury from the impact. In troll fishing, fish may fight on the end is the\nfor an extended period of time before being reeled in. This is particular true if light tackle\nline used to enhance the sporting element of the fishing experience. The survival rate of fish that are\nreleased is uncertain, but tagging data suggests that it may be relatively low. For example, tag\nrecoveries in the NMFS tagging program are 0.9% and 1.6% for 4,410 blue marlin and 19,534\nstriped marlin, respectively.\nThe post-release mortality of sharks and turtles released by longline vessels is uncertain. As noted\nabove, additional research on survival rates of live discards under various fishing conditions\nwould be beneficial. This research should include an evaluation of on-board handling techniques\nintended to minimize the mortality of live discards.\nCommercial, Recreational and Charter Fishing Sectors\n4.2\nSpecify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to\ncommercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the fishery, including, but not limited to,\ninformation regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch by species in\nnumbers of. fish or weight thereof, areas in which fishing was engaged in, time of. fishing,\nnumber of hauls, and the estimated processing capacity of, and the actual processing\ncapacity utilized by, United States fish processors.\nInclude a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which\nparticipate in the fishery and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the\nmanaged fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors.\n4.2.1 Bottomfish fishery\nData Reporting Systems\nIn Hawaii fishermen who hold a commercial marine license are required to complete a HDAR\nFish Catch Report. (For a description of regional data collection systems see Appendix 1. For a\nreproduction of data forms, see Appendix 2. For this form, see p. A2-17.) The form requires\nfishermen to report the type of fishing gear used (e.g., deep-sea handline, trolling, etc.), area\nfished, number and weight of each species caught and the weight sold.\nCommercial fishermen participating in the Federally regulated NWHI bottomfish fishery are\nrequired to complete the HDAR NWHI Bottomfish Trip Daily Log (p. A2-22). The daily log\ncontains provisions for reporting the gear used, number of lines, number of hooks, number and\n31","weight of various bottomfish and non-bottomfish species kept, number released, number damaged\nor stolen by marine mammals and sharks, area fished, length of trip, specific effort information\nand weather conditions. Sales information is reported on the HDAR NWHI Bottomfish Trip Sales\nReport (p. A2-23). Additional commercial landings information on both the MHI and NWHI\nbottomfish fisheries is collected by the NMFS market monitoring program.\nNo routine reporting system exists for collecting data on the recreational component of the\nbottomfish fishery in Hawaii. Surveys have been undertaken to estimate the extent of recreational\nfisheries, but these have been sporadic and limited in scope due to a lack of funds.\nIn American Samoa the Offshore Survey (p. A2-1) administered by the DMWR collects\ninformation on the number and weight of each species caught during commercial and recreational\nfishing trips, method of fishing (troll, bottom, etc.), time fished and the area fished. In addition,\nthe survey requests information on the disposition of the catch. DMWR applies a set of algorithms\nto estimate the commercial landings based on the estimate of total landings and catch disposition\ninformation derived from the surveys.\nIn Guam the Offshore Creel Census administered by the DAWR (p. A2-4) records the number and\nweight of each species caught during commercial, charter and recreational fishing trips, method of\nfishing (e.g., trolling, bottom, etc.), number of gear used, area fished, weather conditions and\npercentage of the total catch that is kept or sold. The survey also asks fishermen if they\nparticipated in charter fishing and if so the number of guests taken. The survey does not\nspecifically request fishermen to provide information on the disposition of fish that are kept.\nDAWR collects additional data on commercial landings through the voluntary trip ticket receipt\nprogram.\nIn Guam total commercial landings are calculated by summing the weight and value fields in the\ncommercial landings database and then multiplying by an estimated percent coverage expansion\nfactor. This annual expansion factor is based on an analysis of \"disposition of catch\" data from of the\ncreel survey, vessel entry and exit patterns, general dock-side knowledge of the fishery, status\nmarket conditions and overall number of records in the data base.\nIn the Northern Mariana Islands data on commercial landings are collected by the DFW from the\nCommercial Sales Data, or \"trip ticket,\" form (A2-29), which records local fish sales to\ncommercial establishments. 4 Landings, species composition, revenue and the number of fishermen\nor boats selling catch are estimated from information provided on the forms.\nUntil the creel survey program was discontinued in 1996, the Offshore Creel Census and Inshore of\nCreel Census (p. A2-24 and A2-26) administered by DFW recorded the number and weight\neach species caught during commercial and recreational fishing trips, fishing method used,\n4Bottomfish fisheries occurring in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands are not\nmanaged under the FMP.\n32","number of gear used, area fished, weather conditions and percentage of the total catch that is kept\nor sold.\nThe Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Annual Report summarizes information\ncollected on the bottomfish fisheries in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and Northern Mariana of\nIslands. For Hawaii, this information includes landings by species, fishing effort (number\nvessels and trips), average price, revenue, annual catch per unit effort and the estimated bottomfish spawning\npotential ratio by species. Information from American Samoa includes total weight of and\nlanded (differentiated by species), weight of bottomfish sold, fishing effort (number of hours the\ntrips), catch rates, average price, revenue and the estimated spawning potential ratio landed for\nbottomfish complex. Information from Guam includes total weight of bottomfish\n(differentiated by species), weight of bottomfish sold, fishing effort (number of hours, trips Islands and\nboats), average price, revenue and annual CUE. Information from the Northern Mariana boats\nincludes estimated landings, species composition, revenue and the number of fishermen or\nselling catch.\nInformation collected by HDAR Fish Catch Reports (p. A2-17) on the weight and composition which of\nthe unsold portion of the catch is summarized in Fishery Statistics of the Western Pacific,\nis published annually by NMFS.\nCommercial and Recreational Fishing\nAs noted in the FMP, throughout the western Pacific region there are few fishermen who\nspecialize in harvesting bottomfish. Most fishermen shift from fishery to fishery in response vessel to\nweather conditions, seasonal abundance or fluctuations in price. Furthermore, most of the\noperators are part-time commercial fishermen and may combine commercial, recreational or\nsubsistence effort in a single fishing trip.\nThe most reliable data for Hawaii come from a creel survey conducted on Oahu by NMFS in\n1990-91 and indicate that 66% of the bottomfish landed were not sold and thus can be considered\nthe recreational catch. For American Samoa and Guam information in the Bottomfish and\nSeamount Groundfish Fisheries Annual Report can be used to estimate the recreational catch.\nReported landings are sub-divided into sold and unsold components. Because of the prevalence is of\nfishermen who combine commercial and recreational effort, the unsold percentage of landings\nused as a proxy for the recreational component of the fishery. In American Samoa 1985-1996 and\ncreel data indicate that the unsold-or recreational-catch fluctuates between 14% 1%\nwith an survey overall average of 4%. In Guam 1980-1996 creel survey suggests that 60% of landed\nbottomfish are caught for recreation. Since the termination of creel surveys in the Northern\nMariana Islands, landings have not been recorded unless the catch is sold.\n33","Charter Fishing\nCharter vessels in Hawaii and American Samoa do not typically fish for bottomfish. In recent\nsome charter vessels in Guam have started targeting bottomfish. The vessels range from to\nyears, trolling charter vessels involving three to six patrons who opt to fish for bottomfish,\ntypical larger bottomfish-fishing-only party boats accommodating up to 30 persons. At present, DAWR\nYear\n1997\n1996\n1803\n1716\nTotal trips\n10138\n9907\nTotal catch\n4001\n4300\nTotal hours\n24443\n24044\nTotal no. persons\n53871\n60427\nPerson-hrs\n38674\n47660\nGear-hrs\n5.62\n5.77\nCPUE (lb/trip\n2.53\n203\nCPUE (lb/hr)\n0.26\n0.21\nCPUE (lb/gr-hr)\nTable 4.2.a: Guam charter bottomfish catch,\neffort and CPUE, 1996-1997 (Source:\nWPacFIN)\nis refining the algorithms used to estimate the amount and composition of the charter component\nof bottomfish landings. Table 4.2.a and Figure 4.2.a summarize this data for 1996 and 1997.\nSeveral of the dozen or so charter vessels in Northern Mariana Islands have also started targeting\nbottomfish in the last few years. Since the termination of creel surveys, the landings from these\nboats have not been recorded unless the catch is sold, in which case the catch is reported on the\nCommercial Sales Data form. Catch and effort information on charter trips is not reported\nseparately in the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Annual Report.\n34","Malacanthidae\n1%\nOthers\nLabridae\n4%\n4%\nBalistidae\n4%\nLethrinidae\nMullidae\n30%\n6%\nLutjanidae\n12%\nCarangidae\nSerranidae\n21%\n18%\nFigure 4.2.a: Composition of charter bottomfish catch\nin Guam, 1996-1997 (percent of total number) (Source\nWPacFIN)\n4.2.3 Pelagics fishery\nData Reporting Systems\nAs described above, fishermen in Hawaii who hold a commercial marine license are required to\ncomplete a HDAR Fish Catch Report (p. A2-17). In addition to this report, HDAR administers\nspecific data collection systems for the commercial longline, albacore troll and pole-and-line\nfisheries. Additional commercial landings information is collected by the NMFS market\nmonitoring program. Information collected by HDAR Fish Catch Reports on the weight and\ncomposition of the unsold portion of the catch is summarized in Fishery Statistics of the Western\nPacific which is published annually by NMFS.\nIn American Samoa data on the domestic longline fleet is collected by the NMFS Western Pacific\nDaily Longline Fishing Log (p. A2-18). The log records number of hooks, number of sets, fishing\ntime and location, number of species caught and weather. The Offshore Survey (p. A2-1)\nadministered by DMWR also collects data on longline fishing, including the weight of the fish\nlanded by species, and collects information on troll gear landings.\nIn Guam the Offshore Creel Census (p. A2-4) collects information on commercial and\nrecreational landings of pelagic species.\nIn the Northern Mariana Islands data on commercial landings and the portion of the catch that is\nsold by charter vessels are collected by the DFW from the Commercial Sales Data form (A2-29).\n35","Landings, revenue and the number of fishermen or boats selling catch are estimated by summing the\nthe information from the forms. Until the creel survey program was discontinued in 1996,\nOffshore Creel Census (p. A2-24 and A2-25) and Inshore Creel Census (p. A2-26 and A2-27)\nrecorded catch and effort data on commercial and recreational fishing trips.\nThe Pelagic Fisheries Annual Report summarizes information provided by the various data\ncollection systems for different areas and gear types. For Hawaii commercial catch data and includes\nlandings by species, fishing effort (number of vessels and trips), average price, revenue annual\ncatch unit effort. For American Samoa information on total weight of fish landed by longline that is\nand troll per (differentiated by species), weight of fish landed by longline and troll gear\nsold (differentiated gear by species), fishing effort (number of hours, trips and boats), average price, and\nand annual catch per unit effort is summarized. The weight of skipjack, yellowfin\nrevenue albacore tuna landed at the two fish canneries in Pago Pago by US and foreign vessels information is collected\nby the PIAO and is also presented in the Pelagic Fisheries Annual Report. For Guam fish sold\ntotal weight of pelagic fish landed (differentiated by species), weight of pelagic\non (undifferentiated by species), fishing effort (number of hours, trips and boats), average Islands price,\nand annual catch per unit effort is summarized. For the Northern Mariana\nrevenue information on total weight of pelagic fish landed (differentiated by species), weight of pelagic\nfish sold (differentiated by species), fishing effort (number of trips and boats), average price,\nand annual catch per unit effort is summarized. Catch, and effort information on Annual charter\nrevenue trips in the Northern Mariana Islands is not reported separately in the Pelagic Fisheries\nReport.\nCommercial and Recreational Fishing\nthe FMP states, there is no clear distinction between recreational and commercial troll\nAs fisheries; therefore, it is difficult to identify the recreational component of the troll fleet's the total\neffort. Furthermore, in Hawaii no routine reporting system exists for collecting data on\nrecreational component of the pelagics fishery. A creel survey conducted on Oahu by NMFS in\n1990-91 indicated that 60% of the fish caught with troll gear are not sold.\nAmerican Samoa and Guam the reported unsold portion of the total catch is considered to be\nIn the recreational catch. For American Samoa creel survey data collected 1982-1996 indicate 1980-1996 that\n11% of all pelagic species landed are not sold. In Guam creel survey data collected the\nindicate that 59% of landed fish are unsold and is considered the recreational harvest. recorded Since\ntermination of creel surveys in the Northern Mariana Islands, landings have not been\nunless the catch is sold.\nCharter Fishing\nA fleet of charter vessels in Hawaii harvests pelagic species. Fish caught by charter boat\nlarge are generally sold by the captain and crew. HDAR began differentiating catch form report for data a\npatrons for the charter sector in 1985. Charter vessels are identified on the annual application\n36","commercial marine license, and HDAR can cross-reference the numbers on the license\napplications submitted by charter vessels with license numbers recorded on the Fish Catch\nReports (p. A2-17). Catch and effort information on charter trips for 1990-1996 is provided in\nFigure 4.2.b. Composition of charter pelagic species catches in Hawaii for 1996 is provided in\nTable 4.2.b:\n100\n700000\n90\n600000\n80\n70\n500000\n60\n400000\n50\n40\n300000\n30\n200000\ncatch\n20\n10\n100000\ncpue\n0\n0\n96\n95\n94\n93\n92\n91\n90\nYear\nFigure 4.2.b: Hawaii charter troll catch and CPUE, 1990-1996 (Source: WPacFIN)","sold Value ($)\nWeight (lbs) Weight\nNumbers\nSpecies\n(lbs)\n125,635\n47,649\n62,846\n3033\nMahimahi\n25,620\n13,114\n19,405\n2,261\nAku\n77,991\n32,009\n43,088\n1,903\nOno\n211,674\n304,596\n390,516\n1,880\nBlue marlin\n119,272\n60,130\n70,113\n1,770\nYellowfin tuna\n26,451\n26,966\n48,130\n745\nStriped malin\n7,649\n6,611\n12,174\n381\nSpearfish\n6,113\n6,545\n12,034\n207\nMano\n534\n294\n466\n58\nKawakawa\n644\n496\n1,329\n57\nUlua\n0\n0\n152\n31\nBigeye tuna\n92\n92\n422\n21\nKaku\n197\n70\n202\n19\nUku\n66\n69\n152\n16\nKamano\n1,819\n2,279\n2,279\n13\nBlack marlin\n1,723\n755\n755\n5\nBroadbill\n0\n0\n78\n4\nKahala\n88\n93\n93\n1\nMako\n605.574\n501,768\n664.234\n12,405\nTotal\nTable 4.2.b: Composition of charter pelagic species catches in Hawaii,\n1996 (Source: WPacFIN)\nIn American Samoa the charter fleet consists of one or two boats that target pelagic species, but it\nis not possible to separate the size and composition of charter vessel catches from total landings\nby troll gear.\nIn Guam a small but significant segment of the troll fleet consists of charter vessels. Fishermen\nmust report participation in charter fishing on the Offshore Creel Census form (p. A2-4) and\nreport the number of guests taken on a charter trip. At present, DAWR is refining the algorithms\nused to estimate the amount and composition of the charter component of pelagic species\nlandings. Table 4.2.c shows Guam charter troll catch and effort for 1996 and 1997, and Figure\n4.2.c summarizes the composition of the catch in 1996.\n38","Year\n1997\n1996\n4751\n5745\nTotal trips\n164696\n205948\nTotal catch\n14621\n19420\nTotal hours\n27683\n35170\nTotal no. persons\n83979\n117784\nPerson-hrs\n64885\n85138\nGear-hrs\n34.67\n35.85\nCPUE (lb/trip\n11.26\n10.6\nCPUE (lb/hr)\n2.54\n2.42\nCPUE (lb/gr-hr)\nTable 4.2.c: Guam charter troll catch, effort\nand CPUE, 1996-1997 (Source: WPacFIN)\nOther\nAcanthocybium\n0.90%\nsolandri\n10.55%\nCoryphaena\nhippurus\n38.01%\nMakaira mazara\n28.57%\nThunnus\nKatsuwonus\nalbacares\npelamis\n4.52%\n17.45%\nFigure 4.2.c: Composition of charter pelagic species catches in\nGuam, 1996 (percent of total number) (Source: WPacFIN)\n39","The small fleet of charter vessels in Northern Mariana Islands frequently targets pelagic species.\nThese vessels generally retain half or more of their catches for sale in local markets.\nCrustaceans fishery\n4.2.3\nData Reporting Systems\nParticipants in the NWHI commercial fishery are required to complete the NMFS Daily Lobster\nCatch Report (p. A2-13) and HDAR Crustaceans Trip Report (p. A2-14). The catch report records\nthe number of lobsters caught, area fished, weather condition and date and time of gear set and\nhaul. The trip report summarizes the number and weight of lobsters caught and weight sold. Data\non landings, revenue, fishing effort (number of vessels, trips and trap-hauls) and CPUE are\nsummarized in annual reports prepared by NMFS. Should commercial lobster fishing ventures\noperate in the EEZ around the MHI, American Samoa, Guam or the uninhabited islands of the the\nPacific Insular Area5, they would also be required to obtain a NMFS permit and complete\nNMFS Daily Lobster Catch Report (p. A2-13).\nCommercial and Recreational Fishing\nThe NWHI fishery is the only regionally significant commercial lobster fishery. No significant\nrecreational lobster fishing occurs in the EEZ around the MHI or NWHI. No significant\ncommercial or recreational lobster fishing occurs in the EEZ around American Samoa, Guam or\nthe uninhabited islands of the Pacific Insular Areas. Recently, two permits have been issued to\nfishermen interested in harvesting lobster in the waters around American Samoa, but no fishing\nactivity has taken place.\nCharter Fishing\nCharter vessels in Hawaii do not target lobsters. No significant charter lobster fishing occurs in\nthe EEZ around American Samoa, Guam or the uninhabited islands of the Pacific Insular Areas.\n4.2.4 Precious corals fishery\nData Reporting Systems\nCommercial coral harvesting ventures operating in the EEZ around Hawaii and the Pacific Coral Insular\nAreas are required to obtain a NMFS permit and complete the NMFS Daily Precious\nHarvest Log (p. A2-15).\nSCrustacean fisheries occurring in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands are not\nmanaged under the FMP.\n40","Commercial and Recreational Fishing\nNo significant commercial or recreational harvesting of precious corals occurs in the EEZ Hawaii around has\nHawaii or the Pacific Insular Areas. 6 Recently, a permit to harvest the Makapuu bed in\nbeen issued to a firm, but harvesting has not begun.\nCharter Fishing\nNo significant harvesting of precious corals occurs in the EEZ around Hawaii or the Pacific\nInsular Areas through charter fishing.\n4.2.5 Discussion and conclusions\nAs has been discussed, in the case of bottomfish fishing and trolling for pelagic species there is\ngenerally no clear distinction between recreational and commercial fishing. It is not possible to\nlabel the majority of fishermen or fishing vessels that participate in these fisheries as\n\"commercial\" or \"recreational.\" In all of the island areas it is more appropriate to categorize as\ncommercial or recreational the fish caught during a particular trip than the fishermen or fishing\nvessels catching them. Thus, in the annual reports the part of the catch that is reported as sold is\nconsidered the commercial component while the unsold portion represents the recreational catch.\nAccording to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, unsold fish should be classified as commercial if traded\nbartered. However, it is not practical or appropriate for data collection systems in the region to\nor make this distinction, as the customary exchange of fish with no immediate expectation of return\nis not regarded in Pacific island societies as a commercial activity.\nInformation on the size and composition of recreational catches of pelagic and bottomfish recreational species\nin Hawaii is not collected by any ongoing data collection programs. Furthermore, no\nfishing surveys have been recently conducted in the Pacific Insular Areas to supplement\ninformation collected by current creel surveys. The Council fully supports proposals by NMFS to\nconduct such marine recreational fishing surveys.\nIf charter fishing develops in American Samoa, the Offshore Survey and Participation forms to (p.\nA2-1 and A2-2) will be modified to specifically collect information that will allow DMWR\nseparately report charter catch and effort.\nDescribe Essential Fish Habitat\n4.3\nDescribe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines\nestablished by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent practicable\n'Precious coral fisheries occurring in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands are not\nmanaged under the FMP.\n41","adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage\nthe conservation and enhancement of such habitat.\nThe NMFS guidelines intended to assist Councils in implementing the EFH provision of the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act set forth the following four broad tasks:\nIdentify and describe EFH for all species managed under an FMP;\nDescribe adverse impacts to EFH from fishing activities;\nDescribe adverse impacts to EFH from non-fishing activities; and\nRecommend conservation and enhancement measures to minimize and mitigate the\nadverse impacts to EFH resulting from fishing and non-fishing related activities\nThe designation of EFH was based on the best available scientific information. This information\nwas obtained through an iterative process consisting of a series of public meetings of the Council,\nSSC, FMP teams and fishing industry advisory panels (Section 2.3). In addition, the Council\nworked in close cooperation with scientists in the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Service Center,\nHonolulu Laboratory, PIAO and Southwest Regional Office.\nThe guidelines suggest that each Council prepare a preliminary inventory of available\nenvironmental and fisheries information on managed species. Such an inventory is useful in\ndescribing and identifying EFH, and it helps to identify missing information about the habitat of\nparticular species. The guidelines note that a wide range of basic information is needed to identify\nEFH. This includes data on current and historic stock size, the geographic range of the managed\nthe habitat requirements by life history stage and the distribution and characteristics of\nthose species, habitats. Since EFH has to be identified for each major life history stage, information about\na species' distribution, density, growth, mortality and production within all the habitats it\noccupies, or formerly occupied, is also necessary.\nThe guidelines state that the quality of available data should be rated using the following four-\nlevel system:\nAll that is known is where a species occurs based on distribution data for all or part\nLevel 1:\nof the geographic range of the species.\nData on habitat-related densities or relative abundance of the species are available.\nLevel 2:\nData on growth, reproduction or survival rates within habitats are available.\nLevel 3:\nProduction rates by habitat are available.\nLevel 4:\nWith higher quality data those habitats most highly valued by a species can be identified, allowing\na more precise designation of EFH. Habitats of intermediate and low value may be essential\ndepending on the health of the fish population and the ecosystem. For example, if a species is\noverfished, and habitat loss or degradation is thought to contribute to its overfished condition, all\nhabitats currently used by the species may be essential.\n42","At present, there is not enough data on the relative productivity of different habitats to develop\nEFH designations based on Level 3 or Level 4 data for any of the Western Pacific Council's\nMUS. The Council adopted a fifth level, denoted Level 0, for situations in which there is no\ninformation available about the geographic extent of a particular managed species' life stage.\nThe Council used the best available scientific information to describe EFH in text and tables that\nprovide information on the biological requirements for each life stage (egg, larvae, juvenile, adult)\nof all MUS (Appendix 3). Careful judgement was used in determining the extent of the essential\nfish habitat that should be designated to ensure that sufficient habitat in good condition is\navailable to maintain a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy\necosystem. Because there are large gaps in scientific knowledge about the life histories and habitat\nrequirements of many MUS in the western Pacific region, the Council adopted a precautionary\napproach in designating EFH to ensure that enough habitat is protected to sustain managed\nspecies.\naddition to the narratives, the general distribution and geographic limits of EFH for each life\nIn\nhistory stage are presented in the forms of maps (Appendix 4). The Council incorporated these\ndata into a geographic information system to facilitate analysis and presentation. More detailed\nand informative maps will be produced as more complete information about population responses\nto habitat characteristics (e.g., growth, survival or reproductive rates) becomes available.\nIn addition to EFH, the Council identified habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) within\nEFH for all FMPs. In determining whether a type or area of EFH should be designated as a\nHAPC, one or more of the following criteria was met: ecological function provided by the habitat\nis important; habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; development\nactivities are or will be stressing the habitat type; or habitat type is rare.\n4.3.1 Essential fish habitat designations\nBottomfish Habitat\nIdentification of BMUS EFH\nExcept for several of the major commercial species, very little is known about the life histories,\nhabitat utilization patterns, food habits or spawning behavior of most adult bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish species. Furthermore, very little is known about the distribution and habitat\nrequirements of juvenile bottomfish.\nGenerally, the distribution of adult bottomfish in the western Pacific region is closely linked to\nsuitable physical habitat. Unlike the US mainland with its continental shelf ecosystems, Pacific\nislands are primarily volcanic peaks with steep drop-offs and limited shelf ecosystems. The\nBMUS under the Council's jurisdiction are found concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater\nbanks. The 100-fathom isobath is commonly used as an index of bottomfish habitat. Adult\n43","bottomfish are usually found in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural\ncomplexity. The total extent and geographic distribution of the preferred habitat of bottomfish is\nnot well known. Bottomfish populations are not evenly distributed within their natural habitat;\ninstead they are found dispersed in a non-random, patchy fashion. Deepwater snappers tend to\naggregate in association with prominent underwater features, such as headlands and promontories.\nThere is regional variation in species composition, as well as a relative abundance of the MUS and of\nthe deepwater bottomfish complex in the sestern Pacific region. In American Samoa, Guam a\nthe Northern Mariana Islands the bottomfish fishery can be divided into two distinct fisheries,\nshallow- and a deep-water bottomfish fishery, based on species and depth. The shallow-water\n(0-100 m) bottomfish complex is comprised of groupers, snappers and jacks in the genera\nLethrinus, Lutjanus, Epinephelus, Aprion, Caranx, Variola and Cephalopholis. The deep-water\n(100-400 m) bottomfish complex is primarily comprised of snappers and groupers in the genera\nPristipomoides, Etelis, Aphareus, Epinephelus and Cephalopholis. In Hawaii the bottomfish\nfishery targets several species of eteline snappers, carangids and a single species of groupers. The\ntarget species are generally found at depths of 50-270 m.\nTo reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual Section species\nand life stages, the Council has designated EFH for bottomfish assemblages pursuant to\n600.805(b) of 62 FR 66551. The species complex designations include deep-slope bottomfish\n(shallow- and deep-water) and seamount groundfish complexes. The designation of these\ncomplexes is based upon the ecological relationships among species and their preferred BMUS. habitat.\nThese species complexes are grouped by the known depth distributions of individual\nThese are summarized in Table 4.3.a. For a broader description of the life history and habitat\nutilization patterns of individual BMUS see Appendix 3.\nShallow-water species (0-100 m)\nUku (Aprion virescens), Thicklip trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex),\nBottomfish\nLunartail grouper (Variola louti), Blacktip grouper (Epinephelus\nfasciatus), Ambon emperor (Lethrinus amboinensis), Redgill\nemperor (Lethrinus rubrioperculatus), Giant trevally (Caranx\nignoblis), Black trevally (Caranx lugubris), Amberjack (Seriola\ndumerili), Taape (Lutjanus kasmira)\nDeep-water species (100-400 m)\nEhu (Etelis carbunculus), Onaga (Etelis coruscans), Opakapaka\n(Pristipomoides filamentosus), Yellowtail Kalekale (P. auricilla),\nYelloweye opakapaka (P. flavipinnis), Kalekale (P. sieboldii),\nGindai (P. zonatus), Hapupuu (Epinephelus quernus), Lehi\n(Aphareus rutilans)\nArmorhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni), Ratfish/butterfish\nSeamount Groundfish\n(Hyperoglyphe japonica), Alfonsin (Beryx splendens)\nTable 4.3.a: Management unit species complexes for bottomfish\n44","At present, there is not enough data on the relative productivity of different habitats to develop\nEFH designations based on Level 3 or Level 4 data. Given the uncertainty concerning the life\nhistories and habitat requirements of many BMUS, the Council designated EFH for adult and\njuvenile bottomfish as the water column and all bottom habitat extending from the shoreline to a\ndepth of 400 m (200 fathoms) encompassing the steep drop-offs and high relief habitats that are\nimportant for bottomfish.\nThe eggs and larvae of all BMUS are pelagic, floating at the surface until hatching and subject\nthereafter to advection by the prevailing ocean currents. There have been few taxonomic studies\nof these life stages of snappers (lutjanids) and groupers (epinepheline serranids). Presently, few\nlarvae can be identified to species. As snapper and grouper larvae are rarely collected in plankton\nsurveys, it is extremely difficult to study their distribution. Because of the existing scientific\nuncertainty about the distribution of the eggs and larvae of bottomfish, the Council designated the\nwater column extending from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ to a depth of 400 m\nas EFH for bottomfish eggs and larvae.\nIn the past, a large-scale foreign seamount groundfish fishery extended throughout the\nsoutheastern reaches of the northern Hawaiian Ridge. The seamount groundfish complex consists\nof three species (pelagic armorheads, alfonsins and ratfish). These species dwell at 200-600 m on\nthe submarine slopes and summits of seamounts. A collapse of the seamount groundfish stocks\nhas resulted in a greatly reduced yield in recent years. Although a moratorium on the harvest of\nthe seamount groundfish within the EEZ has been in place since 1986, no substantial recovery of\nthe stocks has been observed. Historically, there has been no domestic seamount groundfish\nfishery.\nThe life histories and distributional patterns of seamount groundfish are also poorly understood.\nData are lacking on the effects of oceanographic variability on migration and recruitment of\nindividual management unit species. Based upon the best available data, the Council designated\nthe EFH for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish complex as all waters and bottom\nhabitat bounded by latitude 29°-35°N and longitude i°E-179° W between 80-600 m. EFH for\neggs, larvae and juveniles is the epipelagic zone (~ 200 m) of all waters bounded by latitude\n29°-35°N and longitude 171°E-179°V W. This EFH designation encompasses the Hancock\nSeamounts, part of the northern extent of the Hawaiian Ridge, located 1,500 nautical miles\nnorthwest of Honolulu.\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern\nBased on the known distribution and habitat requirements of adult bottomfish, the Council\ndesignated all escarpments/slopes between 40-280 m as HAPC. In addition, the Council\ndesignated the three known areas of juvenile opakapaka habitat (two off Oahu and one off\nMolokai) as HAPC. The basis for this designation is the ecological function these areas provide,\nthe rarity of the habitat and the susceptibility of these areas to human-induced environmental\ndegradation. Off Oahu juvenile snappers occupy a flat, open bottom of primarily soft substrate in\n45","depths ranging from 40 to 73 m. This habitat is quite different from that utilized by adult\nSurveys suggest that the preferred habitat of juvenile opakapaka in the waters around of\nsnappers. Hawaii represents only a small fraction of the total habitat at the appropriate depths. Areas It is flat\nfeatureless bottom have typically been thought of as providing low value fishery habitat.\npossible that juvenile snappers occur in other habitat types but in such low densities that they have\nyet to be observed.\nThe recent discovery of concentrations of juvenile snappers in relatively shallow water and\nfeatureless bottom habitat indicates the need for more research to help identify, map and study\nnursery habitat for juvenile snapper.\nPelagic Habitat\nIdentification of PMUS EFH\nPMUS under the Council's jurisdiction are found in tropical and temperate waters throughout the\nPacific Ocean. Variations in the distribution and abundance of PMUS are affected by ever\nchanging oceanic environmental conditions including water temperature, current patterns and the\navailability of food. There are large gaps in the scientific knowledge about basic life histories and\nhabitat requirements of many PMUS. The migration patterns of PMUS stocks in the Pacific for\nOcean are poorly understood and difficult to categorize despite extensive tagging studies many\nspecies. Little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of the juvenile life stages\nof and billfish after they leave the plankton until they recruit to fisheries. Since spawning and\nlarvae tuna occur only in tropical temperatures (including temperate summer), the pre-recruit sizes are\nprobably more tropically distributed than recruits, and juvenile tunas of this size (1-15 cm) the are\nonly caught in large numbers around tropical archipelagoes. Very little is known about habitat\nof different life history stages of PMUS that are not targeted by fisheries (i.e., sharks, Gempylids, for\netc). For these reasons, the Council has adopted a precautionary approach in designating EFH\nPMUS.\nTo reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species\nand life stages, the Council has designated EFH for pelagic species assemblages pursuant to\nSection 600.805(b) of 62 FR 66551. The species complex designations for the PMUS are\nmarketable species, non-marketable species and sharks (Table 4.3.b). The designation of these\ncomplexes is based upon the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat.\nThe marketable species complex has been subdivided into tropical and temperate assemblages. in\nThe temperate species complex includes those PMUS that are found in greater abundance\nlatitudes such as swordfish and bigeye, bluefin and albacore tuna. In reality all PMUS individual are\nhigher tropical. For a broader description of the life history and habitat utilization patterns of\nPMUS see Appendix 3.\n46","Temperate species\nMarketable\nStriped Marlin (Tetrapurus audax); Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus);\nSwordfish (Xiphias gladius); Albacore (Thunnus alalunga); Mackeral\n(Scomber spp); Bigeye (Thunnus obesus); Pomfret (family Bramidae)\nTropical species\nYellowfin (Thunnus albacares); Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis); Skipjack\n(Katsuwonus pelamis); Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei);\nBlue marlin (Makaira nigricans); Slender tunas (Allothunnus fallai); Black\nmarlin (Makaira indica); Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor); Spearfish\n(Tetrapturus spp); Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus); Mahimahi (Coryphaena\nhippurus. C. equiselas); Ono (Acanthocybium solandri); Opah (Lampris sp)\nOilfish (family Gempylidae); Pomfret (family Bramidae); Crocodile shark\nUnmarketable\nRequiem sharks (family Carcharinidae); Thresher sharks (family Alopiidae);\nMackeral sharks (family Lamnidae); Hammerheads sharks (family\nSharks\nSphyrnidae)\nTable 4.3.b: Species complexes for pelagic management unit species\nBecause of the uncertainty about the life histories and habitat utilization patterns of many PMUS,\nthe Council has taken a precautionary approach by adopting a 1,000 m depth as the lower bound\nof EFH for PMUS. Although many of the PMUS are epipelagic, bigeye tuna are abundant at\nin excess of 400 m and swordfish have been tracked to depths of 800 m. One thousand\ndepths meters is the lower bound of the mesopelagic zone. The vertically migrating mesopelagic fishes and\nand squids associated with the deep scattering layer are important prey organisms for PMUS of\nseldom abundant below 1,000 m. This designation is also based on anecdotal reports\nare fishermen that PMUS aggregate over raised bottom topographical features as deep as 2,000 m\n(1,000 fathoms) or more. This belief is supported by research that indicates seabed features this such\nas seamounts exert a strong influence over the superadjacent water column. An example of\ntype of influence is the doming of the thermocline that has been observed over seamounts.\nThe eggs and larvae of all teleost PMUS are pelagic. They are slightly buoyant when first\nspawned, are spread throughout the mixed layer and are subject to advection by the prevailing the\nocean currents. Because the eggs and larvae of the PMUS are found distributed throughout\ntropical (and in summer, the subtropical) epipelagic zone, EFH for these life stages has been\ndesignated as the epipelagic zone (~200 m) from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ. Hawaii The\nonly generic variation in this distribution pattern occurs in the northern latitudes of the\nEEZ, which extends farther into the temperate zone than any other EEZ covered by the plan. In\nthese higher latitudes, eggs and larvae are rarely found during the winter months\n(November-February).\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern\n47","For HAPC the Council designated the water column down to 1,000 m that lies above all\nseamounts and banks within the EEZ shallower than 2,000 m (1,000 fathoms). The EFH relevance\nof topographic features deeper than 1,000 m is due to the influence they have on the overlying\nmesopelagic zone. These deeper features themselves do not constitute EFH, but the waters within from the\nthe surface to 1,000 m deep superadjacent to these features are designated as HAPC\nEFH. The 2,000-m depth contour captures the summits of most seamounts mentioned by\nfishermen, and all banks within the EEZ waters under the Councils jurisdiction. The basis for\ndesignating this areas as HAPC is the ecological function provided, the rarity of the habitat type,\nthe susceptibility of these areas to human-induced environmental degradation and proposed\nactivities that may stress the habitat type.\nAs noted above, localized areas of increased biological productivity are associated with\nseamounts, and many seamounts are important grounds for commercial fishing in the western\nPacific region. There have been proposals to mine the manganese rich summits of the off-axis\nseamounts in the Hawaii EEZ. The possible adverse impacts of this proposed activity on fishery\nresources are of concern to the Council.\nBecause the PMUS are highly migratory, the areas outside the EEZ in the western Pacific region\nare designated by the Council as \"important habitat.\" Vast areas outside of EEZ waters provide\nessential spawning, breeding and foraging habitat. The EEZ under the Council's jurisdiction\nonly a small fraction of the waters in which PMUS are distributed. The Council\nrepresents believes that any attempt to manage PMUS stocks and protect their habitat on anything less than a\nPacific basin-wide scale would be ineffective. Hence, the Council will continue its participation in\nall appropriate international forums and bodies involved in the management of highly migratory\nspecies.\nCrustaceans Habitat\nIdentification of CMUS EFH\nSpiny lobsters are found throughout the Indo-Pacific region. All spiny lobsters in the western\nPacific region belong to the family Palinuridae. The slipper lobsters belong to the closely related and\nfamily, Scyllaridae. There are 13 species of the genus Panulirus distributed in the tropical the\nsubtropical Pacific between 35°N and 35°S. P. penicillatus is the most widely distributed, other\nthree species are absent from the waters of many island nations of the region. The Hawaiian of spiny\nlobster (P. marginatus) is endemic to Hawaii and Johnston Atoll and is the primary species\ninterest in the NWHI fishery, the principal commercial lobster fishery in the western Pacific\nregion. This fishery also targets the slipper lobster Scyllarides squammosus. Three other species of\nlobster-pronghorn spiny lobster (Panulirus pencillatus), ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides\nhaanii) and Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarticus)-and the Kona crab, family\nRaninidae, are taken in low numbers in the NWHI fishery.\n48","In the NWHI there is wide variation in lobster total density, size and sex ratio between the\ndifferent islands. Neither the extent of species interaction between P. marginatus and Scyllarides\nsquammosus nor the role of density dependent factors in controlling population abundance is\nknown.\nIn the MHI most of the commercial, recreational and subsistence catches of spiny lobster are taken\nfrom waters under State jurisdiction. P. maginatus and P. pencillatus are taken in nearly equal\nnumbers in trap samples around the island of Oahu. However, the species composition or the\nmagnitude of the subsistence, recreational and commercial catch is not known. In America\nSamoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam the species composition or the magnitude of the\nsubsistence, recreational and commercial catch is also unknown.\nIn Hawaii adult spiny lobsters are typically found on rocky substrate in well protected areas, in\ncrevices and under rocks. Unlike many other species of Panulirus, the juveniles and adults of P.\nmarginatus are not found in separate habitat apart from one another. Juvenile P. marginatus\nrecruit directly to adult habitat; they do not utilize separate shallow water nursery habitat apart\nfrom the adults as do many Palinurid lobsters. Similarly, juvenile and adult P. pencillatus also\nshare the same habitat. P. marginatus is found seaward of the reefs and within the lagoons and\natolls of the islands.\nThe reported depth distribution of P. marginatus is 3-200 m. While this species is found down to of\ndepths of 200 m it usually inhabits shallower waters. P. marginatus is most abundant in waters\n90 m or less. Large adult spiny lobsters are captured at depths as shallow as 3 m.\nIn the southwestern Pacific spiny lobsters are typically found in association with coral reefs. Coral\nreefs provide shelter as well as a diverse and abundant supply of food items. Panulirus pencillatus reef\ninhabits the rocky shelters in the windward surf zones of oceanic reefs and moves on to the\nflat at night to forage.\nVery little is known about the planktonic phase of the phyllosoma larvae of Panulirus marginatus.\nThe oceanographic and physiographic features that result in the retention of lobster larvae within\nthe Hawaiian archipelago are poorly understood. Evidence suggests that fine scale oceanographic\nfeatures, such as eddies and currents, serve to retain phyllosoma larvae within the Hawaiian Island\nchain. While there is a wide range of lobster densities between banks within the NWHI, the spatial\ndistribution of phyllosoma larvae appears to be homogenous (Polovina and Moffitt 1995).\nTo reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species\nand life stages, the Council has designated EFH for crustacean species assemblages (Table 4.3.c).\nThe species complex designations are spiny and slipper lobsters and Kona crab. The designation\nof these complexes is based upon the ecological relationships among species and their preferred\nhabitat. For a broader description of the life history and habitat utilization patterns of individual\nCMUS see Appendix 3.\n49","Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus), Spiny\nSpiny and Slipper Lobster Complex\nlobster (P. penicillatus, P. sp.), Ridgeback slipper\nlobster (Scyllarides haanii), Chinese slipper lobster\n(Parribacus antarticus)\nKona crab (Ranina ranina)\nKona Crab\nTable 4.3.c: Species complexes for crustacean management unit species\nAt present, there is not enough data on the relative productivity of different habitats of CMUS to\ndevelop EFH designations based on Level 3 or Level 4 data. There is little data concerning growth\nrates, reproductive potentials and natural mortality rates at the various life history stages. The\nrelationship between egg production, larval settlement and stock recruitment is also poorly\nunderstood. Although there is a paucity of data on the preferred depth distribution of phyllosoma\nlarvae in Hawaii, the depth distribution of phyllosoma larvae of other species of Panulirus\ncommon in the Indo-Pacific region has been documented. Later stages of panulirid phyllosoma\nlarvae have been found at depths between 80-120 m. For these reason the Council designated\nEFH for spiny lobster larvae as the water column from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ\ndown to a depth of 150 m. The EFH for juvenile and adult spiny lobster is designated as the\nbottom habitat from the shoreline to a depth of 100 m.\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern\nResearch indicates banks with summits less than 30 m support successful recruitment of juvenile\nspiny lobster while those with summit deeper than 30 m do not. For this reason, the Council has\ndesignated all banks in the NWHI with summits less than 30 m as HAPC. The basis for\ndesignating this areas as HAPC is the ecological function provided, the rarity of the habitat type\nand the susceptibility of these areas to human-induced environmental degradation. The complex\nrelationships between recruitment sources and sinks of spiny lobsters is poorly understood. The\nCouncil feels that in the absence of a better understanding of these relationships the adoption of a\nprecautionary approach to protect and conserve habitat is warranted.\nThe relatively long pelagic larval phase for palinurids results in very wide dispersal of spiny\nlobster larvae. Palinurid larvae are transported up to 2,000 nm by prevailing ocean currents.\nBecause phyllosoma larvae are transported by the prevailing ocean currents outside of EEZ\nwaters, the Council has identified habitat in these areas as \"important habitat.\"\nPrecious Coral Habitat\nIdentification of PCMUS EFH\nIn the Hawaiian Islands, precious coral beds have been found only in the deep inter-island\nchannels and off promontories at depths between 300-1,500 m and 30-100 m. The six known\nbeds of pink, gold and bamboo corals are Keahole Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point, Wespac, Brooks\n50","Bank and 180 Fathom Bank. Makapuu is the only bed that has been surveyed accurately enough to\nestimate MSY. The Wespac bed, located between Necker and Nihoa Islands in the NWHI, has\nbeen set aside for use in baseline studies and as a possible reproductive reserve. The harvesting of\nprecious corals is prohibited in this area. Within the western Pacific region the only directed\nfishery for precious corals has occurred in the Hawaiian Islands. At present, there is no\ncommercial harvesting of precious corals in the EEZ, but several firms have expressed interest.\nPrecious corals may be divided into deep-water and shallow-water species. Deep-water precious\ncorals are generally found between 350-1,500 m and include pink coral (Corallium secundum),\ngold coral (Gerardia sp. and Parazoanthus sp.) and bamboo coral (Lepidistis olapa). Shallow-\nwater species occur between 30 and 100 m and consist primarily of three species of black coral,\nAntipathes dichotoma, Antipathes grandis and Antipathes ulex. In Hawaii Antipathes dichotoma\naccounts for around 90% of the commercial harvest of black coral and virtually all of it\nis\nharvested in State waters.\nPrecious corals are non-reef building and inhabit depth zones below the euphotic zone. They are\nfound on solid substrate in areas that are swept relatively clean by moderate to strong (>25\ncm/sec) bottom currents. Strong currents help prevent the accumulation of sediments, which\nwould smother young coral colonies and prevent settlement of new larvae. Precious coral yields\ntend to be higher in areas of shell sandstone, limestone and basaltic or metamorphic rock with a\nlimestone veneer.\nBlack corals are most frequently found under vertical drop-offs. Such features are common off\nKauai and Maui in the MHI, suggesting that their abundance is related to suitable habitat (Grigg\n1976). Off Oahu many submarine terraces that otherwise would be suitable habitat for black\ncorals are covered with sediments. In the MHI the lower depth range of Antipathes dichotoma and\nA. grandis coincides with the top of the thermocline (ca. 100 m) (Grigg 1984).\nPink, bamboo and gold corals all have planktonic larval stages and sessile adult stages. Larvae\nsettle on solid substrate where they form colonial branching colonies. The length of the larval\nstage of all species of precious corals is unknown.\nThe habitat sustaining precious corals is generally in pristine condition. There are no known areas\nthat have sustained damage due to resource exploitation, notwithstanding the alleged illegal heavy\nforeign fishing for corals in the Hancock Seamounts area.\nTo reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species\nand life stages the Council designated EFH for precious coral assemblages (Table 4.3.d). The\nspecies complex designations are deep-water and shallow-water complexes. The designation of\nthese complexes is based upon the ecological relationships between the individual species and\ntheir preferred habitat. For a broader description of the life history and habitat utilization patterns\nof individual PCMUS see Appendix 3.\n51","Pink coral (Corallium secundum), Red coral (C. regale), Pink\nDeep-Water Precious Corals\ncoral (C. laauense), Midway deepsea coral (C. sp nov.), Gold\ncoral (Gerardia sp), Gold coral (Callogorgia gilberti), Gold\n(300-1500 m)\ncoral (Narella spp.), Gold coral (Calyptrophora spp.), Bamboo\ncoral (Lepidisis olapa), Bamboo coral (Acanella spp.)\nBlack coral (Antipathes dichotoma), Black coral (Antipathis\nShallow-Water Precious Corals\ngrandis), Black coral (Antipathes ulex)\n(20-100 m)\nTable 4.3.d: Species complexes for precious coral management unit species\nThe Council considered using the known depth range of individual PCMUS to designate EFH but\nrejected this alternative because of the rarity of the occurrence of suitable habitat conditions.\nInstead, the Council designated the six known beds of precious corals as EFH. The Council feels\nthat the narrow EFH designation will facilitate the consultation process. In addition, the Council\ndesignated three black coral beds in the MHI-between Milolii and South Point on Hawaii, Auau\nChannel between Maui and Lanai and southern border of Kauai-as EFH.\nHabitat Areas of Particular Concern\nThe Council designated three of the six precious coral beds-Makapuu, Wespac and Brooks\nBank-as habitat areas of particular concern. Makapuu bed was designated as HAPC because of\nthe ecological function it provides, the rarity of the habitat type and its sensitivity to human-\ninduced environmental degradation. The potential commercial importance and the amount of\nscientific information that has been collected on Makapuu bed were also considered. Wespac bed\nwas designated as HAPC because of the ecological function it provides and the rarity of the\nhabitat type. Its refugia status was also considered. Brooks Bank was designated HAPC because\nof the ecological function it provides and the rarity of the habitat type. Its possible importance as\nforaging habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal was also considered. For black corals the Council\ndesignated the Auau Channel as a HAPC because of the ecological function it provides, the rarity\nof the habitat type and its sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation. Its commercial\nimportance was also considered.\n4.3.2 Adverse fishing impacts and conservation measures\nThe Council is required to act to prevent, mitigate or minimize any adverse effects from fishing if\nthere is evidence that a fishing practice is having an identifiable adverse effect on EFH. Adverse\nfishing impacts may include physical, chemical or biological alterations of the substrate and loss\nof, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat and other components of the\necosystem. FMPs must also contain an assessment of the potential adverse effects of all fishing\nequipment types used in waters described as EFH. This assessment should consider the relative\nimpacts of all fishing equipment types used in EFH on different types of habitat found within\nEFH.\n52","The predominant fishing gear types-hook-and-line, longline, troll, traps-used in the bottomfish, fisheries\nmanaged by the Council cause few fishing-related impacts to the benthic habitat of bottom\ncrustaceans and precious corals. The current management regime prohibits the use of\ntrawls, bottom-set nets, explosives and poisons. The use of non-selective gear to harvest precious\ncorals in the MHI is prohibited. The Council has determined that current management time. measures to\nfishery habitat are adequate and no additional measures are necessary at this\nprotect However, the Council has identified the following potential sources of fishery-related impacts to\nbenthic habitat that may occur during normal fishing operations:\nAnchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing\nhabitat.\nHeavy weights and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing\noperations.\nLost gear from lobster fishing operations.\nIllegal fishing for precious corals with tangle nets.\nRemotely operated vehicle (ROV) tether damage to precious coral during harvesting\noperations.\nTrash is sometimes discarded by fishing vessels operating in the EEZ and fishing hardware, The such\nas leaders, hooks and weights, are occasionally lost after becoming snagged on the bottom.\nCouncil determined that the effects of this marine debris on habitat are not adverse. However, the\nCouncil is concerned that marine debris originating from fishing operations outside the Council's\narea may have impacts on habitat. The source of this debris and its impacts are being investigated\nby NMFS. International cooperation will be necessary to find solutions to this broader problem.\nBecause the habitat of pelagic species is the open-ocean water column and managed fisheries be\nemploy variants of hook and line gear, there are no direct impacts to EFH. Lost gear may a\nhazard to some species due to entanglement but has no direct effect on habitat. A possible is impact\nwould be caused by fisheries that target and deplete key prey species, but currently there no\nsuch fishery.\nWhile the Council has determined that current management measures to protect fishery habitat are\nadequate, should future research demonstrate a need the Council will act accordingly to protect\nhabitat necessary to maintain a sustainable and productive fishery in the western Pacific Region.\n4.3.3 Non-fishing adverse impacts and conservation measures\nThe Council is required to identify non-fishing activities that have the potential to adversely affect\nEFH quantity or quality and, for each activity, describe its known and potential adverse impacts\nand the EFH most likely to be adversely affected. The descriptions should explain the mechanisms The\nor that may cause the adverse effects and how these may affect habitat function.\nCouncil processes considered a wide range of non-fishing activities that may threaten important properties\nof the habitat utilized by managed species and their prey, including dredging, dredge material\n53","disposal, mineral exploration, water diversion, aquaculture, wastewater discharge, oil and\nhazardous substance discharge, construction of fish enhancement structures, coastal development,\nintroduction of exotic species and agricultural practices. For a full description of non-fishing\nimpacts see Appendix 5.\n4.3.4 Cumulative impacts\nThe designation of EFH in and of itself will not have any biological impact. However, the\nproposed NMFS consultation process should have an overall beneficial effect on habitats\nimportant to managed fisheries in the western Pacific region. A direct benefit of the amendment is\nthe compilation of information (Appendix 3) on the habitats and life history characteristics of\nmanaged species. This baseline information should facilitate the efforts of the Council and NMFS\nto assess cumulative impacts to EFH and propose measures to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts.\nAdditionally, the review and compilation of the best available scientific data will serve to guide\nfuture research necessary to further describe and protect EFH. Second, EFH designation\nestablishes a framework for NMFS and the Council to cooperatively comment on state and\nFederal agency actions affecting EFH. The comments of these agencies will, in turn, provide more\nspecific guidance on how adverse impacts to EFH can be avoided or mitigated.\n4.3.5 Research needs\nEach FMP should contain recommendations for research efforts that the Council and NMFS view to\nas for carrying out the EFH management mandate. The need for additional research is of\nmake necessary available sufficient information to support a higher level of description and identification\nEFH. Additional research may also be necessary to identify and evaluate actual and potential\nadverse effects on EFH, including, but not limited to, direct physical alteration; impaired habitat level\nquality/functions; cumulative impacts from fishing; or indirect adverse effects, such as sea\nrise, global warming and climate shifts. The EFH research needs identified by the Council are\ncontained in Appendix 6.\nThe NMFS guidelines suggest that the Councils and NMFS periodically review and update the\nEFH components of FMPs as new data becomes available. The Western Pacific Council\nrecommended that new information be reviewed, as necessary, during preparation of the annual the\nreports for the managed fisheries in the region. Designations of EFH may be changed under\nFMP framework processes if information presented in an annual review indicates that\nmodifications are justified.\nInclude Impacts on Fishing Communities\n4.4\nInclude a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment (in the case of a plan or\namendment thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after October 1, 1990)\nwhich shall assess, specify, and describe the likely effects, if any, of the conservation and\nmanagement measures on-\n54","(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or\namendment; and\n(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of\nanother Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those\nparticipants.\n4.4.1 Identification of fishing communities\nThe total land area of the islands within the Council's jurisdiction is about 7,000 square miles. In\ncontrast, the EEZ waters surrounding them encompass nearly 1.5 million square miles, an area\nnearly equal to all other US EEZ waters combined. Fishery resources have played a central role in\nshaping the social, cultural and economic fabric of the societies of Guam, American Samoa,\nHawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands, which today comprise 1.4 million people. The\naboriginal peoples indigenous to these islands relied on seafood as their principal source of\nprotein and developed exceptional fishing skills. Later immigrants to the islands from East and\nSoutheast Asia also possessed a strong fishing tradition. The importance of fisheries in the region\nis recognized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states, \"Pacific Insular Areas contain unique\nhistorical, cultural, legal political and geographical circumstances which make fisheries resources\nimportant in sustaining their economic growth\" (§2 (a) (10)).\nIn contrast to most US mainland residents, who have little contact with the marine environment, a\nlarge proportion of the people living in the western Pacific region observe and interact daily with\nthe ocean for food, income and recreation. While most island residents today no longer depend on\ntheir catches for food, seafood continues to be an integral part of the local diet. For example, in\nHawaii the per capita consumption of seafood is almost twice the national US average and is\ncomparable to that of other Pacific islands.\nFishing also continues to contribute to the cultural integrity and social cohesion of island\ncommunities. In American Samoa, for instance, skipjack tuna, known locally as atu, is an\nespecially important species both nutritionally and culturally. The methods and equipment for\ncatching skipjack tuna have changed, but the fish brought to shore continue to be distributed\nwithin Samoan villages according to age-old ceremonial traditions. One can find similar traditions\nstill practiced in Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. These sociocultural attributes\nof fishing are at least as important as the contributions made to the nutritional or economic well-\nbeing of island residents.\nThe fish resources under Council jurisdiction also support an important private boat recreational\nfishery that targets both pelagic and bottom-dwelling species. It is estimated that in 1996, $130\nmillion in fishing trip-related expenditures occurred in Hawaii (US Fish and Wildlife Service\n1997). Of course, fishermen value fishing over and above what they spend on it. A study\nconducted several years ago asked fishermen what their sport fishing experience was actually\nworth to them in dollar terms; the study estimated the value of fishing trips to Hawaii recreational\nfishermen to be $347 million (adjusted to 1995 dollars) (Meyer Resources 1987).\n55","In each island area within the region the residential distribution of individuals who are\nsubstantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery\nresources approximates the total population distribution. These individuals are not set\napart-physically, socially or economically-from island populations as a whole. This dispersion\nis most evident on the island of Tutuila in American Samoa, where tuna processing has been the\nlargest industrial activity for more than three decades. The canneries themselves are located in the\nvillage of Anua; the shipyard is in Satala; the wharf is in Fagatonga; the fuel facility is in Utulei; all\nand the employees of these various fisheries-dependent facilities commute daily from villages\naround the island.\nGiven the reference in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to the economic importance of fishery\nresources to the island areas within the western Pacific region and taking into account these\nislands' distinctive geographic, demographic and cultural attributes, the Council concluded that and it\nis appropriate to characterize each of these island areas -Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa\nthe Northern Mariana Islands-as a fishing community. Defining the boundaries of the fishing and\ncommunities broadly will help ensure that fishery impact statements analyze the economic\nsocial impacts on all segments of island populations that are substantially dependent on or\nengaged in fishing-related activities.\n4.4.2 Economic and social importance of fisheries\nThe Council has compiled extensive information on the economic and social importance of\nfisheries to each island area. Summaries of this material are presented in the Council's FMPs,\nFMP annual reports and annual \"Value of the Fisheries\" report. Detailed information appears island in a\nwide range of research reports that examine the history, extent and type of participation of and\npopulations in the fisheries of the region. For example, in-depth analyses of the historical\ncontemporary importance of fisheries to the indigenous peoples of Guam, the Northern Mariana\nIslands, Hawaii and American Samoa are provided by Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson (1989),\nAmesbury et al. (1989), Iverson, et al. (1990) and Severance and Franco (1989). The Hawaii Fleet\nIndustry and Vessel Economics project has produced cost-earnings studies of the Hawaii-based and\nlongline fleet (Hamilton et al. 1996) and Hawaii small-boat commercial fleet (Hamilton\nHuffman 1997). Hamnett and Pintz (1996) examine the contributions of tuna processing and\ntransshipment to island economies. A sociocultural study of Hawaii's troll and handline fishery\nhas been conducted by Miller (1996). Clarke and Pooley (1988) provide an economic analysis of\nthe lobster fishery in the NWHI. McCoy (1997) describes the traditional and ceremonial use of the\nsea turtle in the Northern Mariana Islands. Additional detailed descriptions of the fisheries\ngreen in the western Pacific region are presented in volume 55, number 2, of Marine Fisheries Review\n(1993).\n4.4.3 Fishery impact statements\nThe FMPs for bottomfish and seamount groundfish, pelagic fish, crustaceans and precious corals\nfisheries in the western Pacific are consistent with the broad conception of fishing communities\n56","outlined above. Drawing on the research material described in the preceding section, the Council\nhas prepared fishery impact statements that have assessed the likely positive and negative\neconomic and social impacts of alternative management measures on harvesters, processors,\nbrokers/dealers, gear suppliers and seafood consumers dispersed throughout island populations.\n4.4.4 Discussion and conclusions\nThe accompanying regulatory impact reviews for FMPs and amendments submitted to the\nSecretary after October 1, 1990, adequately address the effects of management measures on\nfishing communities in the western Pacific region. However, the Council is seeking additional\ninformation to improve the depth and scope of fishery impact statements for future proposed\nmanagement measures. Current research projects supported by the Council that will assist in\nthese\nefforts include an integration of cost-earnings information for fishery sectors and estimated\nexpenditure patterns into the Hawaii state input-output model; a linear programming model for\nestimating the potential impact of management measures (e.g., area closures) on the commercial, fisheries\nrecreational and charter sectors in Hawaii; sociocultural investigations of the small boat\nfor pelagic species in Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands; an economic\nstudy of the Hawaii charter boat sector; and an updated estimate of the aggregate economic value\nof small boat fishing by recreational anglers in Hawaii. Many of these projects are being\nconducted through the Pelagic Fisheries Research Program administered by the University of\nHawaii-NOAA Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research.\nAreas where additional research is required include an estimation of the value of shark fin\nlandings in the western Pacific region; identification of economic or other barriers that have\nprevented full participation by indigenous island residents in western Pacific fisheries; and cost-\nearnings analyses of small-scale fishing enterprises in the Pacific Insular Areas.\nSpecify Overfishing Criteria and Include Preventive Measures\n4.5\nSpecify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the\nplan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the\nrelationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery)\nand, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is\napproaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and\nmanagement measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery.\nNMFS has provided a number of guidelines and requirements regarding the new treatment of\noverfishing in FMPs (amended Section 50 CFR part 600 [63FR24211-24237]). How the Western\nPacific Council intends to address these requirements is discussed below for each FMP.\nSeveral considerations should be kept in mind regarding the MSY approach to assessing\noverfishing. MSY changes over time due to environmental and other conditions and may not\ndirectly be related to the spawning potential ratio (SPR). SPR is not directly amenable to\n57","producing MSY estimates, which typically require surplus production models. The parameters data of\nsuch models can be highly confounded and produce a wide-range of meaningless values in\nsituations. Environmental variation may have a strong influence on the productivity of a\npoor given stock, such that the estimation of MSY might occur during a particularly good or bad period\nfor the population. The determination that overfishing has occurred if the threshold is exceeded and in\none year may be unrealistic, considering the normal wide annual variation in effort, targeting\nbiological productivity for many fisheries.\n4.5.1 Bottomfish fishery\nDiscussion\nReview of Overfishing\nThe current indicator of overfishing in the FMP is SPR, which is based on CPUE and size-\nfrequency of the catch. This was defined in Amendment 3 to the FMP as \"the relative SPR-an\nindex of the ratio of the spawning stock biomass per recruit at the current level of fishing [SSBR]\nto the spawning stock biomass per recruit in the absence of fishing [SSBR\"]\" (Goodyear 1989).\nSpecifically, a BMUS is recruitment overfished when its SPR is equal or less than 20%.\nA review by Rosenberg et al. (1994) raised questions about the method used to determine\noverfishing based on \"dynamic SPR.\" They concluded that \"dynamic SPR\" is misleading and the\noverfishing definition should be changed to reflect what is actually being calculated (i.e., in terms\nof relative biomass rather than SPR). Kobayashi (1997a) identified discrepancies in the Rosenberg\nreport with regard to overfishing definitions in the FMP. He noted that the report misinterpreted involved\nthe Somerton and Kobayashi (1990) description of the use of SPR and the assumptions\nin calculating SPR, based on CPUEs, as a substitute for a relative biomass measure. Recruitment\nis assumed to be constant, since if it is changing, spawning per recruit could change independently\nof a relative spawning biomass index. The dynamic estimator also has the advantage of avoiding\nthe critical assumption of population equilibrium. Kobayashi (1997a) concluded that there was no\nneed to modify the definition of overfishing in the FMP.\nMSY Determination Criteria\nTo obtain estimates of MSY for BMUS, production models need to be run using a time series to of\nspecies-specific catch-rate data. Contrast in the time series (e.g., catch rates, effort) is needed\ndetermine how the population responds to different impacts and to estimate MSY. However,\nexisting data only allow estimates based on species aggregates. Production models also require an\nestimate of total catch, which is unavailable for areas like the MHI, where a substantial\nrecreational take is not reported. For the NWHI fishery production models would be based on\nspecies aggregates unless assumptions (which are probably unrealistic) are accepted, such as CPUE r and\nq being the same for all species. Even SPR estimates for the NWHI are based on aggregate the\ndata, as there are no data for \"species targeted trips.\" A recent estimate of bottomfish MSY for\n58","Hawaiian archipelago is 1,103,000 lb compared to current reported annual landings of 732,000\nlb.\nIn 1998, the Council determined that in Hawaii the overfishing threshold (e.g., SPR information, proxy)\nJuly be applied archipelago-wide, based on preliminary genetic results and related the\nshould supporting archipelago-wide bottomfish stocks. This is consistent with managing SPR values\nstrongly stock throughout its range. When calculated archipelago-wide, the sub-threshold for\ncertain MHI species are well above the 20% level indicative of overfishing.\nDetermination of SPR Proxy for Overfishing Threshold\nKobayashi and Moffitt (1998) conducted an analysis to estimate spawning potential for overfishing ratio (SPR)\nthresholds for bottomfish, consistent with the new national standard guidelines\nmandate the use of MSY as the point defining overfishing. For Hawaii's deep-water\nthat bottomfish, SPR is calculated annually by NMFS as part of the Council's annual report of for the\nbottomfish and seamount groundfish fishery. SPR is defined as the current amount\noutput expressed as a percentage of that amount present in a virgin unfished SPR\nreproductive (Goodyear 1993). Various proxies and assumptions are used to estimate data from from a\npopulation commercial CPUE data from HDAR catch reports and commercial size frequency auction in\ncooperative NMFS/HDAR monitoring program at the United Fishing Agency\nHonolulu.\nTo be compatible with the new guidelines, it was necessary to determine the level of SPR To and\nmortality rate coincident with the highest level of long-term sustainable yield.\nfishing accomplish this task, an age-structured computer simulation model was configured life to mimic a\nbottomfish population, given estimates of growth, natural mortality and other history\ncharacteristics like size/age at sexual maturity. The model was parameterized for three species of\nprimary commercial and management interest: opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus), onaga\n(Etelis coruscans) and ehu (Etelis carbunculus).\nAn empirically derived relationship was used to specify the natural mortality rate parameter relationship (M)\nfor each of the species. Ralston (1987) presented regression formulas for a proposed\nthe von-Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k) and M. The linear regression formula was\nbetween M=0.0189+2.06k and the functional regression formula was M=-0.0666+2.52k. The two predicted\nnatural mortality rates were averaged and summarized as follows:\nNatural mortality rate M\nGrowth parameter k\nMajor Species\n0.55\n0.25\nOpakapaka\n0.30\n0.14\nOnaga\n0.35\n0.16\nEhu\nSizes at entry for these species were estimated from a large sample of commercial fish size data\nover the past decade as converted to length-frequency distributions (Figure 4.5.a). Size at entry\n59","depends on the underlying population size frequency and the size-selective characteristics of the\nfishing gear, termed the gear selection curve. Size-at-entry estimates can be further confounded by\nsize/age segregation by the fish into different depths or habitats, changes in fish behavior and\nsize-dependent targeting/discarding/marketing by the fishermen. Probable sizes at entry are within\n60","6\nOpakapaka\n(n=260,029)\n5\n4\n3\n2\n1\n75\n80\n70\n0\n65\n60\n55\n50\n45\n35\n40\n30\n25\n20\nFork Length (cm)\n4\nOnaga\n(n=166,655)\n3\n2\n1\n85\n90\n80\n0\n75\n70\n60\n65\n55\n50\n45\n40\n35\n25\n30\n20\nFork Length (cm)\n7\nEhu\n(n=113,651)\n6\n5\n4\n3\n2\n1\n70\n65\n0\n60\n55\n50\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\nFork Length (cm)\nFigure 4.5.a: Length frequency distributions from UFA auction monitoring program;\nVertical dotted lines indicate range of size at entry used for reference point estimation\n61","the 30-40 cm fork-length (FL) range for opakapaka and onaga and within the 25-30 cm FL range\nfor ehu.\nThe model used a constant level of recruitment and evaluated scenarios with size at entry ranging\nfrom 25 to 50 cm FL and fishing mortality rate ranging from 0.05 to 0.80. All possible\ncombinations of these variables were used in the model to generate equilibrium condition used output. to\nYield recruit (YPR) and SPR were output for each combination, and these data were linear\nper Figures 4.5.b-d, which show contours of SPR overlain by black/gray shaded\ngenerate representing the maximum YPR at a given size at entry (also termed F-max lines). dashed SPR at\nregions or below 20% is shaded, and estimated ranges of size at entry are shown by horizontal\nlines.\nrecruitment is nonconstant and it is assumed that a spawner-recruit function applies at <20%\nIf SPR (i.e., population at recruitment overfished level), then all shaded regions are nonexistent, in\nthe sense that at these combinations of size at entry and fishing mortality rate, diminishing\nrecruitment will eventually crash the populations. Assuming that recruitment is constant at or\nabove 20% SPR appears to be more consistent with a precautionary approach than assuming that\nrecruitment will systematically increase with increases in population biomass. A\nconstant-recruitment model would appear to be more conservative, particularly with regard to\nstock rebuilding.\nstars and lines on the plots represent an exploratory attempt to blend the characteristics used of a\nThe production model with a more formal age-structured model. Since production modeling model. is That to\nestimate MSY directly, one of its characteristics was used to drive an age-structured half of the\ncharacteristic is that production models estimate MSY to be at a point where exactly model\ncarrying capacity biomass is remaining in the population. An age-structured half of was its\noriginal configured and fishing mortality was applied until the population biomass was exactly were\noriginal unfished amount. SPR and the fishing mortality rate corresponding to this point\nand this process was repeated for other values of size at entry. These age-structure\nrecorded, derived values of SPR at MSY tend to be higher, thus more conservative or precautionary, be than\nthe corresponding SPR at maximum YPR. Therefore, age-structured reference points may\nuseful than the YPR-based SPRs, since they may reflect some of the important\nmore density-dependent characteristics of population dynamics. Thus the more complex age-structured SPR\nmodel allows a detailed \"snapshot\" of the population to be made at this point (e.g.,\ncalculation), something not easily calculated with a simple biomass model.\nSuggested species-specific threshold reference points consistent with the new overfishing\nguidelines are summarized in Table 4.5.a, using an average of the F-max and 50% biomass\nreference points. Depending on size at entry, SPR proxies for minimum stock size thresholds 14%\n(MSST) at MSY would range from approximately 13% to 18% for opakapaka, 10% to the two for\nand 33% for ehu. These ranges were determined by averaging SPR values along\nonaga yield curves for the range of size at entry. Using onaga, for example, the starred line (age-\nstructured model) intersects the 40 cm size at entry line at 16% SPR and the MSY curve intersects\n62","Min. Stock Size Threshold\nMax. FMSY\nEntry Size\nCommon Species\nMSY Proxy (%SPR range)\nSPR=20% (13-18)\n0.44-0.69\n30-40 cm\nOpakapaka\nSPR=20% (10-14)\n0.17-0.20\n30-40 cm\nOnaga\nSPR=33%\n0.26-0.33\n25-30 cm\nEhu\nTable 4.5.a: Biological reference points relative to overfishing for common Hawaii\nbottomfish\nthis line at 3% SPR, which average to 10% SPR; at the 30 cm entry size limit, the starred line\nintersects at 23% and the MSY curve intersects at 5%, which average to 14% SPR; the SPR proxy\nfor onaga MSST thus ranges from 10% to 14% (Figure 4.5.b). For ehu the average of the two\nmethods for the upper size limit and that for the lower size limit both approximate 33% SPR, thus\nno range is listed. These interspecific differences are consistent with what is known about their\nlife histories. For example, onaga does not reach sexual maturity until 66 cm FL, while ehu\nmatures at approximately 30 cm FL. Maximum fishing mortality thresholds (MFMT or FMSY) are\nestimated from Figures 4.5.b-d, where SPR contours for MSST intersect the minimum-maximum\nentry size lines, to be 0.44-0.69 for opakapaka, 0.17-0.20 for onaga, and 0.26-0.33 for ehu. The\nFMSY range for ehu are the F values corresponding to the average F-max and 50% biomass\nreference points; the range for opakapaka and onaga are the F values corresponding to an the SPR\nthreshold of 20%, since the average F-max and 50% biomass reference points fall below\nrecruitment overfishing threshold. Threshold SPR proxy values for opakapaka and onaga will\nessentially default back to the 20% SPR recruitment overfishing value. The ehu threshold value\nrepresents an average of the two approaches used in the analysis. A precautionary approach could\nallow a buffer for these threshold values by setting a target level slightly higher until the precision\nand accuracy of the proxy estimator are better understood. A better understanding of size at entry\nand the natural mortality rate is also needed to improve these results.\n63","Opakapaka SPR contours and maximum yield curve at M=0.55\n50\n45\n40\nO\n35\n30\n0.8\n0.7\n25\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\nFishing mortality rate\nSPR contours and maximum yield per recruit curve at fixed size at entry, this is file ypr 1A66.pe\nGMT 26 09:40\nFigure 4.5.b: Modeling results for opakapaka; contours of SPR overlain by black/gray\nshaded linear regions represent the maximum YPR at a given size at entry (F-max lines);\nSPR at or below 20% is shaded; estimated ranges of size at entry are shown by horizontal\nlines; vertical lines denote F reference points; stars and lines attempt to blend the\ncharacteristics of a production model with a age-structured model\n64","Onaga SPR contours and maximum yield curve at M=0.30\n50\n45\n40\nitc\n35\n30\n0.8\n25\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\nFishing mortality rate\nJun 26 09:40 SPR sontours and yield per recruit surve at fised stew at entry, this be file ypr1 830.pe\nGMT\nFigure 4.5.c: Modeling results for onaga; contours of SPR overlain by black/gray shaded\nlinear regions represent the maximum YPR at a given size at entry (F-max lines); SPR at or\nbelow 20% is shaded; estimated ranges of size at entry are shown by horizontal lines;\nvertical lines denote F reference points; stars and lines attempt to blend the characteristics\nof a production model with a age-structured model\n65","Ehu SPR contours and maximum yield curve at M=0.35\n60\n50\n50\n60\n45\n40\n40\n30\n25\n35\n20\n30\n15\n0.8\n25\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\nFishing mortality rate\nSPA contours and maximum yield per recruit curve at fixed size at entry, this is file ypr1C36.pe\nJun 26 09:40\nGMT\nFigure 4.5.d: Modeling results for ehu; contours of SPR overlain by black/gray shaded\nlinear regions represent the maximum YPR at a given size at entry (F-max lines); SPR at or\nbelow 20% is shaded; estimated ranges of size at entry are shown by horizontal lines;\nvertical lines denote F reference points; stars and lines attempt to blend the characteristics\nof a production model with a age-structured model\n66","Measures to Prevent Overfishing\nThe FMP already includes a number of measures, or control rules, aimed at preventing\noverfishing. These include a moratorium on the harvest of NWHI seamount armorhead, the\nprohibition of destructive fishing methods, a limited entry system in the NWHI and a recruitment\noverfishing threshold of 20% SPR.\nMeasures to Rebuild Overfished Stocks\nThe Council was notified by NMFS in September 1997, as part of a national listing, that\narmorhead, MHI onaga and MHI ehu are overfished and that MHI hapuupuu is approaching an\noverfished condition. This determination was based on SPR values in the latest bottomfish annual\nreport that were below or near the 20% threshold, under the current definition for recruitment\noverfishing. No other BMUS from any part of the western Pacific region was listed as overfished\nor threatened.\nSPR values obtained at Colahan Seamount for armorhead stocks have been shown to correlate\nwell with values from Hancock Seamount and can be used as a proxy value. Armorhead stocks\noutside the US EEZ experienced a short pulse in recruitment in 1992. However, this did not\ncontinue in 1993, indicating a collapsed fishery. The Council extended the moratorium prohibiting\nfishing for seamount groundfish (pelagic armorhead) for another six years (from August 1998). In\nJanuary 1998, the NMFS SW Regional Administrator informed the Council that no further action\nis required to rebuild the stock.\nBased on preliminary results of recent genetic analyses supporting archipelago-wide stock\nboundaries for onaga and ehu, the Council concluded that it is more appropriate biologically to\nassess overfishing only on a archipelago-wide basis in Hawaii. NMFS simulation modeling of\nlarval drift also suggests considerable genetic exchange between the NWHI and MHI, further\nstrengthening the single genetic stock hypothesis for bottomfish in the Hawaiian archipelago. This\nis a refinement of previous assessments based on geo-political sub-management areas-MHI,\nMau Zone, Hoomalu Zone-that had no biological basis. Consistent with this determination, the\n1997 Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries Annual Report of the western Pacific region\nconcludes that none of the five BMUS for which SPR values can be calculated have SPR values\nbelow the 20% threshold that defines recruitment overfishing under the FMP. Consequently, the\nCouncil has requested that NMFS remove MHI onaga, ehu and hapuupuu from the national list of\noverfished or stressed species.\nHowever, the Council also recognizes that onaga and ehu are locally depleted in the MHI, where\nabout 80% of the fishery occurs in state waters. In June 1998, the State of Hawaii implemented\nrules under a new bottomfish management plan, mainly to close 20% of the fishing grounds in the\nMHI and also to restrict certain gear and impose non-commercial bag limits. NMFS Honolulu\nLaboratory staff modeled a recovery scenario for MHI onaga SPR based on reduced fishing\nmortality through closed areas. Recovery to 20% SPR in 10 years was found to be possible and\n67","reasonably feasible under the state's plan that closes 20% of the fishing grounds, under certain\nassumptions (Kobayashi 1997b). While acknowledging the value of the state's plan to restore\nthese locally depleted species in the MHI, the Council continues to consider various options to\nfurther assist the state in this effort. Federal assistance with monitoring and enforcement could\nimprove the effectiveness of the state's regulations. The Council is currently considering\ndelegating authority to the state, under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act (Sec.\n306[a][3][B]), to manage bottomfish in the Federal EEZ of the MHI, so the state can enforce its\nrules in all MHI waters.\nIf biological overfishing should actually be determined for any BMUS, then the Council will take\nappropriate action to rebuild any such stocks to healthy levels. A variety of catch and effort\nreduction measures may be considered.\nConclusions\nPreferred Alternative\nThe main control rule in the NWHI bottomfish fishery is a limited entry system. Minimum stock\nsize threshold was determined by SPR proxy to range from 20% to 33% for bottomfish, based on\nan analysis of common Hawaiian species. Maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY was\ndetermined as F=0.17-0.69 for bottomfish. Information is insufficient to quantify a value for OY\nat this time, however, a precautionary approach could be to allow a buffer for these MSY\nthreshold values by setting a target level slightly higher until the precision and accuracy of the\nproxy estimator, and information on social, economic and ecological factors are better known.\nOther Alternatives\nThe \"no action\" alternative would not be responsive to the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nSome alternative control rules include constant catch, constant fraction of biomass and constant\nescapement. Other alternatives to specifying MSY, MFMT and MSST basically follow those\ndescribed in Restrepo et al. (1998). Alternatives for determining MSY by MFMT include FSPR=20-\nFMSY=M and F0.1 Alternatives for MSST include BMsy=0.4-0.5B However, the preferred\n40% alternative was selected because it best meets the various objectives of the Magnsuson-Stevens\nAct.\nRebuilding Plans\nIn contrast to the above mentioned determination, results from recent genetic analyses and related\nstudies, supporting archipelagic stock ranges, indicate that no BMUS are overfished based on\neither a recruitment-based or MSY-based definition of overfishing. Concurrent with the required\nchange in definition of overfishing from a SPR-based threshold to a MSY-based threshold,\noverfishing (based on MSY or its SPR proxy) is now calculated based on the stock as a unit\nthroughout its range, as determined by the best available information. Existing measures in the\n68","FMP are also sufficient to prevent overfishing at this time. If any stock would in the future be\ndetermined to be overfished the Council would implement measures to rebuild the stock. The\nrebuilding plan would consider estimates of BMSY, a maximum rebuilding time-frame, a rebuilding\ntrajectory and transition to post-rebuilding management.\nData Needs\nAdditional scientific data needs for the bottomfish fishery include 1) CPUE data for species\ntargeted trips in the NWHI fishery; 2) improved estimates of the size at entry and natural mortality\nrate to obtain a more reliable MSY proxy; 3) estimated MSY-based overfishing thresholds, or\nproxies, for BMUS in American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands; 4) monitoring\nand evaluation of the state's management plan for closed areas to restore locally depleted\nbottomfish in the MHI; and 5) detailed information on economic, social and ecological factors to\nquantify OY.\n4.5.2 Pelagics fishery\nDiscussion\nReview of Overfishing\nThe FMP includes a discussion of consistency with the requirement to prevent overfishing of\nPMUS while achieving OY. To determine biological limitations and the health of the stocks the\nbest estimates of MSY at that time (1987) were provided for stocks throughout their Pacific range.\nThe FMP also notes that any level of fishing on migratory Pacific pelagic species likely to occur\nin the US EEZ cannot appreciably affect the overall condition of the stocks and will not\nsignificantly contribute to overfishing. It was concluded that a nonnumeric definition of OY\nshould be used since 1) limiting catches in the EEZ will not affect stock conditions, 2) annual\navailability of fish in the EEZ is highly variable and unpredictable, 3) only a small but unknown\nfraction of the PMUS population occurs in the EEZ at a time, and 4) there are no known economic\nor social objectives that warrant a direct allocation. The FMP thus defines OY as the amount of\neach PMUS that will be caught by domestic and foreign vessels fishing in the EEZ in accordance\nwith the measures contained in the plan. The FMP also states that management of a stock (or\ninterrelated stocks) should be as a unit throughout its range. The domestic annual harvest (DAH)\nand total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) are defined in nonnumeric terms.\nIn 1991, Amendment 1 to the FMP revised the definition of OY to be the amount of pelagic fish\nthat can be harvested by domestic and foreign vessels in the EEZ of each island area without\ncausing \"local overfishing\" or \"economic overfishing\" and without significantly contributing to\n\"growth overfishing\" or \"recruitment overfishing\" on a stock-wide basis. Local overfishing can\noccur when fish are removed from local waters at a faster rate than they can be replaced by new\nrecruits entering from more distant areas. OY is MSY as modified by relevant socioeconomic\nfactors, ecological considerations and fishery biological constraints to provide the greatest long-\n69","benefits to the nation. Amendment 1 also established a measurable definition of recruitment the\nterm overfishing as \"a harvest rate that is not consistent with a program established to maintain\nor stock above the minimum level of SPR and incapable of achieving OY.\" Billfish, 0.20.\nspecies mahimahi and wahoo are considered overfished when their SPR is less than or equal to The\nOceanic sharks are considered overfished when their SPR is less than or equal to 0.35. the FMP\ndefines overfishing of a PMUS as a harvest rate not consistent with a program to maintain\nstock above the minimum SPR level and achieve OY. Amendment 6, which added tunas as\nPMUS to the FMP, defined overfishing for tunas and related stocks as SPR less than or equal to\n0.20.\nAmendment 7 notes that a meaningful definition of OY must recognize the impact of all vessels in\nfish anywhere throughout the range of PMUS stocks in the Pacific. It is unlikely that yield\nthat US EEZ would decline due to local fishing, as migration and recruitment from the high seas and\nis\nthe considerable. However, local effort would eventually start to decline upon market saturation\ndecreases. The amendment revised the definition of OY as follows: \"OY is the amount of\nprice each management unit species or species complex that can be harvested by domestic and foreign\nfishing vessels in the EEZ and adjacent waters to the extent regulated by the FMP without without causing\n'local overfishing' or 'economic overfishing' within the EEZ of each island area, and a\ncausing or significantly contributing to 'growth overfishing' or 'recruitment overfishing' on\nstock-wide basis\".\nSPR-based overfishing definition assesses the status of the current spawning\nThe existing compared to that of an unfished population. Migratory Pacific pelagic species are subject\npotential significant international fishing pressure outside the US domestic EEZ. Assessment and\nto of overfishing requires a concerted international effort. Rosenberg et al. (1994)\nprevention concluded that the Council's overfishing definition is ambiguous since it could be related to either\nmaximum harvest rate or a minimum biomass (current spawning biomass compared to\na unexploited spawning biomass). However, they concluded that a preferable alternative may not is be\navailable and suggested that it could be clarified by indicating which of the two alternatives\nbeing used to measure each stock and that further research on the population dynamics of PMUS\nis needed.\nMSY Determination Criteria\nThe definition of MSY as \"an average over a reasonable length of time of the largest catch which\nbe taken continuously from a stock\" is consistent with the initial FMP. The FMP further\ncan stated that, since little information is available on stock structure and condition for mahimahi, lack of\nwahoo and oceanic sharks, estimates of MSY cannot be derived for these species. The data\ncatch, effort and population dynamics precluded the use of fishery production models to\non estimate MSY. For migratory pelagic species MSYs need to be estimated on a Pacific-wide basis.\nReferring to the initial MSY estimates, the FMP states: \"Attempting to finagle meaningful\nestimates of MSY for each MUS which are specific to the 200- mile zone of each widely scattered\n70","American Pacific Island would serve no useful purpose. Doing so would be frustrating and\nfrivolous because of several compelling reasons.\" Main reasons given are 1) they are indeed\nhighly migratory and their abundance in the EEZ can vary greatly from year to year and season to\nseason, and 2) annual catches in the EEZ are only about 1-10% of the total catches of these\nspecies in the Pacific. Therefore, such MSY estimates represent 1-10% of the Pacific-wide\nestimates of MSY for these species. MSY can also vary with annual variation of prey abundances\nin the EEZ, oscillations of water masses and El Niño events.\nThe NMFS guidelines state that status determination criteria must specify 1) a maximum fishing of\nmortality threshold (or proxy) that does not exceed FMSY and 2) a MSST (or proxy) in terms\nspawning biomass or other productive capacity. Table 4.5.d. includes estimates of the maximum for\nmortality threshold (based on the assumption that FMSY=M), MSST (by SPR proxy\nfishing spawning biomass), estimated Pacific-wide MSY (where known) and stock status for PMUS. F MSY\nis dependent on a number of factors such as the assumed stock recruitment relationship, inter-\nannual and decadal-scale environmental variations, type of fishing gear and geographical location.\nAs it be difficult to accurately identify FMSY for pelagic fisheries, proxies may be used natural (Mace\n1998). may Rosenberg et al. (1994) suggested that most highly migratory pelagic species have\nmortality rates of 0.2-0.4. This may be appropriate for Pacific bigeye, albacore and bluefin tunas;\nhowever, many Pacific pelagics have higher rates. Natural mortality rates of 0.4-1.0 or higher are\nmore appropriate for skipjack, yellowfin, frigate, bullet, slender and dogtooth tunas, as well as for\nStock Status\nEst. MSY(mt)\nMin. BMSY (proxy)\nMax. FMSY\nSpecies (PMUS)\nunknown\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nBlue marlin\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nStriped marlin\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nSwordfish\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nSB spearfish/sailfish\nunknown\nunknown\nSPR=35-45%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nOceanic sharks\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nThresher sharks\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nMackerel sharks\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nHammerhead sharks\nunknown\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nMahi mahi\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nlightly utilized\n700-900,000\nWahoo\nSPR=20-30%\n0.8-1.0\nunknown\nYellowfin tuna\n150-180,000\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-0.4\nlightly utilized\nBigeye tuna\n2.000,000+\nSPR=20-30%\n1.0-1.5\nlightly utilized\nSkipjack tuna\n75-94,000\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-0.4\nlightly utilized\nAlbacore (NP)\n20,000-42,0004\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-0.4\nAlbacore (SP)\nunknown\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-0.4\nunknown\nBluefin tuna (NP)\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nFrigate tuna\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nBullet tuna\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nSlender tuna\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nDogtooth tuna\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.4-1.0\nunknown\nMackerel\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nMoonfish\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nunknown\nOilfish (family)\nunknown\nSPR=20-30%\n0.2-1.0\nOceanic pomfrets\n71","Table 4.5.d: Estimates of maximum fishing mortality threshold (FMSY), MSST (BMSY),\nPacific-wide MSY and stock status for Pacific PMUS [Sources: 1J. Hampton (SPC, pers.\ncomm.); 2Miyabe (1991); 3N. Bartoo (NMFS-SWFC, pers. comm.); 4Yeh and Wang (1991)]\nmahimahi, wahoo and mackerel. Maximum FMSY for the other PMUS, where M is largely\nunknown, are listed as 0.2-1.0 in the table.\nA reasonable proxy for MSST is 20-30% of the stocks virgin spawning biomass (Caddy 1998).\nThis level has been assigned as a default to prevent overfishing, until more precise information is\navailable by species. SPR for oceanic sharks are set at 35-45%, since they have a reproductive\ncapacity that is lower than tuna-like species but higher than coastal sharks.\nPacific-wide estimates of MSY for some PMUS are also listed in Table 4.5.d. While estimates for\na number of Pacific pelagic species have been proposed, most include a large degree of\nuncertainty. The estimate of MSY for most of the PMUS is listed as \"unknown,\" as the database\nis insufficient or it failed to fit the model. For a number of species total catch data may be lacking.\nEstimates of MSY for yellowfin and skipjack tunas are based on recent annual yields, with no\nindication of declining CPUEs. Early estimates for yellowfin and skipjack tunas have proven to be\nas recent production has reached levels well beyond these estimates following the\nwrong, expansion of surface fisheries. Tagging results have been used to estimate biomass and turnover\nrates of western Pacific yellowfin and skipjack tunas.. Estimates of MSY have not yet been\nderived from these studies, but suggest that yellowfin and skipjack tuna stocks are sill under-\nexploited. The MSY estimate for bigeye tuna may be an underestimate as it is based on longline\ndata. which may not fully reflect the different age classes of the stock. North Pacific albacore\ncatches may also be higher than that suggested by Bartoo, as catches have been sustained at\n100-110.000 mt since 1994. At the time the FMP was implemented, several species of marlin\nwere considered fully or over-exploited. However, a more recent analysis (Hinton and Nakano\n1996) noted that Pacific-wide standardized blue marlin CPUE estimates showed an increasing\ntrend in the late 1980s (the latest data available) and speculated that this was due to decreasing\neffective fishing effort for relatively shallow-dwelling blue marlin. However, because Korean and\nTaiwanese longline effort supplanted Japanese longline effort during the past decade, the increase\nin CPUE may not have continued (WPRFMC 1994). Thus, there is still concern regarding the\nstatus of blue marlin, even though there is no conclusive evidence that it is currently overfished.\nDetermination of MSY for an indicator species from a mixed pelagic stock should be based on the\nfollowing characteristics: oldest average age, lowest fecundity and most vulnerable life history\ncharacteristics (e.g., for bigeye or bluefin tuna).\nRecent annual landings for major tuna species average 650,000 mt for yellowfin tuna; 157,000 mt\nfor bigeye tuna; 1,029,000 mt for skipjack tuna; and 95,000 mt for North Pacific albacore (SPC\n1998). This suggests that full exploitation has not been reached for these species; however, stock\nstatus is uncertain for bigeye tuna. Annual landings of blue marlin caught by longline in the\nwestern and central Pacific are stable at 5,000-7,000 mt. Landings of striped marlin are about\n72","12,000 mt, and catches of black marlin have been under 1,000 mt since 1980. Swordfish catches\nPacific-wide have averaged 30,000-35,000 mt per year since 1990, with larger swordfish being\nmore abundant at higher latitudes. Annual landings of swordfish caught by longline in the western\nand central Pacific have been 10,000-14,000 mt since 1980. Fisheries in Hawaii, Japan, Australia\nand Fiji are the primary sources of effort on Pacific swordfish (Lawson 1996).\nAlternative measures of stock status and overfishing that are not necessarily related to MSY\ninclude less data intensive indicators, such as trends in CPUE, range of the fishery, percent mature\nfish in the catch and average size of the catch compared to the size at 50% maturity. A decline\nover time of these indices may suggest decreasing stock abundance. Limiting values that define\noverfishing in these ways need to be determined.\nBased on time series trends in CPUE there are no signs of impacts from fishing for central and\nwestern Pacific stocks of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna (in the western Pacific), south\nPacific albacore, striped marlin (both north and south Pacific), broadbill swordfish and black\nmarlin. However, bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific has shown decreases in CPUE in recent years,\nsuggesting full exploitation in that area. Genetic evidence suggests that eastern and western\nPacific stocks are actually one stock. Fishing impacts on stocks of spearfish and sailfish cannot be\ndetermined as catch statistics for these two species are combined. Full exploitation or overfishing\nof Pacific blue marlin was suspected in the past, but the current status is unknown.\nMeasures to Prevent Overfishing\nBecause US landings account for only a very small percent of total landings of Pacific-wide\npelagic stocks, it is unlikely that domestic fishing effort alone could produce a measurable impact catch\na stock. The FMP includes provisions to adjust effort, if required, through restrictions on\non or the time or area in which effort could be deployed, to prevent any long-term adverse fishing\nimpacts on stocks. Tropical tunas are also rather resilient to recruitment overfishing. The Council 1\nmanages its pelagic fisheries to prevent overfishng and achieve OY, as defined in Amendments\nand 7, to the extent practicable. Prevention of overfishing for PMUS requires full international\ncooperation in assessment and management by Pacific fishing nations. While a limited entry\nprogram is a primary management measure for the main pelagic fishery, Hawaii-based longline, it\nis not a control rule aimed to prevent overfishing, but rather was implemented based more on\nsocial (e.g., gear conflict) and economic (e.g., local market saturation) concerns.\nMeasures to Rebuild Stocks\nNo PMUS is listed as being overfished or approaching an overfished condition. The above\nmentioned measures of the FMP to prevent overfishing, through various restrictions on catch and\neffort, can be used to rebuild any stock that may be determined in the future to be overfished.\nAmendment 7 added to the FMP framework procedures to allow for the rapid adjustment of\nestablished management measures.\n73","Conclusions\nPreferred Alternative\nThe Council manages its pelagic fisheries to prevent overfishng and achieve OY, as defined unit in\nAmendments 1 and 7, to the extent practicable: \"OY is the amount of each management in\nor species complex that can be harvested by domestic and foreign fishing vessels the\nspecies EEZ and adjacent waters to the extent regulated by the FMP without causing 'local overfishing' or\n'economic overfishing' within the EEZ of each island area, and without causing or significantly\ncontributing to 'growth overfishing' or recruitment overfishing' on a stock-wide basis\". in Any\ncontrol rules to prevent overfishing for PMUS will require full international cooperation\nassessment and management by Pacific fishing nations with the US. Methods to objectively\nMSY and assess overfishing for pelagics include non-equilibrium based dynamic\nmeasure production models (e.g., delay difference) or time trends in CPUE, but all must be applied MSY on a\nPacific-wide basis and be based on sufficient data. For only a few species are reasonable\nestimates available. The threshold for FMSY or MFMT, while unknown for most PMUS stocks,\nis\nestimated to be 0.2-1.5 per year, based on FMSY=M. The threshold level for MSST, also not\nknown for most pelagic stocks, is estimated by the proxy SPR=20-30% (35-45% for oceanic\nsharks). The Council maintains that MSY-related definitions of overfishing cannot be applied the to\nthe US Pacific island EEZs given the Pacific-wide distribution of most pelagic stocks and\ncurrent highly uncertain estimates of stock-wide MSYs. Information is also insufficient to\nquantify a value for OY at this time, until social, economic and ecological factors are better\nknown. The Council asserts that the new overfishing provision can best be addressed through US\nparticipation in international management initiatives in the Pacific.\nOther Alternatives\nThe \"no action\" alternative would not be responsive to the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nOther alternatives typically used to specifying MSY, MFMT and MSST are described in Restrepo\net al. (1998). However, as SPR cannot be estimated for Pacific pelagic species, due to incomplete no\ndata or its inability to fit a model (e.g., total catch is lacking for many species), there are\nalternatives available upon which to estimate MSY. The preferred alternative was selected\nbecause it is not possible or practicable to do otherwise.\nRebuilding Plans\nExisting measures in the FMP are also sufficient to prevent overfishing and no pelagic stocks are\nknown to be overfished at this time. If any stock is determined to be overfished the Council would\nimplement measures through various restrictions on catch and effort to rebuild the stock,\naccording to Magnuson-Stevens Act guidelines. Such a rebuilding plan would consider estimates\nof BMSY, a maximum rebuilding time-frame, a rebuilding trajectory and transition to post-\nrebuilding managment.\n74","Data Needs\nAdditional scientific data needs for pelagics fisheries include 1) international efforts to assess\nPMUS stocks Pacific-wide, improve estimates of parameters to determine MSY, or proxies\nthereof, and prevent overfishing; 2) more complete and accuracate population dynamics data on\nPMUS; 3) the determination of limiting or threshold values and the robustness of biological\nreference points that define overfishing through simulation models; 4) estimated MSY from\nresults of tagging studies in the Pacific; 5) improved database of time-series information to\nestimate SPR for PMUS Pacific-wide; and 6) detailed information on economic, social and\necological factors to quantify OY. Obtaining complete information on these needs requires\nestablished and fully functional international organizations.\nCrustaceans fishery\n4.5.3\nDiscussion\nReview of Overfishing\nAmendment 6 to the FMP states: \"Lobster stocks shall be deemed overfished with regard to\nrecruitment when the spawning potential ratio (SPR, measured for a specific fishing area) is 20%\nbelow.\" FMP regulations are based on the principles of OY, i.e., MSY as modified by relevant\nor ecological and socio-economic considerations. MSY is defined in the FMP as the largest average\nannual catch of fish that can be taken from an area on a continuing basis. Amendment 6 defines\nOY as a SPR of 50%. For a fishing level such that SPR is 50%, the increased egg production and\nsurvival of young lobsters at the fished density must be twice the level in the absence of fishing, the if\noverfishing is to be avoided (Goodyear 1989). The lobster fishery annual report also addresses\nstatus of the stocks relative to overfishing for both the NWHI as a whole and for specific banks.\nThe fishery currently operates with a SPR level of about 70%.\nRosenberg et al. (1994) reviewed the overfishing definition for CMUS and concluded that a SPR\nof 20% was a reasonable threshold for the lobster fishery in the absence of stock recruitment\ninformation. However, the report stated that it may not be possible to accurately estimate the SPR\nfor these stocks with available data. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an environmental regime\nshift caused SPR to approach the 20% threshold level.\nAmendment 9 incorporated a new constant harvest rate strategy (control rule) to minimize the risk is\nof overfishing. The annual harvest guideline is determined by the product of N times r, where N\nthe number of exploitable lobsters in the population (derived from a population model with\nparameters for natural mortality, catch and recruitment) and r is a \"constant harvest rate\" (or\nportion of the population that can be exploited). The Council accepted a 10% (maximum) risk of\noverfishing, which corresponds to a r of 13% (i.e., only once every 10 years will this strategy\nresult in a SPR less than 20%). A SPR less than 50% indicates a warning level.\n75","MSY Determination Criteria\nFMP states that, in theory, a fishery can be managed to generate MSY by controlling the time,\nThe location and manner of fishing. Conventional stock assessment methods are typically used to\nderive MSY for established fisheries, using parameters such as catch, effort, size distribution, of sex\nratio of catch, natural mortality, fecundity and growth rates. Because information on many\nthese factors was not available when the FMP was prepared, MSY could not be reliably estimated. crude\nHowever, by accepting a number of assumptions and extrapolating across the NWHI chain, be\nestimates were generated. It was concluded that MSY for the NWHI spiny lobster stock may\n200,000-435,000 lobsters per year. The most productive banks were thought to be Maro\n(MSY=68,000), Necker (MSY=53,000), Gardner (MSY=26,000) and Raita (MSY=8,000). For the\n1998 season, bank specific harvest guidelines were determined to be 80,000 lobsters for Maro,\n70,000 lobsters for Necker and 20,000 lobsters for Gardner.\nAs noted above, Amendment 9 incorporated a constant harvest rate strategy, where annual the yield is\n13% of estimated exploitable stock size. Harvest strategies were compared by varying\nallowable catch target level and assessing the risk of overfishing and other performance statistics\n(e.g., average catch, CPUE, catch variability and SPR). The constant harvest rate strategy\nproduced the highest average annual catches and SPRs (well above the threshold, even individuals at the 10%\nlevel of risk). Other control rules considered were constant escapement (where all is\nabove an \"optimum\" population size are harvested) and constant catch (where annual yield\nconstant). As new data become available the harvest strategy will be revised, as necessary.\nRevised Model Analysis\nDiNardo and Wetherall (1998) reevaluated a lobster population dynamics and harvest simulation\nmodel to identify biological reference points, including MSY, based on data from the NWHI\nfishery. The report describes the equilibrium relationships among the annual fishing mortality rate\ncoefficient (F), relative spawning biomass (RSB), spawning potential ratio (SPR), harvest\ncatch in numbers (C) and catch in weight (Y), assuming various degrees of dependence\n(HR), between recruitment and spawning biomass (R-SB function). In addition, assuming a 13% associated harvest\nrate (as stipulated in Amendment 9), estimates of the risk of exceeding the levels of F will\nwith the various reference points are provided. Risk is defined as the probability that SPR fall\nbelow 20% due to fishing.\nThe structure and parameterization of the model are the same as those underpinning the for 1995\nanalysis of Amendment 9 harvest guidelines, which is currently the best available data\ndetermining MSY. Maintaining consistency with the key harvest guideline decisions made in\nAmendment 9 is also necessary at this time. An analysis is planned for the near future that will\nmodify the model structure, update model parameter estimates and rerun the model. In\nAmendment 9 the estimate of long-term yield considered recruitment as being constant and\nindependent of stock size, as no relationship was known. In the current assessment parameters for\nvaried recruitment are included.\n76","The model used in Amendment 9 to simulate population dynamics and test harvest policy\nalternatives was expanded to incorporate biological reference points relative to overfishing. and mimics This\nage-based, sex-structured, auto-regressive model simulates population dynamics about growth, natural\nmonthly stock dynamics and fishery dynamics, given a set of assumptions and\nmortality, maturation, recruitment and fishing mortality. The model pools spiny model slipper also\nlobster as one species-complex and implies no spatial structure in fishing. The lobster\nthat population parameters and fishing characteristics are specific to spiny defined for (as\nassumes time-series of data on slipper are lacking). Four biological reference points are\nlobster harvest levels: 1) Amendment 9 target level (10% risk of a 20% SPR); 2)\nevaluating Amendment 9 warning level (50% SPR); 3) MSY (the maximum equilibrium yield) level. level; and 4)\nMSST-one-half of the equilibrium spawning biomass corresponding to MSY)\nWith several assumptions about the dependence of recruitment on spawning biomass, the equilibrium\nvalues of RSB (the ratio of equilibrium spawning biomass for a given value of F to\nequilibrium spawning biomass in the absence of fishing), SPR (the ratio of the equilibrium\nbiomass per recruit for a given value of F to the equilibrium spawning biomass per\nspawning recruit in the absence of fishing), HR (the ratio of the annual catch of lobster (in numbers) to Y the\nJuly 1 exploitable lobster population size), C (the annual harvest of lobster in numbers) and retain- (the\nannual catch of lobster in weight) were computed over a range of F values from 0 to 2.0. A\nall fishery was assumed. With additional assumptions about systematic, process and measurement Monte Carlo\nwell as auto-correlation in recruitment innovations, the model was used in a model\nerror, harvest as simulation to estimate risks of overfishing. In the Monte Carlo simulation, the\nmimics the monthly dynamics of the lobster stock, the annual stock assessment process upon\nwhich harvest guidelines are based and the dynamics of the fishery. From these results\nequilibrium values of F, RSB, SPR, HR, C, Y and Y/MSY were identified, corresponding to the\nfour biological reference points for lobster harvest levels.\nExcept for the stock-recruitment relationship, all model processes were density (SB/SBMAX), independent. where\nR\nAnnual lobster recruitment was modeled using a power function: R/RMAX SB\nrecruitment; RMAX is maximum equilibrium recruitment in the absence of fishing; is\nis spawning biomass;, SBMAX is the spawning biomass corresponding to RMAX: and is a parameter If B 0,\ncontrolling the strength of the dependence between recruitment and spawning biomass. =\nrecruitment is independent of spawning biomass. As increases, the dependence of recruitment\nspawning biomass also increases. The R-SB relationships assumed in the analyses are better depicted\non in Figure 4.5.e. The actual R-SB relationship for NWHI lobsters is unknown. Until it is\nunderstood, a reasonable (and conservative) assumption might be that = 0.10, approximately.\nAs\nshown below, when B = 0.10 the SPR associated with harvesting at MSY is approximately the 20%, 13%\nwhich is consistent with the overfishing definition effected when the Council established\nconstant harvest rate control rule. In other words, under these conditions the MSY overfishing 9.\nreference point is the same as the SPR overfishing reference point under Amendment\nThe present analysis is consistent with the Council's preferred harvest rate of 13%. Accordingly, 13%\nrisks of overfishing with respect to the four reference points defined above, assuming a\n77","harvest rate, were computed. Overfishing risk is defined as the probability that in a given year F\nwill exceed the value of F consistent with the reference point.\nThe extracted values of F, RSB, SPR, HR, C, Y, and Y/MSY for the four reference points,\ncorresponding to the various values of B, are given in Table 4.5.e. The equilibrium relationships\nbetween F, HR, SPR, and Y for a range of values of are shown in Figures 4.5.f-1. Estimates 4.5.f. of\noverfishing risk for each of the reference points at a 13% harvest rate are presented in Table\nAs increases the overfishing risks associated with the MSY and MSST status determination\ncriteria increase. However, does not affect the risk with regard to the Amendment 9 target and\nwarning level reference points.\nIf Blevel of 0.10 is assumed for the R-SB relationship, then the maximum FMSY would be 0.72\nand a the proxy for MSST would be SPR=11% (or conservatively default back to the current 20%\nlevel for recruitment overfishing) (Table 4.5.e). A harvest rate of 58% of the exploitable\nSPR population, which would produce a equilibrium catch of 461,260 lobsters, would be expected at\nthese threshold levels. Under the 13% constant harvest rate control rule, under which the fishery\ncurrently operates, Fmsy=0.14 and SPR=65%, which are conservatively above the threshold\nvalues. Risk of overfishing by exceeding the maximum FMSY or MSST thresholds is no greater\nthan 10%, as it is under the current management strategy (Table 4.5.f). For p=0.10, the\nequilibrium relationship between F, HR, SPR and Y can be described as follows (Figure 4.5.h). A\nharvest rate of 0-13%, corresponds to a fishing mortality rate of 0-0.14, as yield increases to\nabout 130,000 kg of lobster, and SPR declines from 100% to about 65%. As F further increases,\nSPR continues to decline exponentially, reaching 20% at about F=0.7, while yield increases\nexponentially and then exhibits a slight decline at F greater than 0.7. Equilibrium relationships the for\nless than 0.10 are similar but differ mainly in that slightly higher yields can be obtained as\nstrength of the R-SB relationship diminishes, for comparable levels of F (Figures 4.5.f-g).\nConversely, for equilibrium relationships where is greater than 0.10, the main difference can be\nseen as a diminishing yield curve, especially at higher levels of F, as recruitment becomes more\ndependent on spawning stock biomass (Figures 4.5.i-1).\nThe Magnuson-Stevens Act stipulates that the target of fishery management should be OY, a\nharvesting objective that takes into account not only biological criteria but social and economic\nfactors as well. However, NMFS has not established standards for the incorporation of\nsocioeconomic data, nor is such information presently available. The Council may choose to\nconsider the average annual yield associated with a 13% harvest rate as a provisional estimate of\nOY, and the current harvest guidelines as an OY harvest policy, until a full analysis of economic\nand social factors is available. If a B value of 0.10 is assumed, the risk characteristics of the OY\npolicy would be indicated by the third row in Table 4.5.f. The Council selected a 10% risk level control of\nexceeding overfishing, with which the level of 0.10 is most consistent. Under the current the\nrule of a 13% harvest rate, the expected SPR is 65%, significantly more conservative than\nMSY threshold.\n78","Biological Reference Point or Status Determination Criterion\nMagnuson-Stevens Act\nAMENDMENT 9\nTarget\nWarning\n10% risk of\nMSST\n50% SPR MSY\n20% SPR\nFishing Mortality (F)\nB\n1.97\n1.25\n0.24\n0.14\n0.00\n1.49\n0.91\n0.24\n0.14\n0.05\n1.20\n0.72\n0.24\n0.14\n0.10\n1.03\n0.60\n0.24\n0.14\n0.15\n0.87\n0,51\n0.24\n0.14\n0.20\n0.75\n0,44\n0.24\n0.14\n0.25\n0.37\n0.21\n0.24\n0.14\n0.50\nRelative Spawning Biomass (RSB)\nB\n0.05\n0.11\n0.50\n0,65\n0.00\n0.07\n0.15\n0.48\n0.64\n0.05\n0.09\n0.17\n0.46\n0.63\n0.10\n0.10\n0.19\n0.44\n0,61\n0.15\n0.11\n0.21\n0.42\n0.59\n0.20\n0.12\n0.23\n0.40\n0.57\n0.25\n0.15\n0.29\n0.25\n0,43\n0.50\nSpawning Potential Ratio (SPR)\nB\n0.05\n0.11\n0.50\n0.65\n0.00\n0.08\n0.16\n0.50\n0,65\n0.05\n0.11\n0.21\n0.50\n0.65\n0.10\n0.14\n0.25\n0.50\n0.65\n0.15\n0.17\n0.29\n0.50\n0.65\n0.20\n0.20\n0.33\n0.50\n0,65\n0.25\n0.38\n0.54\n0.50\n0.65\n0.50\nTable 4.5.e: Equilibrium values of NWHI lobster population and harvest parameters for\nvarious biological reference points or status determination criteria given different degrees\nof dependence of recruitment on spawning biomass (B) (Assumed level of 3=0.10 in bold)\n79","Biological Reference Point or Status Determination Criterion\nMagnuson-Stevens Act\nAMENDMENT 9\nTarget\nWarning\n10% risk of\nMSST\nMSY\n50% SPR\n20% SPR\nHarvest Rate (HR)\nB\n1.22\n0.89\n0.22\n0.13\n0.00\n1.01\n0.70\n0.22\n0.13\n0.05\n0.87\n0.58\n0.22\n0.13\n0.10\n0.77\n0.50\n0.22\n0.13\n0.15\n0.68\n0,43\n0.22\n0.13\n0.20\n0.60\n0.38\n0.22\n0.13\n0.25\n0.33\n0.20\n0.22\n0.13\n0.50\nEquilibrium Yield (kg)\nB\n269,190\n272,470\n191,110\n138,440\n0.00\n238,560\n244,840\n184,290\n135,390\n0.05\n213,560\n221,550\n177,000\n132,080\n0.10\n191,270\n201,030\n169,190\n128,480\n0.15\n172,150\n182,510\n160,820\n124,540\n0.20\n154,740\n165,560\n151,830\n120,230\n0.25\n86,360\n96,432\n95,834\n90,687\n0.50\nEquilibrium Catch (Number of lobsters)\nB\n743,180\n663,250\n308,400\n205,320\n0.00\n610,470\n543,820\n297,400\n200,800\n0.05\n514,400\n461,260\n285,630\n195,900\n0.10\n439,990\n398,630\n273,040\n190,550\n0.15\n377,770\n346,030\n259,520\n184,720\n0.20\n325,560\n302,120\n245,020\n178,320\n0.25\n151,540\n152,140\n154,650\n134,500\n0.50\nEquilibrium Yield/MSY\nB\n0.99\n1.00\n0.70\n0.51\n0.00\n0.97\n1.00\n0.75\n0.55\n0.05\n0.96\n1.00\n0.80\n0.60\n0.10\n0.95\n1.00\n0.84\n0.64\n0.15\n0.94\n1.00\n0.88\n0,68\n0.20\n0.93\n1.00\n0.92\n0.73\n0.25\n0.90\n1.00\n0.99\n0.94\n0.50\nTable 4.5e: (continued)\n80","Biological Reference Point or Status Determination Criterion\nMagnuson-Stevens Act\nAMENDMENT 9\nTarget\n10% risk of Warning\nMSST\nMSY\n50% SPR\n20% SPR\nB\n4\n7\n39\n10\n0.00\n4\n8\n39\n10\n0.05\n6\n10\n39\n10\n0.10\n7\n13\n39\n10\n0.15\n8\n17\n39\n10\n0.20\n10\n20\n39\n10\n0.25\n25\n45\n39\n10\n0.50\nTable 4.5.f. Estimated overfishing risks for various NWHI lobster biological reference\npoints or status determination criteria assuming different dependencies between\nrecruitment and spawning biomass (B) and a 13% harvest rate (Assumed level of =0.10 in\nbold)\n81","1.0\n0.00\n005\n0.8\n0.10\n0.15\n0.20\n0.6\n0,25\n0.4\n0.50\n0.2\n0.0\n1.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0.0\nSB/SBmax\nFigure 4.5.e: Recruitment-spawning biomass relationships\n1.2\n0.3\nYield\nB = 0.0\n1\n0.25\n0.8\n0.2\nHR\n0.6\n0.15\n0.4\n0.1\nSPR\n0.2\n0.05\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5f: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for =0.0\n82","1.2\n0.3\nB= 0.05\nYield\n1\n0.25\n0.8\n0.2\nHR\n0.6\n0.15\n0.4\n0.1\n0.2\n0.05\nSPR\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5.g: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR), and yield (106 kg) for 3=0.05\n1.2\n0.3\nB = 0.10\n1\n0.25\nYield\n0.8\n0.2\n0.6\n0.15\nHR\n0.4\n0.1\n0.2\n0.05\nSPR\n0\n0\n1.6\n0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4\nF\nFigure 4.5.h: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for =0.10\n83","1.2\n0.3\nB = 0.15\n1\n0.25\nYield\n0.8\n0.2\n0.6\n0.15\nHR\n0.4\n0.1\n0.2\n0.05\nSPR\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5.i: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for =0.15\n1.2\n0.3\nB = 0.20\n1\n0.25\n0.8\n0.2\nYield\n0.6\n0.15\nHR\n0.4\n0.1\nSPR\n0.2\n0.05\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5j. Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for =0.20\n84","1.2\n0.3\nB = 0.25\n1\n0.25\n0.8\n0.2\nYield\n0.6\n0.15\n0.4\nHR\n0.1\n0.2\n0.05\nSPR\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5.k: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for =0.25\n1.2\n0.3\nB = 0.50\n1\n0.25\n0.8\n0.2\nHR\n0.6\n0.15\n0.4\nYield\n0.1\n0.2\n0.05\nSPR\n0\n0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\nF\nFigure 4.5.1: Equilibrium relationships between fishing mortality (F), harvest rate (HR),\nspawning potential ratio (SPR) and yield (106 kg) for 3=0.50\n85","Measures to Prevent Overfishing\nExisting measures to prevent overfishing in the crustaceans FMP include gear design restrictions,\ncatch report requirement, limited access system, maximum traps per vessel, 6-month closed season, risk\nannual maximum harvest guideline based on constant harvest rate strategy (13%) and specific\nof overfishing (10%) and area closures encompassing about 16% of NWHI lobster habitat. The the\nCouncil approved a framework regulatory measure for bank-specific harvest guidelines for\n1998 season to prevent depletion of individual banks. The measure is in the process of being\nformalized as an annual bank-specific determination, for banks with adequate data to estimate\nexploitable population.\nMeasures to Rebuild Overfished Stocks\nNo CMUS is listed as being overfished or approaching an overfished condition, as suitably\nprecautionary measures to prevent such from occurring are well established. Amendment 9\nestablished a framework procedure to efficiently implement new measures to further prevent\noverfishing or to rapidly rebuild overfished stocks.\nConclusions\nPreferred Alternative\nThe NWHI lobster fishery operates under a constant risk of overfishing with associated constant\nharvest rate control rule, through a fleet-wide harvest guideline, that has been effective in\nproducing harvest levels that probably approach OY. The strategy is conservative and and risk averse.\nThe risk of overfishing is currently set at 10% whch translates to a 13% harvest rate\nis a more conservative strategy than basing overfishing on MSY or MSST, since it maintains\nsustainable yield well away from the threshold limits. Minimum stock size threshold was\ndetermined by SPR proxy to be 20%. Maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY was\ndetermined as F=0.21-1.25. Under the current control rule the expected SPR is 65%, significantly\nconservative than the MSY thresholds. Therefore the status determination criteria analysis\nmore concludes that a good SPR proxy for the MSY overfishing reference point is the same overfishing\nreference point developed under amendment 9 (SPR=20%). Until studies can be conducted on\neconomic, social and ecological factors of the lobster fishery, a provisional estimate of OY may be\nthe average annual yield associated with the 13% constant harvest rate.\nOther Alternatives\nThe \"no action\" alternative would not be responsive to the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nSome alternative control rules are constant catch and constant escapement. Other alternatives to\nspecifying MSY, MFMT and MSST basically follow those described in Restrepo et al. (1998).\nAlternatives for determining MSY by MFMT include FSPR=20-40%> FMSY=M and FMSY=F 0.1. Other\nalternatives include varying the level for for MFMT and MSST (estimated by BMSY=0.5Bo).\nThese alternative ways to determine overfishing thresholds and OY are considered sub-optimal, as\n86","the present method is supported by the above detailed analyses and results in an even more\nconservative strategy. The preferred alternative was also selected because it best meets the various\nobjectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nRebuilding Plans\nExisting measures in the FMP are also sufficient to prevent overfishing and no stock is listed be as\nbeing overfished or approaching an overfished condition. If any stock would in the future\ndetermined to be overfished the Council would implement measures to rebuild the stock. An\nestablished framework mechanism is available in the FMP to facilitate this process. The rebuilding\nplan would consider estimates of BMSY, a maximum rebuilding time-frame, a rebuilding trajectory\nand transition to post-rebuilding management.\nData Needs\nAdditional scientific data needs for the crustaceans fishery may include 1) rerunning the population\ndynamics simulation model using updated parameter values and a revised model structure based in the on\ncurrent NWHI lobster fishery information, 2) studies of the stock-recruitment relationship\nNWHI lobster fishery, 3) studies on the feasibility of species-specific and area-specific modeling of\nand 4) studies on economic, social and ecological factors in the fishery to improve the estimate\nOY.\n4.5.4 Precious corals fishery\nDiscussion\nReview of Overfishing\nAccording to the FMP, OY is determined by estimating MSY and then downwardly adjusting the\nharvest level based on economic, social or ecological considerations. A strategy of 2-year pulse\nfishing, where continuous fishing pressure is applied until the target level is acquired then stopped,\nwas determined to be the best compromise between minimizing biological risks and maximizing\neconomic benefits. OYs for the Makapuu bed are set as 2-year quotas.\nPink, gold and bamboo corals occur in all six known beds, although only the \"Established\"\nMakapuu bed has been quantitatively surveyed. While it is believed that harvestable quantities exists on of\nprecious corals may exist in other areas of the western Pacific region, no information\ntheir distribution, abundance or status.\nThe current (Amendment 2) definition of overfishing for all species of precious corals is when based the\ntotal spawning biomass is less than or equal to 20% of its unfished condition (SPR<20%), the mean on\ncohort analysis of the pink coral, Corallium secundum. This definition takes into account It\nsurvivorship, yield, age at maturity, reproductive potential and MSY of the coral populations.\n87","also protects 20% of the spawning stock biomass. For beds other than the \"Established\" Makapu'u\nbed more information is needed before the overfishing definition can be applied.\nMSY Determination Criteria\nAccording to the FMP, if recruitment is constant or independent of stock size, then MSY can be\ndetermined from controlling the fishing mortality rate (F) to maximize the yield per recruit\n(MYPR), i.e., MSY = MYPR(g/recruit) X R(recruits/yr)). MYPR is a function of area of the bed,\naverage colony density and natural mortality. If a stock-recruitment relationship exists, recruitment\nis reduced as a function of reduced stock size, and MSY will also be reduced. The assumption of\nconstant recruitment appears to be reasonable based on the robust recovery and verification of\nannual growth rings from a recent resurvey (Grigg 1977).\nAlternatively, the Gulland (1969) method to estimate MSY is especially useful for gold and\nbamboo coral, where information on population dynamics is lacking. MSY is 40% of the natural\nmortality rate times virgin stock biomass (estimated from the product of area of the bed, average\ncolony density and weighted average weight of a virgin colony; MSY = 0.4 X M X B). The\nmortality rate for pink coral (M=0.066) is used as a proxy for other species. Values for species with\nsufficient information to estimate MSY are summarized in Table 4.5.g.\nSpecies (common name)\nMSY (kg/yr)\nMSY (rounded)\nMethod of calculation\nCorallium secundum (pink)\n1,185\n1,000\nCohort production model\nCorallium secundum (pink)\n1,148\n1,000\nGulland model\nGerardia sp. (gold)\n313\n300\nGulland model\nLepidisis olapa (bamboo)\n285\n250\nGulland model\nTable 4.5.g: Estimates of MSY of precious corals in the Makapuu Bed\nThe MSY for pink, gold and bamboo from the six beds in the Hawaii EEZ is about 3,000 kg/yr.\nThe estimated MSY for the Makapuu bed is 1,000 kg/yr. A recent resurvey, which used a newer\ntechnology enabling deeper dives, found the Makapuu bed to be about 15% larger than previously\nestimated,; however, no increase in the MSY or quota was suggested (Grigg 1997). MSY for\nconditional beds has been extrapolated, based on size, by comparison with that of the established\nbeds. Amendment 2 set MSY at 1,000 kg/yr for each American Samoa and Guam (Exploratory\nAreas). No quotas or MSY estimates have been determined for species of black corals. MSY\nvalues have been estimated for a number of the permit areas. A summary of quotas, based on MSY\nestimates, occurs in the code of Federal regulations (Table 4.5.h).\nMSY has also been estimated to correspond to a 30% SPR level to maintain 30% of the spawning\nstock biomass. The Council currently manages at the MSY level. From the mid-1960s to late\n1970s, annual landings from the Makapuu bed averaged 685 kg (below the MSY of 1,000 kg). No\nknown harvesting of precious corals has occurred in the U.S. EEZ for the past 20 years. The\n1997\nresurvey found that pink coral in the Makapuu bed has recovered to 74-90% of its pristine biomass,\nwhile recruitment of gold coral is low.\n88","Name of Coral Bed\nType of Bed\nHarvest Quota\nNumber of Years\nGear Restriction\nMakapuu Bed, main\nEstablished\nPink\n2,000 kg\n2\nSelective only\nHawaiian Islands\nGold\n600 kg\nBamboo\n600 kg\nKe-ahole Point,\nConditional\nPink\n67 kg\n1\nSelective only\nmain Hawaiian\nGold\n20 kg\nIslands\nBamboo\n17 kg\nKaena Point, main\nConditional\nPink\n67 kg\n1\nSelective only\nHawaiian Islands\nGold\n20 kg\nBamboo\n17 kg\nBrooks Bank,\nConditional\nPink\n17 kg\n1\nSelective or\nNorthwest\nGold\n133 kg\nNon-Selective (see\nHawaiian Islands\nBamboo\n111 kg\nNote 1 below)\n180 Fathom Bank,\nConditional\nPink\n222 kg\n1\nSelective or\nNorthwest\nGold\n67 kg\nNon-Selective (see\nHawaiian Islands\nBamboo\n56 kg\nNote 1 below)\nWespac Bed,\nRefugia\n0 kg\nN/A\nN/A\nNorthwest\nHawaiian Islands\nHawaii, American\nExploratory\n1,000 kg per area,\n1\nSelective or\nSamoa, Guam,\nall species\nNon-Selective (see\nother US Pacific\ncombined (except\nNote 1 and 2\nIslands\nblack corals)\nbelow)\nNote 1: Only 1/5 of the indicated quota amount is allowed if non-selective gear is used; that is, the non-selective harvest will\nbe multiplied by 5 and counted against the quota. If both selective and non-selective methods are used, the bed will be\nclosed when S + 5N = Q, where S = selective harvest amount, N = non-selective harvest amount and Q = total harvest\nquota, for any single species on that bed.\nNote 2: Only selective gear may be used to harvest coral from the EEZ seaward of the main Hawaiian Islands.\nTable 4.5.h: Precious coral quotas based on MSY estimates\nMeasures to prevent overfishing\nProvisions of the FMP, as amended, are already sufficient to prevent overfishing. Precious coral\nbeds are classified as Established (with fairly accurate estimated harvest levels), Conditional (with\nextrapolated MSY estimates) and Refugia (reproductive reserves or baseline areas). Exploratory\nAreas are grounds available for exploratory harvesting with an Exploratory Permit.\nFishing in the EEZ of the MHI is limited to selective gear. If fishing is by non-selective methods,\nthe allowable quota is reduced by 80% and the bed is closed when the quota for any one species is\ntaken. Other provisions that help prevent overfishing are fishing seasons;, annual quotas (based on\nMSY);, restrictions on size, harvest area and gear, incidental catches and permit conditions; and an\nannual report that identifies possible overfishing and recommends rebuilding measures. Private\ninterests can assess the production potential of newly discovered and unsurveyed beds prior to the\ndetermination of OY and allowable quotas.\n89","Measures to rebuild overfished stocks\nNo stocks are overfished at this time. If a precious corals stock is overexploited, a long time period\nof zero or reduced fishing mortality will be required for recovery to the MSY level due to life-\nhistory characteristics of precious corals, such as slow growth and long generation time.\nConclusions\nPreferred Alternative\nThe precious corals fishery is already managed based on OY quotas (i.e., control rule), calculated\nby downwardly adjusting MSY estimates. Values for OY quotas are listed in the Code of Federal\nRegulations for the main species of precious corals. The SPR proxy for minimum stock size\nthreshold that corresponds to MSY is SPR=30%, and is already defined as such in the FMP. If one\nassumes FMSY=M then the maximum fishing mortality threshold for MSY is F=0.066.\nOther Alternatives\nThe \"no action\" alternative would not be responsive to the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nOther alternatives to specifying MSY are suboptimal to the approach existing in the FMP. The\npreferred alternative was selected because it best meets the various objectives of the Magnsuson-\nStevens Act.\nRebuilding Plans\nAs no harvesting has occurred for the past 20 years, nearly full recovery has been attained. The\nCouncil determined that the existing FMP has sufficient measures to prevent overfishing of\nprecious corals and that no stocks are overfished, thus no further action is required at this time. If\nany stock would in the future be determined to be overfished the Council would implement maximum\nmeasures to rebuild the stock. A rebuilding plan would consider estimates of BMSY, a\nrebuilding time-frame, a rebuilding trajectory and transition to post-rebuilding management.\nData Needs\nScientific data needs for precious corals include 1) research on the distribution, abundance and\nstatus of precious corals in the Pacific Insular Areas; 2) MSY estimates for Conditional Beds and\nExploratory Areas; 3) MSY estimates for black corals; 4) surveys of Makapuu bed to better define\nthe bed's boundaries, monitor the recovery of corals (particularly gold coral) and determine the\nimpacts of fishing activity should it occur; and 5) improved and updated information on economic,\nsocial and ecological factors to better quantify OY.\n90","REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW\n5.0\nIn preparing this amendment the Council determined that no regulatory actions are necessary in\norder for its FMPs to be in compliance with the new provisions required by the Magnuson-Stevens\nAct. The information compiled for this amendment may be used as a basis for fishery management\nmeasures proposed in the future. While significant ecological, economic and social impacts could\nresult from future management actions, this amendment itself has no such impacts.\n91","OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS\n6.0\nNational Environmental Policy Act\n6.1\n6.1.1 NEPA compliance\nThis amendment adds new Magnuson-Stevens Act definitions to the FMPs of the western Pacific\nregion and addresses the requirement of the Act that any FMP contain provisions regarding\nbycatch (Section 4.1), fishing sectors (Section 4.2), essential fish habitat (Section 4.3), fishing\ncommunities (Section 4.4) and overfishing (Section 4.5). The amendment compiles the best\navailable scientific information pertaining to each of these new provisions and incorporates it\ndirectly or by reference into the Western Pacific Council's management plans for bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish, pelagics, crustaceans and precious corals fisheries. In addition, the\namendment identifies other scientific data which are needed to more effectively address the new\nprovisions.\nIn preparing this amendment the Council determined that no regulatory actions are necessary for\nits FMPs to be in compliance with the new provisions required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\nHowever, the Council concluded that actions related to compliance with the provision concerning\nEFH could lead to future environmental impacts. Therefore, an environmental assessment was\nprepared for the EFH provision.\n6.1.2 Environmental assessment\nPurpose and Need\nFisheries are an important economic, social and natural resource, both nationally and regionally.\nDespite Federal action in many parts of the United States, fish stocks have declined due to a variety\nof factors including loss of habitat. Effective management to protect EFH is necessary to ensure the\nlong term productivity of fish stocks. The Council regards the EFH mandate of the Magnuson-\nStevens Act as a significant opportunity to make a difference in improving the success of\nsustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems.\nThe Act directs the Council to include descriptions of EFH in its FMPs, outline feasible measures\nto minimize adverse impacts and identify measures to conserve and enhance to these areas. In\naddition, the Act establishes a consultation process for Federal agency actions that may adversely\naffect the habitat, including EFH, of a fishery resource under the Council's authority.\nThe Act also requires the Council to identify adverse impacts to EFH but does not mandate any\nregulatory action pursuant to the description of non-fishing and cumulative impacts. The Council\naddresses this requirement in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 of the amendment. Because no regulatory\naction is contemplated by the Council at this time, this aspect of EFH description is not separately\nconsidered in the environmental assessment.\n92","Affected Environment\nDetailed descriptions of the biological and physical environment in which the managed fisheries of\nthe western Pacific region take place are presented in Section 1.1 (bottomfish), Section 2.1\n(pelagics), Sections 3.1-3.3 (precious corals) and Section 4.1 (crustanceans) of Appendix 3.\nAlternatives Considered to Describe and Designate EFH\nWith regard to the description and identification of EFH for FMP fisheries, four alternatives were\nconsidered: (1) designate EFH based on the best available scientific information (preferred\nalternative); (2) designate all waters EFH; (3) designate a minimal area as EFH; and (4) no action.\nPreferred Alternative: Designate EFH based on observed habitat utilization patterns in localized\nareas\nThe unavailability of information on geographic variation in the density of managed species or\nrelative productivity of different habitats, and to a lesser degree species' habitat preferences,\nprecluded precise designations of EFH. However, as outlined in regulations\n(50CFR600.815(2)(c)), EFH can be inferred based on observed habitat utilization patterns in\nlocalized areas. This data represents the best scientific information available.\nThe preferred depth ranges of specific life stages were used to designate EFH for bottomfish\n(Section 4.3.1.1) and crustaceans (Section 4.3.1.3). In the case of crustaceans, the designation the was\nfurther refined based on productivity data. Water temperature was a useful indicator for\ndistribution of pelagic species' EFH (Section 4.3.1.2). Temperature also expresses a depth range; it is\nmany species are confined to mesopelagic waters above a permanent thermocline. However, the\nrecognized that certain species make extensive vertical migrations, in some cases below\nthermocline, to forage. The precious corals designation combines depth and bottom type as\nfor\nindicators, but it is further refined based on the known distribution of the most productive areas\nthese organisms (Section 4.3.1.4). Species were grouped into complexes because available\ninformation suggests that many of them occur together and share similar habitat.\nThis alternative is preferred by the Council for three reasons. First, it adheres to the intent of the\nMagnuson-Stevens Act provisions and to the guidelines that have been set out through regulations\nand expanded on by NMFS. The best available scientific data were used to make carefully\nconsidered designations. Second, it results in more precise designations of EFH at the species\ncomplex level than would be the case if Alternative 2 (see below) was chosen. At the same time it\ndoes not run the risk of being arbitrary and capricious as would be the case if Alternative 3 was\nchosen. Finally, this alternative recognizes that EFH designation is an ongoing process and will set\nout a procedure for reviewing and refining EFH designations as more information on species'\nhabitat requirements becomes available.\nAlternative 2: Broad designation of EFH\n93","The Council recognizes that for some managed species even information on distribution is\nincomplete. Consequently, the Council chose to add a fifth data level, Level 0, to the four outlined\nin the regulations (Section 4.3.). Given the paucity of data for certain species, a conservative\napproach would be to designate all EEZ waters and the benthos from the shoreline to the outer\nEEZ boundary as EFH.\nThis alternative was rejected because it does not use the best available scientific information, as\nrequired by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations.\nAlternative 3: Narrow designation of EFH\nThe regulations (50CFR600.815 (1) (C)) encourage Councils to obtain data at the highest level of\ndetail. As already noted, data at this level are generally not available for fisheries in the western\nPacific region. However, the inference process described above could be used to extend the limited\nhighest level data that is available. The resulting EFH designation would be confined to those\nhabitats or areas that have been shown to generate the highest known level of production.\nThis alternative was rejected because it exceeds a scientifically justifiable threshold for extending\nknown results to unknown conditions. Furthermore, it may not identify sufficient habitat to sustain\nthe long-term productivity of managed fisheries.\nAlternative 4: No action\nThe Council's FMPs include substantial information on the habitat requirements of MUS.\nHowever, the Council rejected the alternative of taking no action because the original habitat\ndescriptions did not adequately address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provision\nregarding EFH. EFH is not described in detail nor is its geographic extent precisely delineated.\nImpacts of the Preferred Alternative\nBiological impacts\nThe designation of EFH in and of itself will not have any biological impact. However, the\nproposed NMFS consultation process should have an overall beneficial effect on habitats important\nto managed fisheries in the western Pacific region. A direct benefit of the amendment is the\ncompilation of information (Appendix 3) on the habitats and life history characteristics of managed\nspecies. This baseline information should facilitate the efforts of the Council and NMFS to assess\ncumulative impacts to EFH and propose measures to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts.\nAdditionally, the review and compilation of the best available scientific data will serve to guide\nfuture research necessary to further describe and protect EFH. Second, EFH designation establishes\na framework for NMFS and the Council to cooperatively comment on state and Federal agency\nactions affecting EFH. The comments of these agencies will, in turn, provide more specific\nguidance on how adverse impacts to EFH can be avoided or mitigated.\n94","Social and economic impacts\nDesignation of EFH will not directly result in significant social and economic impacts. To and the\ndegree that designation, in combination with the NMFS consultation process, enhances\nconserves EFH by minimizing adverse impacts, fisheries may benefit from higher production.\nIn\naddition, healthier marine habitats may benefit other economic sectors, such as marine recreation\nand tourism.\nRelationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity\nThe overall purpose of the amendment is to conserve, protect and restore fisheries and coastal\nenvironments and thus to enhance the long-term health of all living marine resources. The\namendment will not include any short-term uses of the environment that may reduce long-term\nproductivity.\nIrreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources\nThe amendment will not cause any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources as a result\nof its implementation. The amendment required the compilation of information on and preparation\nof maps of the general distribution and geographic limits of EFH for each life stage for specific\nmanaged species. This requirement may result in the conservation of natural resources.\nSummary of Environmental Consequences\nThe amendment implemented the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to describe, identify,\nand enhance EFH for the western Pacific region's FMPs. The establishment of a regional\nconserve information base for making decisions about the management of fish habitat should improve\ncoordination and consultation among Federal and State agencies and the Council in the\nmanagement of EFHs. Implementation of the amendment should result in an improvement in the\nconservation and restoration of fish habitat and fish stocks, which should result in improved\nstability for the fishing industry.\nFinding of No Significant Impact\nBased on the information contained in the environmental assessment and other sections of this\ndocument, I have determined that the proposed alternative would not significantly affect the\nquality of the human environment, and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact\nstatement is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act or its implementing\nregulations. Therefore, a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.\nDate\nRolland Schmitten\n95","Paperwork Reduction Act\n6.2\nThe Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to minimize paperwork and reporting\nburdens whenever collecting information form the public. This amendment will not create any\nadditional record-keeping and reporting requirements.\nCoastal Zone Management Act\n6.3\nSection 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires all Federal activities\nwhich directly affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management\nprograms to the maximum extent practicable.\nEndangered Species Act\n6.4\nThis amendment will not have any effect on any listed endangered or threatened species or their\nhabitats.\nMarine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)\n6.5\nAll fisheries in the western Pacific region are designated as Category 3, meaning that fishermen\nreport interactions with marine mammals, but they are not required to obtain exemption\nmust certificates in order to fish. This amendment does not require a MMPA category redesignation.\nRegulatory Flexibility Act\n6.6\nIn preparing this amendment the Council determined that no regulatory actions are necessary in\norder for its FMPs to be in compliance with the new provisions required by the Magnuson-Stevens\nAct. The information compiled for this amendment may be used as a basis for fishery management from\nproposed in the future. While significant impacts on small businesses could result\nmeasures future management actions, this amendment itself has no such effect. Therefore, a regulatory\nflexibility analysis was not prepared.\n96","REFERENCES\n7.0\nAmesbury J, Hunter-Anderson R. 1989. Native fishing rights and limited entry in Guam.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\nAmesbury J, Hunter-Anderson R, Wells E. 1989. Native fishing rights and limited entry in the\nCNMI. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nCadd J. 1998. A short review of precautionary reference points, and some proposals for their use\nin data-poor situations. Draft paper presented at SPC Standing Committee Workshop on\nPrecautionary Limit Reference Points for Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and\nCentral Pacific Ocean; Honolulu.\nClarke R., Pooley S. 1988. An economic analysis of lobster fishing vessel performance in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA, NMFS Southwest Fish. Cen. Tech. Memo.\nNMFS-SWFC-106.\nDiNardo G., Wetherall J. 1998. Information for setting SFA biological reference points and\noverfishing status determination criteria for NWHI lobster. Honolulu: NMFS. Unpub. rept.\nEverson AR, Skillman RA, Polovina J. 1992. Evaluation of rectangular and circular escape vents\nin the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands lobster fishery. N Am J Fish Manag 12(1):161-171.\nGoodyear CP. 1989. Spawning stock biomass per recruit: the biological basis for a fisheries\nmanagement tool. ICCAT Working Doc SCRS/89/82.\nGoodyear CP. 1993. Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation\nand current use. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci 120:67-81.\nGrigg R. 1976. Fishery management of precious and stony corals in Hawaii. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii SEAGRANT-TR-77-03.\nGrigg R. 1984. Resource management of precious corals: a review and application to shallow\nwater reef building corals. Mar. Ecol. 5(1):57-74.\nGrigg R. 1997. Resurvey of Makapuu precious coral bed, August 21-22, 1997. Unpub. rpt\npresented at the 94th Meeting of the WPRFMC.\nGulland JA. 1969. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment. Pt 1. Fish pop anal. FAO Man.\nFish. Sci. 4.\nHamilton M, Curtis R, Travis M. 1996. Cost-earnings study of the Hawaii-based domestic\nlongline fleet. Honolulu: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. JIMAR Contribution 98-300.\n97","Hamilton M, Huffman S. 1997. Cost-earnings study of Hawaii's small boat fishery, 1995-1996.\nHonollu: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. JIMAR Contribution 97-314.\nHamnett M, Pintz W. 1996. The contribution of tuna fishing and transshipment to the economies\nof American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.\nHonolulu: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. JIMAR Contribution 96-303.\nHinton MG, NakanoH. 1996. Standardizing catch and effort statistics using physiological,\necological, or behavioral constraints and environmental data, with an application to blue\nmarlin (Makaira nigricans) catch and effort data from Japanese longline fisheries in the\nPacific. IATTC Bull 21(4):171-200.\nIverson R, Dye T, Paul L. 1990. Native Hawaiian fishing rights. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nKasaoka LD. 1990. Final report on revising the state of Hawaii's commercial fisheries catch and\nreporting system. Honolulu: Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land\nNatural Resources.\nKleiber P. 1998. Estimating annual takes and kills of sea turtles by the Hawaiian longline fishery,\n1991-97, from observer program logbooks. NOAA, NMFS Southwest Fish Cen Admin\nRep H-98-08.\nKobayashi D. 1997a. Addressing concerns of overfishing definition in Hawaii bottomfish FMP.\nHonolulu: NMFS. Unpub. rept.\nKobayashi D. 1997b. Recovery scenario for onaga SPR using reduced-F and isolated area\nclosures. Honolulu: NMFS. Unpub. rept.\nKobayashi D, Moffitt R. 1998. Determination of Hawaiian bottomfish spawning potential ratio\n(SPR) threshold values. Honolulu: NMFS. Unpub. rept.\nLawson T. 1996. South Pacific Commission 1995 tuna fishery yearbook. Noumea, New\nCaledonia: Oceanic Fisheries Programme, South Pacific Commission.\nMace PM. 1998. Setting limit reference points and definitions of overfishing. Draft paper\npresented at SPC Standing Committee Workshop on Precautionary Limit Reference Points\nfor Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; Honolulu.\nMace PM, Gabriel WL. 1998. Evolution, scope and current applications of the precautionary\napproach in fisheries. Draft paper presented at SPC Standing Committee Workshop on\nPrecautionary Limit Reference Points for Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and\nCentral Pacific cean;Honolulu.\nMeyer Resources, Inc. 1987. A report on resident fishing in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA, NMFS\nSouthwest Fish H-87-8C.\n98","Miller M. 1996. Social aspects of Pacific pelagic fisheries. Honolulu: Pelagic Fisheries Research\nProgram, JIMAR Contribution 96-302.\nMcCoy M. 1997. The traditional and ceremonial use of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the\nNorthern Marianas. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nMiyabe N. 1991. Stock status of Pacific bigeye tuna. Bull. Jap. Soc. Fish. Oceanogr.\n55(2):141-144.\nRalston S. 1987. Mortality rates of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors.\nTropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder: Westview\nPress.\nRestrepo VR, Thompson GG, Mace PM, Gabriel WL, Low LL, MacCall AD, Methot RD,\nPowers JE, Taylor BL, Wade PR, Witzig JR. 1998. Technical guidance on the use of\nprecautionary approaches to implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens\nFishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-\nF/SPO-##.\nRosenberg A, Mace P, Thompson G, et al. 1994. Scientific review of definitions of overfishing in\nUS fishery management plans. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-17.\nSecretariat of the Pacific Community. 1998. Estimates of annual catches of target species in tuna\nfisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean. Working paper presented at the 11th\nMeeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, Oceanic Fisheries Program;\nNoumea, New Caledonia.\nSeverance C, Franco R. 1989. Justification and design of limited entry alternatives for the\noffshorefisheries of American Samoa, and an examination of preferential fishing rights for\nnative people of American Samoa within a limited entry context. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nSomerton DA, Kobayashi DR. 1990. A measure of overfishing and its application on Hawaiian\nbottomfishes. NOAA, NMFS Southwest Fish Cen Admin Rep H-90-10.\nUS Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife\nassociated recreation. Washington: Government Printing Office.\nWPRFMC. 1994. Proceedings of a Workshop to Consider Management of Blue Marlin (Makaira\nmazara) in the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council Area. Honolulu:\nYeh YM, Wang CH. 1991. Stock assessment of the south Pacific albacore by using the\ngeneralized production model, 1967-1991. ACTA Oceanographica Tawanica,\n35(2):125-139.\n99","Appendix 1\nFisheries Data Collection Systems in the Western Pacific Region\nHawaii\nAny person who for commercial purposes takes marine life, whether caught or taken within or\noutside of the state, must first obtain a commercial marine license. Every holder of a commercial\nmarine license must furnish to the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources (HDAR) a monthly\ncatch report commonly referred to as the \"C3\" form.\nEvery commercial marine dealer must furnish to HDAR a monthly report detailing the weight,\nnumber and value of each species of marine life purchased, transferred, exchanged or sold and\nthe name and current license number of the commercial marine licensee from whom the marine\nlife was obtained.\nCatches of bottomfish in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands(NWHI) are reported separately to\nHDAR on the NWHI Bottomfish Trip Daily Log. The Trip Sales Report is completed by\nfishermen after the fish are sold. HDAR staff monitor the Honolulu Harbor and Kewalo Basin\ndocks on a daily basis to collect Daily Logs and Trip Sales Reports. The pole-and-line fleet\nsubmit the HDAR Aku Catch Report. Albacore troll vessels landing their catch in Honolulu are\nrequired to complete a HDAR Albacore Trolling Trip Report.\nThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collects catch data from the Hawaii-based\nlongline vessels through the Western Pacific Daily Longline Fishing Logbook. These vessels are\nalso required to complete a HDAR Longline Trip Report. Data are also collected by NMFS\nobservers deployed on longline vessels principally to record interactions with marine turtles.\nCatch data from the NWHI lobster fishery is collected both by NMFS using the Daily Lobster\nCatch Report and by HDAR using the Crustaceans Trip Report Form.\nHarvests of precious corals in Hawaii are recorded by harvesters on the NMFS Daily Precious\nCoral Harvest Logbook. Harvesters are also required by HDAR to complete a C3 catch report\nform.\nFinally, NMFS administers a market monitoring program. In a cooperative effort with HDAR,\nstaff from both agencies visit the fish auctions administered by the United Fishing Agency (UFA)\nand obtain size frequency and economic data on pelagic fish and bottomfish being auctioned.\nNMFS staff collects data on one selected day each week, while HDAR staff collect data on every\nMonday.\nA1-1","American Samoa\nDaily catches from longline fishing are recorded on the Western Pacific Daily Longline Fishing\nLogbook. Other fish catch data are collected through creel surveys administered by the\nDepartment of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR). During the early 1980s interview data\nwere only collected in the bottomfish fishery from commercial vessels. Since 1985, the Offshore\nCreel Survey on Tutuila has examined both commercial and recreational boat trip catches at five\ndesignated sites. For two weekdays and one weekend day per week, DMWR data collectors\nsample offshore fishermen between 0500 and 2100 hours. Two DMWR data collectors based on\nTau and Ofu collect fishing data from the Manua Islands fleet.\nData on fish sold to outlets on non-sampling days or caught during trips missed by data collectors\non sampling days are accounted for in a separate dealer invoice data collection system. A vessel\ninventory conducted twice a year provides data on vessel numbers and fishing effort.\nGuam\nAn offshore creel survey program administered by the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife\n(DAWR) provides comprehensive estimates of island-wide catch and effort for all the major\nfishing methods used in commercial and recreational fishing. In 1982, the Western Pacific\nFisheries Information Network (WPacFIN) began working with the Guam Fishermen\"s\nCooperative Association to improve their invoicing system and obtain data on all fish purchases\non a voluntary basis. Data from two other fish wholesalers were collected beginning in 1983 and\ncontinued until their closing in 1987. Another major fish wholesaler and several retailers who\nmake purchases directly from fishermen have begun operating since then and are voluntarily\nproviding data to WPacFIN using invoices (\"trip tickets\") provided by DAWR.\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nSince the mid-1970s, the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has\nmonitored the commercial fishery by summarizing sales ticket receipts from commercial\nestablishments. DWF staff routinely distribute and collect invoice books from 80 participating\nlocal fish purchasers on Saipan, including fish markets, stores, restaurants, government agencies\nand roadside vendors.\nIn 1988, the DFW implemented a creel survey program to monitor the boat-based (offshore)\nfishery to provide comprehensive estimates of island-wide catch and effort for all the major\nfishing methods (trolling, spearfishing, handlining, bottomfishing and net-fishing) used in\ncommercial and recreational fishing. The creel survey program was discontinued in 1996 due to\nlogistical reasons.\nA1-2","Uninhabited Pacific Insular Area Islands\nFish caught in the EEZ around Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnson Atoll,\nKingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll and Wake Island by holders of Hawaii commercial marine licenses\nand landed in Hawaii are required to be reported on the C3 form. US longline vessels fishing in\nthe US EEZ around these US possessions must complete the Western Pacific Daily Longline\nFishing Logbook. Charter vessels based at Midway Island complete catch reports administered\nby the US Fish and Wildlife Service.\nUS purse seine vessels occasionally fish within the EEZ around the above islands. The purse\nseiners generally complete a South Pacific Regional Purse Seine Logsheet, although they are not\nrequired to. The logsheet program is designed and administered by the Secretariat of the Pacific\nCommunity (SPC) and the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). Catch and effort data collected from\nthe logsheets are stored at the NMFS SW Regional Science Center and the SPC in New\nCaledonia. Observers are deployed on the purse-seine vessels to monitor compliance and to\ncollect ancillary information such as bycatch.\nA1-3","Appendix 2\nFisheries Data Forms Used in the Western Pacific Region\nAmerican Samoa\nA2-1\nOffshore Survey\nA2-2\nOffshore Participation Form\nA2-3\nDMWR Tournament Data\nGuam\nA2-4\nOffshore Creel Census\nA2-5\nOffshore Vehicle Trailer Participation Census\nA2-6\nInshore Creel Survey\nA2-7\nInshore Participation Survey\nA2-8\nInshore Aerial Survey\nA2-9\nOffshore Agana Boat Basin Survey Map\nA2-10\nOffshore Agat Marina Survey Map\nA2-11\nOffshore survey Boat Log\nA2-12\nOffshore Location\nHawaii\nA2-13\nDaily Lobster Catch Report Codes\nA2-14\nCrustaceans Trip Report\nA2-15\nDaily Precious Coral Harvest Log\nA2-16\nPrecious Corals Sales Trip Report\nA2-17\nFish Catch Report (\"C3 form\")\nA2-18\nNMFS W. Pacific Daily Longline Fishing Log\nA2-19\nLongline Trip Report\nA2-20\nAku Catch Report\nA2-21\nAlbacore Trip Report\nA2-22\nNWHI Bottomfish Trip Daily Log\nA2-23\nBottomfish Trip Sales Report\nNorthern Marina Islands\nA2-24\nOffshore Creel Census Interview\nA2-25\nOffshore Creel Census Participation\nA2-26\nInshore Creel Census Interview\nA2-27\nInshore Creel Census Participation\nA2-28\n1997 San Jose Fiesta Fishing Derby\nA2-29\nCommercial Sales Data\nA2-30\nSouth Pacific Regional Purse-Seine Logsheet\nA2-31\nSouth Pacific Regional Purse Seine Observer Set Details","DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES\nOFFSHORE SURVEY\nINTERVIEW TIME\nINTERVIEWER:\nTYPE DAY: WD. 1 WE/H 2\nDATE:\nCATCH EFFORT DATA FOR ONE METHOD ONLY\nTOTAL CATCH\nHOURS FISHED\nMETHOD:\nNUMBER OF LINES USED\nTroll = 2\nBottomfishing = 4\nAREA FISHED\nTtoll/Bottom =5\nSpear/Dive =6\nHOME ISLAND\nAtule =8\nlongline = 16\nOther = Write in\nWT\nLEN\nWT\nLEN\nS/LB\nDISPOSITION\nNUM\nSPECIES\nSPECIES NAME\nPCS\nWEIGHT\nDMWRD5\nA2-1","OFFSHORE SURVEY PARTICIPATION FORM\nINTERVIEWER\nWE/H WD\nDATE\nSample Area\nNo. Gear\nBoat\nNo.\nTime\nBoat\nBoat owner\n(A,B,C,D,E)\nUnits\nLocation\nFishermen\nLand/Obs\ncode\nA2-2","DMWR TOU RNAMENT DATA\nDATE:\nTOURNAMENT:\n(MM/DD/YY)\nWEIGHMASTER\nWEIGH-IN TIME:\nBOAT NAME:\nBOAT OWNER:\nBOAT CAPTAIN:\nNUMBER OF FISHERS:\nTEAM NAME:\nAREA FISHED:\nNUMBER HOURS FISHED:\nMETHOD:\nNUMBER OF LINES :\nTOTAL TRIP WEIGHT:\nOFFICIAL\nTYPE GEAR\nSIZE\nLENGTH\nNUMBER\nWEIGHT\n(Y/N)\n(RR.IIL.UR)\nGEAR\nMECES\n(POUNDS)\n(CM)\nSPECIES\nNAME OF FISHER\nA2-3","Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resource:\nDepartment of Agriculture\nGovernment of Guam\nInterview #\n1 WD/ 2 WE\nDate\nOffshore Creel Census\nInterviewer\nInterview time\nLanding\nTowing vehicle lic. #\nBerthed(y,n)?\nCharter(y,n)?\nBoat #\nNo. of peopie on board\nhrs.in Area\nMethod\nGear\nNo. guests (charter only)\nfished\nunits\nuse\n1. Trolling\nCloud COVE\nWeather\n2. Bottom(s, d, m)\nWind direction\nspeed\n3. Atulai nightlight\nTyphoon cc-d.\nLunar day\n5. Spear/snorkel\nHig- Sf\nWarnings: Sm craft\n6. Spear/SCUBA\n(y if yes: ? if unknown\nOther (specify)\n3\nType data:\n1\n3\n1\n2\nTotal Weight\nTotal Number\nLength Wt.\nLength\nWt.\nLength\nWt.\nEst\nEst.\nAct.\nCalc.\n(Kg.)\n(mm)\n(Kg\nAct.\n(Kg.)\n(mm)\nSPECIES/Code\n(mm)\nCatch Summary\n1\n2\n3\nCatch Summary\n1\n2\n3\ncalc.\nact.\nest.\ncaic.\n(con't)\nest.\nact.\nMethod\nMethod\nTotal no. fish\nTotal no. fish\nTotal wt. (kg)\nTotal wt. (kg)\nTotal no. species\nTotal no. species\nDisposition\nCatch\nMethod\nremarks\nremarks\nMethod\nremar-s\nTotal no. fish\n% kept\nTotal wt. (kg)\n% sold\nTotal no. species\nBuyer\nA2-4","DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\nDIVISION OF AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES\nOFFSHORE VEHICLE-TRAILER PARTICIPATION CENSUS\nWD\nWE/H\nDATE\nDAY SURVEY: STAFF\nTIME\nNO. VEHICLE-TRAILERS\nPORT\nPORT NUMBER\nAGANA BOAT BASIN\n1\nAGAT MARINA\n2\nMERIZO PIER\n3\nPAGO BAY\n4\nYLIG BAY\n5\nUMATAC BAY\n6\nAGAT BAY\n7\nSEAPLANE RAMP\n8\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\nNIGHT SURVEY: STAFF\nTIME\nNO. VEHICLE-TRAILERS\nPORT\nPORT NUMBER\nAGANA BOAT BASIN\n1\nAGAT MARINA\n2\nMERIZO PIER\n3\nPAGO BAY\n4\nYLIG BAY\n5\nUMATAC BAY\n6\nAGAT BAY\n7\nSEAPLANE RAMP\n8\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n9 (OTHER)\n-\nRevised 1/97\nA2-5","Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources\nDepartment of Agriculture\nGovernment of Guam\nInterview #\nInterviewer\nInshore Creel Survey\nLocation:\nInterview Time:\nWD\nWE\nDate:\nMethod:\n9. Others\n6. Scuba Spear\n3. Gill Net\n1. Hook and Line\n7. Hooks and Gaffs\n4. Surround Net\nBait\nReef Zone\n8. Drag Net\n5. Snorkel Spear\n2. Cast Net\nWeight\nNumber\ncalc\nest\nest\nact\nkg\nact\n.kg\nkg\nmm\nmm\nSpecies\nmm\nNo. Fishermen\nWeather\nStart Time\nCalc\nEst\nType Data\nAct\nClouds\nStop Time\nTotal # Fish\nSurf\nAct. Fish Time\nTotal (Kg)\nTide\nEst. Fish Time\nTotal # Spp.\nA2-6","Inshore Participation Survey\nInterviewer\nWE\nWD\nDate\nLocation\nStop Time\nStart Time\nA.M.\nStop Time\nP.M. Start Time\nSurf\nTide\nClouds\nWeather\nReef Zone\nMethod\n# Gears\n# Persons\nLocation\nTime\nInt. #\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\nA2-7","Inshore Aerial Survey\nInterviewer\nWD\nWE\nDate\nAerial Time\nStop Time\nStart Time\nLanding\nTake Off\nTime Location # Persons # Gears Method Wthr Cloud Wind\nSurf\nTide\nReef Zone\nInt. #\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\nA2-8","Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources\nDepartment of Agriculture\nGovernment of Guam\nOFFSHORE AGANA BOAT BASIN SURVEY MAP (10/96)\nA.M. START TIME\nWE/H WD\nDATE\nA.M. STAFF\nAM SHIFT: circle boars at end of shift\nPM SHIFT: check boars at start of shift\nP.M. START TIME\nP.M. STAFF\nCO-OP\nDREAM CHASER\nSea Spinner 3199\nKikadora 1563\nCasual Affair 1640\nMamuian 2268\n591\n3439\nMagic Girl\n2596\nCesca Lea 1218\nABB\nCIP\nCIP\nKillin Time 3348\n4077\n2286\n2226\n2903\n1882\n2412\nRAMP\nTen\nRAMP\nList of VTs at START of P.M.shift\nList of VTs at END of A.M. shirt\n1\n11\n1\n2\n12\n2\n3\n13\n3\n4\n14\n4\n5\n15\n5\n6\n16\n6\n7\n17\n7\n8\n18\n8\n9\n19\n9\n10\n20\n10\nA2-9","Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources\nDepartment of Agriculture\nGovernment of Guam\nOFFSHORE AGAT MARINA SURVEY MAP (10/96)\nA.M. START TIME\nWE/H\nWD\nDATE\nA.M. STAFF\nA.M.\nNo. of hitched trailers VT)\nP.M. START TIME\nNo. of unhitched trailers T)\nP.M. STAFF\nP.M.\nNo. of hitched trailers I VT)\nNo. of unhitched trailers T)\nNo. of berthed boats out of port\nPlease indicate on the map below the position of berthed boats. AM shift: check mark below all\nboats (except sailboats berthed at the end of the shift. PM shift: at beginning of shift. indicate\nall berthed boats by circuing below at the beginning of the shift.\nVirgo IV\nSunflower\n3794\n1458\nKariyushi\n3265\nPro-bait\n2984\nSolanderi\nShaka\n778\nCarpe Diem\n2269\n2109\nAzuma\n3636\n2414\nLily\nKnotty Gull\n2862\n2758\nSUN\n2791\n2870\nUmibata\nBedaoch m\nAtaloa\n3885\n2740\nMidsummer\n3665\n3987\n1522\n3838\n3793\n2783\n2838\nFrancesca\nPlaya\niruka\n2906\n1399\nCUSTOMS\nRestaurant\nNorth\nPM Start Time\nAM End Time\nList of VT's at start of shift\nList of VT's at end of start\n1\n11\nI\n2\n12\n2\n3\n13\n3\n4\n14\n4\n5\n15\n5\n6\n16\n6\n7\n17\n7\n8\n18\n8\n9\n19\n9\n10\n20\n10\nA2-10","Offshore Survey Boat Log\nDate: / /\nEnd Time\nStart Time\nInterviewer\nLocation:\nAM:\nType Day (1: WD. 2: WE/H):\nPM:\nVehicle\nType of\nBoat No.\nFish\nDepart\nReturn\nCharter\nRemarks\nLog\nInt.\nLicense No.\nActivity\n(or Name)\nTime\nTime\n(Y/N)?\n(Y/N)?\nNo.\nNo.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\nA2-11","OFFSHORE LOCATION CODES\n30\nNW\nQuadrant\nNorthern\n33 = Rota Banks\n99\nMarianas\n20\nNW AND NE\n35 = Both Banks\nQuadrants\n\\\n11\nNW\n10\n/ 34 = 45° or Pati\nQuadrant\n31\nUrunao\n11\nDouble\n12\nReef\n13\nTwo Lovers\n14\n32\n15\nBoat\nBasin\n16\nNE AND SE\nNW AND SW\n40\n80\nPago\nQuadrants\nQuadrants\nBay\n71\n51\nTalofofo\nBay\nFacpi\nSE\n50\nMatabe\nQuadrant\nSW\n70\nPoint\n72\nQuadrant\nAgfayan\nBay\n52\n69=Cocos\nLagoon\n73\n60\nSW AND SE\n74 = 11 Mile\nQuadrants\nOFFSHORE FISHING\nMETHOD CODES\n1. Trolling\n75 = Galvez\n2. Bottom\n3. Atulai night light jigging\n79 = More than\n4. Mixed Spearfishing\n76 = Baby\n5. Snorkel Spearfishing\none Bank\n6. Scuba Spearfishing\n7. Longline\n77 = Santa Rosa\n8. Ika Shibi\n/\n9. Other\n10. Jigging\n11. Gillnet\n12. Castnet\n78 = White Tuna\n13. Spincasting\nA2-12","National Marine Fisheries Service\nDAILY LOBSTER CATCH REPORT\nLOBSTER PERMIT NO.\nNAME OF VESSEL\nFISHING STATISTICAL AREA NO(s).\nSIZE OF CREW:\nNWHI SubArea(s): A B c D E F G H I (encircle)\n10 15 ft\n> 15 ft\n8 10 ft\n6-8ft\n4.6ft\n2-4ft\n0-2ft\nWave Height\nCheck One\n(knots)\nWind Speed:\n°F (if taken)\nSea Surface Temperature:\n# TRAPS SET\nTIME BEGIN SET\n/\nDATE GEAR SET\n/\n# TRAPS HAULED\nTIME END OF HAUL\n/\n/\nDATE GEAR HAULED\n# TRAPS LOST\nNUMBER DISCARDED\nNUMBER KEPT\nSPECIES\nBERRIED\nNON-BERRIED\nBERRIED\nNON-BERRIED\nRED SPINY LOBSTER\n(P. marginatus)\nSLIPPER LOBSTER\nRidge Back Slipper\nGreen Spiny Lobster\nKona Crab\nOctopus\nOthers: (specify)\nPROTECTED SPECIES OBSERVATION\nTurtle\nOther\nMonk Seal\n(Enter seal & turtle numbers; identify other in appropriate box)\nObserved in area\nObserved in vicinity of gear\nInterfering with fishing operations\nPreying on released lobsters\nEntangled and released alive\nEntangled and released dead\nLogged by Vessel Captain\nSIGNATURE\nPRINT NAME:\nOMB Number 0648-0214\n/\nDATE\n/\nA2-13","State of Hawaii\nDepartment of Land and Natural Resources\nDivision of Aquatic Resources\nCRUSTACEANS TRIP REPORT\n2. Commercial Marine License No.\n1. Licensee\n4. Vessel\n3. Federal No.\nPlace an \"X\" in the box if you did not fish.\n7.\n6. Year 19\n5. Month\n10. Area Fished\n/\n/\n9. Trip End Date\n/\n/\n8. Trip Start Date\nW/E\no\n,\n, N/S Long:\nLat:\n11. Port of Landing\nKona Crab Nets (40)\nShrimp Traps (54)\nLobster Traps (53)\n12. Landings by\n18. To Whom\n16. Total\n17.\n15. Total\n14. No.\nSold\nValue\nLbs. Sold\nTbs. Caught\nCaught\n13. Species Caught\nLOBSTER:\n706\nTails: Ula (spiny lobster)\n707\nUla Papapa (slipper lobster)\n706\nLive: Ula (spiny lobster)\n707\nUla Papapa (slipper lobster)\nSHRIMP:\n708\nLaevigatus\n709\nEnsifer\nCRAB:\n701\nKona Crab\n700\n7-11\nOTHER:\n721\nHe'e (octopus, tako)\nFISH (specify):\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nFOR OFFICE USE\n19. Signature\nRECD\nLicensee or authorized agent\nLOGGED\nE/C\nSUBMIT\nC-3B (Rev. 2/96)\nKeep This Copy\nA2-14","NORA\nOMB NUMBER:0648-0214\nExpiration Date: May 31. 2000\nULM\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nDAILY PRECIOUS CORAL HARVEST LOG\nRADIO CALL SIGN:\nPERMIT NO.\nVESSEL:\nHARVEST METHOD:\nDATE OF HARVEST:\n/\n/\nNO. HOURS FISHED:\nAREA FISHED:\nDEPTH OF WATER:\nWEIGHT HARVESTED\nSPECIES\n(tenth of a kilogram)\nCorallium secundum\nPINK\nCorallium regale\nCorallium laauense\nGerardia sp.\nCallogorgia gilberti\nGOLD\nNarella sp.\nCalyptrophora sp.\nLepidisis olapa\nBAMBOO\nAcanella sp.\nCOMMENTS (current, bottom type. bottom topography, bottom slope. proximity to land, etc.)\nDATE:\nLOGGED BY:\nAll information must be logged within 24 hours after the completion of the fishing day.\nSubmit this form to NMFS within 72 hours of each landing of precious coral.\nFax: (808) 973-2941\nTelephone: (808) 973-2985\nPacific Area Office. Southwest Region. NMFS\nA2-15","OMB NUMBER:0648-0214\nExpiration Date: May 31,2000\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nPRECIOUS CORAL SALES TRIP REPORT\nPERMIT NO.\nVESSEL:\nPORT OF LANDING:\nDATE OF LANDING:\n/\n/\nADDRESS OF BUYER:\nNAME OF BUYER:\nWEIGHT SOLD\nSPECIES\nDATE\nREVENUE\nKg.\nLbs.\nCorallium secundum\nPINK\nCorallium regale\nCorallium laauense\nGerardia sp.\nCallogorgia gilberti\nGOLD\nNarella sp.\nCalyptrophora sp.\nBAMBOO\nLepidisis olapa\nAcanella sp.\nDATE:\nLOGGED BY:\nFax: (808) 973-2941\nTelephone: (808) 973-2985\nPacific Area Office, Southwest Region, NMFS\nSECURITY\nNORA\nA2-16","FISH CATCH REPORT\nDIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES\nSTATE OF HAWAII\nDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND\nNATURAL RESOURCES\nSee Instructions on Page 1\n2. Commercial Marine License No.\n1. Name of License\nHA\n5. Federal No.\n4 HA No.\n3. Name of Bost\nPlace an \"X\" in the box If you did not fish.\n7. Year Fished - 19\n6. Month Fished\n17\n16\n13\n14.\n15\n12\n11.\nPort of\n10.\nTo Whom\n9a\nValue of\nLbs.\n8.\n9\nNo.\nLbs.\nLanding\nSold\nType of Fishing\nLbs. Sold\nSold\nBuoy\nCaught\nDay of\nArea\nCaught\nSpecies Caught\nGeer Used\nFished\nMonth\nFished\nFished\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my\nFOR OFFICE USE\nknowledge and belief.\nRECEIVED\nLOGGED\n18. Signature\nE/C\nLicensee or Authorized Agent\nSUBMIT\nSEND THIS IN\nC-3 (Rev 3/1/95)\nA2-17","No 107352\nNMFS W. PACIFIC DAHLY LONGLINE FISHING LOG\nPERMIT NO.\nVESSEL\nDATE OF SET\n/\n/\n(nmi)\nLength of Mainline Set\nBait\nTarget Species I/11\nI\nI\n)\n-\nNo. Light Sticks\nTerm\nNo. of Hooks/Float\nNo. of Hooks Set\n\"Fw\n(ft) Sea Surface Temp\nWave Height\n(knots) Wind Direction\nWind Speed\nLong. E/W\nLat. N/S\n.\nPosition\nBEGIN SET Time\nLong. E/W\nLat. N/S\n-\nPosition\nEND SET Time\nDATE OF HAUL\n/\n/\nLong. E/W\nLat. N/S\n.\nPosition\n.\nBEGIN HAUL Time\nLong. E/W\nLat. N/S\n.\nPosition\n.\nEND HAUL Time\nNUMBER OF FISH\nSPECIES\nNOT KEPT/RELEASED\nKEPT\nCode (11\nBlue Marlin (kajiki)\nBILLFISHES\nStriped Marlin (nairagi)\nin\nBlack Marlin (hida)\n131\n041\nSallfish\n(5)\nSpearfish (hebi)\nSwordfish (broadbill)\n-\nan\nOTHER PELAGICS Mahimahi\nMoonfish (opah)\n1121\n1131\nWahoo (ono)\nOilfish (walu)\n120\nPomfret (monchong)\n1211\n(14)\nOther specify:\nAlbacore (tonbo)\n1101\nTUNAS\nBigeye Tuna\n119\n(17)\nYellowfin Tuna\nNorthern Bluefin Tune\n(19)\nSkipjack Tuna (aku)\n1221\nNot Kept/Released\nKept Whole\nFins Only\nSHARKS\nm\nBlue Shark\n101\nMako Shark\nThresher Shark\n-\n110\nOther specify:\nNumber Released or Lost\nPROTECTED SPECIES\nDead\nInjured\nAlive\nCode 1901\nDolphin specify:\n1911\nMonk Seal\n1001\nHumpback Whale\nTURTLES: Green Turtle\n1931\nLeatherback (softshell)\n1941\nLoggerhead Turtle\n100\nOlive ridley Turtle\n100\nHawksbill Turtie\n1041\nUnidentified Hardshell Turtle\n1091\n1951\nAlbatross\nBIRDS:\nOther Species specify:\nCERTIFY ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMP FTP AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW FDGI\nPrint name\nVESSEL CAPTAIN/OPERATOR\nDATE\nSignature\nA2-18","State of Hawaii\nDepartment of Land and Natural Resources\nDivision of Aquatic Resources\nLONGLINE TRIP REPORT\n2. Commercial Marine License No.\n1. Licensee\n4. Vessel\n3. Federal No.\nPlace an \"X\" in the box if you did not fish\n7.\n6. Year 19\n5. Month\n10. Area Fished:\n9. Trip End Date\n8. Trip Start Date\n/\n/\nW/E\nN/S Long\n.\nLat.\nLandings By Longline (2)\n11. Port of Landing\n17.\n14. Total\n15 Total\n16.\n13. No.\nTo Whom Sold\nValue\nlbs. Caught\nlbs. Sold\n12. Species Caught\nCaught\nTUNAS:\n2\nAku (Skiplack)\n3\nAhi (Yellowfin, Abi Y)\n4\nAhipalaha (Albacore, Tombo)\n6\nAhi (like ye. Ahi)\n5\nAhi (Bluefin. B Ahi)\nBILLFISHES:\n9\nStriped Marlin (Au. Nairagi)\n10\nBlue Marlin (Au D. Kajiki)\nShortnose Spearfish (Av 1, Hebi)\n107\n12\nSailfish (Av S. Au teps)\n108\nBlack Marlin (Au Blk. llida)\nBroadbill Swordfish (Shelome, Row ##)\n11\nOTHERS:\n13\nMahimahi (Mahi, Dorado)\n14\nOno (Wahoo)\n46\nKaku (Barracuda)\n65\nMano (Shark)\n102\nWaln (Oilfish)\n106\nOpah (Mountish)\n118\nMonchong (Pennirel)\n320\nMako\n321\nThresher Shark\nBAIT REPORT\nFOR OFFICE\n20. No. Cases\n19. Date\nUSE ONLY\n18. Bait Species\nBought\nBought\nSquid\n10\nSardine\n94\nHerring\n95\nSaba\n96\nSmell\n97\n99\nSanma\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nFOR OFFICE USE\nRECD\nLOGGED\n21. Signature\nLicensee or authorized agent\nE/C\nSUBMIT\nC.S (Rev 1/96\nSend This Copy\nA2-19","C\nDivision of Aquatic Resources, State of Haw\nAku Pole & Line\n18. To Whom\nThe reports contained hereon are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nFOR OFFICE USE\nSold\nLOGGED\nSUBMIT\nRECD\n17. Value\nE/C\n16. lbs\nSend This Copy\nSold\nCheck either nebu or iao . write out name of bait\nLicensee or authorized agent\nCheck ope to indicate whether baiting was done\n15. lbs\nCaught\n13. Others\nCheck Zero Bait Catch\" if DO bait was taken\nCheck Zero Catch\" if no fish was caught.\n\"Value\" represents monies received.\n14.\nNo.\nfish if other than nehu or iao.\n13. species\nCaught\nPlace an X in the box if you did not fish.\nAKU CATCH REPORT\n3. Vessel\nday or night.\n17. Value\n27. Signature\nC-4 (Rev. 1/96)\n13. Mahimahi 13\n16. lbs.\nSold\n16s Caught\n26. Quantity\n15. Total\nUsed In\nBuckets\n2. Commercial Marine License No.\n7.\n14. No.\nCaught\n25. Quantity\nTaken In\nBuckets\n17. Value*\n(Give Name)\n6.19\nOther\n24. Species Taken\nBAIT REPORT\n13. Skipjack 2\nLao 42\n16. lbs.\nSold\nNehu 41\nCaught lbs Caught\n14. No 15. Total\n5. Month\nDepartment of Land And Natural Resources\n+\nNight\n23. Time\nTaken\nDay\nLanding\nPort\n12.\nof\n22. N\nCatch\nZero\nBait\nCatch\nZero\n11.\n21. Locality\nFished\nBuoy\n10.\n4. Federal No\n1. Licensee\nArea\n9.\nDay of\nMonth\n20.\nDay of\nMonth\n8.","State of Hawaii\nDepartment of Land and Natural Resources\nDivision of Aquatic Resources\nALBACORE TROLLING TRIP REPORT\nCommercial Marine License No.\nLicensee\nVessel Name\nFederal No.\nPort of Landing\n/ /\nTrip End Date\n/\n/\nTrip Start Date\nArea Fished: (Circle N for north or S for south latitude: W for west or E for east longitude)\n, W/E\n.\nN/S\nLong:\n.\nStarted Fishing Lat:\n.\n. W/E\n:\nN/S\nLong:\nEnded Fishing Lat:\n.\nLandings by Albacore Trolling (70)\nTotal\nTotal\nNo.\nTo Whom Sold\nValue\nLbs. Sold\nLbs. Caught\nCaught\nSpecies Caught\nALBACORE\n4\nOTHER TUNAS:\n2\nSkipjack (Aku)\n3\nYellow Fin\n6\nBigeye\nOTHER SPECIES:\nMahimahi (Dorado)\n13\nYellow Tail\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nFOR OFFICE USE\nSignature\nRECD\nLicensee or authorized agent\nLOGGED\nE/C\nSUBMIT\nALBA (Rev. 9/95)\nSend This Copy\nA2-21","State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources\nDivision of Aquatic Resources\nNo\n1061\nNWHI BOTTOMFISH TRIP DAILY LOG\nCOMMERCIAL MARINE LICENSE NO.\nLICENSEE NAME\nVESSEL NAME\nor HA -\nFEDERAL NO.\nSTATISTICAL AREA\nDAY FISHED (mo/dy/yr)\n/\n/\nNE / NW 7SE / SW (circle one)\nBANK\nNO. OF HOOKS/LINE\nNO. HOURS FISHED\nBOTTOMFISHING (3) - NO. OF LINES\nWAVE HEIGHT (ft)\nWIND SPEED (kt)/DIRECTION\nDEPTH RANGE (fm)\nNO.\nNO.\nLBS. KEPT\nNO.\nNO.\nBOTTOMFISH CATCH\nDAMAGED\nSTOLEN\nRELEASED\n(estimate)\nKEPT\n(19)\nOPAKAPAKA\n(22)\nONAGA\n(21)\nEHU\n(20)\nUKU\n(15)\nHAPUUPUU (Seabass)\n(200)\nBUTAGUCHI\n(205)\nWHITE ULUA\n(16)\nKAHALA\n(18)\nOMILU\n(97)\nGINDAI\n(17)\nKALEKALE\n(204)\nPAPA ULUA\n(300)\nHOGO\nOTHER: specify\nUnidentified Bottomfish\nOTHER METHOD USED: I 1 TROLLING (6) [ ] TUNA HANDLINE (35) I I OTHER : specify\nNO. HOURS FISHED\nNO. OF LINES\n(Check One)\nNO.\nNO.\nLBS. KEPT\nNO.\nNON-BOTTOMFISH\nDAMAGED\nRELEASED\n(estimate)\nKEPT\nCATCH -\n(14)\nONO\n(13)\nMAHIMAHI\n(3)\nAHI (Yellow Fin)\n(7)\nKAWAKAWA\n(322):\nTIGER SHARK\nOTHER Shark: specify\nOTHER: specify\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nSIGNATURE\nLicensee or Authorized Agent\nPLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED REPORTS TO DIV. OF AQUATIC RESOURCES FOLLOWING EACH TRIP THANK YOU.\nA2-22","State of llawaii\nDepartment of Land and Natural Resources\nDivision of Aquatic Resources\nBOTTOMFISH TRIP SALES REPORT\nCommercial Marine License No.\nLicensee\n-\nor IIA No.\nH\nA\n-\nFederal No.\nVessel\nYear 19\nMonth\nPlace an \"X\" in the box if you did not fish\n/\n/\nTrip End Date\n/\n/\nTrip Start Date\nPort of Landing\nValue of\n100\nTo Whom Sold\nlbs. Sold\nNo. Sold\nSpecies Caught\nSNAPPER:\n21\nEhu\n97\nGindai\n17\nKalekale\n58\nLehi\n22\nOnaga\n19\nOpakapaka\n20\nUku\nJACKS:\n202\nBlack Ulua, Gunkan\n200\nButaguchi\n201\nDobe Ulua\n104\nKagami Ulua\n18\nOmilu\n204\nPapa Ulus\n203\nMenpachi Ulua, Sasa\n205\nWhite Ulua\nOTHER:\n15\nHapuupuu (Seabass)\n300\nHogo\n16\nKahaia\n24\nWeke Ula\n25\nAawa\n34\nAweo\nValue of\nTo Whom Sold\n-\nISC Sold\nSóld\nNo. Sold\nSpecies Caught\n14\nOno\n13\nMahimahi\n3\nAhi (Yellow Fin)\n7\nKawakawa\nShark (specify)\nOther (specify)\nThe above report is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nFOR OFFICE USE\nRECD\nLOGGED\n21. Signature\nLicensee or authorized agent\nE/C\nSUBMIT\nNWSAL (Rev. 9/95)\nSend This Copy\nA2-23","INTERVIEW - CNMI OFFSHORE CREEL CENSUS-INTERVIEW -\nDIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE\nTYPE OF DAY\n/\n/\nWE/HO\nMONTH/DAY/YEAR:\nWD\n(CODE-1) (CODE-2)\nINTERVIEWER:\nINTERVIEW NUMBER:\nNUMBER FISHERMEN:\nBOAT NUMBER:\nFISH. METHOD USED:\nBOAT RAMP LOCATION:\nNUMBER OF GEAR:\nQUADRANT MOST CATCH:\nBAIT USED:\nSITE MOST CATCH:\nETHNIC GROUP:\nNO\nYES\nWAS A FAD FISHED?\nWEATHER (WIND SPEED):\nWHICH ONE:\nCLOUD COVER:\nSWELL SIZE:\nLAUNCH TIME:\n% CATCH KEPT:\nLANDING TIME:\n% CATCH SOLD:\nACTUAL FISH TIME:\nOTHER INFO/REMARKS\nESTIMATED\nCALO\nACTUAL\nSUMMARY DATA\nTOTAL NUMBER FISH\nTOTAL WEIGHT (KG)\nTOTAL NUMBER SPECIES.\nSPECIES:\nSPECIES:\nSPECIES:\nNUMBER FISH:\nSPECIES:\nNUMBER FISH:\nNUMBER FISH:\nWEIGHT FISH:\nNUMBER FISH:\nWEIGHT FISH:\nWEIGHT FISH:\nWEIGHT FISH:\nFISH\nFORK\nFISH\nFORK\nFISH\nFORK\nWEIGHT\nFISH\nFORK\nLENGTH\n*\nWEIGHT\nLENGTH\nWEIGHT\nLENGTH\n(KGS)\nWEIGHT\n(MM)\nLENGTH\n(KGS)\n(MM)\n(KGS)\n(MM)\n(KGS)\n(MM)\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\nMeasure and weigh as many fish as possible.\nNOTE:\nA2-24","DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE\nLOWER BASE, SAIPAN\nPHONE: 322-9095 cr 322-9729\n9628\n9627\nTYPE OF DAY\n/ 199 6\n/\nMONTH/DAY:\nWE,H:\nWD\nINTERVIEWER:\n(CODE-2)\n(CODE-1)\nOTHER\nETHNIC\nLAUNCH\nBOAT\nRETURN\nDEPART\nINTV.\nCOMMENTS\nGROUP\nAREA\nNUMBER\nTIME\nTIME\nNO.\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nCM-\n-\nA2-25","INTERVIEW - CNNI INSHORE CREEL CENSUS - INTERVIEW\nDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE\nLOWER BASE, SAIPAN\nVOICE: 322-9095 or 322-9729\nFAX: 322-3386\nTYPE OF DAY\n/ 1993\n/\nMONTH/DAY :\nWE/HO\nWD\nINTERVIEWER :\n(CODE-2)\n(CODE-1)\nINTERVIEW NUMBER:\nSTART FISH TIME :\n:\nLOCATION/AREA\n:\nINTERVIEW TIME\n:\n:\nREEF ZONE FISHED:\nmin\nhrs\nFISHING TIME\n:\n(0-no 1-yes)\nEND OF TRIP?\n:\nNUMBER FISHERMEN:\nMETHOD USED\n:\nWEATHER\n:\nNUMBER OF GEARS\n:\nCLOUD COVER\n:\nETHNIC GROUP\n:\nSURF SIZE\n:\nREASON TO FISH\n% .\n:\n% CATCH KEPT\n:\n%\n% CATCH SOLD\n:\nOTHER INFO. / REMARK\nESTIMATED\nCALC.\nACTUAL\nSUMMARY DATA\nTotal Number Fish\nTotal Weight (Kg)\nTotal No. Species\nTOTAL WEIGHT\nNUMBER\nINDIVIDUAL FISH MEASUREMENTS (SL)\nFISH CODE\n(KILOGRAMS)\nFISH\n& SPECIES\n3rd FISH\n2nd FISH\n1st FISH\nNAME (IF\ncalc\nest\nest\nact\nact\nMM\nKG\nMM\nKG\nMM\nKG\nKNOWN)\nA2-26","PARTICIPATION - CNNI INSHORE CREEL CENSUS - PARTICIPATION\nDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE\nLOWER BASE, SAIPAN\nVOICE: 322-9095 or 322-9729\nFAX: 322-3386\nTYPE OF DAY\nSTART TIME:\n/ 1993\n/\nMONTH/DAY:\nWE/\nWD\nFINISH TIME:\n(CODE-2)\nINTERVIEWER:\n(CODE-1)\nFISH.\nREEF\nNUMBER\nNUMBER\nINTER-\nETHNIC\nSURF\nTIME\nCLOUD\nWEAT-\nMETHOD\nZONE\nGEAR\nOF\nSITE\n- VIEW\nGROUP\nSIZE\nAT\nCOVER\nHER\nFISHED\nUSED\nUNITS\nPEOPLE\nNUMBER\nSITE\nA2-27","1997 San Jose Floris Filing Derby\nBoat Number:\nBoat Name:\nSunday- April 27, 1997\nPounds\nWeight (K)\nCategory\nF. Length\nSex\nPounds\nWeight (K)\nF. Length\nSex\nBillfish\nManiMahi\nWahoo\nYellowfin\nVariety\nTOTAL\nA2-28","OF\nDIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE\nNEW\nDepartment of Natural Resources\nT\nCNMI-Government\n322-9095/9729\nAND\nWILDLIA\n55700\nCOMMERCIAL SALES DATA\nDATE:\nBUYER:\nSELLER:\nTotal\nTotal\nPrice per\nNo. of\nValue\nWeight (Lbs.)\nCODE\nPound\nSPECIES NAME\nPiece(s)\n400\nA. Assorted Pelagic Fish\n452\n1 Skipjack Tuna/Katsuo\n456\n2 Yellowfin Tuna/Manguro\n450\n3 Kawakawa/Saba\n454\n4 White Tuna/Dogtooth\n404\n5 Mahi-Mahi/Dolphin\n412\n6 Wahoo/Saowara\n410\n7 Rainbow Runner/Buri\n408\n8 Sailfish\n406\n9 Marlin\n402\n10 Barracuda/Alu\n11 Other\n300\nB. Assorted Reef Fish\n322\n1 Goat fish/Satmoneti\n312\n2 Squirrelfish/Sagamelon\n106\n3 Mullet/Laiguan/Acguas\n309\n4 Rudderfish/Guili\n304\n5 Rabbitfish/Hiting\n314\n6 Parrot/Palagsi/Laggua\n320\n7 Unicom/Tataga\n318\n8 Surgeon/Hiyok/Hugupao\n319\n9 Surgeon/Hagnon\n302\n10 Wrassc/Gaddas\n11 Other\n200\nC. Assorted Bottom Fish\n204\n1 Gindai\n206\n2 Grouper/Gadao\n210\n3 Onaga\n212\n4 Opakapaka\n102\n5 Big-eyed Scad/Atulai\n310\n6 Emperor Fish/Mafuti\n104\n7 Jacks/Tarakito\n214\n8 Silver-Mouth/Lehi\n316\n9 Jobfish/Highway\n10 Other\n500\nD. Invertibrate\n504\n1 Lobster/Mahongan\n506\n2 Octopus/Gamsom\n508\n3 Squid\nA2-29","MIXED\nWEIGHT\nAMOUNT OF FISH ONBOARD AFTER UNLOADING\nof\nOTHER SPECIES\nBIGEYE\nDATE AND TIME OF ARRIVAL IN PORT\nNUMBER\nDATE\nFXOU\nPORT of UNLOADING\nYELLOWFIN\nNAME\nDISCARDS\nUNLOADINGS TO CANNERY, COLD STORAGE, CARRIER OR OTHER VESSEL\nYEAR\nSKIPJACK\nCODE\nAMOUNT OF FISH ONBOARD AT START OF TRIP\nWEIGHT\nTUNA SPECIES\nINTERNATIONAL RADIO CALL SIGN\nDATE AND TIME OF DEPART ME\nNAME\nSOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL PURSE-SEINE LOGSHEET\nPORT OF DEPARTURE\nSIGNATURE OF CAPTAIN\nNUMBERS\nWELL\nCANNERY-OR-VESSEL AND DESTINATION\nALL DATES AND TIMES MUST BE UTC/GMT\nWEIGHT\nALL WEIGHTS MUST BE METRIC TONNES\nOTHER SPECIES\nRETAINED CATCH\nNAME\nFISHING PERMIT OR LICENCE NUMBER(S)\nNAME OF AGENT IN PORT OF UNLOADING\nWEIGHT\nBIGEYE\nYELLOWFIN\nEND DATE\nWEIGHT\nSKIPJACK\nWEIGHT\nNAME OF CAPTAIN\nSTART DATE\nFFA REGIONAL REGISTER NUMBER\nINTERNATIONAL RADIO CALLSIGN\nFFA TYPE APPROVED ALC (YIN)?\nPAGE TOTAL\nTRIP TOTAL\nSTART\nTIME\nSET\nSCHOOL\nASSOC\nCODE\n5 ANCHORED RAFT, FAD OR PAYAO\nW\nE\n4 DRIFTING RAFT, FAO OR PAYAO\nSCHOOL ASSOCIATION CODES\n3 DRIFTING LOG, DEBRIS OR\nDOOMM.MMM\n3 VESSEL FULLY LOADED\nLONGITUDE\n01:00 UTC OR SET POSITION\n2 FEEDING ON SAITFISH\n7 LIVE WHALE SHARK\nTUNA DISCARD CODES\n1 FISH TOO SMALL\n4 OTHER REASON\nDEAD ANIMAL\n2 FISH DAMAGED\n1 UNASSOCIATED\n6 LIVE WHALE\n8 OTHER\nN\nS\nREGISTRATION NUMBER IN COUNTRY OF REGISTRATION\nDDMALLMM\nLATITUDE\nF NO FISHING SET MADE IN A DAY\nRECORD THE MAIN ACTIVITY FOR\n6 NORSHING.BADWEATHER\n. INPORT-PLEASE SPECIFY\n? NET CLEANING BET\nACTIVITY\nCODE\nCOUNTRY OF REGISTRATION\nRECORD ALL SETS\n1288\nNAME OF FISHING COMPANY\nACTIVITY CODES\n1 FISHING SET\n2 SEARCHING\n$ TRANSIT\nTHAT DAY\nNAME OF VESSEL\nDAY\nMONTH","FORM PS-3\nSOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL PURSE SEINE OBSERVER\nSET DETAILS\nREVISED SPONTA BEC 1000\nPAGE\nOF\nOBSERVER TRIP ID NUMBER\nOBSERVER NAME\nSHIPS START OF SET DATE AND TIME\nTOTAL NUMBER OF BRAILS\nVESSEL NAME\nYY\nDD\nM M\nn\nmm\nSET SEQUENCE TIMES\nEND BET\nEND PURSING\nBEGIN\nEND\nBEGIN PURSING\nBEGIN SET\nEVENT:\n(SKIFF ON-BOARD)\nBRAILING\n(RINGS UP)\nBRAILING\n(WINCH ON)\n(SKIFF OFF)\nSHIP'S TIME:\nCOMMENTS\nCATCH\nWEIGHT RANGE\nAV. LENGTH\nSPECIES\nFATE\nCATCH\nCOMMENTS\n(kg) TO (kg)\n(cm)\nCODE\n(mt)\n(number)\nCODE\nRWW\nSKJ\nRWW\nYFT\nBET\nRWW\nCOMMENTS\nWHERE ARE TAG DETAILS RECORDED:\nNO OF TAGS RECOVERED\nFATE CODE\nSPECIES CODE\nRWW\nRetained whole weight\nSKJ\nSkipjack\nRetained headed and gutted (Marlin)\nRHG\nDOL\nMahi Mahi\nYFT\nYellowfin\nRetained gilled and gutted (retained for sale)\nRGG\nBET\nBigeye\nRetained partial (e.g fillet. loin)\nRPT\nRRU\nRainbow runner\nRetained crew consumption (onboard)\nRCC\nBLZ\nBlue Markin\nRetained other reason (specify)\nROR\nAMX\nAmberjacks\nBLM\nBlack Martin\nMSD\nMackerel scad\nMLS\nStriped Marisn\nDTS\nDiscarded too small\nSFA\nSaiffish\nDGD\nDiscarded gear damage\nSSP\nShort-billed Spearfish\nDiscarded vessel fully loaded\nDVF\nFLF\nFilefishes\nSWO\nSwordfish\nDUS\nDiscarded undesirable species\nDiscarded trunk but fins retained (shark only)\nDFR\nGBA\nGreat barracuda\nALB\nAlbacore\nDSD\nDiscarded shark damage\nKYP\nDrummer (blue chub)\nKAW\nKawskaws\nDWD\nDiscarded whale damage\nMan-o-war fish\nFRI\nFrigate tune\nPSC\nDiscarded protected species (e.g turties)\nDPS\nBLT\nBullet tuna\nDOR\nDiscarded other reason (specify)\nFAL\nSilky shark\nWAH\nWahoo\nBSH\nBlue shark (blue whaler)\nESC\nEscaped\nOCS\nOceanic white-tip shark\nALS\nMAN\nSilver-tip shark\nManta Ray\nSHK\nSharks (unidentified)\nMAM\nMarine Mammal\nA2-31","Appendix 3\nEssential Fish Habitat Species Descriptions\nA3-1\nBOTTOMFISH SPECIES\n1\nA3-1\nBottomfish Habitat\n1.1\nA3-3\nBottomfish Yield\n1.2\nA3-4\nBiological Information\n1.3\nA3-7\nLife History\n1.4\nA3-7\n1.4.1 Eggs and larval stages\nA3-7\n1.4.2 Juvenile\nA3-8\nAdult\n1.4.3\nA3-8\nForage and prey (feeding habits and principal prey)\n1.4.4\nA3-9\nReproductive Biology\n1.4.5\nA3-12\nLife Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Bottomfish Species\n1.5\nHabitat description for Aphareus rutilans (red snapper, lehi)\nA3-12\n1.5.1\nA3-18\nAprions virescens (gray snapper, uku)\n1.5.2\nHabitat description for large jacks: Caranx ignobilis (giant trevally);\n1.5.3\nPseudocaranx dentex (thick-lipped trevally, butaguchi);\nSeriola dumerili (greater amberjack, kahala);\nA3-23\nCaranx lugubris (black trevally/jack)\n1.5.4 Habitat description for Epinephelus fasciatus (blacktip grouper)\nA3-29\nHabitat description for Epinephelus quernus (sea bass, hapuupuu)\nA3-34\n1.5.5\nHabitat description for Etelis carbunculus (red snapper, ehu)\nA3-38\n1.5.6\nHabitat description for Etelis coruscans (red snapper, onaga)\nA3-43\n1.5.7\nHabitat description for Lethrinus ambonensis (ambon emperor)\nA3-49\n1.5.8\nHabitat description for Lethrinus rubriopeculatus\n1.5.9\nA3-51\n(redgilled emperor)\n1.5.10 Habitat description for Lutjanus kasmira (blue-striped snapper)\nA3-53\n1.5.11 Habitat description for Pristipomoides auricilla (yellowtail snapper,\nyellowtail kalekale), P. flavipinnis (yelloweye snapper, yelloweye\nA3-57\nopakapaka) and P. zonatus (snapper, gindai)\n1.5.12 Habitat description for P. filamentosus (pink snapper, opakapaka)\nA3-60\n1.5.13 Habitat description for P. seiboldi (pink snapper, kalekale)\nA3-67\n1.5.14 Habitat description for Variola louti (lunartail grouper)\nA3-72\nA3-76\n1.5.15 Habitat description for Beryx splendens (alfonsin)\n1.5.16 Habitat description for Hyperoglphe japonica (ratfish, butterfish)\nA3-82\n1.5.17 Habitat description for Pseudopentaceros richardsoni (armorhead)\nA3-82\nA3-89\nPELAGICS SPECIES\n2\nA3-89\nPelagics Habitat\n2.1\nA3-90\nPelagics Yield\n2.2\nA3-92\nBiological Information\n2.3\nA3-94\n2.4\nLife History","A3-94\nEggs and larval stages\n2.4.1\nA3-94\n2.4.2 Juvenile\nA3-94\n2.4.3 Adults\nA3-94\nForage and prey (feeding habits and principal prey)\n2.4.4\nA3-95\nReproductive Biology\n2.4.5\nA3-95\nLife Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Pelagic Species\n2.2\n2.2.1 Habitat description for mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus and\nA3-95\nC. equiselis)\nA3-101\n2.2.2 Habitat description for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)\n2.2.3 Habitat description for Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira mazara) A3-106\nA3-113\n2.2.4 Black marlin (Makaira indica)\nA3-119\n2.2.5 Habitat description for striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)\nA3-124\n2.2.6 Habitat description for shortbill spearfish (T. angustirostris)\nA3-128\n2.2.7 Habitat description for broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius)\nA3-137\n2.2.8 Habitat description for sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)\nA3-142\n2.2.9 Habitat description for blue shark (Prionace glauca)\n2.2.10 Habitat description for pelagic sharks (Alopiidae, Carcharinidae,\nA3-148\nLamnidae, Sphynidae)\nA3-166\n2.2.11 Habitat description for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)\nA3-174\n2.2.12 Habitat Description for Bigeye tuna (Thuunus obesus)\nA3-191\n2.2.13 Habitat Description for Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)\nA3-200\n2.2.14 Habitat description for northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)\nA3-205\n2.2.15 Habitat description for skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)\nA3-214\n2.2.16 Habitat Description for kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis)\nA3-218\n2.2.17 Habitat Description for Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor)\nA3-222\n2.2.18 Habitat Description for Moonfish (Lampris spp.)\nA3-226\n2.2.19 Habitat Description for Oilfish (Gempylidae)\nA3-229\n2.2.20 Habitat Description for Pomfret (Bramidae)\n2.2.21 Habitat Description for Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) and frigate tuna\nA3-233\n(A. thazard)\nA3-238\nPRECIOUS CORALS SPECIES\nA3-238\n3\nGeneral Distribution of Precious Corals\nA3-240\n3.1\nSystematics of the Deepwater Coral Species\n3.2\nA3-241\nBiology and Life History\n3.3\nA3-246\nCRUSTACEAN SPECIES\nA3-246\n4\nHabitat\n4.1\nA3-246\nMorphology\n4.2\nA3-247\nReproduction\n4.3\nA3-247\nLarval Stage\n4.4\nA3-248\nLife Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Crustacean Species\n4.5\n4.5.1 Habitat Description for Hawaiian Spiny Lobster\nA3-248\n(Panulirus marginatus)\nA3-255\n4.5.2 Habitat Description for Kona Crab (Ranina ranina)","BOTTOMFISH SPECIES\n1.\nBottomfish Habitat\n1.1\nthe US mainland with its continental shelf ecosystems, the Pacific islands are Bottomfish primarily\nUnlike volcanic peaks with steep drop-offs and limited shelf ecosystems (Ralston 1979). the Hawaiian are\nfound concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater banks of these islands. In are\nhandline fishery, 13 species of snappers and jacks and one species As of noted grouper in\ndeep-sea commonly caught at depths of 60 to 350 m (Ralston and Polovina 1982). Seamount\n2 of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Bottomfish and Groundfish\nAmendment these depths have insufficient sunlight to support an abundance of coral or algae\nFisheries, or otherwise); however, some corals, particularly black coral (Antipathes spp.), habitat. have\n(calcareous been observed at depths of 15 to 50 fathoms, which correspond to shallow bottomfish\nof six of the most important Northwestern Hawaiian islands (NWHI) bottomfish overlap, tend\nThe to habitat as indicated by the depth range at which they can be hooked. Even with 2 this of the\ncertain overlap, species are still more common at specific depths. As noted in Amendment 145\nbottomfish FMP, adult bottomfish in the NWHI are found at depths of from 40 to fathoms\n(Table 1).\nAverage\nHooking Depth Range\nSpecies\n(Fa)\n70\n30-110\nOpakapaka\n125\n100-150\nOnaga\n100\n50-150\nHapu'upu'u\n70\n40-100\nButaguchi\n145\n110-180\nEhu\n40\n20-60\nUku\nTable 1: Habitat depth range for dominant Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish.\nSource: (Amendment 2 of bottomfish FMP).\nIn five-year study of the bottomfish fishery resource of the Northern Mariana Islands with three and\na Polovina et al. (1985) found bottomfish species to be stratified by depth black\nGuam, broad distributions located throughout the archipelago. Between 164 and 183 m,\n(Caranx lugubris), yelloweye opakapaka (Pristipomoides flavipinnis), pink\ntrevally (P. filamentosus) and lehi (Aphareus rutilans) are common; between 183 to most 201 m,\nopakapaka kalekale (P. auricilla), kahala (Seriola dumerili) and gindai (P. zonatus) are\nyellowtail abundant; and at depths of greater than 201 m, Pristipomoides sieboldii (pink kalekale), (Table onaga\n(Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus) and Epinephelus sp were the most abundant\n2).\nA3-1","Mean Depth\nScientific Name\nN\nFathoms\nM\nFrom 164 to 183 m\n270\n91\n166\nCaranx lugubris (black lugubris)\n499\n93\n170\nPristipomoides flavipinnis (yelloweye opakapaka)\n191\n93\n170\nPristipomoides filamentosus (pink opakapaka)\n81\n95\n174\nAphareus rutilans (lehi)\nFrom 183 to 201 m\n1,166\n102\n188\nPristipomoides auricilla (yellowtail kalekale)\n47\n107\n196\nSeriola dumerili (kahala)\n3,890\n109\n199\nPristipomoides zonatus (gindai)\n>201 m\n38\n117\n214\nEpinephelus sp\n200\n117\n214\nPristipomoides sieboldii (pink kalekale)\n200\n119\n218\nEtelis coruscans (onaga)\n950\n123\n225\nEtelis carbunculus (ehu)\nTable 1: Depth distribution of bottomfish in the Northern Marianas Archipelago. Source:\n(Polovina et. al, 1985)\nHowever, depth alone does not assure satisfactory habitat. As noted in Amendment 2 the of the\nbottomfish FMP, variations in catch rates along the same depth contour indicate that\nquantity and quality of benthic habitat are also both important. The underwater benthic habitat of\nbottomfish consists of a mosaic of sandy and rocky areas. In the NWHI the\ntopography varies dramatically from abrupt drop-offs associated with pinnacles and banks to\ngently sloping atolls.\nWithin their natural habitat, bottomfish populations are not evenly distributed but are found\ndispersed in a non-random, patchy fashion. As noted in the bottomfish FMP, adult bottomfish\nin the NWHI are found in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural\ncomplexity. Areas of increased bottom complexity-such as pinnacles, drop-offs and of other the\nrelief, rocky substrate-are prime fishing grounds (Ralston 1979). In his study to 100\nhigh Penguin Bank in the Hawaiian Islands, Haight (1989) observed aggregations of above up\nopakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus) and lehi (Aphareus rutilans) 2-10 - m high-\nrelief coral bench substrate and in the vicinity of underwater headlands and promontories.\nA3-2","Areas of high relief form localized zones of turbulent vertical water movement, which may\nincrease the availability of prey (Haight et al. 1993).\nThe distribution of some species of deepwater snappers also appears to be closely related to of\ncurrent flow. Ralston et al (1986) found that the up-current side vs. the down-current side flow\nJohnston Atoll supported higher densities of opakapaka. It is hypothesized that water\nmay enhance food supplies in certain areas (Haight 1989; Parrish et al. 1997).\nWhile bottomfish species are attracted to similar habitat, there appears to be negligible multi-\nspecies interaction (Ralston and Polovina 1982). Polovina (1987) found a weak Amendment predator-prey\nrelationship among the species of the NWHI bottomfish complex. As noted in low 2,\nthe establishment of territorial strongholds by individual species may account for the\nmulti-species interaction. Amendment 2 also notes that variations are known to occur in the\ndifferent bottomfish utilize habitat.e.g., opakapaka are believed to migrate into other shallower\nway depths during the night hours; onaga are caught in considerably deeper water than\nspecies of snappers and in association with abrupt relief zones, such as outcroppings,\npinnacles and drop-offs; and groupers generally are much more sedentary than snappers between and\nare more dependent on hard substrates. Haight (1989) found that niche overlap\nspecies of deep-slope snappers on Penguin Bank, in terms of forage habitat and forage period,\nwas reduced by the individual species's different depth and dietary preferences.\nBottomfish Yield\n1.2\nBottomfish production off western Pacific islands is inherently limited because only a narrow Since\nportion of the ocean bottom satisfies the depth requirements of most bottomfish species.\nbottomfish are typically found concentrated in the steep drop-off zones around the 100-fathom\nisobath, the length of the 100-fathom isobath is commonly used as an index of bottomfish\nhabitat (Polovina, 1985).\nBottomfish yield estimates in the western Pacific bottomfish fishery are usually estimated on\nthe basis of yield per nautical mile of the 100-fathom contour that surrounds an island or bank\n(Polovina, 1985). Beginning in 1980, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)\nconducted a five-year resource assessment of the fishery resources of the Mariana archipelago. of\nThis resource assessment was designed to quantify the sustainable yield and distribution\nthe fishery resources, including bottomfish, of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. A\nsystematic fishing survey of the bottomfish resources at depths of 125-275 m of 22 islands\nand banks in the Mariana archipelago was conducted (Polovina et al. 1985). In this study\nEteline snappers, particularly Pristipomoides zonatus, P. auricilla, and Etelis carbunculus,\ndominated the catch (Dalzell and Preston 1992). In addition, bathymetric surveys were\nconducted at 11 banks and islands where the bathymetric data were insufficient to conduct\nfishery resource assessment work (Polovina et al. 1985). As part of this resource assessment, islands. a\ndepletion experiment was carried out at Pathfinder Reef, a seamount west of the main\nA3-3","The results of this experiment were used to estimate the unexploited biomass at 288 tons of for 100-\narchipelago. The estimated yield of 403 lb of bottomfish per year per nautical mile that can\nthe fathom isobath appears to be representative of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in\nbe expected from bottomfish resources of tropical islands in the Pacific, as noted\nAmendment 1 of the bottomfish FMP. Applying this figure to the estimated length of the\nbottomfish habitat in American Samoa and Guam, an estimate of MSY of bottomfish can be\nderived for each area. As noted in Amendment 1 of the bottomfish FMP, American Samoa,\nwith approximately 196 nautical miles of 100-fathom isobath, can expect a MSY of 79,000 lb\nper year, and Guam, with approximately 138 nautical miles of 100-fathom isobath, can expect\nan MSY of 56,000 lbs per year (Tables 3 and 4).\nApproximate Length of 100-\nIsland Area\nfathom Isobath, nm (km)\n196 (313)\nAmerican Samoa\n138 (255)\nGuam\nMain Hawaiian Islands\n997 (1,846)\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands\n1.231 (2,280)\nTable 3: Index of bottomfish habitat. (Source: Amendment 1 of bottomfish FMP).\nApproximate Maximum\nApproximate Length of\nSustainable Yield (MSY) of\nIsland Area\n100-fathom Isobath (nm)\nBottomfish (lbs)\nAmerican Samoa and\nOffshore Banks\n78,988\n196\nGuam and Offshore\n55,614\n138\nBanks\nTable 4: Extent of Approximate Bottomfish Habitat and Yield for American Samoa and Guam.\n(Source: Amendment 1 to Bottomfish FMP)\nremote operational vehicle (ROV) and manned submersible observations, maximum 1.37\nBased densities on of deepwater snappers on Penguin Bank were calculated to be 1.06 fish/m² to\nfish/m² (Haight 1989).\nBiological Information\n1.3\nAs noted in Amendment 3 of the bottomfish FMP, bottomfish resources of the western the Pacific\nregion can be divided into three broad classes relative to their vertical distribution and on\nislands' shelves and slopes: the reef fish complex, occupying shallow reefs, bays lagoons;\nA3-4","the bottomfish complex, inhabiting the outer shelf and deep slopes; and the groundfish\ncomplex, associated with seamount summits. The bottomfish complex includes at least 65\nspecies of four families: snapper (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), jacks (Carangidae) and\nemperor fish (Lethrinidae). These species are primarily caught by hook-and-line fishing gear.\nAbout 20 of these species are landed in substantial quantities.\nSpecies composition and relative abundance of bottomfish management unit species (BMUS)\nin the western Pacific have regional variations. For example, Uchiyama and Tagami (1984)\nobserved considerable variation throughout the NWHI; the most notable trend was a\npredominance of opakapaka at French Frigate Shoals, Brooks Banks and Necker Island and of\nehu (Etelis carbunculus) west of Lisianski Island. The principal species of NWHI bottomfish\nand seamount groundfish are shown in Table 5.\nAs noted in Amendment 2 of the FMP, although 15 bottomfish species are included in the\nmanagement unit, four species account for 95% of the 1986 landings of NWHI bottomfish\n(Table 6).\nIn a five-year study of the bottomfish fishery resource of the Northern Mariana Islands and\nGuam, Polovina et al. (1985) found gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus) accounted for 51.2 percent\nof the total catch, while gindai, ehu and yellowtail kalekale (P. auricilla) accounted for 79.1\npercent of the total bottomfish catch.\nA3-5","kusakari tsubodai (Japapanese)\nkinmedai (Japanese)\nyelloweye opakapaka\nmedai (Japapanese)\nbutaguchi/pig ulua\nHawaii\nyellowtail kalekale\nwhite ulua/pauu\nopakapaka\nblack ulua\nkalekale\nhapuupuu\nkahala\ngindai\nonaga\ntaape\nehu\nuku\nlehi\nguihan boninas/gindai\nGuam/ NMI\nguihan tatdong\ntrankiton attilong\nguihan boninas\nguihan boninas\nguihan boninas\nguihan boninas\nguihan boninas\nmafuti tatdong\nmaraap tatoong\nmafuti/lililok\ngadao matai\nsas/funai\nterakito\nbueli\ntarakito\nonaga\ntosan\nA3-6\nAmerican Samoa\nfiloa-paoomumu\npalu-gutusiliva\npalu-iusama\npalu-enaena\nTable 5: Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS)\npalu-sega\npalu-malau\npalu-sina\nsapoanae\npalu-loa\nsavane\npapa\nasoama\ntafauli\nfausi\nred snapper/silvermouth\nCommon Name\nyelloweye snapper\ngray snapper/jobfish\nyellowtail snapper\nratfish/butterfish\nlunartail grouper\nblack trevally/jack\nthicklip trevally\ngiant trevally/jack\nblueline snapper\nambon emperor\nredgill emperor\nblacktip gouper\npink snapper\npink snapper\narmorhead\namberjack\nred snapper\nred snapper\nalfonsin\nsnapper\nsea bass\nSeamount Groundfish:\nHyperoglyphe japonica\nPseudocaranx dentex\nLethrinus amboinensis\nEpinephelus fasciatus\nPseudopentaceros\nScientific Name\nL. rubrioperculatus\nBeryx splendens\nEtelis carbunculus\nSeriola dumerili\nLutjanus kasmira\nAphareus rutilans\nP. filamentosus\nCaranx ignobilis\nAprion virescens\nPristipomoides\nVariola louti\nP. flavipinnis\nrichardsoni\nE. coruscans\nP. seiboldi\nP. zonatus\nBottomfish\nC. lugubris\nE. quernus\nauricilla","Percent of 1986 Landings of\nCommon English Name\nLocal Name\nNWHI Bottomfish\n36.9\npink snapper\nOpakapaka\n13.3\nlongtail snapper\nOnaga\n25.9\nseabass\nHapuupuu\n19.6\nthick-lipped trevally\nButaguchi\n3.7\nsquirrelfish snapper\nEhu\n1.0\ngray snapper\nUku\nTable 6: Principal species of NWHI bottomfish and their percentages of the 1986\nNWHI bottomfish lands (Source: FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish\nFisheries)\nLife History\n1.4\nDespite the importance of bottomfish and seamount groundfish species in the western Pacific,\nthe life histories of most of the species are not well known.\n1.4.1 Eggs and larval stages\nThere have been very few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larval stages of snappers\n(lutjanids) and groupers (epinepheline serranids), and, currently, very few larvae can be\nidentified to species. Leis (1987) provides a detailed review of the early life history of tropical\ngroupers (Serranidae) and snappers (Lutjanidae), which includes the following information:\nGrouper and snapper larvae tend to be more abundant over the continental shelf than in\noceanic waters. An exception are the larvae of the subfamily eteline lutjanid, which are\ngenerally more abundant in slope and oceanic waters than over the continental shelf. During\nthe day, grouper and snapper larvae tend to avoid surface waters. At night they are more\nevenly distributed vertically in the surface water column. During the winter months larvae of\nmost species are much less abundant. Very little is known about the food habits of serranid\nand lutjanid larvae. What is known is based on limited laboratory data. More research is\nneeded on all aspects of the early life history of snappers and groupers, including feeding,\ngrowth and survival; ecology of early life history stages around oceanic islands; year-to-year\nvariation in spatial and temporal patterns; and return of young stages to adult habitat from the\npelagic larval habitat.\n1.4.2 Juvenile\nDuring 1988, the NOAA Fisheries' Honolulu Laboratory initiated an investigation to identify\nthe habitat requirements of juvenile snappers in the Hawaiian Islands. The preliminary\ninvestigations have demonstrated the presence of juveniles of both recreational and\ncommercially important snappers (Pristipomoides filamentosus, Aprion virescens, Aphareus\nrutilans) in a habitat relatively close to the fishing grounds for adults but not where the adults\ncongregate. Although the boundaries of the habitat and the characteristics that make\nit\nA3-7","attractive to juveniles remain to be defined, initial results indicate juveniles occupy a flat,\nopen bottom of primarily soft substrate in depths ranging from 40 to 73 m. There is strong\nevidence that juvenile snappers utilize habitat that is quite different then the adults (Parrish,\n1989; Haight, 1989; Moffitt and Parrish, 1996; Parrish et al., 1997). Parrish (1989) identified\nan aggregation of juvenile A. virescens and P. filamentosus \"in 30 to 80 m of water over and soft,\nflat bottom substrate.\" The occurrence of juvenile snappers in relatively shallow water\nfeatureless bottom habitat indicates the need to reconsider the importance of an area of ocean\nbottom previously thought to be of minimal importance as fishery habitat.\n1.4.3 Adults\nThe habitat utilization patterns of adult bottomfish are described in detail in section 1.1 and\nthe following species profiles.\n1.4.4 Forage and prey (feeding habits and principal prey)\nThere have been very few food habit studies of groupers and snappers that have documented\nthe depth at which feeding occurs. Without data on feeding depths it is difficult to identify the\nspecific depth range that constitutes a species feeding habitat. Food habit studies of deepwater\nsnappers is especially difficult because gut contents are frequently lost due to regurgitation\nwhen specimens are bought to the surface from great depths. Parrish (1987) provides a\ndetailed review of the trophic biology of snapers and groupers, which includes the following\ninformation:\nThe reported depth range of many species of snappers and groupers is very great and of often\nchanges with age. A small number of snapper species and a considerably larger list\nappear to be restricted to feeding almost entirely in waters a few tens of m deep. By\ngroupers contrast, a good many snappers and a very few groupers appear to feed almost entirely in deep\nwater down to depths of 400-500 m. Of the remaining fishes for which some information is\navailable, many species of both families seem to cover a range of intermediate depths. Several\noccur very shallow as well as fairly deep, while others appear limited to an intermediate\nIn both families there are a few species that occur shallow enough, commonly enough,\nrange. to distinguish them from the deepwater group,: but they are also commonly caught\nconsiderably deeper than the intermediate group (150-200m) (Table 8).\nA3-8","Deep\nMixed\nIntermediate\n(Mostly over 100 m to 500 m).\nShallow (To a\n(Intermediate\n(Shallow to\nfew tens of m)\nto deep)\nover 100m)\nEtelis carbunculus (ehu)\nLutjanus kasmira\n1 Aprion virescens\n(blueline\n(uku)\nsnapper)\nEtelis coruscans (onaga)\nPristipomoides auricilla (yellowtail\nkalekale)\nPristipomoides filamentosus (opakapaka)\nPristipomoides flavipinnis (yelloweye\nopakapaka)\nPristipomoides sieboldii (kalekale)\nPristipomoides zonatus (gindai)\nEpinephelus quernus (hapuupuu)\nTable 8: Likely depth ranges for major feeding of snapper and grouper management unit species.\nSource: (Parrish 1987).\nBased the review of the available literature, Parrish (1987) concluded that snappers engage dusk\nin widespread, on nocturnal foraging; groupers feed at all times of day, but particularly near bottom.\nand dawn; and most species of groupers take most of their prey at or very close to the those of\nThe food habits of very young juvenile snapper and grouper are often different from\nadults.\nBoth and snappers are omnivorous, opportunistic carnivores. Their diets include a\nwide groupers of food items dominated by fish, crabs, shrimp and other benthic crustaceans,\nespecially range stomatopods and lobsters. Cephalopods are another common diet component,\nespecially for snappers, which also eat large plankton, including particularly pelagic\nurochordates and gastropods. Planktonic forms of prey are surprisingly important for\nboth in bulk consumed and frequency of occurrence, especially for many deepwater and\nsnappers, species. Major planktonic food items include pelagic urochordates (Pyrosomida, Salpidae, these\nand pelagic gastropods (pteropods and heteropods) In most, but not all cases,\nDolioda) planktonic food items occur in species believed to forage somewhat above the bottom. While in\ncommon in the diets of snappers, planktonic animals have not been reported that of\nsurprisingly the diets of groupers. As a whole, the diet of snappers is considerably broader than\ngroupers and includes a wider range of non-crustacean benthic organisms.\n1.4.5 Reproductive biology\nGrimes (1987) provides a detailed review of the reproductive biology of the Lutjanidae. tides In the at\nlutjanids, spawning take place at night, and is apparently timed to coincide with spring\nand full moons. \"Courtship behavior culminates in an upward spiral swim, with of gametes\nnew released at the apex,\" Grimes observers. \"Many features of the reproductive biology\nlutjanids (e.g., spawning site preference, spawning seasonality, lunar periodicity and spawning\nA3-9","behavior) appear to be a strategy to introduce gametes into an environment where that predation is\nrelatively less intense, \"Grimes adds. However, the strategy must also assure young\njuveniles are returned to suitable, but patchy habitat for settlement. Aprion virescens the bottom. feeds\nhigh in the water column, i.e., in shallow water, as well as at greater depths near\nBibliography\nAnderson WD Jr. 1987. Systematics of the fishes of the family Lutjanidae (Perciformes:\nPercidei), the snappers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and\ngroupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 1-31.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nand analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nsummary the SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Inshore Fisheries Research\nProject technical document nr 2. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission.\nDruzhinin AD. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (family Lutjanidae). J Icth\n10:717-36.\nEverson AR. 1986. Ehu. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands. p 106-7. NOAA. Techinical report nr NMFS 38.\nGrimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: a review. In: Polovina JJ,Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 239-94.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\nsnappers (Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honoulu: University\nof Hawaii.\nHaight WR, Kobayashi D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater\nsnappers of the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nHumphreys RL Jr. 1986. Opakapaka. In. Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery 38. atlas of\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. Techinical report nr NMFS\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMoffitt RB, Parrish FA. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper,\nPristipomoides filamentosus Pac Sci 50(4):371-81.\nA3-10","Parrish FA. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull\n87(4):1001-5.\nParrish DeMartini EE, Ellis DM. 1997. Nursery habitat in relation to production of\njuvenile FA, pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, in the Hawaiian archipelago. Fish\nBull 95:137-48.\nParrish 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston Boulder, S,\neditors. JD. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nPolovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of of the\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: 5. Proceedings\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev. 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited 84(4):759-70. resources with\napplication JJ, to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Fisheries Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nManagement Council.\nRalston S, Polovina JJ. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline\nfishery in Hawaii. Fish Bull. 80(3):435-48.\nRalston Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison at Johnston of\nbottomfish S, resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing)\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes Proceedings in\nthe northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Hawaiian\nsecond symposium on resource investigations in the northwestern 229-247.\nof Islands; the 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\nA3-11","Life Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Bottomfish Species\n1.5\n1.5.1 Habitat description for Aphareus rutilans (red snapper, silvermouth)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nAphareus rutilans is a member of the family Lutjanidae and the subfamily Etelinae and this is one\ntwo species of snappers found in the genus Aphareus. The English common name of in\nof species is red snapper or silvermouth. In American Samoa it is known as palu-gutusiliva;\nHawaii, lehi; in Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, maraap tatoong.\nAllen (1985) describes the geographical distribution of A. rutilans as widespread throughout\nthe tropical Indo-Pacific Ocean. It is found from East Africa in the west to the Hawaiian\nIslands in the east and from southern Japan southward to Australia. It inhabits hard rocky\nbottoms and coral reefs at depths of 6 m to at least 100 m and is typically found singularly or\nin small groups, well above the bottom.\nAccording to Allen, the medium-sized snapper is reported to reach a maximum length of\nabout 80 cm. The reported life span of snappers ranges between 4 and 21 years, with larger\nspecies generally tending to have longer life spans of between 15 to 20 years. Lutjanids reach\nsexual maturity when they've reached between approximately 43% and 51% of their\nmaximum total length.\nThe lutjanids are dioecious (separate sexes) and display little or no sexual dimorphism in\ncolor patterns or physical structure (Allen 1985). At Vanuatu, spawning reportedly occurs\nduring spring and summer but with a peak activity occurring during November and\nDecember. Lutjanids are batch spawners, with females spawning several times over the course\nof spawning season.\nA. rutilans is an important commercial species in the insular areas of the Indo-Pacific region\nand is one of the principal target species in the Hawaiian deep-slope handline fishery, Allen\nnotes. It is caught primarily by handlines or bottom longlines, he adds.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nThere are relatively few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of species of lutjanids.\nAccording to Leis (1987), lutjanids eggs typically are less than 0.85mm in size and hatch in\n17-36 h depending on water temperature.\nA3-12","Little is known about this species larval life history stage. Newly hatched lutjanid eggs are\ntypical of other pelagic larvae. They have a large yolk sac, no mouth, unpigmented eyes and\nlimited swimming capabilities. The duration of the pelagic phase of lutjanids has been\nestimated to range from 25 to 47 days (Leis 1987). Snapper larvae are subject to advection by\nocean currents (Munro 1987). It is thought that the pelagic phase of eteline lutjanids, such as\nA. rutilans, is longer than that of Lutjanus spp., and size may be a more important factor than\nage in determining when larval settlement occurs in lutjanids (Leis 1987).\nJuvenile\nThere is virtually no information available concerning the life history and habitat\nrequirements of the juveniles of this species. Parrish (1989) found that the diet of juvenile\nPristipomoides filamentosus (red snapper or opakapaka), an eteline snapper, consists\nprimarily of small crustaceans. Other prey items include juvenile fish, cephalopods, gelatinous\nplankton and fish scales.\nAdult\nDeepwater snappers, such as A. rutilans, are found on the steep slopes and deepwater banks of\nPacific islands. Adults aggregate near areas of high bottom relief (Parrish 1987). Mixed\ngroups of 50-100 individual snappers are known to aggregate above high relief structures.\nThe diets of deepwater snappers, such as A. rutilans are poorly understood. Parrish (1987) list\nof prey items include pelagic tunicates, fish, shrimp, cephalopods, gastropods, planktonic\nurochordates and crabs. He reports that snappers feed mostly at night and forage over a wide\narea, but notes that the depths at which snappers feed are not well documented. Most of the\nfishing effort for deepwater snappers, such as A. rutilans occurs in the steep drop-off zone that\nsurrounds the islands and banks of the Hawaiian archipelago (Ralston and Polovina 1982).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water bottomfish complex (100-400 m)\nA3-13","bottoms Adults aggregate\nnear areas of high bottom\nbanks of Pacific islands.\nthe tropical Indo-Pacific\nurochordates and crabs.\nwidespread throughout\ngastropods, planktonic\npelagic tunicates, fish,\nslopes and deepwater\nshrimp, cephalopods,\nInhabits hard rocky\nFound on the steep\n4 and 21 years\nOcean.\nrelief\nN/A\nAdult\nHabitat description for Aphareus rutilans (red snapper, silvermouth)\nDemersal\nJuvenile\nN/A\nUK\nUK\nUK\nSubject to advection by\nA3-14\n25 to 47 days (Leis\nocean currents\nUnknown (UK)\nPelagic\nLarvae\n1987).\nN/A\nUK\nSubject to advection by\n17-36 - h depending on\nwater temperature.\nocean currents\nPelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nUK\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliogrpahy\nAllen GR. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Volume 6, Snappers of the world. FAO. 208 p.\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, nr The\nfishes. Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory: contribution 17.\nAnderson WD Jr. 1987. Systematics of the fishes of the family Lutjanidae (Perciformes: and\nPercidei), the snappers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, eds. Tropical snappers\ngroupers: biology and fisheries management Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 1-31.\nDalzell Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nP, and analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nthe summary SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nSouth Pacific Commision. Inshore fisheries research project Technical Document nr 2.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\nsnappers (Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii.\nHaight, WR, Kobayashi D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater\nsnappers of the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nHumphreys RL Jr. 1986. Opakapaka. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery 38. atlas of\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. Techinical report nr NMFS\nGrimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: a review. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston CO: S,\neds. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nWestview Pr. p 239-94.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMees CC. 1993. Population biology and stock assessment of Pristipomoides filamentosus on\nthe Mahe Plateau, Seychelles. J Fish Biol 43:695-708.\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Andrew W, Hill L, editors. Nearshore Pacific marine\nof the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara. Suva: Institute of\nresources Studies; Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency; Canada: International Centre for Ocean\nDevelopment.\nA3-15","Moffitt RB, Parrish FA. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper,\nPristipomoides filamentosus. Pac Sci 50(4):371-81.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ,\nRalston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nBoulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 639-59.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource\nassessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue\nKY, editors. Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu:\nUniversity of Hawaii. p 123-143. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01\nvolume 1.\nParrish F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull\n87(4):1001-5\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nPolovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: Proceedings of the\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston A, Polovina JJ.. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline\nfishery in Hawaii. Fish Bull 80(3):435-48.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\nA3-16","Uchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes in\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings\nof the second symposium on resource investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-247.\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\nA3-17","[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish annual and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.2 Aprions virescens (Gray snapper, jobfish, uku)\nPlan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana and Islands, Baker\nManagement Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nIslands and Wake Islands..\nAprion virescens is an eteline snapper in the family Lutjanidae. English common uku. names for this\nspecies include jobfish and gray snapper. The Hawaiian name for the species is\nA. virescens is widely distributed throughout the Indo-Pacific region from Hawaii to East Africa\n(Druzhinin 1970, Tinker, 1978).\ncomprises a major portion of the total bottomfish caught in Hawaii, second only the to 1996 the\nIt Pristipomoide filamentosus (red snapper, or opakapaka) in total landings. According to Region,\nAnnual Report Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific and\nlandings in 1996 for A. virescens was approximately 49,000 lb from the MHI BMUS an\nreported estimated 28,000 lb from the NWHI, or roughly 11% of the total reported A.\nadditional landings in the Hawaiian Islands that year (WPRFMC 1997). Kramer (1986) reports that Islands\nvirescens is caught only at Nihoa Island, Brooks Banks, St. Rogatien Bank and Midway uku\nin the NWHI. However, in a survey of the nearshore fishery resources of the NWHI, were and\nalso observed at Necker Island, French Frigate Shoals and Pearl and Hermes Atolls (Okamoto\nKanenaka 1983).\nAmerican Samoa A. virescens is the fourth most important species in terms of total Annual weight\nIn landed (11%) based on estimated total 1996 bottomfish landings published in the 1996 In Guam,\nBottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region.\nReport the third most abundant species caught in a 1995 creel survey of the bottomfish resources of the\nit of was Guam. According to the 1996 annual report, A. virescens made up approximately 10% in the\ntotal reported BMUS landings in Guam in 1996. The species is much less abundant the Mariana\nNorthern Mariana Islands. In a fishery assessment of the deepwater bottomfish in 1987).\narchipelago, it comprised less than one tenth of 1 percent of the total catch (Polovina\nRalston and Polovina (1982) report that most of the fishing effort for deepwater bottomfish Hawaiian\nspecies occurs in the steep drop-off zone that surrounds the islands and banks of the habitat\narchipelago. They also state that a rough estimate of the total amount of bottomfish bank. can\nbe calculated by measuring the 100-fathom isobath that surrounds an island or They\nestimate that 1,025 nmi of 100-fathom isobath surrounds the MHI. Dalzell and Preston Islands (1992)\nestimate that American Samoa has 143.3 nm of 100-fm isobath, and the Northern Mariana\nand Guam collectively have 485 nmi of 100-fathom isobath.\nA3-18","has been shown that the distribution of deepwater snappers is non-random, with large\nIt aggregations form near areas of prominent relief features such as headlands and is promontories used the\net al. 1986). Haight (1989) reports that if high relief, hard substrate of as\n(Ralston criterion of habitat suitability for deepwater snappers only a 14% of the total area carried Penguin out\nwould be potential habitat. Based on the results of a depletion experiment of at\nBank reef in the Northern Mariana Islands, an estimation for exploited biomass and Ralston 2.0\npathfinder ton/nautical of 100-fathom isobath was calculated (Polovina et al. 1985, Polovina\n1986).\nEggs and Larval Distribution\nThere relatively few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of species of lutjanids. less\nare to Leis (1987) lutjanids spawn small, pelagic, spherical, eggs that are typically\nAccording than 0.85 mm in size and that hatch in 17-36 hours depending on species and water temperature.\nlittle is known about this species's larval life history stage. The relatively low Hoss abundance et al.\nVery of lutjanid larvae in plankton samples makes ecological studies of them difficult. Caribbean Sea.\n(1986, in Sale 1991) found that lutjanid larvae were most abundant above 40 m in have\nLeis (1987) describes newly hatched lutjanid eggs as typical of other pelagic larvae; The they duration\na yolk sac, no mouth, unpigmented eyes and limited swimming capabilities. He\nlarge the pelagic phase of lutjanid has been estimated to range from 25 to 47 days, Leis states.\nof also notes that the pelagic phase of eteline lutjanid, such as, is longer than that of Lutjanus spp\nand that size may be more important than age in determining when larval settlement occurs.\nJuvenile\nis little information available concerning the distribution and habitat requirements A. of\nThere the juvenile very stage of this species. Parrish (1989) observed a dense aggregation of rutilans juvenile\nPristipomoides filamentosus (pink snapper, or opakapaka) and Aphareus of (red\nvirescens, sivermouth, or lehi) offshore of Kaneohe Bay on the island of Oahu in an area site very P.\nsnapper, low relief, at depths of 65-100 m. The predominant species collected at this fine was clay-\nfilamentosus, of which the greatest abundance was located in an area comprised of soft, the bottom\nsilt sediments. In contrast, five juvenile uku were caught at depths of 40 m where\nsubstrate was comprised of hard, flat coarse sand, covered with Halimeda algae.\nflat, featureless habitat apparently favored by juvenile snappers is very different from the the\nThe high relief areas preferred by adults of the family. It is thought that the habitat preferred by\njuvenile may provide the advantage of reduced predation pressure and lessened interspecific feature\ncompetition. It is believed that areas of uniform sediment type are an important substrate\nfor juvenile snapper (Parrish et al. 1997).\nA3-19","Adult\nIn Guam, A. virescens are found along the outer reef slopes, in deep channels and in shallow\nlagoons at depths of -180 m (Amesbury and Myers 1982). Druzhinin (1970) reported A.\nvirescens at depths as great as 150 fathoms. Talbot (1960) reported that A. virescens was more\nabundant in shallow water over coral reefs along the coast of East Africa.\nHaight (1989) found the diet of A. virescens on Penguin Bank in the MHI to include fish (89%),\nlarval fish (6%), planktonic crustaceans (1%), shrimp (3%) and crab (1%). Talbot (1960) reported\nthe diet of A. virescens on the coast of East Africa to consist of fish (49%), plankton (17%),\ncephalopods (14%), nonplanktonic crustaceans (12%) and others (8%). Unlike most other\ndeepwater species of lutjanids, A. virescens has feeding habits that do not seem to be constrained\nby substrate association (Parrish 1987). The species forages throughout the water column, feeding is\nhigh in the water column as well at greater depths (Ralston 1979, Parrish 1987). A. virescens\nthe only lutjanid that is regularly caught at or near the surface with a lure (Kramer 1986). Haight\n(1989) found the greatest CPUE (fish/line-h) at depths of 50-100 m on Penguin Bank in the MHI.\nHaight (1989) reports that A. virescens feed during daytime hours. The landings for this species\nis seasonal. In Hawaii, the majority of the landings are made June-December (Ralston 1979,\nHaight 1989).\nA. virescens reach sexual maturity at approximately 438 cm (SL) (Grimes 1987). Lutjanid species\nassociated with islands obtain sexual maturity at a relatively larger size than continental species.\nLikewise, deepwater species mature at a relatively larger size than shallow water species (Grimes\n1987). There is a consistent difference between percentage of maximum length and when sexual\nmaturity is obtained between continental and insular species. Amesbury and Myers (1982) report\nthat uku in Palau form large spawning aggregations January-May on the outer reef slope on or\njust after a new moon. In Hawaii, A. virescens spawn during the summer months (Ralston 1979).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100 m)\nA3-20","crustaceans (1%), shrimp\nFish (89%), larval fish\n(3%) and crab (1%),\n(6%), Planktonic\n(Haight 1989).\nDemersal\nAdult\n40 m, hard, flat, course sand\nsnapper within its preferred\nhabitat type may be closely\n(No information available\nNo information available\ndistribution of juvenile\nbottoms (Parrish 1989)\nHard, flat, course sand\nrelated to water flow\nIt is thought that\nSpecies: Aprions virescens (Gray snapper, jobfish, uku)\nfor this species)\nJuvenile\nbottom\nPelagic, lutjanid larvae were\nfound to be most abundant\nLutjanid larvae are subject\nCaribbean Sea (Hoss et al.\nNo information available\ncurrents (Munro 1987)\nto advection by ocean\nA3-21\nabove 40 m in the\n1986).\nLarvae\nN/A\nadvection by ocean currents\nLutjanid eggs are subject to\nAprion virescens form large\nlutjanids typically occurs at\n(new moon and full moon)\nspawning aggregations in\nand the water temperature\nnight during spring tides\ndepending on the species\n17-36 h incubation time\nPalau* Spawning in\n(Grimes 1987).\n(Munro 1987\n(Leis 1987)\nPelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nLocation\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, The\nfishes. Guam: Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory: contribution nr\n17.\nAnderson WD Jr. 1987. Systematics of the fishes of the family Lutjanidae (Perciformes:\nPercidei), the snappers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and\ngroupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. 1-31.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nsummary and analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nthe SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nSouth Pacific Commission. Inshore Fisheries Research Project technical document nr\n2.\nDruzhinin AD. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (family Lutjanidae). J Icth\n10:717-36.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\nsnappers (Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii.\nGrimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: a review. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 239-94.\nLeis J.M. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nParrish F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull\n87(4):1001-5.\nParrish FA, DeMartini EE, Ellis DM. 1997. Nursery habitat in relation to production of\njuvenile pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, in the Hawaiian archipelago. Fish\nBull 95:137-48.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nA3-22","Polovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of of the\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: Proceedings\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston S, Polovina JJ. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline\nfishery in Hawaii. Fish Bull 80(3):435-48.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\nTalbot FH. 1960. Notes on the biology of the Lutjanidae (Pisces) of the East African 45:549-74. Coast,\nwith special reference to L. Bohar (Forskal). Annals So Afri Museum\nTinker SW. 1978. Fishes of Hawaii. Honolulu: Hawaiian Service. 532 p.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. annual Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1995 report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.3 Habitat description for large jacks: Caranx ignobilis (giant trevally/jack);\nPseudocaranx dentex (thick-lipped trevally, or butaguchi); Seriola dumerili (greater\namberjack, or kahala); Caranx lugubris (black trevally/jack)\nPlan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nManagement Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nof the great similarity in habitat utilization patterns, a single, general habitat trevally); profile\nBecause has been prepared for the following closely related BMUS: Caranx ignobilis (giant\nPseudocaranx dentex (thick-lipped trevally, or butaguchi); Seriola dumerili (greater\namberjack, or kahala); Caranx lugubris (black trevally/jack). Where available information has\nbeen provided on a species specific level.\nA3-23","Large carangids, or jacks, form an important component of shallow water reef and lagoon fish\ncatches throughout the Pacific Islands The species are found distributed throughout tropical\nand subtropical waters of the Indo-Pacific region in shallow coastal areas and in estuaries and\non reefs, the deep reef slope, banks and seamounts, notes Sudekum et al. (1991). Despite their\nimportance to fisheries, little is known about the basic biology and habitat requirements of the\nlarge jacks, the authors add.\nCaranx ignoblis is one of the most abundant species of jacks found in Hawaii, (Sudekum et al.\n1991). Seki (1986) notes that Pseudocaranx dentex is rarely caught in the MHI, but is\nabundant in the NWHI where it is found at depths of 18-183 m. In addition to living on\ndeeper reef slopes and banks, P. dentex can also be found in near-shore areas in large schools\nof 200-300 fish, Seki observes. Seriola dumerili is commonly found inhabiting the inner reefs\nand outer slopes of island shelves to depths of 250 m (Humphreys 1986). It has been observed\nat depths of up to 335 m (Myers 1991, Ralston et al. 1986). Caranx lugubris occurs singularly\nor in small groups on offshore banks and along the steep outer reef slopes at depths of 12 to\n354 m (Myers, 1991). This circumtropical species appears to be confined to clear, offshore\nwaters at depths of 25 to 65 m (Smith and Heemstra, 1986). C. lugubris is the most common\ncarangid taken from offshore banks in the Marianas.\nJacks are highly mobile, wide-ranging predators that travel throughout the water column from\nthe surface to depths of 250 m, although they are closely more affiliated with demersal\nhabitats and feeding on benthos (Uchida and Uchiyama 1986, Sudekum et al. 1991).\nSudekum et al (1991) found that C. ignoblis reached sexual maturity at about 3.5 years (60\ncm). C. ignoblis is the largest of the jacks found in the Indo-Pacific region and may obtain a\ntotal weight of over 50 kg with a lifespan in excess of 15 years (Lewis et al. 1983). S. dumerili\nreaches sexual maturity at about 54 cm, when it is between 1 and 2 years old (Kikkawa and\nEverson 1986, Uchida and Uchiyama 1986). C. lugubris reach sizes of up to 85 cm (Randall\net al., 1990).\nThe sex ratio of females to males for C. ignoblis in Hawaii was slightly skewed in favor of\nfemales-1:1.39 (Sudekum et al. 1991). In contrast, Lewis et al. (1983) report a sex ratio in\nfavor of male C. ignoblis of nearly 2:1 in Fiji.\nIn Hawaii, peak spawning for C. ignoblis occurs between May and August. Gravid fish of are\nfound between April and November in the NWHI (Sudekum et al. 1991). In Fiji, Lewis et al.\n(1983) found that a fairly brief spawning period occurs from October to December, with peak\nactivity in late October to early November. Johannes (1981) reports that C. ignoblis spawns in\npairs within larger aggregations during new and full moon events. Myers (1991) reports that\nC. ignoblis gather to spawn on offshore banks and shallow seaward reefs. Humphreys (1986)\nreports that in the NWHI, S. dumerili spawn throughout the year with peak activity occurring\nin April.\nA3-24","taken principally by deep-sea handline gear as well as traps (Seki 1986). for As\nJacks commercial are landing data for carangids are often combined, accurate catch data Mariana individual\nare usually not available. In American Samoa, Guam and the Northern bottomfish\nspecies Islands jacks as a group account for between 3% and 8% of the reported landings.\nLandings of jacks in Guam comprise mainly a mix of C. ignoblis and C. malampygus concerns\n(WPRFMC 1997). C. lugubris is an important food fish in the Marianas despite\nabout ciquatera (Myers, 1991).\ndumerili is nowadays landed in insignificant amounts in Hawaii but used to be an important to its\nS. of bottomfish landings in Hawaii. The decline in landings is due principally (Uchida\ncomponent association with ciguatera intoxications and a ban on commercial sales of this catch species in the\nand Uchiyama 1986). P. dentex accounts for approximately 15% of the total\nNWHI bottomfish fishery (WPRFMC 1997).\nEgg and Larval Distribution\navailable literature describing the egg and larval stages of tropical marine fish is\nThe exceedingly sparse. According to Miller et al. (1979), the available information demonstrates\ncarangid larvae are common in the near-shore waters of Hawaii. Caragnid eggs al. are\nthat spherical and 0.70-1.3 mm in diameter (Laroche et al., 1984; Miller et hatch 1979). in\nplanktonic, to several oil globules are usually present (Laroche et al., 1984). Caragnid eggs 1984). The\nOne 48 hours after spawning at water temperatures of 18 to 30 C° (Laroche et al., their\n24 identification to of carrangid eggs to even the family level is frequently impossible because\nsimilarity in size and appearance to many other marine fishes (Laroche et al., 1984).\nlarvae are relatively small, 1.0 to 2.0 mm, at hatching (Laroche et al., of 1984). the Larvae\nhave Carangid relatively large yplk sac and possess an oil globule at the anterior end difficult sac\n(Laroche a et al., 1984). The lack of diagnostic morphological features makes it 1984). to\nidentify newly hatched carangid larvae to even the family level (Laroche et al.,\nMiller al. describe Seriola sp. larvae as moderately deep-bodied and large-headed and\net well-developed preopecular spines. In a survey of larval distribution in add.. near-shore The\npossessing of Hawaii, Seriola sp. were found to be relatively uncommon, the authors\nwaters researchers also found that more Seriola sp. larvae were taken in summer than in winter, in\nalthough not significantly. They also found that Seriola sp. larvae were more common known.\noffshore than in near-shore tows. The early life history of C. lugubris is poorly\nJuvenile\nJuvenile C. ignoblis are often found in near-shore and estuarine waters (Lewis et al. 1983) and\nin small schools over sandy inshore reef flats (Myers 1991).\nA3-25","There a few food habit studies available for the genus Seriolla. The feeding habits of a S.\nquinqueradiata, a related species, indicates that juveniles prey on the larvae and juveniles of\nMullidae, Engraulidae, Scomberesocidae and planktonic crustaceans.\nAdult\nC. ignoblis is predominantly piscivorus in itsr diet, fish comprising >90% of its and diets(Sudeum\net al. 1991, Parrish et al. 1980). This fish also preys on crustaceans, gastropods\ncephalopods. Sudekum et al. (1991) found that the diet of C. ignoblis included abundant\n(13.6%) parrotfish (Scaridae), as well as roundscads or opelu, wrasses (Labridae), bigeyes\n(Priacanthidae) eels (Muraenidae, Congridae), cephalopods and crustaceans (crabs, shrimp\nand lobsters).\nThe predominance of reef fishes in the diet of C. ignoblis strongly suggests that shallow-water the\nreef habitats are of prime importance as foraging habitat for large jacks. However,\nof small pelagic fish such as roundscads and squid in the diets of these species\noccurrence diets indicates that time is also spent foraging in the water column (Sudekum et al. 1991). and C.\nignoblis appears to be primarily a nocturnal feeder (Sudekum et al. 1991, Okamoto\nKawamoto 1980) It has been estimated that C. ignoblis along with C. melampygus, another\nlarge jack may annually consume as much as 30,000 mt of prey at French Frigate Shoals in the\nNWHI (Sudekum et al. 1991).\nS. dumerili is an opportunistic bottom feeder, with primary prey items comprising fishes, eels,\n(Serranidae), bigeyes, crustaceans (crabs and shrimps) and octopus (Seki 1986,\ngroupers Humphreys 1980). Humphreys (1986) observes that S. dumerili diet in the NWHI is includes\nbottom-associated prey and octopus while in the MHI the primary prey items are pelagic\nspecies, such as roundscads. There is a significant shift in the diet of S. dumerili from\ncephalopods to fish as it increases in weight (Humphreys 1980).\nAll species of jacks may range throughout the water column, but they are associated primarily\nwith demersal habitat.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100 m)\nA3-26","throughout the water column, but they are\nestuaries and on reefs, the deep reef slope,\nbentho-pelagic, All species of jacks range\npredominantly piscivorus, fish comprising\nlarge jacks. Time is also spent foraging in\nfound distributed throughout tropical and\nbottom type, shallow-water reef habitats\ncrustaceans, gastropods and cephalopods,\nprime importance as foraging habitat for\nC. ignoblis lifespan in excess of 15 years\nJacks are found over a wide variety of\neels. Shallow-water reef habitats are of\nsubtropical waters of the Indo-Pacific\nregion in shallow coastal areas and in\nassociated primarily with demersal\n>90% of its diets. Also preys on\nare prime foraging habitat\nbanks and seamounts\nthe water column.\nhabitat.\nN/A\nAdult\ntype, shallow-water reef\nThere is a significant shift\noften found in near-shore\nand estuarine waters and\ncephalopods to fish they\nwhen it is between 1 and\nwide variety of bottom\nsandy inshore reef flats\nmaturity at about 54 cm,\nJacks are found over a\nsexual maturity at about\ndumerili reaches sexual\nin small schools over\nspecies of jacks from\nhabitats are prime\n3.5 years (60 cm). S.\nC. ignoblis reached\nin the diet of some\nforaging habitat\nbentho-pelagic\nincrease in age\nHabitat description for large jacks\n2 years old\nJuvenile\nN/A\nA3-27\nSubject to advection by prevailing\nIn Hawaii, Seriola sp. larvae were\nmore common in offshore than in\ntaken in summer than in winter,\nIn Hawaii, Seriola sp. larvae are\nhistory of C. lugubris is poorly\nnear-shore tows. The early life\nalthough not significantly.\nNo information available\ncurrents\npelagic\nknown.\nLarvae\nN/A\ntemperatures of\nadvection by\n24 to 48 hours\nafter spawning\nprevailing\nSubject to\n18 to 30 C°\ncurrents\npelagic\nat water\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nHumphreys RL Jr. 1986. Greater amberjack. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. NMFS Fishery 38.\natlas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. Technical report nr\nHumphreys RL Jr. 1980. Feeding habits of the kahala, Seriola dumerili, in the Hawaiian\narchipelago. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on\nResource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, volume 2; 1980 May\n25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 233-40. Report nr UNIHI-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01.\nJohannes RE. 1981. Words of the lagoon. Berkeley: Univ California Pr. 245 p.\nKikkawa BS, Everson AR. . 1984. Gonadal maturation, fecundity and spawning of the greater\namberjack (Seriola dumerili) in Hawaiian waters with reference to ciquatoxin\nincidences. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on\nResource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, volume 2; 1980 May\n25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 149-160. Report nr UNIHI-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01.\nLaroche, W.A., W.F. Smith-Vaniz and S.L. Richardson. 1984. Carangidae: development. dedicated in\nOntogeny and systematics of fishes, based on an international symposium to\nthe memory of Elbert Halvor Ahlstrom, August 15-18, 1983, La Jolla, California.\nSpecial publication of the American Society of icthyologists and herpetologists, no 1.\npp. 510-522.\nLewis AD, Chapman LB, Sesewa A. 1983. Biological notes on coastal pelagic fishes in Fiji.\nFiji: Fisheries Division (MAF). Technical report nr 4.\nMiller JM, Watson W, Leis JM. 1979. An atlas of common nearshore marine fish larvae of the\nHawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program.\nMiscellaneous report nr UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-80-02\nMyers RF. 1991. Micronesian reef fishes. Barrigada, Guam: Coral Graphics.\nOkamoto H, Kawamoto P. 1980. Progress report on the nearshore fishery resource assessment\nof the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: 1977 to 1979. In: Grigg, RW, Pfund RT,\neditors. Proceedings of the Symposium on the status of resource investigations in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1980 Apr 24-25; Honolulu, HI. p 71-80. Honolulu:\nUniversity of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. Miscellaneous report nr UNIHI-\nSEAGRANT-MR-80-04.\nA3-28","Parrish J, Taylor L DeCrosta M, Feldkamp S, Sanderson L, Sorden C. 1980. Trophic In: Grigg studies\nof shallow-water , fish communities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.\nRW, Pfund RT, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on the status of resource\ninvestigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1980 Apr 24-25; Honolulu, HI.\nHonolulu: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. p 175-88. Miscellaneous\nreport nr UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-80-04.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of Atoll. bottom US\nfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nFish Bull. 84:141-55.\nRandall, John E., Gerald R. Allen, and Roger C. Steene. 1990. Fishes of the Great Barrier\nReef and Coral Sea. Crawford House Press, Bathhurst, Australia. 507 pp.\nSeki MP. 1986. Butaguchi. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS 38.\nSeki MP. 1984. The food and feeding habits of the white trevally, Pseudocaranx dentex of in the the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: RW Grigg, Pfund RT, editors. Proceedings\nSymposium on Status of Resource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands, volume 2; 1980 Apr 24-25; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii\nSea Grant College Program. p 264-77. Miscellaneous report nr UNIHI-SEAGRANT-\nMR-80-04.\nSmith's Sea Fishes. 1986. Smith, Margaret M., and Phillip C. Heemstra (eds). Springer-\nVerlag, Berlin.\nSudekum AE, Parrish JD, Radtke RL, Ralston S. 1991. Life history and ecology of large jacks\nin undisturbed, shallow, oceanic communities. Fish Bull (89):492-513.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.4 Habitat description for Epinephelus fasciatus (blacktip grouper)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nA3-29","Epinephelus faciatus is a member of the Serranidae family, the groupers. The English\ncommon name of species is blacktip grouper. In American Samoa it is known as fausi; in\nGuam and Northern Mariana Islands it is gadao matai.\nAccording to Heemstra and Randall (1993) E. fasciatus is a common worldwide with\ndistinguishable populations in six areas: 1) Western Pacific, 2) Pacific Plate islands, 3)\nMarquesas Islands, 4) Japan, 5) Western Australia, and 6) Indian Ocean and Red Sea. In the\nPacific, it is found from the Pitcairn Islands in the east to Australia in the west and as far north\nas Japan and Korea. In the Indian Ocean, this species ranges from the Red Sea to Western\nAustralia. It is not found in the Hawaiian Islands.\nHeemstra and Randall state that E. fasciatus inhabit coral reefs and rocky bottom substrate\nfrom the shore to a depth of 160 m. In Madagascar, where i t is one of the most abundant\nserranids found, it inhabits depths of 20 to 45 m.\nThe authors go on to say that, except for occasional spawning aggregations, most species of\ngroupers are solitary fishes with a limited home range. Based on the results of tagging studies,\nit has been found that serranids are resident to specific sites, often residing on a particular reef\nfor years.\nBased on the available data, groupers appear to be protogynous hermphrodites. Heemstra and\nRandall note that, after spawning for one or more years, the female undergoes sexual\ntransformation, becoming male.\nAccording to the authors, some species of serranids spawn in large aggregations, others in\npairs. Individual males may spawn several times during the breeding season. Some species of\ngroupers are known to undergo small, localized migrations, of several km to spawn.\nBecause of its distribution and abundance in shallow waters, E. faciatus is an important food\nfish throughout its geographic range. According to Heemstra and Randall, the primary fishing\ngear types used to take this species includes hook-and-line, gill nets, spears, and traps.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nAccording to Heemstra and Randall, serranid larvae are distinguishable by their \"kite-shaped\"\nbodies and highly developed head spination. The pelagic, fertilized eggs of E. faciatus are\nspherical and transparent and range in size from 0.70 to 1.20 mm in diameter with a single oil\nglobule 0.13 to 0.22 mm in diameter. Based on the available data, the length of the pelagic\nlarval stage of groupers is 25-60 days. The wide geographic distribution of serranids\nis\nthought to be due to this relatively long pelagic larval phase, the authors note.\nA3-30","Juvenile\nVery little is known about the distribution and habitat utilization patterns of this species.\nResearch has found that transformation of pelagic serranid into benthic larvae takes place\nbetween 25 mm to 31 mm TL (Heemstra and Randall, 1993). The juveniles of some species of\nserranids are known to inhabit sea-grass beds and tide pools. There is no specific information\navailable for the habitat utilization patterns of juvenile E. fasciatus.\nAdult\nE. fasciatus is a common species throughout its range. It inhabits coral reefs and rocky bottom\nfrom shallows to 160 m (Smith and Heemstra 1986).\nSerranids typically are long-lived and have relatively slow growth rates; E. fasciatus reported\nto reach a maximum length of about 40 cm (Heemstra and Randall 1993).\nGroupers are typically ambush predators, hiding in crevices and among coral and rocks in\nwait for prey (Heemstra and Randall 1993). Adults reportedly feed during both the day and\nnight. Harmelin-Vivien and Bouchon (1976) report the diet of E. fasciatus includes\nbrachyuran crabs, fishes, shrimps and galathied crabs (Heemstra and Randall, 1993). Other\nfood habit studies identify octopus, crabs, stomatopods, fishes and ophiurids in the diet of E.\nfasciatus (Morgan 1982, Randall and Ben-Tuvia 1983).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100 m)\nA3-31","rocky bottom substrate from\nstomatopods, and ophiurids\nthe shore to a depth of 160\nincludes brachyuran crabs,\nincluding western Pacific\nSerranids are long-lived ,\ngalathied crabs, octopus,\ninhabits coral reefs and\nThe diet of E. fasciatus\nslow growing species.\nCommon worldwide\nfishes, shrimps and\ndemersal\nregion\nAdult\nN/A\nm.\nknown to inhabit sea-grass\nbeds and tide pools. There\ntakes place between 25 mm\nserranid into benthic larvae\nis no specific information\nTransformation of pelagic\nNo information available\navailable for the habitat\nspecies of serranids are\nThe juveniles of some\nutilization patterns of\nHabitat description for Epinephelus fasciatus (blacktip grouper)\njuvenile E. fasciatus.\nto 31 mm TL\ndemersal\nJuvenile\nN/A\npelagic phase that results in\nSerranid larvae have a long\nNo information available\nSubject to advection by\nA3-32\nprevailing currents\nwide geographic\ndistribution\n25-60 days\npelagic\nLarvae\nN/A\nphase that results in wide\nSubject to advection by\nSerranid eggs incubate in\ngeographic distribution\nrelatively long pelagic\nSerranid eggs have a\nprevailing currents\n20-35 days\npelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, nr The 17.\nfishes. Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution\nDalzell Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nP, and analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nsummary SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nthe South Pacific Commision. Inshore fisheries research project technical document nr. 2.\nHarliem-Vivien ML, Bouchon C. 1976. Feeding behavior of some carnivorous 37:329-40. fishes\n(Serranidae and Scopaenidae) from Tulear (Madagascar). Mar Biol\nHaight WR, Kobayashi D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater\nsnappers of the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nHeemstra PC, Randall JE. 1993. FAO fisheries synopsis, nr 125, volume 16. Rome: Food and\nAgriculture Organization of the United Nations. 241 p.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers 189-237. and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore Pacific marine\nof the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara. Suva: Institute of\nresources Studies; Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency; Canada: International Centre for Ocean\nDevelopment.\nMorgans JFC. 1982. Serranid fishes of Tanzania and Kenya. Ichthyol Bull. JLB Smith Inst\nIchthyol 46:1-44, 6 pls.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource\nassessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue in the\nKY, editorss. Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27; University of Hawaii, 1. Honolulu,\nHI. p 123-43. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume\nParrish, Frank. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull\n87(4):1001-5.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston Boulder S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nA3-33","Polovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of of the\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: 5. Proceedings\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\nRandall JE, Ben-Tuvia A. 1983. A review of the groupers (Pisces: Serranidae: Epinephelinae) Mar Sci\nof the Red Sea, with description of a new species of Cephalopholis. Bull\n33(2):373-426.\nSmith MM, Heemstra PC, editors. 1986. Smith's sea fishes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami.DT 1983. Life history, distribution and abundance of bottomfishes Proceedings in\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors.\nof the second symposium on resource investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-47.\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. annual Bottomfish report. and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.5 Habitat description for Epinephelus quernus (sea bass, hapuupuu)\nPlan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nManagement Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nEpinephelus quernus is a member of the family Serranidae. The English common name referred of this\nspecies is sea bass. In Hawaii adults of this species are known as hapu. Juveniles are\nto as hapuupuu.\nAccording to Heemstra and Randall (1993) E. quernus is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands a and\nJohnston Atoll. It is the only grouper species native to the Hawaiian Islands, although\nA3-34","closely related species, E. niphobles, is found in the Eastern Pacific. E. quernus is found at a\ndepth range of 20-380 m, the authors add.\nand line is the primary gear type used to take this species. Between the years of\nHook 1984-1995, E. quernus accounted for approximately 14% of the total deep-slope bottomfish\nlanded in Hawaii (WPRFMC 1997).\nEgg and larval distribution\nHeemstra and Randall describe the small pelagic, fertilized eggs as spherical, transparent and\n0.70-1.20 mm in diameter with a single oil globule 0.13-0.22 mm in diameter.\nSerranid larvae are characterized by their \"kite-shaped\" bodies and highly developed of the head\nHeemstra and Randall note. Based on the best available data the length of\nspination, pelagic larval stage of groupers 25-60 days. The wide geographic distribution continue. serranids is\nthought to be due to this relatively long pelagic larval phase, the authors\nTransformation of pelagic serranid into benthic larvae takes place between 25 mm and 31 mm\nTL.\nJuvenile\nJuvenile E. quernus are commonly taken in lobster traps in the NWHI. Besides this limited\ninformation there is no specific information available for the distribution, habitat requirements\nhabitat utilization patterns of juveniles of this species. However, the juveniles of some\nor species of serranids are known to inhabit sea-grass beds and tide pools (Heemstra and Randall\n1993).\nAdult\nAdults of this species typically attain at least 80 cm total length and reach a weight of 10 kg\n(Heemstra and Randall 1993).\nHeemstra and Randall note that groupers are typically ambush predators, hiding in crevices\nand among coral and rocks in wait for prey. Adults feed during both day and night, the authors\nadd. Seki (1984) reports that the diet of E. quernus consists primarily of fish with crustaceans,\nparticularly shrimp, being the next most abundant prey item.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water species complex (100-400 m)\nA3-35","grouper species native to the\nE. quernus is endemic to the\nJohnston Atoll. It is the only\nshrimp, being the next most\nSerranids are long-lived ,\ncrustaceans, particularly\ndepths of 20-380 m. It\nE. quernus is found at\ninhabits rocky bottom\nHawaiian Islands and\nslow growing species.\nprimarily of fish with\nabundant prey item.\nE. quernus consists\nHawaiian Islands.\nsubstrate.\ndemersal\nN/A\nAdult\ninformation available for the\ntraps in the NWHI. Besides\ncommonly taken in lobster\nHowever, the juveniles of\ntakes place between 25 mm\nsome species of serranids\nare known to inhabit sea-\ngrass beds and tide pools\nserranid into benthic larvae\njuveniles of this species.\nTransformation of pelagic\nNo information available\nthis limited information\nHabitat description for Epinephelus quernus (sea bass, hapuupuu)\nrequirements or habitat\nJuvenile E. quernus are\nutilization patterns of\ndistribution, habitat\nthere is no specific\nto 31 mm TL\ndemersal\nJuvenile\nN/A\npelagic phase that results in\nSerranid larvae have a long\nSubject to advection by\nNo information available\nA3-36\nprevailing currents\nwide geographic\ndistribution\n25-60 days\npelagic\nLarvae\nN/A\nphase that results in wide\nSubject to advection by\nSerranid eggs incubate in\ngeographic distribution\nrelatively long pelagic\nSerranid eggs have a\nprevailing currents\n20-35 days\npelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, The\nfishes. Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution nr 17.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nsummary and analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nthe SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nSouth Pacific Commission Inshore fisheries research project technical document nr 2.\nHeemstra PC, Randall JE. 1993. Groupers of the world (family Serranidae, subfamily\nEpinephelinae). Rome: FAO. 382 p. Fisheries synopsis nr 125, volume 16.\nKendall AW Jr. 1984. Serranidae: development and relationships. In: Moser HG, Richards\nWJ, Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW Jr, Richardson SL, editors. Ontogeny and\nsystematics of fishes. An international symposium dedicated to the memory of Elbert\nHalvor Ahlstrom; 1984 Aug 15-18; La Jolla, CA. Am Soc of Icthyol and Herpetol. p.\n499-510.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore marine\nresources of the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara. Suva: Institute of Pacific\nStudies; Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency; Canada: International Centre for Ocean\nDevelopment.\nMorgans JFC. 1982. Serranid fishes of Tanzania and Kenya. Ichthyol Bull. JLB Smith Inst\nIchthyol 46:1-44, 6 pls.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource\nassessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue\nKY, editors. Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii. p 123-43. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-0 volume 1.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neds. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO:\nWestview Pr. p 405-63.\nA3-37","Polovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of of\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: Proceedings the\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB , Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana srchipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina, JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\nRandall JE,, Ben-Tuvia A. 1983. A review of the groupers (Pisces: Serranidae: Epinephelinae) Sci\nof the Red Sea, with description of a new species of Cephalopholis. Bull Mar\n33(2):373-426.\nSeki MP. 1984. The food and feeding habits of the grouper, Epinephelus quernus Seale, 1901,\nin the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors.\nProceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p\n179-91. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 2.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes of in\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, eds. Proceedings\nthe second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-47.\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 2.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.6 Habitat description for Etelis carbunculus (red snapper, ehu)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nA3-38","and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nEtelis carbunculus is a red snapper that is known in Hawaii as ehu. It is widely distributed from\nthroughout the Indo-Pacific region from East Africa to the Hawaiian Islands and\nsouthern Japan to Australia (Allen 1985; Everson 1984). Like most bottomfish well species, known E.\ncarbunculus is important in western Pacific fisheries but its life history is not\n(Ralston 1979).\ncarbunculus are found concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater banks of Pacific\nE. Islands in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural complexity. They are\nfound solitarily or in small groups in depths of 90 to 350 m (Allen 1985, Everson 1984,\nRalston and Polovina 1982).\ncarbunculus reportedly obtain sexual maturity at about 29.8 cm FL (Everson 1986).\nE. Everson (1984) reports that the sex ratio is skewed 2:1 in favor of females over males. They\nreportedly reach a maximum length of 80 cm.\nEverson (1984) reports that E. carbunculus are serial spawners, spawning multiple times\nthe spawning season, and that they have a shorter, more well-defined spawning period In\nduring than do most other species of snappers, spawning from July to September in the NWHI.\nVanuatu spawning reportedly occurs throughout most of the year (Allen 1985).\ncarbunculus is an important commercial species throughout its range and is taken primarily\nE. with handlines. It is one of the principal species in the deepwater bottomfish fishery in 1996\nin Hawaii, deepsea accounting for approximately 7% of the total reported bottomfish landings\n(WPRFMC 1997). NMFS data show that it is the predominant species of deepwater\nbottomfish in the NWHI west of Lisianski, accounting for 22.7% to 86.5% of the total\nbottomfish landed in these areas (Everson 1986; Uchiyama and Tagami 1984).\nIn American Samoa, E. carbunculus is one of the most valuable species landed and comprised\nalmost 9% of the total reported bottomfish landings in 1996 (WPRFMC 1997).\nIn five-year study of the bottomfish fishery resources of the Northern Mariana Islands and\nGuam, a Polovina et al. (1985) collected more than 30 species of fish. E. carbunculus was one\nof the three most abundant species collected, accounting for 12.5% of the total fish collected.\nIn Guam, it comprised 4% of the total reported bottomfish landed in 1996 (WPRFMC 1997).\nCatch data for the Northern Mariana Islands are not available for this species.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nIn a detailed review of the early life history of tropical snappers, Leis (1987) points out that\nA3-39","there have been very few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larval stages of lutjanids and that\nfew larvae can be identified to species. However, it is possible to distinguish E.\nvery carbunculus larvae from E. coruscans in specimens larger than 13.7 mm (Leis and Lee 1994).\nEteline larvae are generally more abundant in slope and oceanic waters than over avoid the\ncontinental snapper shelf (Leis and Lee 1994, Leis 1987). During the day, snapper larvae tend to\nsurface waters, but at night they are more evenly distributed vertically in the surface water less\ncolumn, Leis notes (1987). During the winter months larvae of most species are much\nabundant, he adds.\nJuvenile\nThere is very little information available concerning the preferred habitat of juveniles of this\nspecies. Juvenile ehu are found dispersed in their natural habitat (Kelly 1998, Reseacrher\nHawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB), personal communication). Parrish (1989)\ndemonstrated that the habitat requirements of the juveniles of several species of deepwater\nsnappers are markedly different than those of adults.\nAdult\nThe distribution and preferred habitat of adults of this species are described above.\nIn a detailed review of the trophic biology of snappers, Parrish (1987) states that, like E. most\nspecies of fully deepwater snappers, very little is known about the food habits of the are\ncarbunculus. Food habit studies of these species are difficult because gut contents\nfrequently lost due to regurgitation when specimens are brought to the surface from great in\ndepths, he explains. However, he notes, in the Mariana Islands important prey items the\ndiet of E. carbunculus include fish, benthic crustaceans and pelagic urochordates. Planktonic\nforms of prey are surprisingly important for snappers, both in bulk consumed and frequency items of\nespecially for many deep-water species, Parrish adds. Major planktonic food\noccurrence, include pelagic urochordates (Pyrosomida, Salpidae, and Dolioda) and pelagic gastropods\n(pteropods and heteropods).\nAccording to Parrish, the depths at which E. carbunculus feed are not well documented, but the it\nis believed that most deep-water snappers, including this species, feed primarily at or near\nbottom. There is also very little information available about the type of substrate where\nfeeding occurs, he says. But, he notes, these species are usually caught in areas of rather high\nrelief, particularly on the steep slopes of islands.\nHaight (1989) found that the catch rate for E. carbunculus was highest between 200-250 m on\nPenguin Bank in the MHI. He also found that E. carbunculus fed primarily between\n1800-2000, with fish comprising almost 98% of the prey items in the species's diet. Other\nprey items included copepods, shrimp, crabs and octopus. This species is known to be an\nA3-40","aggressive feeder (Haight 1989, Ralston 1979).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deepwater bottomfish complex (100-400 m).\ncarbunculus is found concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater banks of Pacific\nE. Islands in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural complexity (Ralston\nRalston and Polovina 1982, Everson 1984, Polovina 1985, Haight 1989, Moffitt and\nParrish 1979, 1996). Ehu is found concentrated between the depths of 90 to 350 m (Allen 1985,\nEverson 1984, Ralston and Polovina 1982).\nA3-41","Areas of high relief form localized zones of\nhabitats characterized by a hard substrate of\nturbulent vertical water movement. Higher\nIt is widely distributed throughout the Indo-\ndensities of some eteline snapper species\nHawaiian Islands and from southern Japan\nconcentrated between the depths of 90 to\nhave been found on the up-current side\nAreas of high relief, (e.g., steep slopes,\nThe diet of E. carbunculus include fish,\npinnacles, headlands, rocky outcrops)\ndeepwater banks of Pacific Islands in\nPacific region from East Africa to the\nconcentrated on the steep slopes of\nDemersal, E. carbunculus is found\nhigh structural complexity. Found\nbenthic crustaceans and pelagic\nislands, banks and atolls.\nAdult\nNo information available\nurochordates\nto Australia\n350 m\nHabitat description for Etelis carbunculus (red snapper, ehu)\nDemersal: No specific\nhabitat preferences of\ninformation available,\nspecies of deepwater\nthan those of adults.\nrequirements of the\njuveniles of several\nmarkedly different\navailable for the\nNo information\ndistribution and\nNo information\njuvenile onaga\nNo information\ninformation is\nJuvenile\nNo information\nsnappers are\nNo specific\nthe habitat\navailable\navailable\navailable\navailable\nA3-42\nLutjanid larvae are known to avoid the\nabundant in slope and oceanic waters\nthroughout the surface waters (Leis\n1987). At night, snapper larvae are\nThe pelagic larval phase of lutjanids\nfactor than age in determining when\nsettlement occurs. Size at settlement\nlife history last for 25-47 days and\nsurface layer during the day (Leis\nthat size may be a more important\nvaries widely among species and\nEteline snapper larvae are more\nfound more evenly distributed\nLutjanid larvae are subject to\nthan over the continental shelf\nadvection by ocean currents\nNo information available\nranges from 10-50 mm\nLarvae\n1987).\nN/A\nsubject to advection\ndocumented, widely\nby ocean currents\nLutjanid eggs are\n17-36 h incubation\nthe species and the\ntime depending on\nwater temperature\nEgg\ndistributed.\nNot well\nPelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nFeatures\nOceanic\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAllen GR. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Volume 6, Snappers of the world. FAO. 208 p.\nEverson AR. 1986. Ehu. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands. p 106-7. NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS 38.\nEverson AR. 1984. Spawning and gonadal maturation of the ehu, Etelis carbunculus, in the of\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings\nthe second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands; 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 128-48.\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-0 volume 2.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\nsnappers (Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMoffitt RB, Parrish FA. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper,\nPristipomoides filamentosus. Pac Sci 50(4):371-81.\nParrish F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull\n87(4):1001-\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston A, Polovina JJ.. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline\nfishery in Hawaii. Fish Bull 80(3):435-48.\n1.5.7 Habitat description for Etelis coruscans (red snapper, onaga)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nA3-43","Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nEtelis coruscans has the common English name of red snapper and is known in Hawaii as\nRalston (1979), while noting that the life history of the E. coruscans is poorly\nonaga. understood, says the species is widely distributed throughout the Pacific region and extends the\ninto the Indian Ocean, with known occurrences in Hawaii, Samoa, the Mariana Islands,\nCook Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.\neteline snapper in the Lutjanidae family, E. coruscans is found in considerably deeper\nAn waters then other species of deep-slope snappers (Everson 1986, Moffitt 1993). association It is caught at\ndepth ranging from 100-160 fathoms (Ralston 1979). E. coruscans is found in\nwith areas of abrupt relief, such as steep drop-offs, ledges, outcrops and pinnacles (Everson\n1986). Ralston (1979) determined that 92% of the total E. coruscans landed in Hawaii were\ntaken in deep, offshore waters beyond the 3-mile limit of state jurisdiction.\nAccording to the 1996 Annual Report for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish in the\nWestern Pacific, E. coruscans accounted for approximately 10% of the total reported\nbottomfish landings for the NWHI (311,000 lb) and almost 16% of the reported total landings\nof BMUS (421,000 lb) in the MHI and commanded the highest price per pound of any\nbottomfish species landed in Hawaii. It also accounted for 11% of the total reported BMUS lb\nlandings (32,245 lb) in American Samoa and commanded the second highest price per the of\nspecies landed in the territory. In the Northern Mariana Islands, E. coruscans was of\nany single most abundant bottomfish species landed in 1996, accounting for almost 29% the\ntotal catch (52,967 lb) and commanded the highest price per pound of any bottomfish species\nlanded in the the commonwealth, the annual report continues. In Guam, the species comprised While\nonly about 3% of the total reported bottomfish landings (54,122 lb), the report adds.\nrelatively uncommon in Guam, the E. coruscans is a highly prized species.\nHaight (1989) studied the trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater in his\non Penguin Bank, Hawaii. Of the six species of lutjanid snappers collected taken in this\nsnappers study, E. coruscans made up 7% of the total catch. The size of the E. coruscans\nsame study ranged from 26.5-74.4 cm FL.\nRalston (1979) says E. coruscans is known to reach sizes of up to 80 lb, but most\ncommercially landed E. coruscans weigh between 1-15 lb. In the MHI most of the E.\nlanded are taken from the Pengiun Bank-North Molokai region, Ralston adds.\ncoruscans Landings of E. coruscans are seasonal in Hawaii, with CPUE increasing during the and fall and\nearly winter months, peak landings occurring in or around the month of December\nminimum of E. coruscans landings occurring during the early summer months, Ralston\nobserves.\nA3-44","A cluster analysis of bank catch composition in the Mariana archipelago determined that the\nbanks can be grouped into three catch profiles, southern, northern and seamount clusters. The\nseamount cluster was characterized throughout the resource assessment by its higher\nproportion of Etelis species (Etelis coruscans and E. carbunculus), almost twice the amount\nof the other clusters (Polovina, 1985).\nLutjanids, such as E. coruscans, are hooked near or several m above the bottom (Moffitt\n1993).\nEggs and Larval Distribution\nThere have been very few ecological or taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of E.\ncoruscans. As discussed, most of the available data pertaining to the early life stages of\nlutjanids are broad, nonspecies specific in nature. Leis (1987) says lutjanids spawn small,\npelagic, spherical, eggs that are typically less than 0.85 mm in size and that hatch in 17-36\nhours depending on species and water temperature.\nLittle is known about this species's larval life. Leis (1987) notes that newly hatched lutjanid\nlarvae have unpigmented eyes, no mouth, a large yolk sac, spination of the head and fins, and\nlimited swimming capabilities, he says. Lutjanid larvae are known to avoid the surface layer\nduring the day, but, at night, they are found evenly distributed throughout the surface waters,\nhe observes. The duration of their pelagic phase has been estimated to range 25 -47 days, and\nlarvae of eteline snapper, including those of E. coruscans, are found in greater abundance over\noceanic and slope waters than over the waters of the continental shelf, he notes. It is thought\nthat the pelagic phase of eteline lutjanids is longer than that of Lutjanus spp., and size may be\na more important factor than age in determining when larval settlement occur, Leis says.\nSnapper larvae are subject to advection by ocean currents (Munro 1987).\nJuvenile\nVirtually nothing is known about juvenile E. coruscans life history and habitat requirements.\nCurrent research has shown that shallow, flat featureless areas may be essential habitat for\ngrowth and survival of juvenile Pritipomoides filamentosus, Aprion virescens and Aphareus\nrutilans. Research has identified two areas that support dense, persistent aggregations of\njuvenile snapper in relatively shallow water (65-100 m). Both are in the MHI-the first is The off\nKaneohe Bay on the island of Oahu, and the second, off the southwest coast of Molokai.\nflat featureless substrate of these two sites is quite different than the high-relief, hard bottom\nthat adult snappers are known to inhabit.\nAt the Kaneohe Bay site, an internal, semi-diurnal tide provides an influx of cold water to the\narea at high tide (Moffitt and Parrish 1996). It has been hypothesized that such a water flow\nenhance food supplies in an area (Parrish et al. 1997). Parrish et al (1997) also found a\nmay significant correlation between juvenile snapper abundance and sources of coastal drainage at\nA3-45","the site off of Molokai. Research to identify additional juvenile bottomfish nursery areas in\nthe Hawaiian Islands is ongoing. Research to identify, describe and map nursery habitat areas\nfor juvenile E. coruscans throughout the region is needed.\nAdult\nAdult E. coruscans are found in considerably deeper waters than other species of snappers\n(Everson 1986, Moffitt 1993). They are caught at depths ranging from 100 to 160 fathoms\n(Ralston 1979). They are found in areas of abrupt relief, such as steep drop-offs, outcrops, of\nledges and pinnacles. They grow to a much larger size (81 cm FL) than other species Etelis\nand Pristipomoides and weigh up to 20 kg (Amesbury and Myers 1982). Everson (1986)\nreports the mean weights of males and females of the species to be 4.28 kg and 5.45 kg\nrespectively in the NWHI.\nAnalyzing the CPUE distribution by depth intervals for all species landed, Haight (1989)\nfound that E. coruscans are caught at the highest rate between depths of 250 and 300 m, the\ndeepest region occupied by any of the snappers common to the Hawaiian Islands that have\nbeen collected. This compares with an average hooking depth of 125 fathoms in the NWHI\nnoted in Amendment 2 of the bottomfish FMP and 119 fathoms in the Northern Mariana\nIslands observed by Polovina et al. (1985).\nPeak feeding times for adult E. coruscans occur during daylight hours, with the highest catch\nrates between 0600-0800 hours (Haight 1989). E. coruscans feed at or near the bottom\n(Moffitt 1993), and their diet includes fish (76.4%), shrimp (16.4%), planktonic crustaceans\n(3.4%), chepalopods (2%), urocordates (1.5%) and crabs (.2%) (Haight 1989).\nWhile little is known about the reproductive cycle of E. coruscans it is probably similar to ehu\n(Everson 1986). Polovina and Ralston (1986) estimate sexual maturity at two years of age. In\nthe NWHI, ripe ovaries were collected from E. coruscans in August and September during a\nstudy that took place during the summer months only (Everson 1986). Grimes (1987) reports\nthat deepwater snappers reach sexually maturity at approximately 50% of their total length.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water complex (100-400)\nA3-46","Higher densities of some eteline snapper species\nhave been found on the up-current side islands,\nThe species is widely distributed throughout the\nurocordates (1.5%), crabs (.2%) (Haight 1989).\nSamoa, the Mariana Islands, the Cook Islands,\nEtelis coruscans is a long-lived, slow growing\nOcean, with known occurrences in Hawaii,\nPacific region and extends into the Indian\nfish (76.4%), shrimp (16.4%), planktonic\nAreas of high relief, (e.g., steep slopes,\npinnacles, headlands, rocky outcrops)\ncrustaceans (3.4%), chepalopods (2%),\nDemersal, 100-160 fathoms\nAdult\nTuvalu and Vanuatu.\nbanks and atolls.\nspecies\nNo specific information is\nSpecies: Etelis coruscans (red snapper, onaga)\nNo information available\ndistributed throughout the\ndistribution and habitat\npreferences of juvenile\nNo specific information\nThe species is widely\navailable for the\nJuvenile\nPacific region\nNot known\nDemersal:\navailable\nonaga\nA3-47\nsettlement occurs. Size at settlement\nLutjanid larvae are known to avoid\nlarval phase of lutjanids life history\ndistributed throughout the surface\nLeis (1987) reports that the pelagic\nlast for 25--47 days and that size\nvaries widely among species and\nwaters than over the continental\nthe surface layer during the day\nEteline snapper larvae are more\nmay be a more important factor\n(Leis 1987). At night, snapper\nLutjanid larvae are subject to\nabundant in slope and oceanic\nlarvae are found more evenly\nadvection by ocean currents\nthan age in determining when\nNo information available\nranges from 10-50 mm\nLarvae\nwaters (Leis 1987).\nshelf (Leis 1987)\nN/A\nocean currents\nLutjanid eggs\nincubation time\nare subject to\nthe species and\nadvection by\ndepending on\ntemperature\n(Leis 1987)\nEgg\nthe water\nPelagic\n17-36 h\nN/A\nN/A\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nFeatures\nOceanic\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, The\nfishes. Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory: contribution nr 17.\nEverson AR. 1986. Onaga. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. p 108-109. NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS 38.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\nsnappers (Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honolulu: University\nof Hawaii.\nHaight WR, Kobayashi D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater\nsnappers of the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore marine\nresources of the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara.Suva: Institute of Pacific\nStudies, Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency; I Canada: I nternational Centre for Ocean\nDevelopment.\nMoffitt RB, Frank AP. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper,\nPristipomoides filamentosus. Pac Sci 50(4):371-81.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ,\nRalston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nBoulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 639-59.\nParrish FA, DeMartini EE, Ellis DM. 1997. Nursery habitat in relation to production of\njuvenile pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, in the Hawaiian archipelago. Fish\nBull 95:137-48.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63.\nPolovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of\ndeepwater snappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: Proceedings of the\nFifth International Coral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nA3-48","Polovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes in\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings\nof the second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian\nIslands, 1983 May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p. 229-47.\nReport nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1995 annual report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.8 Habitat description for Lethrinus amboinensis (ambon emperor)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nLethrinus amboinensis is a member of the Lethrinidae family and the subfamily Lethrininae.\nIt has the English common name of ambon emperor, while in American Samoa, it is\ncommonly known as filoa-gutumumu and in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, as\nmafuti or lililok. It is absent from the Hawaiian Islands\nCarpenter and Allen (1985) present a major review of the known habitat requirements and life\nhistory of L. amboinensis. The species is found from southern Japan to northwestern Austalia\nand from Indonesia eastward through the Marshall Islands, Solomons, Samoa and the\nMarquesas. It is commonly confused with L. microdon and L. olivaceus, the authors note.\nVery little is known about the biology of this species or its habitat utilization patterns. It is\nknown to inhabit deeper waters of coral reefs and adjacent sandy bottom areas. According to\nCarpenter and Allen, lethrinids are found inhabiting coastal waters, including coral and rocky\nreefs, sandy bottoms, sea-grass beds and mangrove swamps.\nThe spawning behavior of lethrinids is poorly documented. Based on the limited data\navailable, Carpenter and Allen describe a generalized pattern: Spawning is generally\nprolonged, occuring throughout the year. It is preceded by small, localized migrations at or\nnear dusk. Peak spawning events occur on or near the new moon. Large aggregations of\nlethrinids have been observed spawning near the surface as well as at the bottom of reef\nslopes, the authors state.\nA3-49","Lethrinids are relatively long-lived, with an average age range of 7 to 27 years, Carpenter and\nAllen report. The average age of growth cessation for lethrinids is 11 years with a reported\nmaximum size of approximately 70 cm total length. The males tend to be of a larger size total than\nfemales. The ambon emperor is commonly taken at sizes ranging from 30 to 50 cm in\nlength, the authors add.\nLethrinids are of moderate to significant importance in commercial, recreational and artisanal\nfisheries throughout the tropical Pacific, Carpenter and Allen report. In American Samoa, the L.\namboinensis accounted for approximately 2% of the total landed bottomfish reported in\n1996 Annual Report of Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish in the Western Pacific. In\ncontrast, L. amboinensis and L. rubrioperculatus accounted for approximately 18% and 20%\nof the total landed bottomfish in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, respectively,\naccording to the 1996 annual report. In the case of the Northern Mariana Islands, there was a\npreponderance of L. rubrioperculatus in the total lethrinids landed. Emperors are taken\nprimarily with handlines, droplines longlines and traps, the annual report notes. Carpenter and\nAllen (1989) say that lethrinids are important recreational target species in some countries,\nand some species of lethrinids are reported to be ciguatoxic.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nCarpenter and Allen describe lethrinid eggs as pelagic, spherical and colorless, possessing hatch an\noil globule and ranging in size from 0.68 to 0.83 mm in diameter. The eggs typically\nwithin 21 to 40 hours after fertilization occurs, they add.\nNewly hatched lethrinid larvae range in size from 1.3 to 1.7 mm. The general physical\ncharacteristics include an unopened mouth, a large yolk sac, unpigmented eyes, variable body\npigmentation and, most notably, extensively developed head spination and cheek scales,\nCarpenter and Allen report.\nJuvenile and Adult\nAs discussed above, very little is known about the biology of L. amboinensis or its habitat\nutilization patterns. It is known to inhabit deeper waters of coral reefs and adjacent sandy\nbottom areas. Carpenter and Allen say lethrinids are found inhabiting coastal\nwaters-including coral and rocky reefs, sandy bottoms, sea-grass beds and mangrove\nswamps-and adult L. amboinensis prey primarily on fishes and crustaceans.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100 m)\nBibliography\nAllen GR. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Volume 6, Snappers of the world. FAO. Fisheries\nsynopsis nr 125, volume 6. 208 p.\nA3-50","Amesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, The 17.\nfishes. Univ Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution nr\nCarpenter KE, Allen GR. 1989. FAO species catalogue. Volume 9, Emperor fishes and volume large-\neye breams of the world (family Lethrinidae). FAO. Fisheries synopsis nr 125,\n9. Rome: FAO. 118p.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nand analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nsummary SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nthe South Pacific Commission. Inshore fisheries research project technical document nr 2.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. annual Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.9 Habitat description for Lethrinus rubriopeculatus (redgill emperor)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana Island,\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nLethrinus rubrioperculatus is a member of the family Lethrinidae, the subfamily Lethrininae In\nand the Lethrinus. The English common name of this species is redgill emperor.\nAmerican genus Samoa it is known as filoa-pa'o'omumu; in Guam and the Northern Mariana\nIslands it is called mafuti tatdong. L. rubrioperculatus is not found in the Hawaiian Islands.\nA3-51","Carpenter and Allen (1989) describe the geographical distribution of this species as being\nwidespread in the Indo-Pacific region, from East Africa to the Marquesas, from southern\nJapan to Australia. Adults of this species are found inhabiting sand and rubble areas on outer\nreef slopes to depths of 160 m, the researchers note. Individuals of the species are commonly\nfound at lengths of approximately 30 cm and that the maximum reported total length for this\nspecies is 50 cm, they add.\nThe common mode of sexuality in Lethrinids is sequential protogynous hermaphroditism.\nWhen lethrinids first obtain sexual maturity they are initially female, later they change.\nCarpenter and Allen say that this reproductive mode explains several aspects of lethrinid\npopulation structure: the sex ration is usually slightly in favor of females, and on average\nmales tend to be larger then females. Research indicates that the sexual transformation occurs\nover a wide size range, the authors note.\nL. rubrioperculatus is commonly taken with handlines, trawls and traps and is one of the most\nimportant commercial species of bottomfish in the Northern Mariana Islands, Carpenter and\nAllen continue.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nLethrinid eggs are pelagic. They are described by Carpenter and Allen as spherical, possessing\nan oil globule and between 0.68 and 0.83 mm in size. They hatch between 21 and 40 hours\nafter fertilization. Newly hatched lethrinid larvae are 1.3-1.7 mm in length, with unpigmented\neyes, unopened mouth, variable body pigmentation and a large yolk sac. Extensive spination\nof the head is a notable feature of lethrinid larvae's physical appearance, Carpenter and Allen\nnote.\nJuvenile\nThere is virtually no information available concerning the distribution or habitat utilization\npatterns of this species.\nAdult\nAdults of this species feed primarily on crustaceans, fish, echinoderms and molluscs (Allen\n1985).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100 m)\nBibliography\nAllen GR. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Volume 6, Snappers of the world. FAO. Fisheries\nsynopsis nr 125, volume 6. 208 p.\nA3-52","Amesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam, Volume 1, The\nfishes. University of Guam Marine Laboratory: contribution number 17. Univ Guam\nPr.\nCarpenter KE, Allen GR. 1989. FAO species cataloque. Volume 9, Emperor fishes and large- 125,\neye breams of the world (family Lethrinidae). Rome: FAO. Fisheries synopsis nr\nvolume 9. 118 p.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a\nand analysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of\nsummary the SPC fisheries programme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia:\nSouth Pacific Commission. Inshore Fisheries Research Project technical document nr\n2.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource\nassessment of the Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of\nbottomfish resource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston\nAtoll. US Fish Bull (84):141-55.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.10 Habitat description for Lutjanus kasmira (blue-lined snapper, taape)\nPlan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nManagement Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nkasmira is in the family Lutjanidae, subfamily Lutjaninae. L. kasmira is distributed from\nthroughout Lutjanus the Indo-Pacific region; from East Africa to the Line and Marquesas Islands,\nA3-53","Australia to Japan (Allen 1985, Druzhinin 1970). It also occurs in waters around Hawaii\nwhere it was introduced in 1955 and 1961 by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural\nResources (Uchida 1986). There are concerns among fishermen that L. kasmira may compete\nwith native species of commercially important bottomfish, but available data does not support\nthis claim (Oda and Parrish 1981).\nL. kasmira is found on outer reef slopes at depths of up to 265 m and in shallow inshore\nwaters and lagoons (Myers 1991; Amesbury and Myers 1982). Myers (1991) observes that,\nduring the day, the species commonly forms large aggregations near high relief bottom\nfeatures such as prominent coral heads, ledges, caves, wrecks and patch reefs, and at night,\ndisperses to forage on benthic organisms, primarily crustaceans and fish.\nLutjanids are dioecious (Allen 1985). L. kasmira reaches maturity at 12 -25 cm. Suzuki and\nHioka (1979) note that group spawning has been observed in L. kasmira in the evening and at\nnight. Males initiate courtship by rubbing and pecking against the body of the female. As\nother males congregate, they begin an upward spiral ascent, culminating with the release of\nthe gametes near the surface, the authors state. Mizenko (1984) found that spawning events\noccur with a lunar periodicity coinciding with full and new moon events over an extended\nspawning period. In Western Samoa, peak spawning occurs during the autumn and winter\nmonths, the author adds.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nVery little is known about this species's early life history. Suzuki and Hioka describe the eggs\nas 0.78-0.85 mm, noting that fertilized eggs are buoyant and spherical and contain, a single\noil globule. They hatch in approximately 18 hours at 22 to 25° C under controled conditions,\nthe authors add.\nNewly hatched lutjanid eggs are typical of other pelagic larvae. They are subject to advection\nby ocean currents (Munro 1987). Suzuki and Hioka say newly hatched L. kasmira larvae\nmeasure 1.83 mm in total length and possess a large ellipsoid yolk. Leis (1987) estimates the\npelagic larval phase of lutjanids at 25-47 days. It is thought that the pelagic phase of Lutjanus\nspp. is shorter than that of the eteline lutjanids, and size may be a more important factor than\nage in determining when larval settlement occurs, Leis notes.\nJuvenile\nJuveniles of this species are known to utilize shallow water habitats such as seaward reefs and\nsea-grass beds as nursery habitat (Myers 1991; Amesbury and Myers 1982).\nAdult\nL. kasmira is found widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific region, occurring in a variety of\nA3-54","habitat and depths. Mizenko (1984) found that except during spawning events the reef L.\nkasmira types was segregated by sex, with males dominating the deeper waters of the outer\nslope.\nis a nocturnal predator that preys primarily on fish and crustaceans (Parrish 1987, items\nL. kasmira and Parrish 1981, Van der Elst 1981). Rangarajan (1972) reports that the chief prey\nOda of L. kasmira, in order of abundance, include teleost fish, crabs, megalopa and prawns. and\nRangarajan concludes that there is no significant difference in the diets of young adult\nfish of this species.\nkasmira is frequently sold in local markets. In American Samoa it accounts for\nL. 11% of the total reported bottomfish landings (WPRFMC 1997). In Hawaii, The bulk it\napproximately of the principal species taken in the deep slope handline fishery (Allen accounted 1985). for a\nis of one the landed are taken in state waters (Ralston 1979). In Guam, taape data not\nlittle taape 3% of the total reported bottomfish landed (WPRFMC 1997). Catch are\navailable over for this species for in the Northern Mariana Islands. L. kasmira is taken primarily by\nmeans of handlines, gill nets and traps (Allen 1985).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow water bottomfish complex (0-100 m).\nL. kasmira is found in a wide range of habitats. It is often found in shallow, near-shore\nhabitats and is commonly found in association with coral reef habitats.\nBibliography\nAllen R. 1985. Snappers of the world. FAO. Fisheries synopsis nr 125, volume 6. 208 p.\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Vol. 1, 17. The fishes.\nUniv Guam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution nr\nDruzhinin AD. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (family Lutjanidae). J Icththy\n10:717-36.\nGrimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: A review. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston Boulder, S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nCO: Westview Pr. p 239-94.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nA3-55","Mizenko D. 1984. The biology of Western Samoan reef-slope snapper (Pisces: Lutjanidae)\npopulations of Lutjanus kasmira, L. rufolineatus and Pristipomoides multidens [MS\nthesis]. University of Rhode Island.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ,\nRalston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nBoulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 639-59.\nMyers, Robert F. 1991. Micronesian reef fishes. Barrigada, Guam: Coral Graphics.\nOda DK, Parrish J. 1981. Ecology of commercial snappers and groupers introduced to\nHawaiian reefs. In: Gomez ED , Birkeland CE, Buddemeier RW, Johannes RE, Marsh\nJA Jr, Suda RT, editors. Proceedings of the fourth international coral reef symposium;\n18-22 May 1981; Manila, Philippines. 1:59-67.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management .Boulder,\nCO: Westview Pr. p 405-63\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam\nand the Northern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries\nManagement Council.\nRangarajan K. 1972. Food and feeding habitats of the snapper, Lutjanus kasmira (Forskal)\nfrom the Andaman Sea. Indian J Fish 17:43-52.\nSuzuki K. Hioka S. 1979. Spawning behavior, eggs, and larvae of the Lutjanid fish, Lutjanus\nkasmira, in an aquarium. Japanese J Icthy. 26(2):161-6.\nTalbot FH. 1960. Notes on the biology of the Lutjanidae (Pisces) of the East African Coast,\nwith special reference to L. Bohar (Forskal). Annals So Afri Museum. 45:549-74.\nUchida RN. 1986. Taape. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. p 110-1. Technical report nr NMFS 38.\nVan der Elst R. 1981. A guide to common sea fishes of southern Africa. Cape Town, South\nAfrica: C. Struik. 367 p.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report.\nHonolulu: WPRFMC.\nA3-56","1.5.11 Habitat description for Pristipomoides auricilla (yellowtail snapper, yellowtail\nkalekale), P. flavipinnis (yelloweye snapper, yelloweye opakapaka) and P. zonatus\n(snapper, gindai)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThese three Pristipomoides, or snappers, are part of the fish assemblage associated with the\nrocky deeper reef slopes in the Indo-Pacific region beyond the areas of hermatypic corals. P. All\nthree species are found in depths ranging from 80 to 300 m, although P. auricilla and\nflavipinnis are most abundant in the depth range 180-270 m, and P. zonatus, between 100 and\n200 m. P. auricilla and P. zonatus are found throughout the western Pacific region, while P.\nflavipinnis is absent from Hawaii.\nThese three species do not comprise major fractions of bottomfish catches in Hawaii, but P.\nzonatus and P. auricilla form about 6% and 20% respectively of commercial bottomfish\ncatches in Guam.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nThere are relatively few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of species of lutjanids.\nLutjanids eggs typically are less than 0.85mm in size (Leis 1987). They hatch in 17-36 h\ndepending on water temperature.\nClarke (1991), in a larval fish survey conducted off Oahu in the MHI, found eteline snapper\nlarvae were rarely collected, comprising less than 0.5% of the 5,200 fish larvae identified. In\nthis study, eteline snapper larvae were collected exclusively during the late summer and fall.\nVery little is known about this species larval life history stage. Newly hatched lutjanid eggs\nare typical of other pelagic larvae. They have a large yolk sac, no mouth, unpigmented eyes\nand limited swimming capabilities. Snapper larvae are subject to advection by ocean currents\n(Munro 1987). Leis (1987) estimated the duration of the pelagic phase of lutjanids at 25-47\ndays. It is thought that the pelagic phase of eteline lutjanids, such as P. seiboldii, is longer\nthan that of Lutjanus spp, and size may be a more important factor than age in determining\nwhen larval settlement occurs in Lutjanids, Leis notes.\nJuvenile\nVery little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of this species.\nA3-57","Adult\nSee \"Life History and General Description\" above.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water species complex (100-400)\nA3-58","in depths ranging from 80 to\n300 m, although P. auricilla\nabundant in the depth range\n180-270 m, and P. zonatus,\nauricilla and P. zonatus are\nFound over rocky bottoms\nbetween 100 and 200 m. P.\nand P. flavipinnis are most\nConsists primarily of fish,\nAll three species are found\nNo information available\ncrab, shrimp, polychaetes,\npelagic urochordates and\nNo information available\nwestern Pacific region,\nat depths of 80-300 m\nwhile P. flavipinnis is\nfound throughout the\nabsent from Hawaii.\ncephalopods\nDemersal\nAdult\nHabitat description for Pristipomoides auricilla, P. flavipinnis and P. zonatus\nthe distribution and habitat\nNo information available\nNo information available\nVery little is known about\nutilization patterns of this\nNo information available\nNo information available\nDemersal\nJuvenile\nspecies.\noceanic waters than over the\nLutjanid larvae are subject\nmore abundant in slope and\nLutjanid larvae are known\nlutjanids life history last for\nThe pelagic larval phase of\nto avoid the surface layer\nEteline snapper larvae are\nduring the day. At night,\nsnapper larvae are found\nmore evenly distributed\n25--47 days and that size\nNo information available\nmay be a more important\nthroughout the surface\nto advection by ocean\nA3-59\ndetermining when\nsettlement occurs.\ncontinental shelf\nfactor than age in\ncurrents\nwaters.\nLarvae\nN/A\nadvection by ocean currents\nLutjanid eggs are subject to\nNot well documented,\nwidely distributed.\n17-36 h 18 hours\nPelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAllen GR. 1985. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 6. , Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization of the United Nations. 208 p.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers:\nbiology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ,\nRalston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management.\nBoulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 639-59.\n1.5.12 Pristipomoides filamentosus (pink snapper, opakapaka)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nPristipomoides filamentosus is an eteline snapper in the family Lutjanidae. It known by the\nEnglish common name of pink snapper; in Hawaii, it is known as opakapaka. P. filamentosus, It\nis widely distributed throughout the Indo-west Pacific region (Mees 1993, Druzhinin 1970). Moffitt\nis deepwater species of snapper with a depth distribution of 30-360 m (Kami 1973, inches\n1993). a It is a long-lived, slow-growing species, capable of reaching a length of 31.5\nand an age of 18 years (Moffitt 1993, Waas 1994).\nP. filamentosus is one of the most important demersal species of fish managed by the Annual Western\nPacific Regional Fishery Management Council (the Council). The Council's 1996\nfor the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries reports landings for the species\nReport were 137,755 lb from the MHI and an additional 76,860 lb from the NWHI- approximately\n32% of the total reported BMUS landings in the Hawaiian Islands. The species also\ncommanded the second highest price per pound of any BMUS in Hawaii, the report adds.\nWhile less prevalent, P. filamentosus is still an important species in the American Samoa,\nGuam and the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish fishery. In Guam, it comprises roughly\n3% of the total bottomfish landed, and in terms of price per pound, it is one of the most\nvaluable bottomfish species landed, the 1996 annual report notes. In the Northern Mariana in\nIslands, it comprises an estimated 10% of the total reported bottomfish landings, while\nAmerican Samoa, it accounts for less than 1% of the total BMUS species landed.\nAccording to Ralston and Polovina (1982), most of the fishing effort for deepwater bottomfish Hawaiian\nspecies occurs in the steep drop-off zone that surrounds the islands and banks of the\nA3-60","these researchers use the 100-fathom isobath that surrounds an island or that bank P. to\narchipelago; estimate the total amount of bottomfish habitat. Uchiyama and Tagami (1983) found Banks.\nfilamentosus dominated the catch at Necker Island, French Frigate Shoals and Brooks\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nrelatively few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of species of lutjanids.\nThere According are to Leis (1987), lutjanids eggs typically are less than 0.85mm in size. They and hatch in\n17-36 h depending on water temperature. Pink snapper eggs are small, spherical pelagic.\nLittle is known about the larval life of P. filamentosus. But the eggs of newly hatched\nlutjanid, such as P. filamentosus, are typical of other pelagic larvae. They have a large estimates yolk-\nmouth, unpigmented eyes and limited swimming capabilities. Leis (1987)\nsac, that no the duration of the pelagic phase of lutjanids to range from 25 to 47 days. The be pelagic\nof eteline lutjanids is longer than that of Lutjanus spp., he notes. Size may Leis a more\nphase important factor than age in determining when larval settlement occurs in lutjanids, adds.\nSnapper larvae are subject to advection by ocean currents (Munro 1987).\nJuvenile\nLittle is known about the life history and habitat requirements of juvenile P. filamentosus. the A\ndense aggregation of juvenile of this species has been found offshore of Kaneohe Bay on\nisland of Oahu in an area of very low relief, at depths of 65-100 This flat, featureless\nhabitat is very different from the high relief areas preferred by adults of the species. While\nsampling for juvenile snapper was extended beyond the 60-100 target depth, no juveniles\nwere taken outside of this depth range (Moffitt and Parrish 1996). These data demonstrate,\nat this specific location, juvenile P. filamentosus has a strong affinity for a relatively\nthat narrow depth range. It is thought that this habitat may provide them the advantage of reduced\npredation pressure and lessen interspecific competition.\nParrish et al. (1997) suggest that areas of uniform sediment type are an important substrate their\nfeature for juvenile P. filamentosus. They found a significant correlation between of\nabundance and clay-silt substrate; they also found significantly lower abundance these\njuvenille in areas surrounded by escarpment-type relief than in areas of uniform sediment of\nbottom. The same research found a similar pattern of significantly lower abundance\njuveniles in areas of exposed hard substrate.\nJuvenile P. filamentosus first appear at Kaneohe Bay at a size of about 7-10 cm FL (Moffitt\nand Parrish 1996). They stay in this habitat for less than a year before moving into deeper\nwaters (150-190 m) as they mature (Parrish et al. 1996). When the juveniles move into deeper\nthey are 18-20 cm FL (Moffitt and Parrish 1996). Age-length studies for species\nwater, indicate a body length of 18 cm length would be obtained by age 1 (DeMartini et al. 1994).\nA3-61","A fishing survey of the MHI has identified only one other area with an aggregation second of juvenile site\nP. filamentosus similar to the Kaneohe Bay site. Parrish et al. (1997) identified the to\nin 1993 off the southwest coast of Molokai. Snapper abundance at this site was found not\ncorrelated with substrate type. However, there was a significant correlation between\njuvenile be snapper abundance and sources of coastal drainage. At the Kaneohe site, an internal,\nsemi-diurnal tide provides an influx of cold water to the juvenile snapper nursery grounds of\nduring high tide (Moffitt and Parrish 1996). Parrish et al. postulate that distribution than juvenile\nwithin their preferred habitat type may be more closely related to water flow\nsnapper sediment particle size. They hypothesize that water flow may enhance the food supplies in\nthese areas. Parrish (1989) reports the diet of juvenile P. filamentosus comprises primarily\nsmall crustaceans. Other prey items include juvenile fish, cephalopods, gelatinous plankton\nand fish scale.\nThe results of a tagging study found that juvenile P. filamentosus migrate between deeper\ndaytime locations and shallow nighttime positions (Moffitt and Parrish 1996). This\nmovement, which displayed a crepuscular periodicity, was unrelated to water temperature. active\nThe results of this study demonstrated that these juvenile pink snapper were more\nduring the day than night.\nBased video abundance data, Parrish et al. (1997) calculated a mean estimated density of\n6.6 km2 on for \"non-premium\" habitat. They applied this number to all the available habitat at the\n60-90 m depth range in the MHI (2,600 km2) and came up with an estimate of 17,200\nindividuals. This estimate is only 15% of the 115,600-189,200 juvenile snappers, back-\ncalculated from commercial catch data, needed to sustain the current level of landings in the\nMHI for this species of pink snapper, the authors note.\nis not known how widespread the preferred habitat of juvenile P. filamentosus is in the\nIt waters of Hawaii. Surveys suggest that it represents only a small fraction of the total habitat at\nthe appropriate depths (Parrish et al. 1997). Areas of flat featureless bottom have typically\nbeen thought of as providing low value fishery habitat. The discovery of dense juvenile\naggregations in areas of very low relief provides substantial evidence to the contrary. of this\nsnapper This fact has important management implications for the conservation and protection\ncritical and limited habitat type. More research is needed to help identify, map and study\nnursery habitat for juvenile P. filamentosus.\nA3-62","Adult\nAdult P. filamentosus are found on the steep slopes and deepwater banks of Pacific islands. of\nThey aggregate near areas of high bottom relief (Parrish 1987). Large mixed groups\n(50-100), including P. filamentosus, have been observed aggregating 2-10 m above\nhigh snappers relief structures on Penguin Bank (Haight 1989). Moffitt (1993) reports that some\nspecies of deepwater snappers, such as P. filamentosus, are not be restricted to high relief,\ndeep-slope habitat. During the day, individuals of this species are found in areas of high shelf relief\nat depths of 100-200 m; during the night, these individuals migrate into shallower flat, form\nwhere they are found at depths of 30-80 m, Moffitt observes. Areas of high relief\nareas, localized zones of turbulent vertical water movement that increase the availability of prey\nitems (Haight et al. 1993). Ralston et al. (1986) found higher densities of P. filamentosus on\nthe up-current side vs. the down-current side of Johnston Atoll.\nHaight (1989) studied the trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater\n(Lutjanidae) on Penguin Bank. Based on the observations of the manned\nsnappers submersible and ROV surveys, a maximum density of 1.37 fish/m² and 1.24 fish/m² for\nwere calculated (Haight 1989). During the manned submersible dives, a mean\nsnapper encounter rate of 0.035 fish/m² was observed .P. filamentosus occur in progressively\nshallower waters (103 m) in the more northern reaches of the NWHI (Humphreys 1986).\nThe diets of deepwater snappers, such as P. filamentosus, are poorly understood. Parrish\n(1987) includes pelagic tunicates, fish, shrimp, cephalopods, gastropods, planktonic\nurochordates and crabs as prey items and reports that snappers feed mostly at night and forage\nover a wide area. Haight (198(9) characterizes P. filamentosus as a crepuscular feeder,\ndisplaying two peak foraging periods, shortly before dawn and shortly after sunset; he also\nfound the species to display a seasonal variation in its diet.\nThe depths at which snappers feed are not well documented. According to Parrish (1987), P.\nfilamentosus feed primarily at depths of greater than 100 m and stay within several m of found the\nbottom, but little is known about the type of substrate where they feed. Haight (1989)\nthe greatest catch per unit effort (CPUE) for P. filamentosus on Penguin Bank at depths of\nbetween 100 and 150 m. Moffitt (1993) observed a diurnal migration from areas of high relief\nat depths of 100-200 m during the day to shallow flat shelf areas at depths of 30-80 m at\nnight.\nFemale of this species reach maturity at a length of 42.7 cm and have a protracted spawning\nperiod of seven months (June-December) that peaks in August (Kikkawa 1983).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water species complex (100-400)\nA3-63","filamentosus have been found on the\nAreas of high relief, (e.g., steep slope\nshallow (30--80 m) flat shelf areas at\n17 months-18 years (need to confirm)\nfish, shrimp, cephalopods gastropods,\nHaight et al. (1993) reports the age of\nPrey items include: pelagic tunicates,\nAreas of high relief form localized\nentry into the fishery as 2 to 3 years\nfrom areas of high relief during the\nmovement. Higher densities of P.\nup-current side of Johnston Atoll\nP. filamentosus migrate diurnally\nzones of turbulent vertical water\nday at depths of 100-200 m, to\nplanktonic urochordates, crabs\nnight (Moffitt 1993)\nBottom; 30-343 m.\nand pinnacles)\nafter settlement\nAdult\nHabitat Description for Pristipomoides filamentosus (pink snapper, opakapaka)\nsnapper within its preferred\nhabitat type may be closely\nmonths (Haight et al. 1993).\ncm FL) (Haight et al. 1997).\nduring fall and early winter\nSmall crustaceans, juvenile\nJuvenile opakapaka appear\n10 months of age (7-10 cm\nLow relief, current flow,\ngelantinous plankton, fish\nFL) -- 17 month (18-25\ndistribution of juvenile\nrelated to water flow.\nBottom; 65-100 m\nIt is thought that\nfish, cephalopods\nDemersal\nclay silt\nJuvenile\nscale\nadvection by ocean currents (Munro\ndiurnal vertical migrations in water\nlarvae's abundance has been shown\nA3-64\nLeis (1987) reports pelagic phase of\nfactor than age in determining when\ndays. Size may be a more important\nspecies and ranges from 10-50 mm\nsettlement occurs (Leis 1987). Size\nMost species of lutjanid larvae are\nto increase with depth during the\nlutjanids life history last for 25-47\nat settlement varies widely among\nwaters than over the continental\nPelagic: lutjanids larvae display\nEteline snapper larvae are more\nIn Hawaii Pristipimoides larvae\nwere found in August-October.\nabundant in slope and oceanic\ncolumn (Leis 1987); lutjanids\nSnapper larvae are subject to\nNo information available\nless abundant in winter\nshelf (Leis 1987)\nday (Leis 1987).\n1987)\nLarvae\nN/A\nabundant over the continental\nLutjanids are generally more\nP. filamentosus spawn from\ndepending on species and\n17-36 h. incubation time\nwater temperature (Leis,\nJune to December.\nshelf waters\n1987)\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution\nGeneral and\nLocation\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAnderson WD Jr. 1987. Systematics of the fishes of the family Lutjanidae (Perciformes: Percidei), and\nthe snappers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology\nfisheries management Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 1-31. -\nDeMartini EE, Landgraf KC, Ralston S. 1994. A recharacterization of the age-length and growth\nrelationships of the Hawaiian snapper Pristipomoides filamentosus. US\nDruzhinin AD. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (family Lutjanidae). J Icth 10:717-36.\nHaight WR. 1989. Trophic relationships, density and habitat associations of deepwater Hawaii. snappers\n(Lutjanidae) from Penguin Bank, Hawaii [MS thesis]. Honolulu: University of\nHaight WR, Kobayash D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater snappers of\nthe Hawaiian archipelago. Mari Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nHumphreys RL Jr. 1986. Opakapaka. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA. Technical report NMFS 38.\nGrimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: a review. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Pr.\nTropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview p\n239-94.\nKami HT. 1973. The Pristipomoides (Pisces: Lutjanidae) of Guam with notes on their biology.\nMicronesica 9(1):97-117.\nKikkawa BS. 1980. Preliminary study on the spawning season of the opakapaka, Pristipimoides\nfilamentosus. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the second symposium on\nresource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1980 Apr 24-25; Honolulu, HI.\nHonolulu: University of Hawaii. p 226-32. ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01.\nKikkawa BS. 1983. Maturation, spawning, and fecundity of opakapaka, Pristipomoides filamentosus, the\nin the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of\nsecond symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May\n25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 149-60. Report nr ANYHOW-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\nKramer SH. 1986. Uku. In: Uchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. Fishery atlas of the Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands. NOAA. Techinical report nr NMFS 38.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, eds. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and\nfisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nA3-65","Mees CC. 1993. Population biology and stock assessment of Pristipomoides filamentosus on the\nMahe Plateau, Seychelles. J Fish Biol 43:695-708.\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore marine\nof the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies; Honiara:\nresources Forum Fisheries Agency; Canada: International Centre for Ocean Development.\nMoffitt RB, Parrish FA. 1996. Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper,\nPristipomoides filamentosus. Pac Sci 50(4):371-81.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston CO: S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management Boulder,\nWestview Pr. p 639-59.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource assessment Proceedings of\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Islands; 1983\nthe the second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian ANYHOW-\nof May 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 123-43. Report nr\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 Vol. 1.\nParrish F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull 87(4):1001-5.\nParrish FA, DeMartini EE, Ellis DM. 1997. Nursery habitat in relation to production 95:137-148. of juvenile pink\nsnapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, in the Hawaiian archipelago. Fish Bull\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston Westview S, editors. Pr.\nTropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: p\n405-63.\nRalston S, Polovina JJ. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline fishery in\nHawaii. Fish Bull 80(3):435-48.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of Fish bottomfish Bull\nresource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston Atoll. US\n(84):141-55.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution and abundance of bottomfishes of the in second the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings 25-27;\non resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May\nsymposium Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-47. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-\nMR-84-01 volume 1.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nSeamount Groundfish Fishery, 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery\nManagement Council.\nA3-66","1.5.13 Habitat description for Pristipomoides sieboldii (pink snapper, kalekale)\nPlan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana and Islands, Baker\nManagement Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nIslands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nsieboldii is a member of the family Lutjanidae. Within the family is found. Lutjanidae The English there are\nPristipomoides subfamilies including the Etelinae, in the which the genus Pristipomoides while in Guam and\nfour common name of this species is pink snapper. In Hawaii it is known as kalekale\nthe Northern Mariana Islands it is called guihan boninas.\nThere are 15 known species in the genus Pristipomoides in singularly the Indo-Pacific or in small region. groups, According and to\nAllen (1985), individuals of found this genus over rocky are typically bottoms at depths of 180 to 360 m throughout the\nfound\nmembers tropical Indo-Pacific of P. seiboldii region are from East Africa to Hawaii and as far north as southern Japan.\nI\nis taken primarily with handlines and bottom longlines (Allen 1985). According the species to the is\nP. sieboldii of Bottomfish andSeamount Groundfish in the Western Pacific,\nI\n1996 Annual taken Report in the MHI offshore handline fishery. Most of the fishing effort for banks deepwater of the\ncommonly bottomfish species occurs in the steep drop-off zone that surrounds the islands the and bottomfish FMP,\nP.\nI\narchipelago (Ralston and Polovina 1982). However, as noted in Islands, based\nHawaiian sieboldii is infrequently taken in American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana on\nthe available landing data.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nrelatively few taxonomic studies of the eggs and larvae of species of lutjanids. Lutjanids on water\nThere eggs typically are are less than 0.85mm in size (Leis 1987). They hatch in 17-36 h depending\ntemperature.\nfish conducted off Oahu in the MHI, Clarke (1991) found eteline snapper In this study, larvae\nIn a larval rarely collected, survey comprising less than 0.5% of the 5,200 fish larvae identified. and fall.\nwere eteline snapper larvae were collected exclusively during the late summer\nlittle is known about this species's larval life history stage. Newly hatched lutjanid and eggs limited are\nVery of other pelagic larvae. They have a large yolk sac, no mouth, unpigmented eyes at 25-47\ntypical capabilities. Leis (1987) estimates the duration of the pelagic phase of lutjanids than that\nswimming and believes that the pelagic phase of eteline lutjanids, such as P. sieboldii, is longer in determining of\ndays However, he notes that size may be a more important factor than age to advection\nLutjanus when larval spp. settlement occurs in lutjanids. Munro (1987) says snapper larvae are subject\nby ocean currents.\nA3-67","Juvenile\nVery little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of this species. In the Hawaiian\nIslands, schools of several hundred juvenile P. sieboldii have been observed along the Oahu's north\nshore (Kelley C. 1998. pers. comm).\nNo information concerning the diet of juvenile P. sieboldii is available. Parrish (1989) found the diet\nof juvenile P. filamentosus, another eteline snapper, to consist primarily of small crustaceans. Other\nprey items included juvenile fish, cephalopods, gelatinous plankton and fish scales.\nAdult\nP. sieboldii's maximum size is is commonly about 40 cm but can reach to approximately 60 cm\n(Allen 1985).\nThe diets of deepwater snappers, such as kalekale, are poorly understood (Parrish 1987). The diet of\nadult P. sieboldii consists primarily of fish, crab, shrimp, polychaetes, pelagic urochordates and\ncephalopods (Allen 1985). The depths at which snappers feed are not well documented. Parrish\n(1987) reports that snappers feed mostly at night and forage over a wide area.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Deep-water species complex (100-400 m)\nA3-68","Duration\nDiet\nSeasonal\nDistribution: General and\nBottom Type\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\ntemperature\n17-36 - h depending on water\nEgg\nN/A\nthroughout range\nWidely distributed\nN/A\npelagic\nadvection by ocean currents\nEggs are subject to\nHabitat description for Pristipomoides sieboldii (pink snapper, kalekale)\nphase of eteline lutjanids,\n25-47 days, the pelagic\nLarvae\nNo information available\nlutjanids.\nsettlement occurs in\ndetermining when larval\nimportant factor than age in\nspp. Size may be a more\nlonger than that of Lutjanus\nsuch as P. sieboldii, is\nthroughout range\nWidely distributed\nN/A\npelagic\ncurrents\nto advection by ocean\nSnapper larvae are subject\nA3-69\nNo information available\nJuvenile\nsieboldii is available\nthe diet of juvenile P.\nNo information concerning\nNo information\nNo information available\ndemersal\nNo information available\nNo information available\nAdult\nThe diet of adult P.\nrocky bottoms at depths of\nP. seiboldii are found over\ncephalopods\nurochordates and\npolychaetes, pelagic\nof fish, crab, shrimp,\nsieboldii consists primarily\ndemersal\nsouthern Japan.\nHawaii and as far north as\nregion from East Africa to\nthe tropical Indo-Pacific\n180 to 360 m throughout\nNo information available\nregion\nthe tropical Indo-Pacific\nrocky bottoms at depths of\n180 to 360 m throughout","Bibliography\nAllen R. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of the world. FAO. Fisheries synopsis no\n125, volume 6. 208 p.\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Vol. 1, The fishes. Univ\nGuam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution nr 17.\nAnderson WD Jr. 1987. Systematics of the fishes of the family Lutjanidae (Perciformes: Percidei),\nthe snappers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and\nfisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 1-31.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a summary and\nanalysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of the SPC fisheries\nprogramme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission.\nInshore Fisheries Research Project technical document nr 2.\nDruzhinin AD. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (family Lutjanidae). J Icththy 10:717-36.\nHaight WR, Kobayashi D, Kawamoto KE. 1993. Biology and management of deepwater snappers of\nthe Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):20-7.\nA3-70","Grimes CB. 1987. Reproductive biology of Lutjanidae: A review. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors.\nTropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p\n239-94.\nKami HT. 1973. The Pristipomoides (Pisces: Lutjanidae) of Guam with notes on their biology.\nMicronesica 9(1):97-117.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and\nfisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO:\nWestview Pr. p 639-59.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource assessment of\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, eds. Proceedings of\nthe second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983\nMay 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 123-43. Report nr ANYHOW-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\nParrish FA, DeMartini EE, Ellis DM. 1997. Nursery habitat in relation to production of juvenile pink\nsnapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, in the Hawaiian archipelago. Fish Bull 95:137-48.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors.\nTropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p\n405-63.\nPolovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of deepwater\nsnappers and groupers in the Mariana archipelago. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral\nReef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource assessment of\nthe Mariana Archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S, 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. US Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the\nNorthern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council.\nRalston S, Polovina JJ. 1982. A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep-sea handline fishery in\nHawaii. Fish Bull 80(3):435-48.\nA3-71","Ralston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of bottomfish\nresource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston Atoll. US Fish Bull\n(84):141-55.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the second\nsymposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27;\nHonolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-47. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-\nMR-84-01 volume 1.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and\nseamount groundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report. Honolulu:\nWPRFMC.\n1.5.14 Habitat description for Variola louti (lunartail grouper)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana Islands,\nJohnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and Baker\nIslands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nVariola louti is a member of the family Serranidae, the groupers. V. louti is one of only two species of\nthe genus Variola. It is the more common of the two genuses (Heemstra and Randall 1993). The\nEnglish common name of this species is the lunartail grouper. In American Samoa it is known as\npapa. In Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands it is known as bueli.\nHeemstra and Randall (1993) describes V. louti's distribution as being throughout the tropical Indo-\nPacific region from the Red Sea to South Africa to the Pitcairn Islands. In the western Pacific, it\nranges southern Japan to New South Wales, Australia, and is found at most of the islands of the west\ncentral Pacific, the authors continue. Variola louti is absent from the Hawaiian Islands.\nAccording to Heemstra and Randall, the lunartial grouper is commonly found on coral reefs at depths\nof 4 to 200 m. The species seems to prefer clear water areas typical of offshore reefs and islands and\nis normally found swimming up in the water column well above the reef, the authors note.\nV. louti are reported to reach maturity between 81 cm and 100 cm in length (Van der Elst 1981,\nHeemstra and Randall 1993) and 12 kg in weight (Postel et al. 1963).\nVery little is known about the spawning behavior of this species. One study found mature females at\n33 cm standard length (Morgans 1982). Research has documented spawning activity between\nDecember and February (Heemstra and Randall 1993).\nA3-72","According to Heemstra and Randall, lunartail grouper is an important food fish in artisanal fisheries\nthroughout the Indo-Pacific region, even though it is known to often be the cause of ciguatera\npoisoning.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nHeemstra and Randall describe the fertilized eggs as pelagic, spherical and transparent and 0.70-1.20\nmm in diameter with a single oil globule 0.13-0.22 mm in diameter. Based on the available data the\nlength of the pelagic larval stage of groupers is 25-60 days. The wide geographic distribution of\nserranids is thought to be due to this relatively long pelagic larval phase, the authors note.\nHeemstra and Randall calculate that the transformation of pelagic serranid into benthic larvae takes\nplace between 25 mm and 31 mm TL. The serranid larvae are distinguishable by their \"kite-shaped\"\nbodies and highly developed head spination, the authors point out.\nJuvenile\nThe juveniles of some species of serranids are known to inhabit sea-grass beds and tide pools. There\nis no specific information available for the habitat utilization patterns of juvenile V. louti\nAdult\nHeemstra and Randall describe goupers as typically ambush predators, hiding in crevices and among\ncoral and rocks in wait for prey. V. louti feeds primarily on fishes (particularly coral-reef species),\ncrabs, shrimps and stomatopods, with adults reportedly feeding during both daylight and nightime\nhours, the authors add.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shallow-water species complex (0-100)\nA3-73","west central Pacific. Variola\nreef species), crabs, shrimps\ntropical Indo-Pacific region\nJapan to New South Wales,\nDistributed throughout the\nCommonly found on coral\nPacific, it ranges southern\nreefs at depths of 4 to 200\nfrom the Red Sea to South\nNo information available\nV. louti feeds primarily on\nAustralia, and is found at\nmost of the islands of the\nfishes (particularly coral-\nNo information available\nlouti is absent from the\nIslands. In the western\nAfrica to the Pitcairn\nHawaiian Islands.\nand stomatopods\ndemersal\nAdult\nm.\nknown to inhabit sea-grass\nreach maturity between 81\nbeds and tide pools. There\nNo information available\nis no specific information\nNo information available\nNo information available\ncm and 100 cm in length\navailable for the habitat\nspecies of serranids are\nThe juveniles of some\nutilization patterns of\nHabitat description for Variola louti (lunartail grouper)\nV. louti are reported to\njuvenile V. louti\ndemersal\nJuvenile\nrelatively long pelagic larval\nA3-74\nThe pelagic larval stage of\ndistribution of serranids is\nthought to be due to this\nSubject to advection by\ngroupers is 25-60 days\nThe wide geographic\nprevailing currents\npelagic\nLarvae\nphase\nN/A\nN/A\nSerranid eggs incubate in\nSubject to advection by\nprevailing currents\n20-35 days\npelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, The fishes. Univ\nGuam Pr. University of Guam Marine Laboratory contribution nr 17.\nDalzell P, Preston GL. 1992. Deep reef slope fishery resources of the South Pacific, a summary and\nanalysis of the dropline fishing survey data generated by the activities of the SPC fisheries\nprogramme between 1974 and 1988. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission.\nInshore fisheries research project technical document nr 2.\nHarliem-Vivien ML, Bouchon C. 1976. Feeding behavior of some carnivorous fishes (Serranidae and\nScopaenidae) from Tulear (Madagascar). Mar Biol 37:329-40.\nHeemstra PC, Randall J. 1993. Groupers of the world (family Serranidae, subfamily Epinephelinae).\nRome: FAO. Fisheries synopsis nr 125, volume 16. 382 p.\nKendall AW Jr. 1984. Serranidae: development and relationships. In: Moser HG, Richards WJ,\nCohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW Jr, Richardson SL, editors. Ontogeny and systematics of\nfishes. An international symposium dedicated to the memory of Elbert Halvor Ahlstrom; 1984\nAug 15-18; La Jolla, California. Am Soc of Icthyol and Herpetol. p 499-510.\nLeis JM. 1987. Review of the early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappers\n(Lutjanidae). In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and\nfisheries management. Boulder, CO: Westview Pr. p 189-237.\nMoffitt RB. 1993. Deepwater demersal fish. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore marine\nresources of the South Pacific, 73-95, FFA, Honiara. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies; Honiara:\nForum Fisheries Agency; Canada: International Centre for Ocean Development.\nMorgans JFC. 1982. Serranid fishes of Tanzania and Kenya. JLB Smith Inst Ichthyol. Ichthyol Bull\n46:1-44, 6 pls.\nMunro JL. 1987. Workshop synthesis and directions for future research. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S,\neditors. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Boulder, CO:\nWestview Pr. p.639-59.\nOkamoto H, Kanenaka B. 1983. Preliminary report on the nearshore fishery resource assessment of\nthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1977-1982. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, eds. Proceedings of\nthe second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983\nMay 25-27; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 123-43. Report nr ANYHOW-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 volume 1.\nParrish JD. 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina JJ, Ralston S, editors.\nTropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management. Boulder CO: Westview Pr. p\n405-63\nA3-75","Polovina JJ. 1985. Variation in catch rates and species composition in handline catches of deepwater\nsnappers and groupers in the Mariana Archipelago. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International\nCoral Reef Congress; 1985; Tahiti. Volume 5.\nPolovina JJ, Moffitt RB, Ralston S, Shiota PM, Williams H. 1985. Fisheries resource assessment of\nthe Mariana archipelago, 1982-85. Mar Fish Rev 47(4):19-25.\nPolovina JJ, Ralston S. 1986. An approach to yield assessment for unexploited resources with\napplication to the deep slope fisheries of the Marianas. U. Fish Bull 84(4):759-70.\nPostel E, Fourmanoir P, Gueze P. 1963. Serranides de la reunion. Me. Inst Foundam Afr Noire\n68:339-84.\nRalston S. 1979. A description of the bottomfish fisheries of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the\nNorthern Marianas. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council.\nRalston S, Gooding RM, Ludwig GM. 1986. An ecological survey and comparison of bottomfish\nresource assessments (submersible versus handline fishing) at Johnston Atoll. US Fish Bull\n(84):141-55.\nRandall JE, Ben-Tuvia A. 1983. A review of the groupers (Pisces: Serranidae: Epinephelinae) of the\nRed Sea, with description of a new species of Cephalopholis. Bull Mar Sci 33(2):373-426.\nUchida RN, Uchiyama JH, eds. 1986. Fishery atlas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA.\nTechinical report nr NMFS 38.\nUchiyama JH, Tagami DT. 1983. Life history, distribution, and abundance of bottomfishes in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the second\nsymposium on resource investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1983 May 25-27;\nHonolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 229-47. Report nr ANYHOW-SEAGRANT-\nMR-84-01 volume 1.\nVan Der Elst R. 1981. A guide to the common sea fishes of Southern Africa. Cape Town: C Struik.\n367 p.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Bottomfish and seamount\ngroundfish fisheries of the western Pacific region, 1996 annual report. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\n1.5.15 Habitat description for Beryx splendens (alfonsin)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands (NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), Johnston Atoll,\nKingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and Baker Islands and Wake\nIslands.\nA3-76","Life History and General Description\nThe alfonsins (Berycidae), typically bright red in coloration, are fairly large fish. The family consists\nof two genera, Beryx and Centroberyx (Mundy, 1990).\nAlfonsin inhabit rocky bottom habitats at depths of several hundred meters (Seki and Tagami, 1986;\nMasuda et al., 1975). The distribution of the alfonsin is widespread in the tropical and subtropical\nwaters of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans (Busakhin, 1982). In the Pacific northern\nhemisphere, alfonsin are found primarily in two areas, over the southern Emperor and Northern\nHawaiian Ridge (SE-NHR) seamounts in the central Pacific and from Japan to Palau in the western\nPacific. In the central Pacific, alfonsin are found over seamounts while in the western Pacific region\nthey are also found over continental shelf areas (Humphreys et al., 1984). Over the SE-NHR\nseamounts their distribution overlaps with that of the pelagic armorhead (Pseudopentaceros\nwheeleri). Most of the available information about the biology and life history of alfonsin come from\nstudies done in the South Pacific and a few Russian studies from the Atlantic. Alfonsin occupies a\nwide depth range from 10 to 1240 m (Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1995; Massey and Horn, 1990).\nBased on examination of otoliths, Lehodey and Grandperrin (1996) calculated a maximum age of\n16.8 years for a female of 56.7 cm (FL). The average size of alfonsin captured at the Hancock\nseamounts in the SE-NHR region ranges from 15.3 to 35.3 cm (FL) (Uchida, 1986).\nIn the South Pacific, females reportedly grow faster than males, the difference increasing with age\n(Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1994). At the Hancock seamounts, the sex ratio is nearly equal\n(Humphreys et al., 1983). In the South Pacific, Alfonsin reaches sexual maturity at 6 years of age for\nfemales and at 7 to 8 years for males; approximately 33 to 34 cm respectively for females and males\n(Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1996; Mundy, 1990). In the western Pacific, alfonsin reportedly reach\nsexual maturity by age three (Ikenuye, 1969). Alfonsin spawns between August and October in the\nHancock seamount region (Mundy, 1990). The pelagic eggs hatch approximately 1 day after\nspawning (Uchida, 1986)\nTagging studies conducted by Japanese researchers indicate that alfonsins migrate form coastal to\noffshore waters as they mature. Alfonsins become demersal at one year of age or less (Uchida, 1986)\nIn the past, a large-scale foreign seamount groundfish fishery extended throughout the southeastern\nreaches of the northern Hawaiian Ridge. A collapse of the seamount groundfish stocks has resulted in\na greatly reduced yield in recent years. Alfonsin are taken primarily by means of bottom trawls.\nWhile it is the second most abundant species taken in the seamount groundfish fishery it comprises\nonly a small portion of the total catch (Seki and Tagami, 1986). Much of the demersal habitat on the\nsouthern Emperor and Northern Hawaiian Ridge (SE-NHR) seamounts is too steep and rough for\nbottom trawling. In the past, the principal gear used in the harvest of alfonsin by the Japanese was\nbottom longlines and handlines (Seki and Tagami, 1986).\nAlthough a moratorium on the harvest of the seamount groundfish within the EEZ has been in place\nsince 1986, no substantial recovery of the stocks has been observed. Historically, there has been no\ndomestic seamount groundfish fishery.\nA3-77","Egg and larval distribution\nAlthough alfonsin are commercially important species little is known about their early life history. As\npreviously mentioned, the eggs of the alfonsin are pelagic and hatch in about 1 day after spawning.\nThe larvae are planktonic for the first 2 to 3 days of existence after which time they begin to swim\n(Uchida, 1986). The dispersal of eggs and larvae is determined by the prevailing currents (Humphreys\net al., 1983).\nLarvae\nAt the Hancock seamount Beryx larvae have been found almost exclusively in the upper 50 m of the\nwater column. Larvae are nearly twice as abundant in the upper 25 m than between the 25 to 50 m\n(Mundy, 1990).\nJuvenile distribution\nJuveniles undergo a pelagic development phase that lasts several; months. Recruitment to benthic\nhabitat takes place at approximately 1.5 years of age. (Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1994). Juveniles\ninhabit shallower water than do adults, moving into progressively deeper waters as they grow and\nmature (Seki and Tagami, 1986).\nGalaktionov (1984) studied the schooling behavior of juvenile alfonsin. He found that during midday\njuveniles were concentarted on the bottom. Between 1700 and 1800 hours school formation occurs\nrelatively rapidly. The schooled juveniles move into shallower water at depths as shallow as 75 m\naround sunset.\nAdult distribution\nThe alfonsin is a bentho-pelagic species, migrating to the surface at night to feed returning to the\nbottom during the day (Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1994). Galaktionov (1984) reports that adult\nalfonsin form dense schools from 1000 to 1100 hours and from 1600 to 1700 to hours. The fish\nschool while at or near the bottom and slowly migrate upward through the water column.\nFood habit studies indicates that small fish dominate this species diet. Other prey items include small\ncrustaceans including decapods, euphausiids, krill and mysids (Uchida, 1986). Alfonsin are believed\nto prey primarily on bathypelagic organisms with benthic prey\nA3-78","contributing little to its diet (Lehodey and Grandperrin, 1994). In turn, alfonsin are preyed upon by\nlarge pelagic predators, including tuna.\nIn the western Pacific region, the abundance and distribution of alfonsin is dependent on the\nprevailing currents, particularly the Kuroshio (Uchida, 1986). Size increases with depth and latitude\n(Uchida, 1986). Sekli and Tagami (1986) report an optimum temperature range for this species of 6°\nto 18° C.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Seamount groundfish complex\nThe EFH designation for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish complex is all EEZ waters\nand bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29°-35°N and longitude 171°E-179°W between 80 to 600 m.\nEFH for eggs, larvae and juveniles is the epipelagic zone (~ 200 m) of all EEZ waters bounded by\nlatitude 29°-35°N and Longitude 171°E-179°W.\nA3-79","Alfonsin inhabit rocky bottom habitats at\nwidespread in the tropical and subtropical\ndepths of several hundred meters. In the\nprimarily in two areas, over the southern\nnorthern hemisphere, alfonsin are found\nalfonsin is dependent on the prevailing\ncentral Pacific, alfonsin are found over\nseamounts while in the western Pacific\nEmperor and Northern Hawaiian Ridge\nPacific and from Japan to Palau in the\nDemersal, Alfonsin occupies a wide\nSmall fish dominate this species diet.\nThe abundance and distribution of\n(SE-NHR) seamounts in the central\ncurrents, particularly the Kuroshio\nwaters of the Pacific. In the Pacific\nThe distribution of the alfonsin is\n16.8 years for a female of 56.7 cm\nregion they are also found over\ncrustaceans including decapods,\ndepth range from 10 to 1240 m\nOther prey items include small\neuphausiids, krill and mysids\ncontinental shelf areas\nwestern Pacific.\nAdult\nHabitat description for Beryx splendens (alfonsin)\nalfonsin is dependent on the prevailing\nyears for males; approximately 33 to 34\nmonths. Recruitment to benthic habitat\ntakes place at approximately 1.5 years\ncm respectively for females and males\ndevelopment phase that lasts several;\nAlfonsin reaches sexual maturity at 6\nPelagic, Juveniles undergo a pelagic\nyears of age for females and at 7 to 8\nprogressively deeper waters as they\nThe abundance and distribution of\ncurrents, particularly the Kuroshio\nof age. Juveniles inhabit shallower\nwater than do adults, moving into\nAlfonsins migrate form coastal to\noffshore waters as they mature\nNo information available\ngrow and mature\nA3-80\nJuvenile\nN/A\ncolumn. Larvae are nearly\nThe dispersal of larvae is\nexistence after which time\nupper 25 m than between\nfor the first 2 to 3 days of\nThe larvae are planktonic\nNo information available\nNo information available\nPelagic, At the Hancock\ntwice as abundant in the\nexclusively in the upper\nhave been found almost\nseamount Beryx larvae\nprevailing currents\nthey begin to swim.\ndetermined by the\n50 m of the water\nthe 25 to 50 m\nLarvae\nN/A\nThe dispersal of eggs\nis determined by the\napproximately 1 day\nprevailing currents\nNo information\nafter spawning\nEggs hatch\navailable\nPelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistributio\nn: General\nFeatures\nOceanic\nSeasonal\nDuration\nColumn\nBottom\nWater\nType\nDiet\nand","Bibliography\nBusakhin, S. V. 1982. Systematics and distribution of the family Berycidae (Osteichthyes) in the\nworld ocean. Journal of ichthyology 22(6): 1-21.\nGalaktionov, G.Z. 1984. Features of the schooling behavior of the Alfonsina, Beryx splendens\n(Berycidae), in the thalassobathyl depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Ichthyology 24(5):148-\n151.\nHumphreys, Robert L., Jr., Darryl T. Tagami, and Michael P. Seki. 1983. Seamount fishery Tanoue resources\nwithin the southern Emperor-northern Hawaiian Ridge area. in R.W. Grigg and K.Y.\n(eds.), Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the northwestern\nHawaiian Islands, May 25-27, 1983, p. 283-327. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, ANYHOW-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 Vol. 1.\nIkenuye, H. 1969. Age determination by otolith of a Japanese alfonsin, Beryx splendens, with special\nreference to growth. Journal of Tokyo University of Fisheries 55(2):91-98.\nLehodey, P. and R. Grandperrin. 1996. Age and growth of the alfonsino Beryx splendens over the\nseamounts off New Caledonia. Marine Biology 125:249-258.\nLehodey, P. and R. Grandperrin. 1994. A study of the fishery and biology of Beryx splendens\n(alfonsin) in New Caledonia. Fisheries Newsletter 71:30-34.\nLehodey, P. Paul Marchal, and R. Grandperrin. 1994. Modelling the distribution of alfonsino, Beryx\nsplendens, over the seamounts of New Caledonia. U.S. Fishery Bulletin. 92:748-759.\nMassey, B.R. and P.L. Horn. 1990. Growth and age structure of alfonsino (Beryx splendens) freshwater from the\nlower east coast, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand journal of marine and\nresearch. 24:126-136.\nMasuda, Haime, Chuichi Araga, and Tetsuo Yoshino. 1975. Coastal fishes of southern Japan. Tokai\nUniversity Press. 379 pp.\nMundy, Bruce C. 1990. Development of larvae and juveniles of the alfonsins, Beryx splendens and B.\ndecadactylus (Berycidae, Beryciformes). Bulletin of Marine Sciences. 46(2):257-273.\nSaski, Takashi. 1986. Development and present status of the Japanese trawl fisheries in the N. vicinity of\nseamounts. in Environment and Resources of Seamounts in the North Pacific, (Richard\nUchida, Sigeiti Hayasi, and George W. Boehlert, eds). pp 21-30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS\n43.\nA3-81","Seki, Michael P., and Darryl T. Tagami. 1986. Review and present status of handline and bottom\nlongline fisheries for alfonsin. in Environment and Resources of Seamounts in the North Pacific,\n(Richard N. Uchida, Sigeiti Hayasi, and George W. Boehlert, eds). pp 31-35. NOAA Technical\nReport NMFS 43.\nUchida, Richard N. 1986. Berycidae. in Fishery Atlas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, (R.N.\nUchida and J.H. Uchiyama, eds.), pp. 78-79. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 38.\nVinnichenko, V.I. 1997. Vertical diurnal migrations of slender alfonsino Beryx splendens\n(Berycidae) at underwater rises of the open North Atlantic. Journal of Icthyology. 37(6):438-444.\n1.5.16 Habitat description for Hyperoglyphe japonica (ratfish, butterfish)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands (NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), Johnston Atoll,\nKingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and Baker Islands and Wake\nIslands.\nLife History and General Description\nThere is no information available concerning the life history and basic biology of the ratfish. This\nspecies is infrequently taken as an incidental species in conjunction with the seamount groundfish\nfishery.\n1.5.17 Habitat description for Pseudopentaceros wheeleri (armorhead)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands (NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), Johnston Atoll,\nKingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and Baker Islands and Wake\nIslands.\nLife History and General Description\nBoehlert and Sasaki (1988) and Humphreys et al. (1983) were the primary sources used in the\npreparation of this species profile.\nThe pelagic armorhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri) is widely distributed throughout the North\nPacific Ocean (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988). Electrophoretic and meristic work suggests that a single\nstock of pelagic armorhead exists (Humphreys et al., 1983). Oceanographic conditions seem to be the\nprimary factor regulating the armorhead's distribution. Zones of upwelling, produced by the\nprevailing currents, result in high biological productivity over the Southern Emperor-Northern\nHawaiian Ridge (SE-NHR) seamounts (Pontekorvo, 1974 in Humphreys et al., 1983). The life\nA3-82","histories and distributional patterns of the armorhead are poorly understood as is the effects of\noceanographic variability on migration and recruitment of the armorhead.\narmorhead has two distinct life history phases that includes a pelagic juvenile phase and\na\nThe demersal pelagic adult phase (Somerton and Kikkawa, 1992). Between 1.5 and 2.5 years of age, Pacific the pelagic\ninhabits the epipelagic zone of the subarctic-transitional waters of the North time during the\narmorhead pre-recruit phase (Humphreys, 1995; Somerton and Kikkawa, 1992). During the this SE-NHR\na fish lengthy remain nonreproductive. Subsequently, these fish recruit to demersal habitat on down\nseamounts. Humphreys et al. (1983) report that adults are found on the slopes of seamounts summits to\ndepths of 800 to 900 m. The commercial fishery for pelagic armorhead targets fish and on Sasaki, the 1977) of\nseamounts at the 200 to 490 m depth range (Humphreys et al., 1983; Takahashi\nsmallest reported sizes for pelagic armorhead range from 5 to 20 mm and typically for occurred 22 cm\nThe of 33 N° (Humphreys et al., 1984). Research indicates an age estimate of 3 years fork\nsouth (FL) and 6 years for 32 cm fork length (Humphreys et al., 1983). Based on length frequency 1970\nlength data, it is believed that fish taken by the trawl fishery are typically 5 to 7 years of age (Chikuni,\nI\nin Humphreys et al., 1983). Females are slightly larger than males.\nAdult pelagic armorhead have three distinct morphological types: \"lean type\", \"intermediate and intermediate type\"\nand \"fat type\". While all three types are found over the SE-NHR seamounts, the lean the\npredominate. The epipelagic phase of the armorhead life history is characterized by The\ntypes accumulation of fat reserves and continuous somatic growth (Humphreys et al., 1989). bluish\nI\nmottled coloration of the open ocean fat type is indicative of its epipelagic existence. The open newly ocean\nfat is nonreproductive. After recruitment to the summits of the SE-NWR seamounts, coloration.\ntype adults rapidly lose their mottled bluish coloration, ultimately assuming a brownish the\nsettled This transformation is fairly rapid and explains the relatively low abundance of fat type on\nSomatic growth ceases and the fat reserves are depleted as the fish become reproductively the\nseamounts. active. These physiological changes result in the intermediate morphological type and ultimately of these\nlean type as the fat reserves are further depleted (Humphreys et al., 1989). The existence\ndistinct morphological types are absent in juveniles. (Humphreys et al., 1983).\nmain reproductive population is found on SE-NHR seamounts between latitude 29° and February 35° N.\nThe (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988). Spawning activity is benthic and is restricted to December to and\nat\nSE-NHR seamounts. (Humphreys, 1995). Peak spawning activity occurs between January\nthe (Humphreys et al., 1983). Research indicates that armorhead reach sexual maturity at 1.5 to\nFebruary in ranging in size from 23.0 to 28.5 standard length (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988).\n2.5 Spawning years occurs age, at depths ranging from 200 to 500 m (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988). It is thought that\nP. wheeleri is semelparous, spawning only once before dying.\nand juveniles are pelagic and are found widely distributed in the North Pacific Ocean of\nEggs, larvae 1988). Initially the larvae are found in the epipealgic waters in the vicinity\n(Boehlert the SE-NHR and seamounts Sasaki, (Humprheys et al., 1993). The larvae are transported by prevailing ocean and\ncurrents to the subarctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean (Humphreys et al., 1993). Boehlert\nSasaki (1973) report a 1.5 to 2.5 year time period between spawning and recruitment to the\nseamounts. The process by which these fish return and recruit to the seamounts is poorly understood\nA3-83","(Humphreys et al., 1993). It is thought that recruitment occurs only during the late spring to\nmidsummer months. The long pelagic phase combined with the variability of oceanic conditions play\nan important role in determining the strength of year-classes in this species (Boehlert and Sasaki,\n1988). The size of individuals at recruitment is generally uniform, ranging from 25 to 33 cm\n(Humphreys et al., 1989).\nIn the past, a large-scale foreign seamount groundfish fishery extended throughout the southeastern\nreaches of the northern Hawaiian Ridge. The seamount groundfish complex consists of three species\n(pelagic armorhead's, alfonsins, and ratfish). These species dwell at 200 to 600 m on the submarine\nslopes and summits of seamounts. A collapse of the seamount groundfish stocks has resulted in a\ngreatly reduced yield in recent years. Although a moratorium on the harvest of the seamount\ngroundfish within the EEZ has been in place since 1986, no substantial recovery of the stocks has\nbeen observed. Historically, there has been no domestic seamount groundfish fishery.\nEgg and larval distribution\nThe egg, larval and juvenile stages of the pelagic armorhead all occur in the surface layers where they\nare subject to advection by the prevailing currents (Humphrey et al., 1984; Borets, 1979).\nLarval and juvenile stages prey on zooplankton. Interannual variability in environment conditions\naffecting the abundance and availability of zooplankton may play an important role in the survival of\nthese early life stages and thus year class strength (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988).\nLarvae of P. wheeleri are neustonic and are carried eastward by the prevailing wind driven surface\nflow in the SE-NHR seamount region (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988). Through some unknown\nmechanism, fish move northeastward ultimately entering the subarctic waters of the Alaska gyre\n(Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988). The two available studies of larval distribution of armorhead conflict but\nsuggest that the distribution of larvae varies from year to year (Boehlert and Sasaki, 1988).\nJuvenile distribution\nAs stated, during the first 1.5 to 2.5 years of life, juveniles lead a pelagic existence., inhabiting the\nepipelagic zone of the subarctic-transitional waters of the North Pacific Ocean (Somerton and\nKikkawa, 1992). Subsequently, a shift occurs from pelagic to demersal habitat. During the pelagic\njuvenile phase, armorhead acquire large reserves of fat before recruiting to SE-NHR seamounts. The\nlargest influx of juvenile recruits to the Juveniles recruit to the SE-NHR seamounts occurs during\nspring between April and June (Humphreys, 1995). Recruits are characterized by their bluish to grey\ncoloration and their fat reserves. After recruitment, the fish gradually assume a brownish coloration.\nThe diet of juveniles is comprised primarily of small plankktonic prey items, particularly copepods\n(Borets, 1979).\nAdult distribution\nAs stated, adults are found on the slopes of seamounts. P. wheeleri display crespuscular migrations\nthrough the water column. During daylight hours, they are found in the upper water column at depths\nA3-84","between 80 to 100 m. As dusk approaches they descend to the summits of the seamounts. It is thought\nthat these movements are related to foraging activity (Humphreys et al., 1983). At night, dense\naggregations of armorhead are found on the summits of the seamounts (Somerton and Kikkawa,\n1992).\nThe pelagic armorhead feeds during daylight hours, especially between the hours of 0800 and 1000.\n(Humphreys et al., 1983; Sakiura, 1972). Prey items include epipelagic crustaceans, copepods,\namphipods, tunicates, eupausiids, pteropods, sergestids, myctophids, macrura and mesopelagic fish.\nOrganisms of the deep scattering layer also comprise a portion of this species diet (Humphreys et al.,\n1983; Sakiura, 1972).\nIt is believed that the horizontal and vertical distribution of P. wheeleri is controlled by water\ntemperature. The lower tolerance limit is approximately 5 C° while the upper limit is roughly 20 C°.\nIt is thought that the preferred temperature range of this species is 8 to 15 C° (Humphreys et al.,\n1983; Chikuni, 1971). Pelagic armorhead are found year-round on the southern Emperor-Northern\nHawaiian Ridge seamounts.\nThe life expectancy of the armorhead once it has recruited to demersal habitat ranges from 4 to 5\nyears.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Seamount groundfish complex\nThe EFH designation for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish complex is all EEZ waters\nand bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29°-35°N and longitude 171°E-179°W between 80 to 600 m.\nEFH for eggs, larvae and juveniles is the epipelagic zone (~ 200 m) of all EEZ waters bounded by\nlatitude 29°-35°N and Longitude 171°E-179°W.\nA3-85","Adults are found on the slopes of seamounts\naggregations of armorhead are found on the\nThe life expectancy of the armorhead once it\nprimary factor regulating the armorhead's\ncopepods, amphipods, tunicates, eupausiids,\npteropods, sergestids, myctophids, macrura\nfound in the upper water column at depths\nOceanographic conditions seem to be the\nDemersal, During daylight hours, they are\nThe pelagic armorhead (Pseudopentaceros\nwheeleri) is widely distributed throughout\nPrey items include epipelagic crustaceans,\nhas recruited to demersal habitat ranges\nbetween 80 to 100 m. At night, dense\ndown to depths of 800 to 900 m\nsummits of the seamounts\nthe North Pacific Ocean\nand mesopelagic fish.\nfrom 4 to 5 years\ndistribution.\nHabitat description for Pseudopentaceros wheeleri (armorhead)\nAdult\nconditions seem to be\nthe epipelagic zone of\ntransitional waters of\nduring a lengthy pre-\nBetween 1.5 and 2.5\nJuvenile stages prey\nthe primary factor\narmorhead inhabits\nthe North Pacific\nOceanographic\ndemersal habitat\nregulating the\non zooplankton\narmorhead's\ndistribution.\nthe subarctic-\nrecruit phase\nFish recruit to\nyears of age\nThe pelagic\nJuvenile\npelagic\nN/A\nA3-86\nsubarctic waters of the\nthe vicinity of the SE-\nNorth Pacific Ocean\nLarval stages prey on\nepipealgic waters in\nInitially the larvae\nprevailing ocean\nNHR seamounts\nare found in the\ncurrents to the\nThe larvae are\ntransported by\nNo information\nzooplankton\navailable\npelagic\nLarvae\nN/A\nprevailing ocean currents to the\nEggs are found in the epipealgic\nwaters in the vicinity of the SE-\nsubarctic waters of the North\nThe eggs are transported by\nNo information available\nNHR seamounts\nPacific Ocean\npelagic\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBoehlert, George W., and Takashi Sasaki. 1988. Pelagic biogeography of the armorhead\n(Pseudopentaceros wheeleri), and recruitment to isolated seamounts in the North Pacific Ocean.\nU.S. Fishery Bulletin 86(3): 453-465.\nBorets, L.A. 1979. The population structure of the boarfish, Pentaceros richardsoni, from the\nEmperor Seamounts and the Hawaiian Ridge. Journal of Ichthyology 19(3):15-20.\nChikuni, S. 1971. Groundfish on seamounts in the North Pacific. Bulletin of Japanese Society 12 of\nFisheries Oceanography. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Translation No. 2130. pp.\nan outline. Enyo (Far Seas) Fisheries\n1970. The \"Phantom fish,\" \"kusakari tsubodai\"\nResearch . Laboratory News 3:1-4. National Marine Fisheries Service, Terminal Island, CA.\nHumphreys, Robert L., Jr. 1995. Recruitment variation in a seamount population of armorhead: Thesis, an\nanalysis of biological characters derived primarily from otolith analysis. Master's\nUniversity of Hawaii.\nHumphreys, Robert L., Jr., Mark Crossler, and Craig M. Rowland. 1993. Use of a monogenean of gill\nand feasibility of condition for identifying new recruits to a seamount population 91:455-463.\nparasite armorhead Pseudopentaceros wheeleri (Pentacerotidae). U.S. Fishery Bulletin\nHumphreys, Robert L., Jr., Gary A. Winans, and Darryl T. Tagami. 1989. Synonymy and life history\nof the north Pacific armorhead, Pseudopentaceros wheeleri Hardy (Pisces: Pentacerotidae).\nCopeia 1: 142-153.\nHumphreys, Robert L., Jr., Darryl T. Tagami, and Michael Seki. 1983. Seamount fishery resources Tanoue\nwithin the Southern Emperor-Northern Hawaiian Ridge area. in R.W. Grigg and K.Y\nProceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the northwestern\n(eds.), Hawaiian Islands, May 25-27, 1983, p. 283-327. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, ANYHOW-\nSEAGRANT-MR-84-01 Vol. 1.\nPontekorvo, T.B. 1974. Certain peculiarities of distribution of hydrological and biological\ncharacteristics in the region of Hawaiian undercurrent mountain banks. Izyestiya of the Pacific\nScientific Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography (TINRO) 92:32-37. (Partial English\ntranslation by W.G. Van Campen, 1983; available Southwest Fisheries Center Honolulu\nLaboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Honolulu, HI).\nSakiura, H. 1972. The pelagic armorhead Pentaceros richardsoni, fishing grounds off the 1972. Hawaiian\nIslands, as viewed by the Soviets. The Fishing and Food Weekly 658:28-31, June 15,\nTranslation no. 16. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Honolulu Laboratory, National Marine\nFisheries Service, NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96812.\nA3-87","Somerton, David A. and Bert S. Kikkawa. 1992. Population dynamics of pelagic armorhead\nPseudopentaceros wheeleri on Southeast Hancock Seamount. U.S. Fishery Bulletin 90:756-769.\nTakahashi, Y., and T. Sasaki. 1977. Trawl fishery in the central Pacific seamounts. Division of\nnorthern waters groundfish Resources, Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory. 49 pp.\nTranslation no. 22. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Honolulu Laboratory, National Marine\nFisheries Service, NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96812.\nA3-88","PELAGICS SPECIES\n2\nThe most important fish (economically, culturally and socially) in the Pacific are oceanic and\npelagic, meaning they live in the near-surface waters of the ocean, often far from shore. Tuna,\nbillfish and other large pelagic species are among the world's most popular fish sought for\nfood and sport. These fish are noteworthy for their rapid growth and, for the tunas, high rates\nof reproduction, as well as their remarkable swimming speed and stamina. Unlike nearshore\npelagic species or bottom-dwelling fish that spend most of their lives near islands, pelagic fish\nmove freely in the oceanic environment. Variations in the distribution and abundance of these\nnomadic species are often related to differences between their life history profiles, migration\npatterns and habits that are affected by ever-changing environmental influences, such as water\ntemperatures, current patterns and the availability of food.\nPelagics Habitat\n2.1\nSpecies of oceanic pelagic fish live in tropical and temperate waters throughout the world's\noceans, including the Pacific. They are capable of long migrations that reflect complex\nrelationships to oceanic environmental conditions. These relationships are different for larval,\njuvenile and adult stages of life. The larvae and juveniles of most species are more abundant\nin tropical waters, whereas the adults are more widely distributed. Geographic distribution\nvaries with seasonal changes in ocean temperature. In both the northern and southern\nhemispheres, there is seasonal movement of tunas and related species toward the pole in the\nwarmer seasons and a return toward the equator in the colder seasons. In the western Pacific,\nadults of pelagic fish range from as far north as Japan and as far south as New Zealand. Alba-\ncore, striped marlin and swordfish can be found in even cooler waters at latitudes as far north\nas 50°N and as far south as 50°S As a result, fishing for these species is conducted year-\nround in tropical waters and seasonally in temperate waters.\nMigration patterns of pelagic fish stocks in the Pacific Ocean are not easily understood or\ncategorized, despite extensive tag-and-release projects for many of the species. This is particu- to\nlarly evident for the more tropical tuna species (yellowfin, skipjack, bigeye) which appear\nroam extensively within a broad expanse of the Pacific centered on the equator. In other\nwords, their migrations appear to be mainly restricted by water temperature and continental\nland masses and are often linked to large-scale water movements that physically transport fish\nfrom one area to another within a favorable temperature range. Although tagging and genetic\nstudies have shown that some interchange does occur, it appears that short life spans and rapid\ngrowth rates restrict large-scale interchange and genetic mixing of eastern, central and far-\nwestern Pacific stocks of yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Morphometric studies of yellowfin tuna\nalso support the hypothesis that populations from the eastern and western Pacific derive from\nrelatively distinct sub-stocks in the Pacific. The stock structure of bigeye in the Pacific is\npoorly understood, but a single, Pacific-wide population is assumed.\nThe movement of the cooler-water tuna (bluefin, albacore) is more predictable and defined,\nwith tagging studies documenting regular and well-defined seasonal movement patterns\nrelating to specific feeding and spawning grounds. The oceanic migrations of billfish are\nA3-89","poorly understood, but the results of limited tagging work conclude that most billfish species\nare capable of transoceanic movement, and some seasonal regularity has been noted.\nLarge pelagic fish are closely associated with their physical and chemical environment. Tuna\ntend to be most concentrated where food is abundant, commonly near islands and seamounts\nthat create divergences and convergences, near upwelling zones along ocean current\nboundaries and along gradients in temperature, oxygen and salinity. Swordfish tend to\nconcentrate along food-rich temperature fronts between cold, upwelled water and warmer\noceanic water masses.\nGradients in temperature, oxygen or salinity determine whether or not the surrounding water\nmass is suitable for pelagic fish. Fishermen sometimes use satellite images to help locate these\nthermal fronts. Oceanic pelagic fish such as skipjack and yellowfin tuna and blue marlin\nprefer warm surface layers, where the water is well mixed by waves and is relatively uniform\nin temperature. Other fish such as albacore, bigeye tuna, striped marlin and swordfish, prefer\ncooler, more temperate waters, often meaning higher latitudes or greater depths. Preferred\nwater temperature often varies with the size of the fish. Adult pelagic fish usually have a wide\ntemperature tolerance, and during spawning they generally move to warmer waters that are\npreferred by larval and juvenile stages. Large-scale oceanographic events (such as the El Niño\n-Southern Oscillation) change the characteristics of water temperature and productivity across of\nthe Pacific, and these events have a significant effect on the habitat range and movements\npelagic species.\nTuna movements are related to oceanographic characteristics, particularly water temperature\nand oxygen concentration. In the ocean, light penetration and water temperature diminish\nrapidly with increasing depth and, once below the thermocline, the water temperature is only a\nfew degrees above freezing. Many pelagic fish make vertical migrations through the water but\ncolumn. They tend to inhabit surface waters at night and deeper waters during the day,\nseveral species make extensive vertical migrations between surface and deeper waters\nthroughout the day. Certain species, such as swordfish and bigeye tuna, are more vulnerable surface to\nfishing when they are concentrated near the surface at night. Bigeye tuna may visit the in\nduring the night, but generally, longline catches of this fish are highest when hooks are set\ndeeper, cooler waters just above the thermocline (275-550 m or 150-300 fm). Surface\nconcentrations of juvenile albacore are largely concentrated where the warm mixed layer of\nthe ocean is shallow (above 90 m or 50 fm), but adults are caught mostly in deeper water\n(90-275 m or 50-150 fm). Swordfish are usually caught near the ocean surface but are known\nto venture into deeper waters.\nPelagics Yield\n2.2\nTuna, billfish, dolphinfish and wahoo are caught collectively by a variety of fishing gear\ntypes. At the latitudes of the US Pacific islands, tuna and billfish are generally caught by\nfishermen during predictable seasons. Their actual abundance in any particular year, however,\nis difficult or impossible to predict and is subject to countless factors in the oceanic\nenvironment. This variability is probably related to annual fluctuations in standing stock size\nA3-90","and oceanographic characteristics.\nThe rates at which pelagic fish grow vary greatly among species and to a large degree\ndetermine the level of fishing pressure a species can withstand. For instance, skipjack tuna\nthat grow and mature quickly can be safely harvested at very high levels, while slower\ngrowing bluefin tuna are easily overfished.\nYellowfin Tuna-Semi-independent stocks may exist in the western and central Pacific,\nwhich are considered relatively distinct from eastern Pacific yellowfin, but the maximum\nsustainable yield (MSY) of these stocks is still not well known despite considerable scientific\nresearch. Estimates based on surface fisheries (purse seine) and sub-surface fisheries\n(longline) provide different perspectives The western and central Pacific regional catch the has\nreached 375,000 mt per year (of which, less than 1% comes from domestic landings in US\nPacific islands region). It appears that western Pacific yellowfin stocks are not yet fully\nutilized, but fishing effort and catch are expected to steadily increase in coming years.\nBigeye Tuna-A single ocean-wide stock of bigeye tuna is assumed. The Pacific-wide catch the\nhas reached 152,000 mt per year (of which, about 1% comes from domestic landings in\nUS Pacific islands region). This is close to the estimated MSY, and the stock is considered\nfully utilized. Because juvenile bigeye are known to associate strongly with flotsam,\nincreasing purse seine catches around flotsam and fish aggregating buoys raises concern about\npotential overfishing.\nSkipjack Tuna-Tagging results indicate considerable movement of skipjack tuna in the Pa-\ncific. Even so, complete mixing of the population does not occur across the whole region\nwithin one generation of fish. Contradictory results of genetic studies suggest uncertainty\nabout stock structure. The total annual catch from the central and western Pacific is\napproaching 800,000 mt (of which, less than 1% is produced by domestic fisheries of the US\nPacific islands). Although the current level of catch and fishing effort is at a record high,\nfishing mortality accounts for only a small fraction of stock attrition because of the skipjack\ntuna's high rates of reproduction, growth and mortality. Thus, while MSY has yet to be\ndetermined, the stocks appears to be underutilized and is expected to easily sustain expanded\nfishing pressure by expanding fisheries.\nAlbacore-Discrete spawning areas and larval distributions are apparent for North and South\nPacific albacore stocks. Low catches of adults in equatorial waters suggest that the fish is\nlimited between hemispheres. Domestic fisheries from the US Pacific islands produce less\nthan 1% of the 59,000 mt annual Pacific-wide catch. MSY estimate for albacore in the North of\nand South Pacific appeared to give reasonable stock assessments before the development\nthe high seas drift gillnet fishery. With the rapid development and cessation of the driftnet\nfishery, however, there are now uncertainties about the reliability of those earlier stock\nassessments. Adult fish in the South Pacific stock are considered fully or overexploited.\nExpansion of surface fisheries targeting juvenile fish could have a detrimental impact on the\nabundance of adult albacore in the South Pacific. In the North Pacific, some assessments\nconclude that the stock is overexploited, but other research concludes that the adult stock\nremains stable.\nA3-91","Striped Marlin-Separate North and South Pacific sub-stocks are hypothesized on the basis of\na north-south separation of spawning grounds, except in the equatorial eastern and western\nPacific. These fish spawn in the western Pacific, are recruited into the Mexican fishery of the\neastern Pacific and move westward as they mature. In the North Pacific, semi-independent\nsub-populations are thought to blend over time. Domestic fisheries from the US Pacific\nislands contribute about 4% of the annual regional catch of 10,000 mt. MSY is unknown, but\nthe stock is considered underutilized because there has been no decline in yield under\nincreased levels of fishing pressure.\nBlue Marlin-Pacific blue marlin are thought to belong to a single, ocean-wide stock due to\nan observed homogeneous distribution of larval and adult fish. The current stock status is\nunclear. The total annual Pacific catch in recent years is estimated to be around 20,000 mt (do-\nmestic landings from the US Pacific islands comprise less than 5% of the total). A recent\nMSY estimate of 20,000 mt/yr was 2,000 mt/yr less than previous estimates. During the 1970s\nthe stock may have been over-utilized, but as longline fleets have changed fishing methods to\ntarget deeper-swimming bigeye tuna, the incidental catch of blue marlin has decreased. There\nmay have been some recovery of the stock, evidenced by an increase in the average weight of\nblue marlin taken by the Japanese longline fishery since 1975.\nSwordfish-The stock structure of swordfish in the western, central and South Pacific is\nunclear. Domestic landings from the US Pacific islands (mainly the Hawaii longline fishery)\nproduce more than 20% of the 18,000 mt of swordfish caught in the northwest and eastern\ncentral Pacific, and about 15% of the Pacific-wide catch. The distribution of catches the\npossibility of, at least, North and South Pacific stocks. Changes in the longline fisheries have\ncast doubt on the way previous MSY estimates were calculated, and current catch levels have\nexceeded the two previous Pacific MSY estimates. To date, however, no indication of\ndecreasing swordfish size has been found in the Hawaii fishery and stocks do not appear to\nhave been exploited on a Pacific-wide basis to the extent that would cause a declining trend in\ncatch rates.\nDolphinfish and Wahoo-North and South Pacific stocks of dolphin fish are apparently sepa- for\nrate. Little is known of the stock structure of wahoo. No estimates of MSY are available\neither species. The risk of overfishing dolphinfish is probably slight due to the apparent high\nnatural turnover (with a maximum life span of four years). Too little is known about wahoo to\nestimate MSY.\nBiological Information\n2.3\nTuna and billfish have many physiological adaptations for life in the open ocean. Tuna and\ntuna-like species are the fastest fish in the world. Bursts of speed exceeding 12-20 kph (20-30\nmph) are not unusual. Tuna have streamlined bodies that are specifically adapted for efficient red\nswimming. They have large white muscle masses useful for swimming long distances and\nmuscle masses for short bursts of speed when chasing prey or escaping predators. Tuna also\nhave circulatory heat exchangers that can raise or lower their body temperatures in response to\nheating up when vigorously feeding or swimming or cooling down when entering subsurface\nA3-92","waters. Unlike most fishes, the circulatory system of tuna can maintain their body\ntemperatures above that of the water in which they live, effectively making them a \"warm\nblooded\" animal. This adaptation may allow tuna to utilize their energy reserves quickly,\nwhich can translate to a rapid burst of speed and increased efficiency of the brain and eyes, so\nnecessary to hunting prey in cold, deep water.\ntuna's circulatory and respiratory systems are unique in the fish world. Fish are cold-\nThe blooded, and, for most, the temperature difference between shallow and deep layers of the\nocean is a physical barrier to vertical migrations. Tuna, however, have evolved the necessary\nphysiological adaptations to accomplish this activity. The ability to make vertical\nmigrations between cold, deep ocean waters and warm surface waters increases the tuna's\navailable habitat for feeding and ability to maintain a relatively constant body temperature.\nSome tunas move into deeper water to dissipate excess heat produced by feeding in warmer\nsurface waters. Other tuna exhibit the reverse behavior. The tuna's circulatory system is also\ndesigned to conserve heat when the fish is relatively inactive and to dissipate heat when activ-\nity increases.\nBillfish have a large white muscle mass but a smaller mass of red muscle than tunas. Thus,\nbillfish must rely on different defenses against the deleterious effects of changes in water\nFor example, swordfish have heater organs that warm the brain and eyes billfish to help\ntemperature. protect the central nervous system from rapid temperature changes. The bill of a for\nto may also be a special adaptation to reduce drag and increase speed, as well as a weapon\nkilling prey and for defense.\nTo orient and guide themselves on their extensive migrations across the open ocean, tuna and\nbillfish are thought to rely somehow on small particles of magnetite, a magnetic material\nfound near nerve endings in the skulls of these fish. Combined with other environmental earth's cues,\nthe fish may use magnetite to navigate using a \"biological compass\" attuned to the\nmagnetic field.\nFor most species of tuna and billfish it is reasonable to assume a single, ocean-wide stock in\nthe Pacific where a mingling of fish takes place gradually through the fish's whole life-span.\nThe exchange of fish among areas is difficult to determine because these fish move seasonally with\nbetween feeding and spawning areas, toward the poles and back. Sub-stocks may exist,\nstudies supporting the idea of stock discrimination between the eastern and western of\nsome Pacific. Results from genetic and tagging studies, however, indicate that some degree\nmixing does occur. For albacore and striped marlin, there is evidence of distinct North and\nSouth Pacific sub-stocks.\nMost of the oceanic pelagic fish form schools (wahoo less commonly so). Schools are most\ncompact when the fish are spawning or attracted to a common food source near features in such or\nas a seamounts, flotsam or man-made fish aggregation buoys. Marlin are often seen pairs\nin groups of several males with a single female.\nDirect interactions among tuna, billfish dolphinfish and wahoo species are not known,\nalthough they compete at the top of the food chain for the same prey. Tuna schools that are\nA3-93","associated with dolphins are common in the eastern tropical Pacific, but are rare m the\nwestern and central Pacific. The distribution of surface skipjack and juvenile yellowfin tuna\nschools (as well as dolphinfish and wahoo) are frequently associated with logs, other flotsam\nand fish aggregation devices. Fishermen also search for flocks of seabirds, which help to\nreveal tuna schools feeding on baitfish at the surface. Although skipjack, small yellowfin and\nsmall bigeye tunas are sometimes caught together, they maintain discrete schools and their co-\noccurrence around flotsam is probably the result of mutual attraction to food. In the western\nPacific, in addition to floating objects, yellowfin and skipjack tuna are sometimes associated\nwith the presence of whales and whale sharks.\nLife History\n2.4\n2.4.1 Eggs and larval stages\nPelagics eggs are tiny (about 1 mm diameter); they float with the help of an enclosed oil\ndroplet. Billfish eggs are somewhat larger than those of tuna.\n2.4.2 Juvenile\nAlthough these pelagic fish begin life at only a few millimeters in length, they can reach large\nsizes. All species grow rapidly during the early years of life with a gradual slowing of growth\nthereafter. A young tuna may add 2-4 cm (0.8-1.6 in) per month to its body length during the\nfirst two years of life and 0.5-2 cm (0.2-0.8 in) per month thereafter. Growth rates vary\nconsiderably depending on ocean conditions and food availability. The relationship between\nage and size in billfish is not as well understood.\n2.4.3 Adults\nAs subadults, male and female pelagic fish grow at approximately the same rate. After\nreaching sexual maturity, however, female tuna grow more slowly than male tuna, apparently\nin response to the higher energy requirements for egg maturation and spawning. In contrast,\nfemale marlin and swordfish grow faster than males after maturation and female marlin reach\nmuch larger sizes than the males. Dolphinfish males tend to be heavier than females of the\nsame length after 68 cm (27 in) due to differences in body morphology, i.e., the large head of\nmale dolphinfish.\n2.4.4 Forage and prey\nThe energy demands of swimming are great, and tuna and other pelagic fish have voracious\nappetites. Some species consume as much as 25% of their own body weight every day. Most\noceanic pelagic fish are opportunistic carnivores with variable diets. The major prey items can\nvary substantially during different stages of life, in different regions of the Pacific and in\ndifferent seasons. Adults feed on a variety of small fish, shrimp and squid, while juveniles are\nmore opportunistic, feeding on pelagic invertebrates such as crab larvae, isopods and\ncopepods. Some species have very specific and well-known predator-prey relationships, such\nA3-94","dolphinfish preying on flying fish, swordfish on squid, and blue marlin on skipjack animals. tuna.\nas Larval and juvenile tuna are, in turn, prey for fish, seabirds, porpoises and other\nare often cannibalistic, feeding on the young of their-own species. The presence used to of\nAdult larvae tuna in tuna stomach samples is common enough that this occurrence has been sharks\ntuna identify areas of recent tuna-spawning activity. Only humans, marine mammals and are\nknown to prey on adult tuna and billfish\n2.4.5 Reproductive biology\nMost oceanic pelagic fish spawn over vast areas of the Pacific in warm surface waters. at\ngenerally occurs through out the year in the tropics, and more seasonally females higher may\nSpawning latitudes when sea surface temperatures (SST) are over 24°C (75°F). Individual have\ntimes during the season at short intervals. All tuna and tuna-like species the large\nspawn high reproductive many rates, producing millions of eggs per year to compensate for billfish\npercentage of eggs that do not survive to adults. A spawning female tuna or may\nrelease about 100,000 eggs per kilogram of her body weight.\nsuch as skipjack tuna and dolphinfish have short lives (45 years) and reach sexual and\ndo\nSpecies in their first year of life. Some billfish and larger tunas may live 10-20 years old.\nmaturity not reproduce until they are 3-5 years old. Swordfish may first reproduce at 5-6 years\nLife Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Pelagic Species\n2.2\n2.2.1 Habitat description for Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis (dolphinfish, mahimahi)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reff, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Island.\nLife History and General Description\nThere are two species of dolphinfish, or, as it is known in Hawaii, mahimahi: Coryphaena which is\nhippurus-by far the most common-and C. equiselis (the \"pompano dolphin\"), in terms\ninfrequent in inshore areas. Boggs and Ito (1993) describe the Hawaii fishery only of\nC. According to Kojima (1966), there are two sub-populations of C. hippurus-one differing\nin the hippurus. Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern-but this assertion is based on\nseasonal migration patterns.\nThe dolphinfish is a fast swimming primarily oceanic fish distributed throughout the tropics is\nand sub-tropics of the world's oceans. According to Shcherbachev (1973) C. hippurus\ndistributed in the Pacific: longitudinally between 46°N and 38°S, in the central and in Pacific the\nwidely from the Hawaiian Islands in the north and the Tuamotu archipelago in the south be\neastern part from Oregon to Peru. Although primarily an ocean fish, it may occasionally is\nin estuaries and harbors (Palko and Beardsley et al. 1982). C. equisetis a more\ncaught exclusively oceanic fish and is rarely caught in coastal waters. Schherbachev (1973) notes a\nA3-95","restricted range, 38°N-28°S in the western Pacific and in the east from California to\nmore around 17°20'S. Palko and Beardsley et al. (1982) state that C. hippurus is restricted 12.4°C by the\n20°C isotherm, although Shcherbachev (1967) notes that a specimen was caught in of in\nthe Sea of Oshtok. Habitat conditions for C. equisetis are not well known but a minimum is\n24°C is suggested by Palko and Beardsly et al (1982). They also state that this species\nin Hawaiian waters. Insufficient information is available to describe the hypothetical\nhabitat common of dolphinfish beyond these temperature limits in the 20°-24° range with occasional\nintrusions into much cooler waters.\nAccording to Palko and Beardsly et al. (1982) there is little information about migrations northward of\neither species. Kojima (1965) argued that dolphinfish in the Sea of Japan make evidenced a\nmigration in the warmer months until September and then return south. This is is in\nHawaii by seasonal variations in the catch rate. In Hawaii the peak fishing season\nMarch-April and October-November. In American Samoa peak months are July-October\nwhile in the Marianas and Guam fish landings are highest January-April. This reflects a\nmigration pattern away from the equator during the warmer months in both hemispheres.\nDolphinfish also segregate into schools by sex and size. Females and young may be more\nclosely associated with floating objects (see below). According to Palko and Beardsly adult et al.\n(1982) seasonal variation may also be caused by ecological differences between\nspawning schools and young feeding schools.\nBeardsly (1967), based on work in the Atlantic, notes that dolphinfish are closely associated\nwith floating objects and that aggregations are common below windrows of floating\nSargassum seaweed. He also reports that in the Atlantic a large school of dolphinfish It was is seen\nfollow a floating Sargassum mat northward some 260 km off the coast of Florida. of\nto apparent that dolphinefish are strongly attracted to floating objects, probably because the\navailability of prey, and this may influence their movements also.\nC. hippurus grow rapidly and have a short life span of about four years; no information is\navailable on C. equiselis longevity. Lengths at age given by Kojima (1966) for Pacific\nspecimens are first year: 38 cm FL; second year: 68 cm FL; third year: 90 cm FL; and fourth\nyear: 108 cm FL.\nDolphinfish are heterosexual and sexually dimorphic: males have a steeper head profile in\nboth species. Males are also heavier than females for any given length, and this difference\nincreases with length (Beardsly 1967). Within schools significant variations in sex ratio occur;\nthis is probably due to differential schooling of small and large fish and size related sexual\ndimorphism (Palko and Beardsley et al. 1982).\nDolphinfish have an extended spawning season: year round in the tropics and in the warmer (1994)\nmonths in sub-tropical areas (Palko and Beardsley et al. 1982). Ditty and Shaw et al.\ndiscuss larval distribution of dolphinfish in the Gulf of Mexico (see below). If larval\nabundance correlates with spawning activity then water temperatures of 24°C and higher and\nsalinities of 33 ppt and higher are preferred. Larvae were also more common offshore,\nparticularly for C. equisetis. Shcherbachev (1973) notes that eggs of C. hippurus were found\nA3-96","in Japanese waters during summer months when water temperatures were 21-29°C.\nRegion-wide dolphinfish is not a major fishery, but it is important locally in recreational, effective\nand commercial fisheries. Fish aggregating devices are particularly for\nsubsistence catching dolphinfish. In Japan a coastal \"shiira-zuke\" fishery targets fish with aggregating\ndevices made from materials such as bundles of bamboo reeds.\nTotal\nHandline and Troll\nLongline\n12,955\n7,194\n5,761\nAmerican\nSamoa\n303,957\nNA\nNA\nGuam\n700,000\n475,000\n230,000\nHawaii\n28,524\nNA\nNA\nNorthern\nMariana Islands\n1,045,436\nTotal\nTable 1: 1996 Mahi Mahi Landings, lbs (Source: Annual\nReport).\nIn Hawaii dolphinfish are an important component of both the longline and troll fishery. Table\n1 shows landing information from the Council's most recent Annual Report for the Pelagics\nFishery.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nof C. hippurus are buoyant, colorless and spherical, measuring 1.2-1.6 mm diameter, at\nThe with ova a single yellow oil globule (Mito 1960). Hatching occurs within 60 h after fertilization\n24-25°C. At 26°C larvae hatched within 40 h (Ditty and Shaw et al. 1994).\nand Shaw et al. (1994) describe larval development and distribution in the Gulf of\nDitty Mexico. In the Pacific, Mito (1960) describes larval development. Palko and Beardsley et al.\n(1982) state that dolphin gradually metamorphose from larvae into adults without clear breaks and\nphases. They describe juveniles as being between 9 to 200 mm in length. Ditty 3.5\nbetween Shaw et al. (1994) were able to distinguish between larvae of the two species as small as\nmm SL based on morphometrics and pigmentation.\nPalko and Beardsley et al. (1982) describe larval development. Descriptions indicate that larvae the\ntransition from larval to juvenile phase occurs between 15-30 days. During this period\ngrow at about 1 mm per day. (A 15-day-old larva is described as 15 mm in length; a 30-day-\nold larva/juvenile is described as 30 mm in length.)\ninformation can be obtained on diet from rearing experiments. Hendrix (1983) found fist\nSome that \"C. hippurus indicate a tendency for larvae to select for Euterpina copepods from\nfeeding through day 7 when presented a diet of both rotifers and copepods\". Larvae were also\nA3-97","fed rotifers (Brachionus plicatilis), Artemia salina nauplii and dolphinfish yolk sac larvae.\nShcherbachev (1973) reports that larvae feed mainly on crustaceans and especially Copepoda\nof the family Pontellidae.\nShcherbachev (1973) describes distribution based on plankton tows (see Figures 4-6 in that\npublication). In the Pacific they are widely if sporadically distributed. This could be an artifact\nof non-random collection. Occurrence is most frequent in the western Pacific between 10°N\nand 30°S and in the Panama Gulf in the east. Since dolphinfish are reported to spawn in\nsummer months off of Japan (Palko and Beardsley et al. 1982) it is likely that eggs and larvae\nhave a similar seasonal range expansion. From this data it is not possible to specify larval\ndistribution beyond the known range for adults.\nDitty and Shaw et al. (1994) state that \"distribution of larvae, juveniles and adults is\napparently limited by the 20°C isotherm\". Spawning occurs in oceanic waters beyond the\ncontinental shelf, even in the Gulf of Mexico. Larvae were collected at highest densities at\n24°C and above and 33 ppt salinity and above. This may adequately describe a hypothetical\nhabitat.\nNo information is given on habitat features affecting the abundance of eggs and larvae, but\ngiven adults' preference for floating objects, earlier life stages may be more common near\nobjects as well.\nJuvenile\nThe onset of the juvenile stage is not clearly distinguished, as described above. Broadly,\njuveniles range in size between 15 mm and 55 cm FL. This corresponds to ages between about\ntwo weeks and one year.\nNo information is available on juvenile feeding habits; it is likely that at later stages food\npreference does not differ markedly from that of adults (see below).\nNeither the hypothetical habitat for juveniles or particular features affecting abundance can be\nspecified beyond that described above for adults.\nAdult\nBeardsly (1967) reports that males are heavier than females and that this difference increased\nwith length. Maximum age is estimated at four years and the largest specimen examined by\nBeardsly (1967) weighed 35 kg, a sports-fishing record at the time. His data suggest that\nfemale dolphin become mature at sizes as small as 35 cm FL; most are mature by 55 cm FL.\nPalko and Beardsley et al. (1982) summarize various studies on food preferences. The diet is\nvaried; 32 species of fish from 19 families and one species of crab were reported in one study.\nOther studies suggest that flying fish are a common prey and that cephalopods are also\nconsumed.\nA3-98","The habitat and particular features affecting abundance does not differ markedly for adults\nfrom that described earlier for the species as a whole.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nDolphinfish are a wide-ranging pelagic species found throughout the tropics and sub-tropics.\nEFH can only be described based on its known range, temperature requirements and perhaps\nsalinity preferences. Shcherbachev (1973) produced distribution maps (point data based on\noccurrence in research tows) for larvae and adults, which are reproduced in Palko and\nBeardsly et al. (1982).\nThere are no stable features that could be used to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.\nDolphinfish are known for their strong association with floating objects.\nA3-99","occasional strays into cooler\nfloating objects, which will\noffshore waters, occasional\nand similar ocean features\nPacific California to 17° S\nbe concentrated in eddies\nwater. In western Pacific\nvaried diet of fish, flying\nstrong association with\nvariable for strays into\nstrays into coastal and\n38° N - 28° S, eastern\n4 years total life span\npelagic, mixed layer\nfish a preferred prey,\n20° isotherm with\nestuarine areas\ncoastal waters\ncephalopods\nAdult\nHabitat description for Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis (dolphinfish, mahimahi)\nnot known to be different\nnot known beyond adult\npelagic, mixed layer\nsame as adult\npreferences\nfrom adult\n(see adult)\nJuvenile\nto 1 year\nNA\npelagic, upper mixed layer\nnot known beyond adult\nA3-100\nzooplankton, larval fish\nabout 3 weeks\nsame as eggs\npreferences\nopen ocean\nLarvae\nNA\nisotherm, preferred habitat\nYear around spawning in\nexpansion limited by 20°\nnot known beyond adult\ntropics, summer range\n24° C and 33 ppt\npreferences\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\n36 hrs\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nLocation\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBeardsly GL. 1967. Age, growth and reproduction of the dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, in\nthe Straits of Florida. Copeia 1967(2):441-51.\nBoggs CH, Ito RY. 1993. Hawaii's pelagic fisheries. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):69-82.\nDitty JG, Shaw RF, et al. 1994. Larval development, distribution and abundance of common\ndolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, and pompano dolphin, C. equiselis (family:\nCoryphaenidae), in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fish Bull 92(2):275-91.\nHendrix SD. 1983. The early life history of mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis) fish\nand skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis): A report on the culture and growth of larval\nreared in the laboratory. Honolulu: National Marine Fisheries Service.\nKojima S. 1965. Studies on fishing conditions of the dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus L., in the\nwestern regions of the Sea of Japan. Volume 9, Schools of dolphins accompanying various\nkinds of flotages. Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish 31:573-8.\nKojima S. 1966. Fishery biology of the common dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus L., in the\nwestern region of the Sea of Japan. Volume 13, 'Tsukegi' as a source of food for dolphins.\nBull Shimane Prefectural Fish Exp Stn nr 1.\nMito, S. 1960. Egg development and hatched larvae of the common dolphinfish Coryphaena\nhippurus Linne. Bull Jpn Soc Sc. Fish 26:223-6.\nPalko BJ, Beardsley GL, et al. 1982. Synopsis of the biological data on dolphin-fishes,\nCoryphaena hippurus Linnaeus and Coryphaena equiselis Linnaeus. Seattle:\nNOAA/NMFS. NOAA technical report nr NMFS circular 443; FAO fisheries synopsis nr\n130.\nShcherbachev YN. 1973. The biology and distribution of the dolphins (Pisces,\nCoryphaenidae). Icthyo. 13 182-91.\n2.2.2 Habitat description for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reff, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Island.\nLife History and General Description\nWahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) is a member of the Scombrid family. Although a popular\ngame fish, wahoo are not a target species in fisheries and are thus relatively little studied.\nA3-101","Wahoo are found worldwide in tropical and warm-temperate seas. In the Pacific their\ndistribution is restricted to coastal America and westward from Hawaii in a band between\n20°N and 5°S in the central Pacific to the eastern Australia coast and north to southern in the\nabout Japan (Collete and Nauen 1985). Nothing is known about their population structure\nPacific.\nwahoo are surface oriented and are usually associated with banks, pinnacles and islands rates\nAdult and also found around flotsam in the open ocean. Nakano et al. (1997) studied catch hooks\nof longlines are at different depths; wahoo were commonly caught at shallow depths, on\n60-160 m, based on measurements of maximum hook depths of shallow gear.\nbetween Iversen and Yoshida (1957) state that wahoo are rarely caught by longline gear fishing below\n200 ft and surface trolling catch rates are much higher close to land. Amesbury and Babin the\n(1990) report elevated catches around Guam in the winter months and describe thus this be as\nperiod when the surface mixed layer is deepest. The hypothetical habitat may\ndescribed as warm epipelagic and surface neritic waters (above 20°C) in the tropics banks to the and sub-\ntropics with a preference for areas of higher productivity including coastal shelves,\noceanic fronts.\nIversen and Yoshida (1957) state that wahoo are not found in large compact schools. Instead\nthey travel in small groups of two to 20 fish. They appear to seasonably migratory, moving\nfrom the equator in summer months (Iversen and Yoshida 1957). Hogarth and (1976) New\naway one source stating that \"wahoo traveled in a huge circle from Australia is\nreports Zealand back to Ecuador and Costa Rica, and on to Baja, California\" but no support given\nfor this assertion.\nAs noted above, coastal waters, particularly at the edge of steep drop-offs or reef faces is are\nhabitat. Like many other fish, wahoo are attracted to floating objects. This such\npreferred due to the micro-community that typically develops around and under banks objects. and\nprobably Floating objects may also concentrate at oceanic fronts. These areas, along with basic\nother shallow submerged features are areas of higher productivity, probably the reason\nfor these habitat preferences.\nAccording to Hogarth (1976) wahoo are short-lived. He reports the following average lengths\nbased on a sample of 126 fish caught of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina: 1 year old-112 be close cm; 2\nold-128 cm; 3 years old-141 cm; 4 years old-153 cm. Four years old may\nyears to a maximum age, which would accord with a reported annual mortality rate of 38% reported\nby Hogarth (1976).\nNo special sexual characteristics are mentioned in the literature. Females are extremely\nfecund; Hogarth (1976) estimated that ovaries held between 0.56 and 45.3 million eggs.\nIversen and Yoshida (1957) estimated the number as 6.1 million.\nWahoo are said to spawn year round in the tropics and seasonably in subtropical waters.\nHogarth (1976) estimates that spawning occurs in the Gulf Stream off North Carolina from\nJune to August.\nA3-102","the Western Pacific Region, there are no commercial fisheries that target wahoo (Collete\nIn and Nauen 1985). They are a minor component of longline catches and are more frequently region.\ncaught by surface trolling and are sought by recreational fishermen throughout the\nWahoo are a popular food fish in Hawaii and are frequently served in restaurants.\n1996, the most recent data available (WPRFMC 1997), the Hawaii-based longline wahoo fleet\nIn 130,000 lb of wahoo, about 2% of landings. Total commercial landings of lb were in\ncaught lb, about 1.5% of total landings. Other reported landings for 1996 were Islands-for 10,858 a\n500,000 American Samoa; 142,062 lb in Guam; and 8,626 lb in the Northern Mariana\ntotal of 161,546 lb.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nMatsumoto (1966) describes a 23.7 mm individual as juvenile; smaller specimens are\nconsidered larvae. Chiu and Young (1995) also describes larvae from collections in Taiwan\ncoastal waters.\nNo information is available on larval food preferences.\nBased collections in the central Pacific, Matsumoto (1966) concludes that larvae are not\nabundant on near land even though adults are more commonly caught inshore. He collected and\nmore larvae in the tropical and subtropical Pacific between 30°N and 25°S and between 175° adults\n115°W but notes that they were scarce in the equatorial countercurrent even though Chen (1995) are\nthere. The longitudinal extent reflects limits of sample stations. Chiu and of\ncaught also found larvae in offshore areas of Taiwan in Kuroshio current regions. Occurrence these the\nlarvae were seasonal, caught mainly from May to August in these waters. None of in the\nauthors provide information on depth distribution. Hogarth, (1976) cites research\nAtlantic demonstrating a larval preference for water depths greater than 100 m.\nSeasonal reproduction and larval occurrence in the subtropics indicates a requirement have for\nwater temperatures than the limits of adult tolerance. Unlike adults, larvae no\nwarmer describable habitat features (i.e., proximity to land and/or shallow depths) affecting abundance\nand density (Matsumoto 1966).\nJuvenile\nThere is no information on differential characteristics of juveniles. As noted, Matsumoto,\n(1966) described a 23.7 mm specimen as juvenile. Hogarth (1976) states that wahoo females reach at\nsexual maturity and spawn in their first year. Males are mature at 86 cm TL and\n101 cm TL. Given average lengths for age groups this would correspond to maturity at 9-12\nmonths.\nAdult\nThere are no special habitat characteristics to differentiate adults from other life stages beyond\nthe general theoretical habitat description give above in Section 2.1.\nA3-103","Both Iversen and Yoshida (1957) and Hogarth (1976) examined the stomach contents of adult\nwahoo. A high percentage of stomachs were empty, ascribed to regurgitation during capture.\nIversen and Yoshida (1957) found mackerel scad (Decapturus sp.) and skipjack tuna the main\nprey items. Other identifiable items included squid, pomfret, puffer, flying fish, lantern fish\nand sunfish. Hogarth (1976), researching in subtropical Atlantic waters, found mackerels to be\nthe most common prey item, followed by Stromateids (butterfishes). Other families included\nherrings, Carangids and flying fishes.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nAlthough wahoo are distributed throughout tropical and subtropical waters, coastal and/or\nshallow depth areas represent important habitat features that can be used in identifying EFH.\nCollete and Nauen (1985) include a map (at very small scale) showing the worldwide\ndistribution of wahoo. Habitat features that can be used in identifying Areas of Particular\nConcern include reef faces and steep drop-offs as these are preferred trolling areas.\nA3-104","dropoffs and reef faces\nopen ocean and coastal\nwaters; also preference\nshallow depths (banks\neastern Pacific except\nepipelagic (<200 m)\nattracted to flotsam,\n9-12 months to about\nmackeral scad, squid\npreference for steep\npossibly associated\nand neritic waters),\nwith oceanic fronts\nbanks and flotsam\npossible absent in\nextension; rare or\nskipjack tuna and\nsubtropical with\nAmerican coast\nfish, especially\nseasonal range\nAdult\ntropical and\nand neritic\nfour years\nbe different from adult\nbe different form adult\nbe different from adult\nunknown, unlikely to\nunknown, unlikely to\nunknown, unlikely to\nunknown, unlikely to\nbe different from\nJuvenile\nHabitat description for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)\nunknown\nunknown\nunknown\nadults\nweeks to less than a\nA3-105\nunknown, probably\nLarvae\nsame as eggs\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nmonth\nNA\ntropical and seasonal\nunknown, does not\nunknown, probably\nsubtropical areas\noccur near land\nEgg\n(summer) in\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\nNA\ndays\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Babin M. 1990. Ocean temperature structure and the seasonality of pelagic fish\nspecies near Guam, Mariana Island (North Pacific Islands). Micronesica 23(2):131-8.\nChiu T S, Chen CS. 1995. Distribution of Scombrid larvae (Pisces: Scombridae) in the waters\naround Taiwan. J Fish Soc Taiwan 22(4):303-12.\nChiu T S, Young SS. 1995. Taxonomic description of Scombrid larvae (Pisces: Scombridae)\noccurred in the waters around Taiwan. J Fish Soc Taiwan 22(3):203-11.\nCollete BB, Nauen CE. 1985. Scombrids of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue\nof tunas, mackerels, bonitos, and related species known to date. Rome: FAO. FAO\nfisheries synopsis nr 125, volume 2. 118 pp.\nHogarth WT. 1976. Life history aspects of the wahoo Acanthocybium solandri (Cuvier and\nValenciennes) from the coast of North Carolina [dissertation]. Raleigh: University of\nNorth Carolina. 107 p.\nIversen ES, Yoshida HO. 1957. Notes on the biology of the wahoo in the Line Islands. Pac Sci\n11:370-79.\nMatsumoto WM. 1966. Morphology and distribution of larval wahoo Acanthocybium solandri\n(Cuvier) in the central Pacific Ocean. Fish Bull 66(2):299-322.\nNakano H. Okazaki M, Okamoto H. 1997. Analysis of catch depth by species for tuna\nlongline fishery based on catch by branch lines. Bull Nat Res Inst Far Seas Fish 34:43-62.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region, 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nFishery Management Council, 26 p + appendices.\n2.2.3 Habitat description for Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira mazara)\nManagement Plan Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana Islands,\nJohnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and\nBaker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nBlue marlin (Makaira nigricans) is the most tropical of all marlins. It has been variously\ndescribed as a single pan-tropical species (Rivas 1974) or two distinct species, Makaira\nnigricans in the Atlantic and Makaira mazara in the Pacific (Nakamura 1983). Recent\nanalysis of mitochondrial DNA (Finnerty and Block 1992) suggests that billfish (Istiophoridae\nand Xiphiidae) should be separated from the suborder Scombroidei-also containing\nA3-106","mackerel and tuna-to which they have traditionally been assigned. Other researchers, using\nsimilar techniques, found that \"[t]he lack of significant genetic differentiation between\nrecognition of\nAtlantic and Indo-Pacific samples of blue marlin and sailfish does not support\ndistinct Atlantic and Indo-Pacific species\" (Graves and McDowell 1995).\nCatches of blue marlin in the Pacific have been reported by about 10 countries with Japan and\nKorea taking the largest catch (Nakamura 1985). Important fishing areas include the northwest\nPacific (FAO Fishing Area 61) and the central Pacific (FAO Fishing Areas 71 and 77)\n(Nakamura 1985). The majority are caught in the longline fishery. The Japanese have the\nfleet, fishing Pacific wide, with smaller fleets operating from Taiwan and Korea. Since\nlargest the 1980s the Japanese have increasingly targeted the deeper swimming bigeye tuna (Thunnus al.\nobesus) resulting in declining catch of surface swimming billfish (Ueyanagi, Shomura et\n1990). Substantial numbers of billfish were also caught in the high seas drift-net fishery until\nit was suspended.\nTotal 1996 landings in the WPRFMC management area amounted to about 911 mt (2,004,966\nlb). The vast majority (about 95%) was landed in Hawaii (see Table 1). Of these Hawaii\nlandings a little over half (1.05 million lb) were caught by longline vessels.\nLandings (lb.)\nEntity\n37,682\nAmerican Samoa\n60,500\nGuam\n1,900.00\nHawaii\n6,784\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n2,004,966\nTotal\nTable 1: 1996 landings of blue marlin (source: WPRFMC,\n1997)\nBlue marlin is caught incidentally by longline vessels and commands a relatively low ex-\nvessel price (WPRFMC 1997). In Japan marlin are consumed as sashimi (Ueyanagi 1974).\nMarlin is consumed similarly in Hawaii (WPRFMC 1997). Blue marlin is also an important\nsport fish, and Kona, Hawaii, is a world renowned center for big gamefishing. In Guam and\nthe Northern Mariana Islands marlin are caught by recreational small-boat trollers and charter\nboats. American Samoa has both troll and longline fisheries, although these are small in\ncomparison to Hawaii.\nBecause blue marlin is a wide-ranging pelagic species, fishing effort is offshore. Trollers on\nsmall, recreational boats and charter vessels make day trips and are thus restricted in their\nrange to tens of miles offshore. Longliners, in contrast, make multi-day trips and may fish\noutside of the EEZ.\nA3-107","Egg and Larval Distribution\nBased on a long-term study of reproductive condition of blue marlin caught in Hawaii Islands billfish\ntournaments, Hopper (1990) argues that these fish congregate around the Hawaiian and\nduring summer months in order to spawn. They migrate from more southerly latitudes,\n\"Hawaii may be a focus for blue marlin spawning in the northern central Pacific because\noceanographic conditions are favorable to survival of marlin larvae and juveniles,\" larvae Hopper\ncontends. Other researchers (Nishikawa, Honma et al. 1985) note that areas where\noccur more frequently correspond to the richest summer fishing grounds. It has also been be\nsuggested that marlin spawn year-round in tropical waters (see below), but there may a\npreference for summer spawning in higher latitudes both north and south of the equator.\nNakamura (1985) states that \"ripe eggs in the ovary are transparent with a yellow oil globule,\nand measure about 0.8 to 0.9 mm in diameter.\" Post-larvae and young are found most\nabundantly in the western Pacific, especially around the Caroline and Marshall Islands\n(Howard and Ueyanagi 1965). These authors also state \"[f]rom occurrence of larvae,\ncondition of gonads, and sex ratio, spawning of this species is assumed to take place in the\nlow latitudinal area (between about 20°N to 10°S) throughout the year; and in higher\nlatitudinal areas (bounded by 30°N and 30°S) during summer seasons.\" Matsumoto and\nKazama (1974) subsequently found blue marlin larvae heavily distributed around the\nHawaiian Islands and westward between 7°N and 24°N in the North Pacific and south of the\nto 24°S from Vanuatu in the west to the Tuamotu archipelago in the east. At its\nequator western end this ties in with the distribution described by the earlier authors; however, \"[t]he\nintervening area (lat. 5°-10°N and long. 140°W-180°) appears to be devoid of blue marlin\nlarvae, but this could be due to inadequate sampling; only a few surface day tows were made\nthere\" (Matsumoto and Kazama 1974).\nIn blue marlin may spawn throughout the year in two tropical/subtropical bands north\nand sum, south of the equator. These bands expand away from the equator during summer seasons,\nroughly corresponding to the 24°-25°C isotherms (Matsumoto and Kazama 1974). Rivas\n(1974) indicates that larval stage growth is up to at least 52 mm, with a gap in description\nfrom that size to about 194 mm.\nJuvenile\nBecause methods of age determination have not been developed for this species, age at which\nsexual maturity is reached cannot be determined. However, more recently developed\ntechniques may allow age determination (Wilson, 1984). A relation can be developed between\notolith weight and age based on saggitae annuli (Wilson and Dean et al. 1991). Based on\nsmallest captures of sexually mature fish Rivas (1974) suggests that males under 35 kg and\nfemales under 47 kg are sexually immature. The species exhibits marked sexual dimorphism\nin size. Females can exceed 540 kg while males usually do not exceed 160 kg (Rivas 1974).\nAs noted above, smaller fish may be more abundant in the western Pacific. There is some\nevidence of an eastern migration with age; at least the size distribution of captured fish tends\nto increase to the east. However, this could be explained by differential north-south migration\n(Howard and Ueyanagi 1965).\nA3-108","Adult\nTracking experiments (Holland and Brill et al. 1990, Block and Booth et al. 1992) show that\nblue marlin in Hawaiian waters spend most of their time within 10 m of the surface but make\nfrequent and regular dives to deeper depths. This indicated a preference for water\ntemperatures in the 22-27°C range found in the near surface mixed layer. When near the\nsurface they swim very slowly (<25ms1). The highest sustained speed directly measured by\nBlock and Booth et al. (1992) was around 100 m s ¹, much slower than estimates. Dives are to\nrelatively shallow depths; Block and Booth et al. (1992) recorded a maximum dive depth of\n209 m. from the six marlin tracked. It was during dives that short speed bursts of up to 200 m\ns Superscript(1) were typically recorded. The authors suggest that there may be a slight preference for\nsurface waters during daylight hours but considerable variation exists among individuals.\nBased on course data they conclude that \"these fish are itinerant visitors [to the Hawaiian\nIslands] and are not part of a resident population.\" This conclusion is supported by genetic\nstudies that suggest a single Pacific-wide cytochrome b DNA haplotype (Finnerty and Block\n1992).\nAu (1991) found that billfish were caught in about 9% of purse-seine sets in the eastern\nPacific with somewhat higher catch rates for sets around logs. Out of all billfish caught, blue\nand striped marlin accounted for 68.6% of the total. He states that billfish \"probably follow\ntuna both as parasitic foragers and predators; they share many prey species with tunas and also\neat tunas, especially the smaller specimens.\"\nRegion wide distrbution of blue marlin are given by Howard and Ueyanagi (1965) as follows:\nEast of 180°\nWest of 180°\nHigh density from May-October with a tendency for season of\n10-30°N\nhighest density to progress from west to east starting in June until\nSeptember\nHigh density in May and\nHigh density almost year round\n0-10°N\nJune 180°-170°W and\nexcept in December and January.\nshifts eastward to 130°W\nuntil October.\nDensity low from June-\nDensity becoming low in July\n0-10°S\nSeptember.\nthrough to September.\nHigh density November-March with much greater concentration\nSouth of 10°S\neast of 160°W\nAs indicated in the table, there is a north-south seasonal migration of fish that corresponds to\nwarmer waters. These migrations may be more northwesterly and southeasterly so that\nnorthward moving groups pass the equator around 150°E-180° and southward migrants pass\nthe equator between 160°E-180° (Au 1991). Genetic uniformity, mentioned above, may mean\nthat there is a single Pacific-wide stock that migrates seasonally as increasing water\nA3-109","temperature expands habitat away from the equator. This would suggest a clockwise radial\npattern of migration.\nAccording to trolling information, marlin feed in the morning between 1000 and 1100 hours\nand again in the afternoon between 1300 and 1600 hours; they apparently do not feed at night\n(Rivas 1974). This behavior correlates with the weakly exhibited diel depth pattern detected\nby Block and Booth et al. (1992). There has been much discussion of whether the marlin's bill\nis used in feeding. A few cases of billfish impaling marine turtles have been documented, but\nincidents such as these are considered accidental and the bill is not considered essential to\nfeeding (Rivas 1974, Frazier and Fierstine et al. 1994). Using the stomach content of marlin\ncaught in the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament (HIBT) as a sample source, Brock\n(1984) found the marlin diet to be composed, in general, largely of Scrombrids but also\nsignificantly of juvenile inshore fish. However, he notes that this analysis \"may be a reflection\nof where and when these predators were captured. The majority of the marlin caught in the\nHIBT are taken within 8 km of land. Moreover, the tournament is held during the summer,\nwhen many Hawaiian inshore juvenile fish recruit from the plankton to the adult habitat.\"\nSquid are another food source. Although Brock considers them relatively unimportant in\nHawaiian waters, Rivas (1974) notes that they are an important part of the diet in the\nPhilippine Sea. The size range of food is relatively large; a 340 kg blue marlin was found with\na 29 kg bigeye tuna in its stomach (Rivas, 1974). Conversely, Brock (1984) notes that \"adult\nblue marlin are capable of feeding on very small prey,\" and small prey in the 5-60 mm range\nwere commonly found in his study.\nA3-110","South of 10°S high\ndensity Dec-Jan in\nPreference for 22-\ndensity Nov-Mar\nwest, May-Jun in\npelagic, mixed layer\ncephalopods, juvenile\nMay-Oct in east\ndensity Jul-Sep\neastward to Oct\nother areas of high\noceanic fronts and\neddies, upwelling,\n0-10°N: higher\n0-10° S: low\neast, shifting\noffshore waters\nproductivity\n10-30°N:\nand west\nScrombrids,\ninshore fish\n27°C.\nAdult\nNA\nyear around in tropics,\npelagic, upper mixed\nto 35 kg for males and\ncephalopods, juvenile\nother areas of high\nseasonally in waters\neddies, upwelling,\noceanic fronts and\nHabitat description for Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira mazara)\n47 kg for females\noffshore waters\nabove 24-25°C.\nproductivity\nScrombrids,\ninshore fish\nJuvenile\nlayer\nNA\nyear around in tropics,\nother areas of high\nseasonally in waters\neddies, upwelling,\noceanic fronts and\nA3-111\nzooplankton, small\noffshore waters\nto at least 52 mm\n(about 3 weeks?)\nabove 24-25°C.\nproductivity\nepipelagic\nLarvae\nNA\nfish\nyear around in tropics,\nother areas of high\nseasonally in waters\noceanic fronts and\neddies, upwelling,\noffshore waters\nabove 24-25° C.\nproductivity\nepipelagic\n24 hr.?\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAu DW. 1991. Polyspecific nature of tuna schools: shark, dolphin, and seabird associates. US\nNMFS Fish Bull 89(3):343-54.\nBlock B, Booth D, et al. 1992. Direct measurement of swimming speeds and depth of blue\nmarlin. J Experi Biol 166:267-84.\nBlock BA, Booth DT, et al. 1992. Depth and temperature of the blue marlin, Makaira\nnigricans, observed by acoustic telemetry. Mar Biol 114(2):175-83.\nBrock RE. 1984. A contribution to the trophic biology of the blue marlin (Makaira nigricans\nLacepede, 1802) in Hawaii. Pac Sci 38(2):141-9.\nFinnerty JR, Block BA. 1992. Direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA detects highly\ndivergent haplotypes in blue marlin (Makaira nigricans ). Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol.\n1(3):206-14.\nFrazier JG, Fierstine HL, et al. 1994. Impalement of marine turtles (Reptilia, Chelonia:\nCheloniidae and Dermochelyidae) by billfishes (Osteichthyes, Perciformes: Istiophoridae\nand Xiphiidae). Environ Biol Fish 39(1):85-96.\nGraves JE, McDowell JR. 1995. Inter-ocean genetic divergence of istiophorid billfishes. Mar\nBiol 122(2):193-203.\nHolland K. Brill R, et al. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of Pacific blue marlin\ncaptured and released using sportfishing gear. Fish Bull.88(2):397-402.\nHopper CN. 1990. Patterns of Pacific blue marlin reproduction in Hawaiian waters. In:\nPlanning the Future of Billfishes, Research and Management in the 90s and Beyond,\nProceedings of the Second International Billfish Symposium; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.\nNational Center for Marine Conservation. Part 2; p 29-39.\nHoward JK, Ueyanagi S. 1965. Distribution and relative abundance of billfishes\n(Istiophoridae) of the Pacific Ocean. Univ Miami Inst Mar Sci, Stud Trop Oceanogr\n2:1-134.\nMatsumoto W, Kazama T. 1974. Occurrence of young billfishes in the central Pacific Ocean.\nIn: Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona,\nHI. Seattle: National Marine Fisheries Service. Part 3; p 238-51. NOAA technical report\nnr NMFS SSRF-675.\nNakamura I. 1983. Systematics of the billfishes (Xiphiidae and Istophoridae). Publ Seto Mar\nBiol Lab 28:255-396.\nA3-112","Nakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins,\nsailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization. FAO Fish Synop 5:125.\nNishikawa Y, Honma M, et al. 1985. Average distribution of larvae of oceanic species of\nscrombrid fishes, 1956-81. Far Seas Fish Res Lab Contrib 236:1-99.\nRivas LR. 1974. Synopsis of biological data on blue marlin, Makaira nigracans Lacepede,\n1802. In: Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-\nKona, HI. Seattle: National Marine Fisheries Service. Part 3; p 1-16. NOAA technical\nreport nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nUeyanagi S. 1974. A review of the world commercial fisheries for billfishes. Proceedings of\nthe International Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Seattle: National\nMarine Fisheries Service. Part 2; p 1-11. NOAA technical report nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nUeyanagi S,. Shomura RS, et al. 1990. Trends in the fisheries for billfishes in the Pacific. In:\nPlanning the Future of Billfishes, Research and Management in the 90s and Beyond,\nProceedings of the Second International Billfish Symposium; Kailua-Kona, HI. National\nCoalition for Marine Conservation. Part 1; p 31-45.\nWilson CA. 1984. Age and growth aspects of the life history of billfishes [dissertation].\nUniversity of South Carolina. 179 p.\nWilson CA, Dean JM, et al. 1991. An examination of sexual dimorphism in Atlantic and\nPacific blue marlin using body weight, sagittae weight, and age estimates. J Exp Mar Biol\nEcol (2):209-25\n2.2.4 Habitat description for black marlin (Makaira indica)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThis summary is based on Nakamura (1975) and Nakamura (1985). Little has been published\non the black marlin since those synopses.\nMakaira are teleost fish of the order Perciformes (suborder Xiphiidae) and family\nIstiophoroidae. Two other Makaira species are recognized: the Indo-Pacific blue marlin (M.\nmazara) and the Atlantic blue marlin (M. nigricans). However, the separation of these\npopulations into distinct species has recently been questioned based on genetic analysis\n(Graves and McDowell 1995). Howard and Ueyanagi (1965) argue that there must be two\nseparate stocks of black marlin in the Pacific based on their widely separated centers of\nA3-113","abundance in the eastern and western Pacific. Their sparse distribution across the oceanic\nPacific may represent individuals moving out from these centers of abundance.\nHoward and Ueyanagi (1965) state that the distribution of black marlin is of \"characterized the family in the by\nthe density of occurrence being on the periphery of distribution distribution is\ngreatest In open sea areas, distribution is sparse. In tropical open seas areas, almost no\nPacific scattered but continuous, whereas in temperate open sea areas, there is\nvery of this species.\" Nakamura (1985) gives the range for black marlin mentioned as 35°-40°N areas to\noccurrence in the western Pacific and 30-35°S in the eastern Pacific. Specifically from of\n45°S concentration are along continental margins and in Indo-Pacific archipelagic waters\nAsia to Australia. Based on longline CPUE data alone, the area of greatest\nSoutheast would be in the waters north of Australia to New Guinea and the Indonesian\nabundance A second center of abundance lies of off Central America, centered on Panama. catch\narchipelago. Merrett (1971) reports, based on data from the western Indian Ocean, that the highest\nis in water depths between 250-500 fathoms (457.2-914.4 m). No fish are reported\nrate landed it waters deeper than 2,000 fathoms (3657.6 : Black marlin usually occur for this nearer species the\nthan most other billfish (Nakamura 1985). The reported range in SST in the East\nsurface is wide, 15°-30°C, although optimum temperatures for a harpoon fishery\nrelatively Sea were reported as between 23°-25°C (Morita 1952). Squire and Nielsen (1983)\nChina report an optimal temperature, based on longline CPUE off of northeast Australia, as 26.7°C.\nof migration, Howard and Ueyanagi (1965) note a seasonal movement Nielsen away (1983) from the\nIn terms during summer months in the respective hemispheres. Squire and fish\nequator hypothetical description of migration based on tag returns from sport-caught towards off\nprovide northeast a Australia. Black marlin are theorized to move south and southeast Kirabati\nof Australia and New Zealand in late (austral) summer, northeast to waters Coral\nsoutheast and northeast of Papua New Guinea in winter, and back to spawning grounds in the Sea\nin spring and early summer.\nand Kodama (1962, cited in Nakamura 1975) estimated growth rates at 50 cm per 230-250 year\nKoto black marlin 150-200 cm, 30 cm for lengths 200-230 cm and 20 cm for information lengths is\nfor cm. Estimates could not be made for sizes above and below this range. No\nprovided on age and longevity.\nmarlin are heterosexual. Nakamura (1975) reports sex ratios from a number of The studies;\nBlack tend to dominate in the samples listed, in most cases comprising 80%-95%. size\nfemales overall ratio for these samples as reported by Nakamura is \"53/514 male throughout this a\nof 20 to 200 kg in body weight\" for the waters around Taiwan. Although He also statement states\nrange somewhat ambiguous it may mean that the male-female sex ratio is 1:9.7.\nis that females grow larger than males. Merrett (1971) suggests size at sexual maturity (based on\na few specimens) as 170-180 cm or 58.97-79.38 kg. De Sylva and Breder (1997)\nexamined very gonad histology of Atlantic specimens. Four adult males were examined; none when of\nthe females were yet adult. They state that \"maturation of the oocytes must thus occur the\nfemale black marlin have reached a much larger size\"; unfortunately they don't report\nsizes of their specimens.\nA3-114","Reported spawning grounds are in the South China Sea in May or June and the Coral Sea\nbetween October and November. Given their sparse distribution in the oceanic Pacific it may\nbe that spawning is confined to western Pacific continental margin/shelf areas.\nMajor fishing grounds are all on the western Pacific continental margin: around Taiwan, the\nEast China Sea, the Coral Sea and northwest Australian waters. In these areas black marlin is\ncaught by harpooners and trollers. A major charter-boat sports-fishery captures black marlin in\nnortheast Australian waters. Black marlin is also caught as bycatch by tuna longliners in these\nareas and across the Pacific. Statistics show that highest landings are in FAO Area 61, the\nnorthwest Pacific above 20°N and west of 175°W (FAO 1997) Fewer fish are caught in the\narea of reported high abundance north of Australia (Area 71). Total landings in 1995 were\n2,077 mt, substantially less than the 1991 high of 6,342 mt. In comparison to other billfish\n(much less the important tuna species) black marlin catches are minor. Taiwan, Japan and\nKorea are the main countries landing black marlin. Black marlin are not reported separately in\nthe NMFS Hawaii longline logbook, nor are they reported from the other areas in the western\nPacific region in the most recent WPRFMC annual report. It is thus difficult to quantify\nlandings in the region, but they are apparently very minor.\nEgg and larval distribution\nNo information was available on egg and larval stages beyond what is reported in Nakamura\n(1975). He only reports on morphological descriptions of larvae. Another paper describing the\nlarval stage (Nishikawa and Ueyanagi 1992) is in Japanese. The abstract notes that the \"larvae\nof M. indica are mainly distributed in the neighboring waters of reef areas. It is assumed that\nthe peculiarly formed rigid pectoral fins of larvae may have functions as 'stabilizer' in their\nhabitats where the water moves violently compared with offshore areas.\" The researchers'\ncollections were from the East China Sea, and it seems likely that significant concentrations of\neggs and larvae are confined to the spawning areas mentioned above.\nJuvenile\nNo information is available on juvenile distribution.\nAdult\nLittle is known about the feeding habits of adult black marlin. The few published studies\n(reviewed in Nakamura 1975) indicate that Scombrids (mackerel and tuna), Gempylids,\ndolphinfish (Coryphaena spp.) and other billfish are important parts of the diet. Decapod\nmolluscs and the larvae of Decapods, Isopods and Crustacea are also reported in other studies.\nAdult habitat and distribution cannot be specified with any more precision than the very\ngeneral description provided above for the species as a whole.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nBlack marlin, although present, occurs in relatively low abundance in the Council's\nA3-115","management area waters. This species apparently does not spawn in these waters.\nA3-116","oceanic areas, seasonal\nsparsely distributed in\nmainly on continental\nshelf areas, especially\nexpansion away from\nmainly continental\ndolphinfish, larvae\nin western Pacific,\nmackerels, tunas,\nAdult\nGempylids,\nshelf areas\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nequator\nNA\nunknown, to 170-180\nunknown, probably\nJuvenile\nHabitat description for black marlin (Makaira indica)\nshelf areas\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nunknown\nNA\ncm\ncontinental shelf areas\nA3-117\nunknown, days to\nLarvae\nno information\nas with eggs\nepipelagic\nunknown\navailable\nweeks\nNA\ncontinental shelf areas\nCoral Sea (based on\nEast China Sea and\nspawning areas)?\nunknown, days\nEgg\nepipelagic\nunknown\nNA\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nDe Sylva DP, Breder PR. 1997. Reproduction, gonad histology and spawning cycles of North\nAtlantic billfishes (Istiophoridae). Bull Mar Sci 60(3):668-97.\nFAO. 1997. FAO Yearbook. Volume 80, Fishery statistics catches and landings. Rome: Food\nand Agriculture Organization,\nGraves JE, McDowell JR. 1995. Inter-ocean genetic divergence of istiophorid billfishes. Mar\nBiol 122(2):193-203.\nHoward JK, Ueyanagi S. 1965. Distribution and relative abundance of billfishes\n(Istiophoridae) of the Pacific Ocean. Univ Miami Inst Mar Sci, Stud Trop Oceanogr\n2:1-134.\nKoto T, Kodama K. 1962. Some considerations on the growth of marlins, using size-\nfrequencies in commercial catches. II. Attempts to estimate the growth of so-called white\nmarlin, Marlina marlina (J. and H.). Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 15:109-26.\nMerrett NR. 1971. Aspects of the biology of billfish (Istiophoridae) from the equatorial\nwestern Indian Ocean. J Zool 163:351-95.\nMorita T. 1952. On the relation between the yield of marlin and the water temperature around\nthe Uotsurizima. Kagoshima Univ Mem Fac Fish 2(1):15-9.\nNakamura I. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the black marlin, Makaira indica (Cuvier), Billfish\n1831. In: Shomura RS, Williams F, editors. Proceedings of the International\nSymposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Seattle: NOAA (NMFS). Part 3, Species\nsynopses; p 17-27. NOAA technical report nr NMFS SSRF-675,\nNakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins,\nsailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization. FAO Fish Synop 5(125). 58 p.\nNishikawa Y, Ueyanagi S. 1992. On the larvae of the black marlin Makaira indica. Bull Nat\nRes Inst Far Seas Fish 29:1-7.\nSquire JL Jr, Nielsen DV. 1983. Results of a tagging program to determine migration National rates\nand patterns for black marlin, Makaira indica, in the southwest Pacific Ocean.\nMarine Fisheries Service. NOAA technical report nr NMFS SSRF 772-19.\nA3-118","2.2.5 Habitat description for striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nIn the Pacific the striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) is distributed in two supra-equatorial the\nbands that join at the eastern tropical margin. This has lead some researchers to divide\npopulation into two separate stocks, at least for management purposes (Shomura 1975).\nGenetic analysis (of mitochondrial DNA) suggests a corresponding spatial partitioning This in\ngenotypes (Graves and McDowell 1994), confirming the belief in distinct stocks.\ncontrasts sharply with tuna species, which are comparatively uniform in their genetic\ncomposition. The authors suggest that this differentiation may be due to spawning site fidelity. the\nGenetic divergence between striped marlin and white marlin (T. albidus), which occurs marlin in\nAtlantic Ocean, is apparently not much greater than variation within the Pacific striped not\npopulation (Graves and McDowell 1995). This suggests that striped and white marlin of are\nin fact be separate species (Graves and McDowell 1995). In addition, recent analysis\nmitochondrial DNA (Finnerty and Block 1995) suggests that billfish (Istiophoridae and\nXiphiidae) should be separated from the suborder Scombroidae-also containing mackerel\nand tuna-to which they have traditionally been assigned.\nThere is no significant sexual dimorphism in this species, in contrast to the blue marlin.\nRegion-wide major catches of striped marlin are made by Japan and Korea. Important is fishing made.\nareas include FAO Fishing Area 61 (northwest Pacific) where about 50% of the catch\nMost of the catch is made by surface longlining that targets tunas (Nakamura 1985).\nIn the management plan area striped marlin are only landed in appreciable numbers in Hawaii. in\nAbout 453.5 mt (1.0 million lb) were landed in Hawaii in 1996 and 544 mt (1.2 million lb)\n1996 (WPRFMC 1997). Almost 90% of commercial billfish landings were made by the\nlongline fleet (WPRFMC 1997). No landings were reported from other areas in either year.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nDistribution of eggs is unknown. Larvae are reportedly found between 10°-30°N and\n10°-30°S. Peak abundance is in May-June in the northwestern Pacific (Ueyanagi and Wares\n1975). This corresponds to the spawning ground described by Squire and Suzuki (1990). Thus\nspawning is probably seasonal and confined to the early summer months in both hemispheres. would\nAs noted, there is probably a separate spawning ground in the southwest Pacific. This\nseem to be supported by genotype variability based on mitochondrial DNA analysis\nmentioned earlier (Graves and McDowell 1994). Description of larvae is based on specimens\n2.9-21.2 mm in length (Ueyanagi and Wares 1975). Like other billfish, striped marlin are\ngenerally confined to pelagic surface waters; larvae may make diurnal vertical migrations food in\nthe top 50 m of the water column. Little is known about time of first feeding or\nA3-119","preferences. Striped marlin larvae may consume copepods up to about 13 mm (observed in\nAtlantic sailfish larvae) and other fish larvae after reaching a size of about 7 mm (Ueyanagi\nand Wares 1975).\nJuvenile\nSince marlin cannot yet be accurately aged, the age and duration of different life stages cannot\nbe determined. Females are reported to reach first maturity at 50-80 lb; it is not possible to\ndetermine onset of sexual maturity in males because change in the size of testes is slight. As\nnoted above, striped marlin spawn in the northwest Pacific and migrate eastward as juveniles\n(Squire and Suzuki 1990). This would account for the abundance of smaller fish in Hawaiian\nwaters.\nAdult\nTracking of adult striped marlin in Hawaiian waters using ultrasonic telemetry (Brill and\nHolts et al. 1993) indicate that they spend a significant amount of time in the upper 10 m of\nthe water column. The tracked fish spent about 40% of their time between 1-90 m. The\nauthors conclude that depth preference is governed by temperature stratification, with striped\nmarlin preferring to remain in the mixed layer above the thermocline; the fish they tracked\nspend spent the vast majority of time in waters within 2°C of the mixed layer temperature and\nnever ventured into waters 8°C colder than the mixed layer temperature. Thus these fish spent\nabout 80% of their time in waters between 25.1° and 27°C and never ventured into waters\nbelow 18°C. This generally corresponds to the upper mixed layer for Hawaiian waters. There\nwas no discernible diurnal pattern in horizontal movement. Striped marlin are also reported to\nswim very slowly at the surface with strong wind and high waves (Nakamura 1985).\nAu (1991) found that billfish were caught in about 9% of purse-seine sets in the eastern\nPacific with somewhat higher catch rates for sets around logs. Out of all billfish caught, blue\nand striped marlin accounted for 68.6% of the total. He states that billfish \"probably follow\ntuna both as parasitic foragers and predators; they share many prey species with tunas and also\neast tunas, especially the smaller specimens.\"\nAs noted, striped marlin are distributed in a horseshoe pattern with the base of the U in the\neastern Pacific. Generally, distribution corresponds to the 20° and 25°C isotherms (Howard\nand Ueyanagi 1965). These authors distinguish a Northern Pacific Group found west of\n140°W and north of 15°N, an Eastern Pacific Group east of 120°W and west of 120°W and\nsouth of 15°S. These authors and others (Squire and Suzuki 1990) indicate that striped marlin\noccur in the equatorial region (the center of the U) but in very low densities. El Niño-related\nwarming of waters along the American coast apparently leads to a northerly shift in striped\nmarlin range (Squire 1987).\nStriped marlin are found in greater numbers in the North Pacific with higher catch rates found\nin the north central, northeast and southeast Pacific (Shomura 1975).\nSquire and Suzuki (1990) argue that striped marlin make long-term migrations between\nspawning and feeding areas. The spawning areas are in the northwest and to a lesser extent the\nA3-120","southwest Pacific. Young fish migrate eastward to feeding areas off the Central American\ncoast and the return westward as adults.\nSeasonal generally conform to water temperature related changes in range. In\nHawaiian patterns waters striped marlin are more common in the winter months (Ueyanagi and Wares\n1975). Howard and Ueyanagi (1965) give the following seasonal distribution for the North\nPacific Group for waters of the central Pacific:\nabove table it can be seen that Hawaii benefits from the southern migration during in the\nFrom the months. Size distribution of catch is bimodal. The smaller fish appear in catches\nwinter winter and they grow to 50-60 lb in May and June while in this area. They waters disappear\nthese season, waters during the summer. This indicates the fish migrate to northern back\nfrom this time. There the fish stay several months and grow. Then they migrate and to\nduring Hawaiian waters where they become part of larger fish in the next year (Howard Ueyanagi\n1965)\nmarlin feed on a variety of pelagic species. Nakamura (1985) states that striped swordfish marlin\nAdult feed more on epipelagic organisms and less on mesopelagic ones that the\n\"tends to oceanic tunas.\" Common food items are squid, scombrids and gempylids (Nakamura\nand the Ueyanagi and Wares 1975). In California food species included Cololabis saira, 1985,\nEngraulis 1985, mordax, Sardinops caeruleas and Trachurus symmetricus (Nakamura\nUeyanagi and Wares 1975).\nA3-121","Prefer 20-25°C, 18°C\nscombrids, gempylids\nabsent in low tropics,\napparent lower limit.\npelagic, mixed layer\nother areas of high\nvery low density or\neddies, upwelling,\noceanic fronts and\nseasonally to 42°N\n20-30°N (and S?),\noffshore waters\nabove 25-35 kg\nexcept in east.\nproductivity\ncephalopods,\n(and S?).\nAdult\nNA\nfrom spawning area in\nscombrids, gempylids\npelagic, upper mixed\nother areas of high\nmigrating eastward\noceanic fronts and\neddies, upwelling,\nwestern Pacific?\noffshore waters\nHabitat description for striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)\nproductivity\ncephalopods,\nto 25-35 kg\nJuvenile\nlayer\nNA\nseasonal, early summer\nA3-122\ndepends on adult\nzooplankton, fish\noffshore waters\nmonths in both\nto 22 mm (2-3\nhemispheres\ndistribution\nepipelagic\nweeks)?\nLarvae\nlarvae\nNA\nseasonal, early summer\ndepends on adult\noffshore waters\nmonths in both\nhemispheres\ndistribution\nepipelagic\n24 hr.?\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAu DW. 1991. Polyspecific nature of tuna schools: shark, dolphin and seabird associates. US\nNat Mar Fish Serv Fish Bull 89(3):343-54.\nBrill RW, Holts DB, et al. 1993. Vertical and horizontal movements of striped marlin\n(Tetrapturus audax) near the Hawaiian Islands, determined by ultrasonic telemetry, with\nsimultaneous measurement of oceanic currents. Mar Biol 117(4):567-76.\nFinnerty JR, Block BA. 1995. Evolution of cytochrome b in the Scombroidei (Teleostei):\nMolecular insights into billfish (Istiophoridae and Xiphiidae) relationships. US Nat Mar\nFish Serv Fish Bull 93(1):78-96.\nGraves, J. E. and J. R. McDowell. 1994. Genetic analysis of striped marlin (Tetrapturus\naudax) population structure in the Pacific Ocean. Can J Fish. Aquat Sci 51 (8): :1762-8.\nGraves JE, McDowell JR, 1995. Inter-ocean genetic divergence of istiophorid billfishes. Mar\nBiol 122(2):193-203.\nHoward JK, Ueyanagi S.. 1965. Distribution and relative abundance of billfishes\n(Istiophoridae) of the Pacific Ocean. Univ Miami Inst Mar Sci, Stud Trop Oceanogr\n2:1-134.\nNakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins,\nsailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization. FAO Fish Synop 5(125).\nShomura R. 1975. Report of the Symposium. In: Shomura R, editor. Proceedings of the\nInternational Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Seattle:\nNOAA/NMFS. Part 1. Technical report nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nSquire JL. 1987. Relation of sea surface temperature changes during the 1983 El Niño to the\ngeographical distribution of some important recreational pelagic species and their catch\ntemperature param. Mar Fish Rev 49(2):44-57.\nSquire JL, Suzuki Z. 1990. Migration trends of the striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) in the\nPacific Ocean. In: Proceedings of the Second International Billfish Symposium; 1988;\nKailua-Kona, HI. National Coalition for Marine Conservation. Part 2; p 67-80.\nUeyanagi S, Wares PG. 1975. Synopsis of biological data on striped marlin, Tetrapturus\naudax (Philippi), 1887. Proceedings of the International Billfish; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-\nKona, HI. Seattle: NOAA/NMFS. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-675. Part 3\nSpecies Synopses. pp. 132-57.\nA3-123","[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region, 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nFishery Management Council.\n2.2.6 Habitat description for shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThe shortbill spearfish is an Istiophorid billfish and shares the genus with five other species.\nPenrith (1964) identified a cline in pectoral fin length, increasing eastward in the Pacific. This\nwas believed to be a result of geographic variation. No other information is available to\nsuggest possible sub-populations.\nKikawa (1975), summarizing various works, describes the total distribution as sporadic\nbetween 10°N and 10°S with possible range extent to 30°N and 30°S, based on longline catch\ndata. Nakamura (1985) gives a range of 40°N to 35°S for the Pacific. While dispersed\nthroughout the tropics, density is always low. Nakamura further states that the shortbill\nspearfish \"is an oceanic pelagic fish which does not generally occur in coastal or enclosed\nwaters but is found well offshore. Longline fisheries in the equatorial Indian Ocean take\nrelatively few individuals in the upper water layers (0-200 m) over depths shallower than 914\nm (500 fm) while the highest catch rates are obtained above the 915 m to 1,830 m (501 to\n1000 fm) isobaths.\" Boggs (1992), conducting research on longline capture depth, obtained\ndifferent results. On a 1989 expeditions the highest catch rates were obtained at 120-360 m\nwith a few fish caught as deep as 280-360 m. In 1990 the highest catch rates were shallow,\n40-80 m with no catch below 200 m. This distribution is described as \"into the middle of the\nthermocline\" (Boggs 1992) that begins at 120 m and 20°C. Nakano et al. (1997), analyzing\ncatch depth data from research cruises in the mid-Pacific, classes shortbill spearfish among\nfish for which catch rate declines with depth. The hypothetical habitat for this fish may be\ndescribed as open ocean epipelagic or mesopelagic waters (200-1000 m.) in the tropics and\nsubtropics. No precise data can be given on limiting environmental parameter for this habitat.\nNo information was found in the literature about migration patterns or seasonal changes in\nabundance for this species. The species is distributed sparsely and no specific habitat features\naffecting abundance can be identified.\nNo information on age is available. In his review, Kikawa (1975) gives maximum sizes; fish\nover 20 kg are rare and the largest reported specimen was about 52 kg.\nSpearfish are heterosexual and no sexual dimorphism is reported.\nA3-124","Shortbill spearfish apparently spawn in winter months in tropical and subtropical waters\nbetween 25°N and 25°S. Kikawa (1975) notes that unlike other billfish spawning does not\n\"take place in large groups over a very short period of time, but probably is continuous over a\nlong period and over a broad areas of the sea.\" As individual females become ripe the male\nfish follows the female.\nThere is no special fishery for spearfish; they are caught incidentally by longliners and rarely\nby surface troll. Nakamura (1985) states that catch statistics in Japanese longline fishery\ntypically lump sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) with the shortbill spearfish but the latter may\nbe differentiated as those caught offshore. The spearfish proportion of the total is considered\nnegligible.\nIn the western Pacific region spearfish are not differentiated in longline logbook reporting\n(WPRFMC 1997). Guam reported landings of 967 lb in 1996 based on its creel census.\nObviously, this fish is a minor constituent of commercial fisheries and caught with extreme\nrarity, if at all, in recreational fisheries.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nMerrett (1971) provides two estimates of fecundity: 6.2 and 2.1 million eggs for females 1.39\nm long (from center of orbit to shortest caudal ray). Egg diameters range from 1.3 to 1.6 mm.\nNo upper limit is given for larval size although Kikawa (1975) reports a juvenile specimen as\n514 mm SL. He also provides a description of larval development.\nUotani and Ueyanagi (1997) found that the Corycaeus copepod, Evadne and fish larvae were\nmajor food items for larval spearfish. (Although this paper is in Japanese, Table 1 (p 109)\ngives the frequency of occurrence for food items in roman text.) Fish larvae increase from 0%\nof the diet at 5.0 mm TL to about 40% at 15.0 mm TL.\nNo information is available for larval distribution beyond the presumed extent of spawning\ndescribed above. The hypothetical habitat for larvae presumably accords to this spawning\nrange.\nJuvenile\nNo information is available on juvenile behavior or habitat.\nAdult\nKikawa (1975) reports the lengths for three specimens in ripe condition; they were 1.52 m\n(bill tip to origin of lateral keels), 1.64 m (bill tip to caudal fork) and 1.39 m (center of orbit to\nshortest caudal ray). No more precise information is given for size or age at maturity.\nKikawa (1975), summarizing various studies, states that the diet of the spearfish is essentially\nsimilar to other billfish, which are in turn similar to that of tuna. Prey items include squid and\nA3-125","fish of the Lepidotidae, Alepisauridae, Acinaceidae and Katsuwonidae.\nThe hypothetical habitat or known range for adults is not known to be significantly different\nfrom that for the species as described above. No features are known that affect abundance.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nIn regards to this species, EFH is not a very useful concept because of its wide and sparse\ndistribution. In addition, relatively little is known about its biology. EFH can only be\ndescribed as epipelagic and mesopelagic tropical and subtropical waters. No features are\nknown to identify Areas of Particular Concern. Howard and Ueyanagi (1965) provide a\ndistribution map which is reproduced in Kikawa (1975).\nA3-126","between 40°N to 35°S\nunknown, but mature\nfemales described as\nbillfish: squid, fish\nsimilar to other\nepipelagic or\nmesopelagic\nabout 1.5 m.\nopen ocean\nunknown\nor less\nAdult\nNA\nunknown, presumably\nunknown, but juvenile\nHabitat description for shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris)\ndescribed as 510 mm\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nunknown\nJuvenile\nNA\nfish larvae, copepods\nA3-127\nsame as eggs\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nLarvae\nNA\ntropics between 25° N\nopen ocean\nepipelagic\nunknown\nand 25° S\nunknown\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBoggs CH. 1992. Depth, capture time, and hooked longevity of long-line-caught pelagic fish:\ntiming bites of fish with chips. Fish Bull 90(4):642-58.\nHoward JK, Ueyanagi S. 1965. Distribution and relative abundance of billfishes\n(Istiophoridae) of the Pacific Ocean. Univ Miami Inst Mar Sci, Stud Trop Oceanogr\n2:1-134.\nKikawa S. 1975. Synopsis on the biology of the shortbill spearfish, Tetrapturus angustirostris\nTanaka, 1914 in the Indo-Pacific areas. In: Shomura RS, Williams F, editors. Proceedings\nof the International Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Seattle:\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). Part 3, Species synopses; p 39-54. NOAA\ntechnical report nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nMerrett NR. 1971. Aspects of the biology of billfish (Istiophoridae) from the equatorial\nwestern Indian Ocean. J Zool 163:351-95.\nNakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins,\nsailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. Rome: FAO. FAO Fish Synop\n5(125). 58 p.\nNakano H. Okazaki M, Okamoto H. 1997. Analysis of catch depth by species for tuna\nlongline fishery based on catch by branch lines. Bull Nat Res Inst Far Seas Fish 34:43-62.\nPenrith M. 1964. A marked extension of the known range of Tertrapturus angustirostrus in\nthe Indian Ocean. Copeia 1964:231-2.\nUotani I, Ueyanagi S. 1997. Feeding habits of Indo-Pacific blue marlin and shortbill spearfish\nlarvae. J Sch Mar Sci Technol Tokai Univ 43:107-16.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nFishery Management Council. 26 p. + appendices.\n2.2.7 Habitat description for broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Island.\nLife History and General Description\nNumerous studies on the taxonomy, biology, diet, stock structure and exploitation of broadbill\nswordfish have been conducted. Information on billfishes, including swordfish is summarized\nA3-128","Nakamura et al. (1968) and Nakamura (1985). Palko et al. (1981) provide a detailed\nin synopsis of the biology of broadbill swordfish from literature available at the time of their\npublication. A more recent review is available in Joseph et al. (1994). Recent information on\nthe species and research being conducted on Pacific swordfish can be found in papers\nsubmitted to the First International Pacific Swordfish Symposium (1994 Dec 11-14;\nEnsenada, Mexico) and the Second International Pacific Swordfish Symposium (1996 Mar\n3-6; Kahuku, HI). A great deal of information on Pacific swordfish is available with the\nNMFS Honolulu Laboratory that is conducting research in several areas, including the age,\ngrowth, reproductive biology, distribution and abundance of north Pacific swordfish.\nBroadbill swordfish are worldwide in distribution in all tropical, subtropical and temperate\nranging from around 50°N to 50°S (Nakamura 1985, Bartoo and Coan 1989). The adults\nseas, can tolerate a wide range of water temperature, from 5°-27°C but are normally found in areas and\nSSTs above 13°C (Nakamura 1985). Larvae and juveniles occur in warmer tropical\nwith subtropical regions where spawning also occurs. Swordfish occur throughout the entire region\nof the Council's jurisdiction and in all neighboring states, territories and adjacent high seas\nzones.\nBroadbill swordfish have separate sexes with no apparent sexual dimorphism, although\nfemales attain a larger size. Fertilization is external and the fish are believed to spawn close to do\nthe surface. There is some evidence for pairing up of spawning adults as the fish apparently\nnot school (Palko et al. 1981).\nSwordfish are voracious feeders at all life stages. Adults feed opportunistically on a wide\nof squids, fish and crustaceans. Sex ratio appears to vary with fish size and spatial\nrange distribution. Most large sized fish are females and females appear to be more common in\ncooler waters. Beckett (1974) noted that few males were found in waters below 18 C but\nmake up the majority of warm water landings. Details of growth, maturity, fecundity and\nspawning are given later in this report.\nLittle is known about migration in Pacific swordfish although limited tagging data supports a\ngeneral west to east movement from Hawaii toward North America. An association with\ncephalopod prey concentrated near frontal boundaries appears more significant in determining\nthe distribution of swordfish in the north Pacific, and further research on the role of food and\nfrontal systems is ongoing (Seki 1993, 1996).\nBroadbill swordfish are targeted by a Hawaii based longline fishery that occurs primarily to\nthe north of the EEZ. Incidental or targeted catches within the Hawaii EEZ are made by\nlongline and handline vessels fishing primarily for tuna species. Incidental longline catches\noccur in other areas of Council jurisdiction but are not well documented.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nSwordfish eggs measure 1.6-1.8 mm in diameter, are transparent and float at the sea surface\ndue to the presence of a single oil droplet (Sanzo 1922). The incubation period is\napproximately 2.5 days (Palko et al. 1981). Newly hatched yolk-sac larvae have been\nA3-129","measured at 4.0-4.45 mm in length (Fritzsche 1978, Yasuda et al. 1978). Larvae have 30°N been and\nnoted in tropical and subtropical waters of the three major oceans between about that larval\n30°S. In a survey of swordfish larvae collections, Grall et al. (1983) determined\nswordfish were abundant in the Pacific within latitudes 35 °N to 25°S. Peak spawning Pacific occurs\nthe north Pacific between May and August, from December to January in the south Sexually\nin and March to July in the central Pacific (Nishikawa et al. 1978, Palko et al. 1981). the\nand ripening female swordfish have been noted in Hawaiian waters during with spring\nmature and early summer (Uchiyama and Shomura 1974). This observation is in agreement an\nestimated spawning period of April to July based on the collection of larvae and juveniles occurs near\nHawaii (Matsumoto and Kazama 1974). It is probable that some degree of spawning of\nthe year in tropical waters, between 20°N and 20°S, with the distribution Nishikawa larvae and\nthroughout associated with SSTs between 24° and 29°C (Taning 1955, Yabe et al. 1959,\nUeyanagi 1974).\nLarval swordfish are believed to occupy surface waters where almost all catches have Larval been\nplankton and dip nets (Taning 1955, Nishikawa and Ueyanagi 1974).\nmade swordfish using are found within a SST range of 24° to 29°C and have been found in the Pacific\nwhere salinity ranged from 34.4-36.4 %o (Matsumoto and Kazama 1974). Larval be abundance due to is\nhigh along sharp thermal and salinity gradients. However, this phenomenon may\npassive collection along boundary areas.\nThe larval and young actively feed on zooplankton during the day and become piscivorous Grobunova by\n11-12 mm in length, feeding on a variety of epipelagic fish larvae (Arata 1954,\n1969). The young swordfish are voracious feeders; an 8 mm specimen will swallow Pacific prey as\nas themselves (Taning 1955). In contrast, Yabe et al. (1959) observed that to fish\nlong swordfish of 9.0-14.0 mm fed on crustacean zooplankton and did not graduate prey\nuntil 21 mm in length.\nJuvenile\nswordfish gradually metamorphose from larval state to adult, and it is difficult to is elect\nYoung a length or age when the juvenile stage has been reached. However, early development adult\nrapid and juvenile fish greater than approximately 55 cm resemble a miniature\nswordfish. In the Pacific, fish of this size (51-61 cm) have been estimated to be approximately\none year old (Yabe et al. 1959, Dewees 1992).\nThere few specific references on the distribution of juvenile swordfish in the Pacific. 80\nare swordfish recruit to longline gear at juvenile sizes of approximately 50 to cm\nHowever, of orbit to caudal fork), which can be monitored by catch statistics. Dewees cold (1992) states\n(rear that swordfish tend to concentrate along productive thermal boundaries between\nupwelled water and warmer water masses where they feed on fish and squid. Gorbunova\n(1969) suggested that juvenile swordfish in the Pacific are restricted to areas of upwelling state that and\nproductivity and do not move far during the first year of life. Yabe et al. (1959) latitudes\nhigh young swordfish originate in tropical and subtropical regions and migrate to higher\nas they increase in size.\nA3-130","Adult\nAdult swordfish are the most widely distributed of all billfish species, ranging from\napproximately 50°N to 50°S in the Pacific as indicated by catch records of commercial\nlongline vessels. Adult swordfish are able to occupy a very wide range of water temperatures,\nfrom 5°-27°C with a preferred temperature range of 18°-22°C (Nakamura 1985). The\nspecies can exceed 500 kg in weight with females growing larger than males. The larger fish\noccupy cooler waters, with few fish less than 90 kg and few males found in waters less than\n18°C (Palko 1981).\nInformation on age and growth of swordfish is the subject of intense study, and findings have\nbeen somewhat contradictory. Age studies based on otolith analysis and other methods (length\nfrequency, vertebrae, fin rays, growth studies) are reviewed by Sosa-Nishizaki (1996) and\nEhrhardt (1996). Wilson and Dean (1983) estimated a maximum age or 9 years for males and\n15 years for females from otolith analysis. Radtke and Hurley (1983), using otoliths estimated\na maximum age of 14 years for males and 32 years for females. The assumed daily and\nannular increments used in these analyses have not yet been validated.\nResearch on the reproductive biology and size at maturity of swordfish is reviewed by\nDeMartini (1996). Yabe et al. (1959) estimate that swordfish reach maturity between 5 and 6\nyears of age at a size of 150-170 cm (eye to fork length). Sosa-Nishizaki (1990) estimate that\nfemale swordfish in the Pacific mature at 140-180 cm based on gonad indices. Arocha and\nLee (1995) estimated a length at 50% maturity of 179-189 cm and 119-129 cm for female\nand male swordfish from the northwest Atlantic fishery. Length at first maturity has been\nobserved in females as small as 101-110 cm (Nakano and Bayliff 1992). Spawning occurs in\nthe upper mixed layer of the water column from the surface to 75 m (Nakamura 1985).\nAdditional information on swordfish spawning is discussed in the section describing egg and\nlarval distribution.\nOptimal SSTs for swordfish are around 25°-29°C (Taning 1955), which implies swordfish\nspend the majority of their time in cooler sub-surface waters. Swordfish can forage at great\ndepths and have been photographed at a depth of 1,000 m by deep diving submersible (Mather\n1976). Carey (1982) and other researchers have suggested that specialized tissues warm the\nbrain and eyes, allowing swordfish to successfully forage at great depths in frigid waters.\nHolts (1994) used acoustic telemetry to monitor an adult swordfish and notes that the fish\nspent about 75% of its time in or just below the upper mixed layer at depths of 10 to 50 m in\nwater temperatures about 14°C and made excursions to approximately 300 m where the water\nwas close to 8°C.\nThe horizontal and vertical movements of several swordfish tracked by acoustic telemetry in\nthe Atlantic and Pacific are documented by Carey and Robison (1981). Studies have noted a\ngeneral pattern of remaining at depth, sometimes near the bottom, during the day and rising to\nthe near the surface during the night which is believed to be a foraging strategy. They further\nproposed that differences in preferred diving depths between areas were due to an avoidance\nof depth strata with low dissolved oxygen.\nA3-131","Adult swordfish are opportunistic feeders, preying heavily on squid and various fish species. It\nis generally accepted that swordfish in the pelagic environment feed on squid and mesopelagic\nfish and forage on demersal fish when in shallower waters (Scott and Tibbo 1968, Palko 1981,\nNakamura 1985, Stillwell and Johler 1985, Bello 1990, Carey 1990, Moreia 1990, Holts 1994,\nMarkaida and Sosa-Nishizaki 1994, Barreto et al. 1995, Clarke et al. 1995, Hernandez-Garcia\n1995, Orsi Relini 1995, Barreto 1996).\nOceanographic features that tend to concentrate forage species apparently have a significant\ninfluence on adult swordfish distributions. Swordfish are relatively abundant near boundary\nzones where sharp gradients of temperature and salinity exist (Palko 1981). Sakagawa (1989)\nnotes that swordfish are found in areas of high productivity where forage species are abundant\nnear current boundaries and frontal zones. The relationship between large-scale frontal\nsystems, forage species and swordfish distribution and abundance in the North Pacific is\ncurrently a research priority of the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Temperate species complex\nA3-132","foraging strategy. Known to\nforage for demersal prey on\nMales perfer warmer waters.\nCurrent boundaries, frontal\n9-14 yr for males, 15 -32 yr\nlived than males, conflicting\ndeep day and shallow nigh\nmixed layer to well below\nthermocline. May employ\nwhere SST is above 24°C\ncephalopods, mèsopelagic\nSpawning throughout the\nproductivity and forage\nfemales larger and longer\nestimates of age, ranging\n20°N-20°S, seasonally\nvertical migration from\ntemperatures 5°-27°C,\nand demersal fish, few\nsubsurface, extensive\nzones, areas of high\n50°N -50°S, water\npelagic, normally\nprefer 18°-22°C.\nyear in tropics at\noffshore waters\nthe sea floor.\ncrustaceans\nfor females\nAdult\nNA\nupwelling and convergence\nboundary regions, areas of\npelagic, upper mixed layer\ncephalopods and fish, few\nregions, moving to higher\ntropical and subtropical\napproximately 5 years\nproductive thermal\nHabitat description for broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius)\nlatitudes with age\noffshore waters\ncrustaceans\nJuvenile\nNA\n20°N-20°S, between 35°N\nareas of sharp thermal and\nand 25°S at SST between\nzooplankton, larval fish\nA3-133\nthroughout the year\nsalinity gradients\noffshore waters\n24°-29°C\nepipelagic\nuncertain\nLarvae\nNA\n20°N-20°S, between 35°N\nareas of sharp thermal and\nand 25°S at SST between\napproximately 2.5 days\nthroughout the year\nsalinity gradients\noffshore waters\n24° - 29°C\nepipelagic\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom type\nSeason/Time\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nArata GF Jr. 1954. A contribution to the life history of the swordfish, Xiphias gladius\nLinnaeus, from the south Atlantic coast of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico. Bull\nMar Sci Gulf Carib 4(3):183-243.\nArosha F, Lee DW. 1995. Maturity at size, reproductive seasonality, spawning frequency and\nsex ratio in swordfish from the Northwest Atlantic. Int Comm Conserv Atl Tunas, Coll\nVol Sci Pap 45(2):350-7.\nBarreto C, Marcano LA, Alio JJ, Gutierrez X, Zerpa A. 1996. Feeding of Xiphias gladius in\nthe area of Venezuelan Caribbean (SCRS/95/65). Collect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT/RECL\nDoc.Sci 5(2):337-42.\nBartoo NW, Coan AL Jr. 1989. An assessment of the Pacific swordfish resource. In: Stroud\nRH, editor. Second International Billfish Symposium (1988) Proceedings., Savannah, GA:\nNational Coalition for Marine Conservation. Part 1, Fishery and stock synopses, data\nneeds and management; p 137-51.\nBeckett, J.S. 1974. Biology of swordfish, Xiphias gladius L., in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.\nIn: Shomura RS, Williams F, editors. Proceedings of the International Billfish\nSymposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Part 2, Review and contributed papers; p\n105-6. NOAA tecnical report nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nBello G. 1990. Role of cephalopods in the diet of the swordfish Xiphias gladius, from the\neastern Mediterranean Sea. Bull Mar Sci 49(1-2):312-324.\nCarey FG. 1982. A brain heater in the swordfish. Science 216(4552):1327-9.\nCarey FG. 1990. Further acoustic telemetry observations of swordfish. In: Stroud RH, editor.\nSecond International Billfish Symposium (1988) Proceedings., Savannah, GA: National\nCoalition for Marine Conservation. Part 2, Contributed papers; p 103-22.\nCarey FG, Robison BH. 1981 Daily patterns in the activities of swordfish, Xiphias gladius,\nobserved by acoustic telemetry. US Nat Mar Fish Serv Fish Bull 79 (2):277-92.\nClarke MR, Clarke DC, Martins HR, Silva HM. 1995. The diet of swordfish (Xiphias gladius)\nin Azorean waters. Cien Biol Mar/Life Mar Sci 13A:53-69.\nDeMartini EE. 1996. Size-at-maturity and related reproductive biology session. Second\nInternational Pacific Swordfish Symposium; 1996 Mar 3-6; Kahuku, HI. Discussion\npaper; 6 p.\nDewees CM. 1992. Swordfish. In: Leet WS, Dewees CM, Haugen CW, editors. California's\nliving marine resources and their utilization. Davis, CA: California Sea Grant Extension\nProgram. p 148-50.\nA3-134","Ehrhardt NM. 1992. Age and growth of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in the northwestern\nAtlantic. Bull Mar Sci 50 (2):292-301.\nEhrhardt NM. 1996. Review of age and growth of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, using methods\nother than otoliths session. Second International Pacific Swordfish Symposium; 1996 Mar\n3-6; Kahuku, HI. Discussion paper; 14 p.\nFritzsche RA. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid-Atlantic bight: an atlas of egg, larval\nand juvenile stages. Volume 5, Chaetodontidae through Ophidiidae. Fish and Wildlife\nService, US Dept of Interior. Report nr FWS/OBS-78/12.\nGorbunova NN. 1969. Breeding grounds and food of the larvae of the swordfish Xiphias\ngladius Linné (Pisces, Xiphiidae). J Ichthyl. (3):375-85.\nHernandez-Garcia V. 1995. The diet of the swordfish Xiphias gladius Linnaeus, 1758, in the\ncentral east Atlantic, with emphasis on the role of cephalopods. Fish Bull .93(2):403-11.\nHolts DB, Bartoo NW, Bedford DW. 1994. Swordfish tracking in the Southern California\nBight. US Nat Mar Fish Serv, SW Fish Sci Center, Admin Report nr LJ 94-15. 9 p.\nJoseph J, Bayliff WH, Hinton MG.1994, A review of information on the biology, fisheries,\nmarketing and utilization, fishing regulations, and stock assessment of swordfish Xiphias\ngladius, in the Pacific Ocean.\nMarkaida U, Sosa-Nishizaki O. 1994. Food and feeding habits of the swordfish, Xiphias\ngladius L., off the western Baja California peninsula. International Symposium on Pacific\nSwordfish: Development of fisheries, markets and biological research; 1994 Dec 11-14;\nEnsenada, Mexico. Abstracts.\nMather CO. 1976. Billfish-marlin, broadbill, sailfish. Sidney, BC, Canada: Saltaire\nPublishing. 272 p.\nMatsumoto WM, Kazama TK. 1974. Occurrence of young billfishes in the central Pacific\nOcean. NOAA. Technical report nr SSRF 675. p 238-51.\nMoreira F. 1990. Food of the swordfish, Xiphias gladius Linnaeus, 1758, off the Portuguese\ncoast. J Fish Biol 36(4):623-4.\nNakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world. FAO Spec Synop 125(5). p iv, 65.\nNakamura I, Iwai T, Matsubara K. 1968. A review of the sailfish, spearfish, marlin and\nswordfish of the world. [In Jpn.] Kyoto Univ, Misaki Mar Biol Ins Spec Rep 4. 95 p.\nNakano H, Bayliff WH. 1992. A review of the Japanese longline fishery for tunas and\nbillfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 1981-1987. Inter-Am Trop Tuna Comm, Bull\n20(5):183-355.\nA3-135","Nishikawa Y, Ueyanagi S. 1974. The distribution of the larvae of swordfish, Xiphias gladius,\nin the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In: Shomura RS, Williams F, editors. Proceedings of the\nInternational Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua-Kona, HI. Part 2, Review and\ncontributed papers; p 261-4. NOAA technical report nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nNishikawa Y, Kikawa S, Honma M, Ueyanagi S. 1978. Distribution atlas of larval tunas,\nbillfishes, and related species-results of larval surveys by R/V Shunyo Maru and Shoyo\nMaru 1956-1975. Far Seas Fish Rese Lab S Series 9:1-99.\nOrsi Relini L, Garibaldi F, Cima C, Palandri G. 1995. Feeding of the swordfish, the bluefin\nand other pelagic nekton in the western Ligurian Sea. Collect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT/RECL\nDoc Sci 44(1):283-6.\nPalko BJ, Beardsley GL, Richards WJ. 1981. Synopsis of the biology of the swordfish,\nXiphias gladius Linnaeus. NOAA technical report nr NMFS Circular 441. 21 p.\nRadtke RL, Hurley PCF. 1983. Age estimation and growth of broadbill swordfish, Xiphias\ngladius, from the northwest Atlantic based on external features of otoliths. In: Prince ED,\nPulos LM, editors. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Age Determination of\nOceanic Pelagic Fishes: tunas, billfishes and sharks. p 145-50. NOAA technical report nr\nNMFS 8.\nSakagawa GT. 1989. Trends in fisheries for swordfish in the Pacific Ocean. In: Stroud RH,\neditor. Planning the future of billfishes. Research and management in the 90s and beyond.\nMar Recr Fish 13:61-79.\nSanzo L. 1922. Uova e larve di Xiphias gladius L. Memorie del Reale Comitato\nTalassografico Itaniano 79. 17 p.\nScott WB, Tibbo SN. 1968. Food and feeding habits of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in the\nwestern North Atlantic. Jour Fish Res Bd Canada 25(5):903-19.\nSeki MP. 1993. The role of the neon flying squid, Ommastrephes bartramii, in the North\nPacific pelagic food web. In: Ito J et al., editors. INPFC Symposium on biology,\ndistribution and stock assessment of species caught in the high seas driftnet fisheries in the\nNorth Pacific Ocean; Vancouver, Canada. Internatl N Pac Fish Comm 53(2):207-15.\nSeki MP. 1996. Basin-scale swordfish habitat assessment and fishery dynamics session.\nSecond International Pacific Swordfish Symposium; 1996 Mar 3-6; Kahuku, HI.\nDiscussion paper; 5 p.\nSosa-Nishizaki O. 1990. A study on the swordfish Xiphias gladius stocks in the Pacific Ocean\n[dissertation]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Fac Agric. 246 p.\nA3-136","Sosa-Nishizaki O. 1996. Review of ageing swordfish, Xiphias gladius, using otoliths HI. session.\nSecond International Pacific Swordfish Symposium; 1996 Mar 3-6; Kahuku,\nDiscussion paper; 6 p.\nStillwell CE, Johler NE. 1985. Food and feeding ecology of the swordfish Xiphias gladius Ser ) in\nthe western North Atlantic Ocean with estimates of daily ration. Mar Ecol (Prog\n22(3):239-47.\nTaning AV. 1955. On the breeding areas of the swordfish (Xiphias). Pap Mar Biol Oceanogr,\nDeep Sea Res, supplement to 3:348-450.\nUchiyama JH, Shomura RS. 1974. Maturation and fecundity of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, 142-8.\nfrom Hawaiian waters. NOAA technical report, NMFS Spec Sci Rep Fish 675. p\nWilson CA, Dean JM. 1983. The potential use of sagittae for estimating age of Atlantic the\nswordfish, Xiphias gladius. In: Prince ED, Pulos LM, editors. Proceedings of\nInternational Workshop on Age Determination of Oceanic Pelagic Fishes: tunas, billfishes\nand sharks. NOAA technical report nr NMFS 8. p 151-6.\nYabe H, Ueyanagi S,. Kikawa S, Watanabe H. 1959. Study on the life-history of the sword-\nfish, Xiphias gladius Linneaus. Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 10:107-50.\nYasuda F, Kohno H, Yatsu A, Ida H, Arena P, Greci FL, Taki Y. 1978. Embryonic and Univ early\nlarval stages of the swordfish, Xiphias gladius, from the Mediterranean. J Tokyo\nFish 65(1):91-7.\n2.2.8 Habitat description for sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThe main source for this description is Beardsley et al. (1975).\nThe sailfish is an Istiophorod billfish, sharing the genus with the Atlantic sailfish (I. called albicans). for a\nand McDowell (1995), using RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA, have\nGraves re-evaluation of the taxonomic separation of these two species (as well as other inter-oceanic\ndistinctions among other Istophorod billfish), while noting considerable intra-oceanic genetic\ndiversity, suggesting population structure. However, no information was found concerning\npossible sub-populations in the Pacific.\nHoward and Ueyanagi (1965) emphasize that sailfish are more common near land masses. New In\nthe western Pacific they identify areas of high density near the land masses of Papua\nA3-137","Guinea, Caroline Islands and Solomon Islands, as well as in the Banda Sea, Timor Sea, East\nChina sea and the waters east of Taiwan to southwestern Japan. They note that both southern adults and\nare associated with the KuroshioCurrent, migrating to the coastal waters of\nyoung Japan in this current. Beardsley et al. (1975) describe the Pacific distribution as more\nextensive in the western half than eastern and note that catch data show a distribution from\n27°S to 40°N in the west and 5°S to 25°N in the east. In describing habitat parameters, they\n\"The vertical zone of the community in which the sailfish lives is characterized by good\nstate, illumination and is likely to be delimited below by temperature at the main thermocline (from the\n10-20 m to 200-250 m, depending on area). Temperature is apparently important also in\nlatitudinal distribution of the species \" They suggest the 28° isotherm as optimal. Salinity\nalso have an effect. Kuwahara et al. (1982) note a negative correlation between catch and\nmay salinity for landings of Kyoto Prefecture in Japan. Nakamura (1985) notes that maximum\nabundance in the Indian Ocean is correlated with a maximum temperature of the East African\nCoastal Current of 29°-30° and low salinity of 32.2-33.3 %/00. He also notes that sailfish share\nhabitat with the black marlin (Makaira indica), another managed species. Hypothetical habitat\nmay be described based on these parameters, but only in general terms.\nHoward and Ueyanagi (1965) note that there is limited information on which to postulate\nmigration patterns. However, radioactively contaminated sailfish \"began to occur throughout\nthe entire western Pacific Ocean several months after the nuclear bomb test explosions at\nBikini in 1954,\" they say. This suggests interchange of fish between low and high latitude\nareas. There may also be a seasonal component to migration. Nakamura (1985) states that in\nthe Sea of Japan sailfish \"migrate with the Tsushima current (a branch of the Kuroshio) during\nsummer (peak later summer), and southward against the current during autumn (peak in early\nautumn).\" As noted above, in the eastern Pacific, migration is correlated with seasonal\nmovement of the 28° isotherm. Sailfish form schools of 3 to 30 individuals and apparently\nschool by size, at least in coastal Japan (Nakamura 1985, Beardsley et al. 1975).\nThe only habitat feature consistently mentioned in the literature that affects abundance and\ndensity of population (indicating preferred habitat) is the sailfish's preference for continental\ncoasts.\nAs with other billfish, the age of individual sailfish is difficult to determine by analysis of\nhard parts. They apparently grow rapidly; Beardsley et al. (1975) give the following lengths at\n1 year-183 cm, 2 years-216 cm and 3 cm. Prince et al. (1986) suggest a\nage: revision of the maximum age of sailfish based on a tag recapture. They estimate a maximum\nage of 13-15 years or more in contrast to earlier estimates in the range of 7 years.\nSailfish are heterosexual and do not exhibit sexual dimorphism.\nDe Sylva and Breder (1997), discussing Atlantic billfish, note that sailfish can spawn up to\nfour times in a single season and males year around. They found that the sailfish spawning\nseason of the US southeast Atlantic coast spanned April to October. They also state sailfish\nare largely coastal spawners. Nakamura (1985) states that in the Pacific sailfish spawn year\naround in the tropics with summer spawning at higher latitudes.\nA3-138","Most of the sailfish landings in the Pacific fisheries are made in the northwest and eastern\ncentral Pacific, mainly by Japanese and Korean vessels (Nakamura 1985). Longliners are\nundoubtedly the major gear type reflected in this description.\nHawaii commercial catch statistics do not separate out sailfish. The total for the \"other\nbillfish\" category was 400,000 lb in 1996, the most recent published statistics (WPRFMC\n1997). From the same source Guam reported no landings of sailfish; American Samoa\nreported 5,535 lb landed; and the Northern Marina Islands 545 lb. It can be seen that sailfish\nminor commercial species. Looking only at American Samoa, Guam and the Northern\nare Mariana a Islands, where landings for sailfish are reported separately, they represent less than\nhalf a percent of total PMUS landings. If this rate were applied to total Hawaii PMUS\nlandings, 1996 sailfish landings would be about 130,000 However, sailfish are an esteemed\ngamefish and is valuable to the charter boat fishery.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nDe Sylva and Breder (1997) give a recent detailed description of gonadal development oil based\non Atlantic samples. Eggs are described as about 0.85 mm in diameter with a single\nglobule surrounded by a pale yellow indefinite nimbus (Nakamura 1985, Beardsley et al.\n1975). Duration of the egg phase is not stated in these sources but is probably similar to other\nbillfishes.\nBeardsley et al. (1975) summarize larval and juvenile development, stating that the\ntransformation from larval to adolescent phase is without distinct break so the two phases are\ndescribed together. Post et al. (1997) were able to capture larval sailfish and keep them alive\nin the laboratory for a maximum of 72 hours. However, they provide little information on\nlarval behavior beyond noting that the larvae exhibited \"extremely rapid swimming that led to\ncontact wit the tank sides and bottom. Typically, fish maintained this pattern until their\ndeath.\" The larvae successfully fed on Artemia in the laboratory tanks. Summarizing other\nstudies, Beardsley et al. (1975) state that larvae feed on copepods and fish larvae. The authors\nreproduce a table from Gehringer (1956) detailing larval stomach contents. Based on drawing\nreproduced in Beardsley et al. (1975), the transition from larval to adolescent phase occurs\nbetween 30 mm and 100 mm.\nLittle can be said about the distribution or habitat of larval sailfish beyond what has already\nbeen summarized about distribution of spawning activity. Post et al. (1997) noted a higher\nCPUE for larval sailfish during the first quarter of the moon phase.\nJuvenile\nNo information was found on juvenile distribution, behavior or preferred habitat beyond the\naforementioned observation that sailfish tend to school by size.\nAdult\nNakamura (1985) gives a maximum size of 340 cm and 100 kg. De Sylva and Breder (1997)\nA3-139","give the weight at first maturity for females as 13-18 kg and males at 10 kg. This accords with\nan age of 12-18 months.\nBeardsley et al. (1975) give a summary of the sailfish diet based on stomach content analysis.\nThey suggest that there is \"a general consensus that although fish and squid form the major\nportion of their diet, adult sailfish are fairly opportunistic feeders and eat whatever happens to\nbe present.\"\nNo additional habitat features affecting density and abundance can be described for adults that\ndiffer significantly from that of the species as a whole.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nIn the western Pacific region, sailfish occur as a minor incidental catch in commercial\nfisheries. A few habitat parameters have been noted. This species seems to prefer continental\nmargin areas. The description of EFH for sailfish has been based on the best available\nscientific information and the requirements of ecologically related managed species. Beardsley\net al. (1975) reproduce a distribution map.\nA3-140","marked preference for\ncontinental margins\nPacific: 27°S-40°N;\nmale: 10 kg, 12-18\nfemale: 13-18 kg,\nRange in western\n5°S-25°N in east\nscombrids, squid\nfish, especially\nepipelagic\nunknown\nmonths\nAdult\nNA\nunknown, probably\ngenerally similar to\nunknown, probably\nsimilar to adults\nto 12-18 months\nHabitat description for sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)\nepipelagic\nunknown\nunknown\nJuvenile\nadults\nNA\nunknown, probably\nA3-141\ncopepods and fish\nhigher density in\nunknown, weeks\nsimilar to eggs\ncoastal waters\nepipelagic\nunknown\nLarvae\nlarvae\nNA\nspawn year around in\ntropics, seasonally in\nunknown, hours or\nunknown, sailfish\nhigher density in\ncoastal waters\ncooler waters\nepipelagic\nunknown\nNA\ndays\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nGL, Merrett NR, Richards WJ. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the sailfish F,\nBeardsley platypterus (Shaw and Nodder, 1791). In: Shomura RS, Williams Kona, editors. HI.\nIstiophorus of the International Billfish Symposium; 1972 Aug 9-12; Kailua technical\nProceedings Seattle (WA): NMFS (NOAA). Part 3, Species synopses, p 95-120. NOAA\nreport nr NMFS SSRF-675.\nDe Sylva Atlantic DP, billfishes Breder PR. (Istiophoridae). 1997. Reproduction, Bull Mar gonad Sci 60(3):668-97. histology and spawning cycles of North\nGehringer JW. 1956. Observations on the development of the Atlantic sailfish Fish Istiophorus Bull\namericanus (Cuvier) with notes on an unidentified species of istiophorid.\n57:139-71.\nGraves JE, McDowell JR. 1995. Inter-ocean genetic divergence of istiophorid billfishes. Mar\nBiol 122(2):193-203.\nHoward JK, Ueyanagi S. 1965. Distribution and relative abundance of billfishes\n(Istiophoridae) of the Pacific Ocean. Univ Miami Inst Mar Sci, Stud Trop Oceanogr\n2:1-134.\nKuwahara A, Washio K, Suzuki S. 1982. Relationship between fishing conditions of Prefecture. sailfish\nand dolphin fish and fluctuation of hydrographic condition in the sea off Kyoto\nBull Jap Soc Oceanogr 40:3-8.\nNakamura I. 1985. Billfishes of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins,\nsailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization of the United Nations. FAO Fish Synop 5(125). 58 p.\nPost Serafy JE,. Ault JS, et al. 1997. Field and laboratory observations on larval Sci Atlantic\nsailfish JT, (Istiophorus platypterus) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Bull Mar\n60(3): 1026-34.\nPrince ED, Lee DW, Wilson CA, et al. 1986. Longevity and age validation of Fish a tag-recaptured Bull\nAtlantic sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus, using dorsal spines and otoliths.\n84(3):493-502.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fishery Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Western Pacific Regional\nManagement Council. 26 pp. + appendices.\n2.2.9 Habitat description for blue shark (Prionace glauca)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nA3-142","Islands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker\nIslands, Midway Island and Wake Island.\nBlue shark within the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management\nCouncil (Council) are managed within the requium shark category (family Carcharhinidae)\nunder the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific\nRegion. Blue sharks occur throughout the entire region of the Council's jurisdiction and in all\nneighboring states, territories and adjacent high seas zones.\nLife History and General Description\nSeveral studies have examined the life history, distribution and behavior of blue sharks at\ndifferent locations worldwide (e.g., Strasburg 1958, Hazin et al. 1994, Gruber 1991, Nakano\n1994). For a general review of blue shark life history and distribution see Compagno Bonfil (1984).\nInformation on elasmobranch fisheries and bycatch is given in Pepperell (1992) and\n(1994).\nThe blue shark is an oceanic-epipelagic and fringe littoral species with a circumglobal\ndistribution. The species is relatively fecund for a requium shark. It is found in all temperate\nand tropical oceans and is thought to be the most wide ranging shark species. The basic\nenvironmental conditions favorable for survival include oceanic waters between 6°C and\n28°C, but it prefers cooler water temperatures between 7°C and 16°C (Strasburg 1958,\nCompagno 1984). In tropical waters, blue shark exhibit submergence and are typically and found\nat greater depths. In temperate waters, blue sharks are caught within the mixed layer\ngenerally range between the surface and upper layer of the thermocline (Strasburg 1958,\nNakano et al. 1985), but have been documented as deep as 650 m (Carey and Scharold 1990).\nIn the Pacific blue sharks are most predominant between 35°N and 45°N (Nakano 1994,\nStasburg 1958).\nAge and growth studies of blue sharks indicate that they may reach maturity in 6 to 7 years\n(Compagno 1984, Nakano 1994), although there may be regional differences in growth rate\n(Tanaka et al. 1990, Cailliet and Bedford 1983). They are believed to be opportunistic feeders\nat all life stages and prey primary on small pelagic fishes, crustaceans and cephalopods\n(Strasburg 1958, Stevens 1973, Tricas 1979). Blue sharks have also demonstrated seasonal\nshifts in diet when prey such as squid become abundant during mass spawning events (Tricas\n1979).\nThe blue shark is viviparous with a yolk-sac placenta. Litter size is relatively large but\nvariable ranging from 4 to 135 pups and may be dependent on the size of female (Gubanov\nand Grigor' yev 1975, Pratt 1979, Nakano 1994). In the Pacific it is thought that mating occurs\nduring the summer months in the equatorial region from May to August (Nakano 1994).\nGestation period is thought to range from 9 to 12 months and may vary depending on location also\n(Suda 1953, Nakano 1994). Females have been demonstrated to store sperm, which may\nexplain variability in gestation period estimates (Pratt 1979). Late term pregnant well- females are\nfound in the northern Pacific in summer months where they give birth to large,\ndeveloped pups averaging 36 cm FL. The lengthy gestation period and geographic separation\nA3-143","of mating and birthing grounds suggests that mature females in the Pacific may reproduce\nevery other year (Nakano 1994).\nSeasonal migrations are thought to occur in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean populations\nwith seasonal periods of sexual segregation (Casey 1985, Stevens 1992, Nakano 1994). A\nlarge-scale shark tag and recapture program has confirmed a clockwise migrations pattern in\nthe North Atlantic population suggesting blue sharks may follow the Gulf Stream (Casey\n1985). However, migratory behavior in the Pacific and Indian Oceans is not known but has\nbeen proposed from length frequency and sex ration analysis of shark catch. A shark tagging\nprogram has recently been initiated by California Fish and Game further elucidate the\nmigratory movements of blue sharks in the eastern Pacific (Laughlin 1997). However, only\nlimited blue shark tagging has been conducted in the central Pacific, and thus, the extent of\nblue shark migrations in the central Pacific are still unconfirmed. Currently, the NMFS\nHonolulu Laboratory is collaborating with the National Research Institute of Far Seas\nFisheries (Japan) to tag blue sharks in the north Pacific.\nBlue sharks appear to aggregate in loose schools and are generally caught more frequently\nover depths greater than 1,000 m (Hazin et al. 1993, Ito and Machado 1997). They exhibit diel\ndiving behavior similar to that of other pelagic teleosts and sharks (Sciarrota and Nelson 1977,\nCarey and Scharold 1990) and appear to show a fair degree of niche overlap with swordfish\n(C. Boggs, pers. comm.). Blue sharks are a bycatch of pelagic longline fisheries for tuna and\nswordfish in the Pacific and can seasonally comprise the largest percentage of the catch in\nsome fisheries. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of blue sharks\nretained for their fins in the tuna and swordfish longline fishery in Hawaii (Ito and Machado\n1997). The meat is seldom landed and sold at market because it has a low commercial value.\nApproximately 95% of shark fins landed in Honolulu by the pelagic longline fishery are from\nblue shark (WPRFMC 1997).\nNeonate and Juvenile Distribution\nLittle is known about neonatal and juvenile blue sharks in the Pacific other than their general\ndistribution. Young-of-the-year blue sharks 50 cm FL) were more frequently caught\nin\nlarge mesh drift-net fishery in the northern Pacific (35°N to 45°N), which is believed to be a\nparturition (birthing) area. It has been suggested that the separation of the parturition area\nfrom the adults habitats may serve to reduce predation on pups from adult sharks (Nakano\n1994). Unfortunately, there is little known about the feeding habits or depth preferences of\njuveniles in their nursery grounds, although it has been speculated that nursery grounds are\nlocated in the more productive subarctic boundary where there may be more food for the\nyoung sharks (Nakano 1994).\nSubadult\nSubadult blue sharks appear to segregate according to sex in the Pacific. After leaving their\nparturition area, 2- to 5-year-old females are more frequently caught further northward (40°N\nto 50°N), while 2- to 4-year-old males move southward (30°N to 40°N) (Nakano 1994). Little\nis known about the feeding habits and depth preferences of subadults due to lack of study.\nA3-144","Adult\nblue sharks exhibit seasonal sexual segregation as well as possible migratory behavior. adult\nAdult In the Pacific, adults range from equatorial waters to 40 °N. In Nakano's study (1994), the\nfemales were predominant in waters off Japan throughout the year and in areas near of\nsubarctic boundary in the summer, while males were most common in waters south to the\nsubarctic boundary. In early summer reproductively ready females reportedly move\nsouthern waters to mate with males. Large numbers of females exhibiting bite marks\nassociated with recent matings were seen at equatorial latitudes. After mating, pregnant\nfemales reportedly migrate north where they give birth the following year (Nakano 1994).\nBased on spatial and temporal changes in blue shark abundance in the Pacific, it is suspected\nthat the north-south difference in catch rates of blue sharks is mediated by the transition zone. the\nis the area of water between the cooler Aleutian Current and the warmer water from °N\nThis North Pacific Current. This transition zone shifts from 31 °N and 36°N in the winter to 41\nand 36°N in the fall. Most of the larger catches of blue sharks have been made in or just south\nof this zone (Strasburg 1958).\nDiel movements of blue sharks acoustically tracked off Southern California and in the North\nAtlantic indicate that adult blue sharks increase their activity at night and make shallower\ndives than during the day. Sharks tracked off Southern California ventured inshore at night,\npresumably to feed on seasonally available spawning squid (Sciarrota and Nelson and/or 1977). The\ncyclical diving behavior is thought to serve as either a hunting, orientation\nthermoregulatory function (Carey and Scharold 1990).\nAlthough adult blue sharks are opportunistic feeders and prey mainly on small pelagic mammal fishes,\ncephalopods and crustacean, they have also been observed scavenging on marine\ncarcasses at sea. Unfortunately, there are little data on the diet composition of blue sharks in\nthe central Pacific.\nA3-145","latitudes in summer or\ntropical submergence\nfemales: in equatorial\nhigh latitude nursery\nCurrent and North\nbetween Aleutian\nmales: equatorial\nPacific Current\nepipelagic with\ntransition zone\ncephalopods,\n~ 6-20 years\nsmall fishes,\ncrustaceans\nlatitudes\noffshore\ngrounds\nAdult\nNA\nfemales: cooler waters\nmales: warmer waters\nmales: between 30°N\nfemales: between\n40°N and 50°N\ncephalopods,\nsmall fishes,\nHabitat description for blue shark (Prionace glauca)\ncrustaceans\n~ 2-6 years\nepipelagic\nand 40°N\nSubadult\noffshore\nNA\nsubarctic boundary\nA3-146\nbetween 35°N and\ncephalopods,\nsmall fishes,\ncrustaceans\n~ 1-2 years\nepipelagic\noffshore\nJuvenile\n45° °N\nNA\nthroughout year\n9-12 months\nGestation\noffshore\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom type\nSeason/Time\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBonfil R. 1994. Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. Rome: FAO. Fish technical paper\nnr 341.\nCailliet GM,. Bedford DW. 1983. The biology of three pelagic sharks from California waters\nand their emerging fisheries: A review. Cal COFI Rep 24:57-60.\nCarey FG, Scharold JV. 1990. Movements of blue sharks (Prionace glauca) in depth and\ncourse. Mar Biol 106:329-42.\nCasey JG. 1985. Transatlantic migrations of the blue shark: A case history of cooperative\nshark tagging. In: Stroud RH, editor. World angling resources and challenges.\nProceedings of the First World Angling Conference; 1984; Cap d'Adge, France. Ft.\nLauderdale, FL: International Game Fishing Association. p 253-268.\nCompagno LJV. 1984. Sharks of the world. FAO species catalog, volume 4, part 2,\nCarcharhiniformes. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. p\n655. Fisheries synopsis nr 125.\nGruber SH, editor. 1991. Discovering sharks. Highlands, NJ: American Littoral Society. 122\np.\nGubanov, YP, Grigor'yev VN. 1975. Observations of the distribution and biology 15:37-43. of the blue\nshark Prionace glauca (Carcharhinidae) of the Indian Ocean. J Ichthyol\nHazin FHV, Boeckman CE, Leal EC, Lessa RPT, Kihara K, Otsuka K. 1993. Distribution and\nrelative abundance of the blue shark, Prionace glauca, in the southwestern equatorial\nAtlantic Ocean. Fish Bull US 92:474-80.\nIto RY,. Machado WA. 1997. Annual report of the Hawaii-based longline fishery for 1996.\nSouthwest Fisheries Center administrative report nr H-97-12.\nLaughlin LM. 1997. Shark tagging news 1997. Newslet CGFG Shark Tag Prog 2.\nNakano H. 1994. Age, reproduction and migration of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean.\nBull Nat Res Inst Far Seas Fish 31:141-256.\nPepperell JG, editor. 1992. Sharks: biology and fisheries. Australia: CSIRO. 349 p.\nPratt HL. 1979. Reproduction in the blue shark, Prionace glauca. Fish Bull US 77(2):\n445-70.\nSciarrota TC, Nelson DR. 1977. Diel behavior of the blue shark, Prionace glauca, near Santa\nCatalina Island, California. Fish Bull US 75(3):519-28.\nA3-147","Stevens JD. 1973. Stomach contents of the blue shark (Prionace glauca L.) off south-west\nEngland. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 53:357-61.\nStevens JD. 1992. Blue and mako shark by-catch in the Japanese longline fishery off south-\neastern Australia. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res 43:227-36.\nStrasburg DW. 1958. Distribution, abundance, and habits of pelagic sharks in the central\nPacific Ocean. Fish Bull 138:335-61.\nSuda A. 1953. Ecological study on the blue shark (Prionace glauca Linn.) South Seas Area\nFish Res Lab Rep 26(1):1-11.\nTanaka S, Cailliet GM, Yudin KG. 1990. Differences in growth of the blue shark, Prionace\nglauca: technique or population. In: Pratt et al, editors. Elasmobranchs as living 177-87 resources:\nadvances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of the fisheries. p\nNOAA technical report nr 90.\nTricas TC. 1979. Relationships of the blue shark, Prionace glauca, and its prey near Santa\nCatalina Island. Calif Fish Bull 77(1):175-82.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\n2.2.10 Habitat description for pelagic sharks (Alopiidae, Carcharinidae, Lamnidae,\nSphynidae)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nSharks are only identified at the family level for the purpose of management. The four\nfamilies identified comprise some 65 species, although the vast majority (48 species) are\nCarcharinids. Table 1, derived from Compagno (1984), lists all species in these families\noccurring in FAO Fishing Areas 71 and 77, which cover the management area. However, of\nthis total many do not or may not occur in the management area. The table below summarizes\nthis information.\nA3-148","Definitely in\nPossibly in\nNumber of species\nTotal\nManagement Area\nFamily\nManagement Area\nin FAO Area 71 and\nSpecie\n77\nS\n3\n3\n3\nAlopiidae\n3\n1\n4\n5\nLamnidae\n12\n9\n38\n48\nCarcharinida\ne\n2\n1\n7\n9\nSphyrnidae\nTable 1: Summary of species occurring in management area\nAccording to logbook data from the Hawaii-based longline fishery about 93% of sharks\nlanded are blue sharks (Prionace glauca). Of the remainder, about 1.5% are mako sharks\n(family Lamnidae) and about 3% are thresher sharks (family Alopiidae). This leaves a\nremainder of about 3% in the \"other\" category. Table 2 below is based on observer \"raw\"\ndata, representing total sharks recorded between 1994-1997. Since observer coverage is low\nand there may be uncorrected biases in the data it should be treated with caution. Nonetheless,\nit gives some indication of the relative frequency of capture for various sharks. Because of\ntheir predominance in the fishery, a separate habitat description has been prepared for the and blue\nshark. Since the remainder of the species are caught in relatively small numbers, habitat\nlife history will only be discussed at a general or family level.\nStrasburg (1958) reports shark landings during the fishery assessment cruises that were part of\nthe Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations carried out by the US Fish and Wildlife Service\nfrom 1952 to 1955. Twelve species are mentioned in the text. One of these, Galcorhinus\n(the \"soupfin shark\") now classed as G. galeus (the tope shark) (Compagno 1984), is\nzypterus in family Triakidae and therefore not a MUS. Of the remainder three were considered\ncommon, Prionace glauca, Carcharinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip) and Carcharinus\nfalciformus (the silky shark) Uncommon sharks were Isurus oxyrinchus (shortfin mako), the G.\nthree species of threshers (family Alopiidae) and Lamna ditropis, the salmon shark. Eight\ngaleus, four hammerheads (the two species in family Sphyrnidae that occur in the\nmanagement area, Sphyrna lewini and S. zygaena) and two Carcharinus melanopterus\n(blacktip reef shark) were also landed.\nCrow et al. (1996) give life history information on 11 species of shark caught in Hawaii\nduring control programs carried out between 1959 and 1980. A total of 15 different species\nwere caught in these programs. Three species, Hexanchus griseus (bluntnose six gill),\nEchinorhinus cookei (prickly shark) and Pseudotriakis microdon (false cat shark) are\ndeepwater forms. None of these species fall into the four MUS families. Commonly caught\nspecies include Carcharhinus altimus, C. limbatus (blacktip reef shark), C. plumbeus, C.\namblyrynchos (gray reef shark), C. galapagensis, Sphyrna lewini and Galeocerdo cuvier. The\npelagic sharks Isurus oxyrinchus, C. falciformis and Prionace glauca were caught in very\nsmall numbers as was the great white, Carcharodon carcharias, an occasional visitor to the\nregion. Kato (1964) describes seven Carcharhinid sharks caught by purse seiners in the eastern a\ntropical Pacific: C limbatus, an inshore species; C. azureus (now C. leucas, the bull shark),\nA3-149","Percent\nNumber\nSpecies\nAlopiidae\n0.08%\n19\nPelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus)\n1.46%\n356\nBigeye thresher (A. superciliosus)\n0.14%\n35\nCommon thresher (A. vulpinus)\n0.16%\n38\nUnidentified thresher (Alopias sp.)\n1.84%\n448\nSubtotal\nLamnidae\n0.00%\nGreat white (Charcharodon carcharias)\n1.28%\n312\nShortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)\n0.02%\n5\nLongfin mako (I. paucus)\n0.03%\n8\nUnidentifed mako shark (Isurus sp.)\n0,23%\n57\nSalmon shark (Lamna ditropis)\n1.57%\n383\nSubtotal\nCharcharhinidae\n0.04%\n9\nBignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus)\n0.23%\n56\nSilky shark (C. falciformis)\n0.02%\n4\nGalapagoes shark (C. galapagensis)\n2,58%\n629\nOceanic whitetip (C. longimanus)\n0,01%\n2\nDusky shark (C. obscurus)\n0,11%\n27\nSandbar shark (C. plumbeus)\n0,02%\n5\nTiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)\n89.90%\n21.917\nBlue shark (Prionace glauca)\n92.90%\n22.649\nSubtotal\nSphyrnidae\n0,01%\nScalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)2\n0.03%\n8\nSmooth hammerhead (S. zygaena)\n0.02%\nUnidentified hammerhead (Sphyrna sp.)5\n0.06%\n15\nSubtotal\n3,63%\n885\nUnidentified sharks\n100.00\n24,380\nTotal\nTable 2: Observer data on sharks caught in the longline fishery\nA3-150","rarely caught shallow water and estuarine species; C. galapagensis; C. platyrhyncus (now C. C.\nalbimarginatus), the silvertip, which aggregates near offshore islands; C. lamiella (now C.\nobscurus), a rarely caught coastal species; C. malpeloensis, the \"net eater\" (probably\nfalciformis, which has Eulamia malpeloensis as a synonym), the most abundant species; and\nC. altimus, not common in the fishery and first reported in 1962.\nThe above information suggests that the fishery is dominated by a few species: Prionace C.\nglauca, C. longimanus, A. superciliosus, Isurus oxyrinchus and to a lesser extent\nI\nfalciformis and Lamna ditropis. However, numerous other Carcharhinid and Sphyrnid species but\ncaught in low numbers. Many of the Carcharhinid species are coastal or reef dwelling\nare on occasion venture far enough offshore to be captured by longliners operating near be\nmay islands. In addition, seamounts and submerged banks outside of territorial waters may\nhabitat for some of these species. For example, Branstetter (1987) notes that female scalloped\nhammerheads are more oceanic and known to form offshore aggregations on seamounts.\nThe habitat, distribution and biology descriptions given in Compagno (1984) for each family for\nare quoted below, supplemented by material from Strasburg (1958), and with information\nspecific species from various sources.\nFamily Alopiidae\nThreshers are large, active, strong-swimming sharks, ranging in habitat from coastal to\nepipelagic and deepwater epibenthic. They are found worldwide in tropical, subtropical small and\ncold-temperate waters. These sharks are apparently specialized for feeding on to\nmoderately large schooling fishes and squids. Threshers swim in circles around a school fins. of\nnarrowing the radius and bunching the school with their long, strap-like caudal The\nprey, caudal fin is also used as a whip to stun and kill prey, and threshers are commonly tail-hooked broadly\nlonglines after striking the bait with the caudal tip. The three species of this family and\non overlap in habitat and range, but differences in their structure, feeding habits and spatial\ndistribution suggest that they reduce interspecific competition by partitioning their habitat and\navailable to some extent. Alopias superciliosus, with its huge eyes, relatively large teeth,\nbroad caudal prey fin, and preference for deeper water (coastally near the bottom), take somewhat A.\nlarger pelagic fishes (including billfishes and lancetfishes) as well as bottom fishes;\nvulpinus, with smaller eyes and teeth, a narrower caudal fin, and preference for the surface, but\ntakes small pelagic fishes (including clupeids, needlefishes and mackerels) and squids,\nalso bonitos and bluefishes. The oceanic A. pelagicus is poorly known, but its even smaller\nteeth and very slender caudal fin suggest that it may take smaller prey than A. vulpinus or A.\nsuperciliosus (Compagno 1984).\nStrasburg (1958) reports that the three members of this family were uncommon so little catch about rate\ntheir distribution could be stated with confidence. He does, however, note a higher\nclose to land, describing them as \"definitely neritic [with] their abundance falling close to zero\n40 miles from shore.\" He is uncertain about depth distribution except to say that they are\npossibly eurythermal and were most common at intermediate depths (49-85 m based on\nlongline depth). Compagno (1984) gives the following depth distributions: A. pelagicus\n0-152 m, A. superciliosus 0 to at least 500 m, A. vulpinus 0 to at least 366m.\nA3-151","Family Lamnidae\nLamnids are tropical to cold-temperate, littoral to epipelagic sharks with a broad geographic\ndistribution in virtually all seas, in continental and insular waters from the surf line to the\nouter shelves and rarely down the slopes to at least 1,280 m. All the living species are of large\nsize, with a maximum length of 3 to at least 6.4 m.\nThese sharks are fast-swimming, active pelagic and epibenthic swimmers, some of which are\ncapable of swift dashes and spectacular jumps when chasing their prey. Mackerel sharks are a\npartially warm-blooded and have a modified circulatory system that enables them to retain\nbody temperature warmer than the surrounding water. This permits a higher level of activity\nand increases the power of their muscles. They feed on a wide variety of bony fishes, and other\nsharks, rays, marine birds and reptiles, marine mammals, squids, bottom crustaceans\ncarrion. Development is ovoviviparous, with a yolk-sac placenta. (Compagno 1984).\nThe two species mentioned by Strasburg (1958) are Isurus oxyrinchus, the shortfin mako and\nLamna ditropis, the salmon shark, both considered uncommon. He notes that the shortfin\nmako has \"almost the same range as the great blue shark\" (i.e., Prionace glauca) and their\ndepth distribution is also eurythermal. Compagno (1984) notes that this shark is seldom found\nin waters below 16°C and is \"the peregrine falcon of the shark world,\" the fastest shark and\nfamed jumper. The salmon shark, as its name implies, is a temperate to boreal shark;\naccording to Strasburg (1958), almost all were caught north of 35°N. This shark may rarely\noccur at the northern margin of the Hawaii EEZ but are more likely occasionally caught by\nHawaii-based vessels ranging outside the EEZ. There are two other species in the family. The\nlongfin mako (Isurus peucus), which was first named fairly recently, in 1966. This suggests\nthat it is a fairly rare species, or at least rarely caught. The great white shark (Carcharodon\ncarcharias) is an infamous top level predator. It tends to be more common on continental\nmargins, although Campagno (1984) notes that \"the occurrence of large individuals off\noceanic islands far from land where breeding populations of the species apparently do not\nexist suggests that it can and does make occasional epipelagic excursions into the ocean\nbasins, even though it has never been taken in longline catches there (unlike its relatives in the\ngenera Isurus and Lamna).\" It may therefore be considered an occasional visitor to or vagrant\nin the management area.\nPratt and Casey (1983) provide growth and age estimates for I. oxyrinchus based on\nspecimens captured in the northeast Atlantic. They estimate a one-year gestation period.\nGrowth is considered fast but the species exhibits low fecundity. Size at birth is about 60 cm.\nMales mature at about 180 cm or 2.5 years, and females, 260 cm or 6-7 years. Theoretical\nmaximum size, based on the von Bertalanffy growth curve is 302 cm for males and 345 cm\nfor females, suggesting a maximum age in excess of 15 years. Size dimorphism between\nsexes, with females being larger, is common in many shark species.\nFamily Carcharhinidae\nThis is one of the largest and most important families of sharks, with many common and\nwide-ranging species found in all warm and temperate seas. These are the dominant sharks in\nA3-152","tropical waters, often both in variety and in abundance and biomass. Most species inhabit\ntropical continental coastal and offshore waters; several species prefer coral reefs and oceanic\nislands while a few, including the blue, silky and oceanic whitetip sharks, are truly oceanic\nand range far into the great ocean basins. Requiem sharks are active strong swimmers,\noccurring singly or in small to large schools. Some species are continually active while others\nare capable of resting motionless for extended periods on the bottom. All are voracious\npredators, feeding heavily on bony fishes, other sharks, rays, squid, octopi, cuttlefishes, crabs,\nlobsters, and shrimp, but also sea birds, turtles, sea snakes, marine mammals, gastropods,\nbivalves, carrion, and garbage. (Compagno 1984)\nThe oceanic species mentioned above are also the three identified as common by Strasburg.\nThe blue shark won't be discussed here as a separate species description has been prepared.\nThe silky (Carcharinus falciformis) and oceanic whitetip (C. longimanus) are described by\nStrasburg (1958) as equatorial species with a range practically restricted to within 10 degrees\non either side of the equator. According to him, the whitetip is the more abundant of the two\nspecies and may be more abundant than the blue shark, even if it is caught less frequently. The\nwhitetip is considered more oceanic while the silky shark was more abundant around the Line\nIslands (0°N-10° N and 155°W-165°W). The oceanic nature of the whitetip may be due to a\nlower salinity preference or avoidance of competition with faster moving neritic species.\nStrasburg (1958) states, \"In common with other species occurring in the equatorial area,\nneither the whitetip nor the silky shark shows much latitudinal change in vertical distribution.\nThe whitetip appears to be principally a surface dweller north of the equator and more\nbathypelagic to the south, whereas the silky is almost uniformly distributed in depth to the\nnorth and is more deep-swimming in the south.\" Compagno (1984) gives a depth distribution\nfor the silky of 0 to at least 500 m and preferring water temperatures of 23°-24°C. The\nwhitetip is described as occurring from 0 to at least 152 m and generally found in waters\ndeeper than 184 m. It regularly occurs in waters 18°-20°C but prefers 20°C. Strasburg also\nnotes the capture of two blacktips (C. melanopterus), but these were caught near shore and are\nunlikely to caught with any frequency in EEZ waters.\nBranstetter (1987) discusses age and growth of C. falciformis, one of the more commonly\ncaught species. Based on centrum annuli taken from sharks in the Gulf of Mexico he\ndeveloped a growth curve for this species. Back calculated size at birth is 55-85 cm with\nprobably a one-year gestation period. Males mature at 210-220 cm or 6-7 years while females\nmature at greater than 225 cm or more than 9 years. Theoretical maximum size is 290.5 cm or\nperhaps 20 years old or more, although a more typical maximum age is 10-15 years.\nExamination of stomach contents suggests that tuna, mackerel, mullet and squid are common\nprey items in the Gulf of Mexico.\nWetherbee et al. (1996) reviews the biology of the Galapagos shark based on specimens\ncaught in Hawaii shark control programs. This species is essentially limited to oceanic islands\nand is common on around islands off the American coast but is also commonly found in\nHawaii. It prefers rugged bottom terrain and strong currents. There is evidence of sex\nsegregation by depth based on capture records with females preferring shallower water. In\nHawaii it is not typically found in shallow water nursery areas, nor does it school, as is\ncommon elsewhere. Females are estimated to mature at 6.5-9 years and males at 6-8 years.\nA3-153","Mating occurs in winter and spring and pupping in spring and summer of the overall following low year.\nThis species may give birth only once every two to three years, suggesting\nfecundity.\nTricas et al. (1981) studied the diel behavior of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) in using the a\ndevice. They found that the shark they studied (at French Frigate Shoals\nNWHI) tracking spent daylight hours on the outer leeward reef, especially near steep drop-offs. At\nthe shark would move off the reef into deep water, frequently diving but in associated general\nnight following the contour of the reef front slope. They suggest that this behavior is with\nforaging.\nFamily Sphymidae\nhammerheads are a small but common family of wide-ranging, warm-temperate and\nThe sharks found in continental and insular waters on or adjacent to their shelves but down with\ntropical being truly oceanic. Depths range from the surface, surf-line and intertidal region surface to\nnone to at least 275 m depth. Hammerheads are very active swimmers, ranging from the with\nbottom, and occur in all warm seas. Several species occur in schools, sometimes\nthe hundreds of individuals. Some of the large species seem to find fish baits on longlines quicker\nother sharks and expire more swiftly than most other species after being caught.\nthan Hammerheads are versatile feeders that take a wide variety of bony fishes, elasmobranchs,\ncephalopods, crustaceans and other prey; some habitually feed on other elasmobranchs.\n(Compagno 1984)\nHammerheads were caught very incidentally according to Strasburg (1958), so no distribution\ninformation is provided by him. Two species were caught, Sphyrna lewini and S. the zygaena.\nCompagno (1984) describes the scalloped hammerhead (S. lewini) as probably most and\nabundant hammerhead, remaining close into shore, even ranging into enclosed bays\nestuaries, and occurring along insular shelves. They are also reported over seamounts. The\nis given from intertidal to at least 275 m. They are viviparous with a close yolk-sac inshore.\ndepth placenta range and adults apparently move inshore to mate and young primarily occur however,\nhabitat for the smooth hammerhead (S. zygaena) is essentially similar;\nThe gives the depth distribution as \"the surface down to at least 20 m and probably\nCompagno much more.\" Both species are omnivorous, feeding on a variety of inshore and reef species of\nfish, crustaceans and cephalopods. This information indicates that these are predominately\ninshore species and probably rarely caught in offshore fisheries.\nBranstetter (1987) provides information on age and growth of S. lewini from the Gulf of\nMexico. Size at birth is estimated 49 cm. Males mature at about 180 cm or 9-10 years the and\nfemales at 250 cm or about 15 years. Theoretical maximum size is 329 cm, close to females largest\nknown specimen, 309 cm, taken in Hawaii. The author estimates a maximum age for\nof about 35 years and of males of 22-30 years.\net al. (1996) provide information on S. lewini and S. zygaena captured around Hawaii adults\nCrow control programs. Juveniles of S. zygaena are common in coastal waters while that\nduring may prefer offshore areas. Stomach content analysis from this and other studies suggest\nA3-154","fish, crustaceans and pelagic cephalopods are common in the dies of S. lewini. S.\nteleost apparently prefers cephalopods. Clarke (1971) and Holland et al. (1993) southern studied\nzygaena hammerhead (S. lewini) pups in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. The tend part to avoid of\nscalloped is a major breeding and pupping ground for this species. Pups apparently and then\nthe light, bay preferring more turgid waters. Pups school in a core refuge area during the out day of the bay\nat night, foraging along the base of patch reefs. Juveniles may move they\ndisperse somewhat inadvertently during foraging activities. As the move out of turgid water may\nseek deeper water offshore where light intensity is lower.\nI\nLife History Notes on Sharks\nreferred to the habitat description for the blue shark as representative of brief life\nReaders history aspects are of the most commonly caught pelagic species. A very general and life\nhistory description for the group as a whole is given here.\nnotable in that they produce relatively small numbers of young, which are either\nSharks oviparous are (egg laying, where the young develop inside an egg case) or viviparous the (where pups\nhatched or are born fully developed). This method of reproduction reduces\nare susceptibility of young to predation but also makes them more vulnerable to overfishing. \"K-\nand Gruber (1990) state that, unlike teleost fish, they can be characterized as\nHoenig selected species\" and \"the relationship between stock and recruitment in the elasmobranchs well- is\ndirect, owing to the reproductive strategy of low fecundity combined with marine few, turtles\nquite formed offspring.\" The authors further point out that this strategy is similar to for\nbaleen whales, other marine species that have been overfished. Most sharks, except inshore and\nand the exclusively pelagic, reproduce at specific nursery grounds, which are usually\na habitat different from likely predators. The main predators on juveniles\nideally to represent be other larger sharks (Castro 1987). Thus the availability of predator-free nursery\nappear grounds may be an important factor in regulating population (Springer 1967).\nBranstetter (1990) describes Atlantic Carcharhinoid and Lamnoid sharks reproductive various growth\nin terms of size at birth and growth rate. These strategies can be divided into and\nThere are slow growing types with large neonates that occupy coastal bays surf and\ncategories. and are exposed to predators. Slow growing species with smaller young use\nareas estuarine areas as nursery grounds, where predators are absent. Among fast growing species in\nsmall and large sized coastal sharks and pelagic sharks, including species significant for the\nare shark (C. falciformis) depends on rapid neonate growth\nmanagement area. The silky (1967) neonates\nsurvival and also has relatively large neonates. According to Springer months of are\nfound on deep reef areas and move into the pelagic environment at about six Isurus age.\nand Lamnids have similar strategies. Young tend to be large, although\nAlopiids oxyrinchus has smaller neonates but compensates with large litter sizes. Alopiids allows produce two\nfour of intermediate size. Rapid growth in the young of these species greater\nto young efficiency and speed in order to escape predators. For truly pelagic species, nursery\nswimming grounds are probably not used; thus the importance of large neonate size and rapid growth.\nSexual segregation in schools is often observed in sharks and is probably related to\nreproduction. Strasburg (1958) discusses sexual segregation in blue sharks based on longline\nA3-155","data (refer to the blue shark habitat description).\nWetherbee et al., (1990) discuss feeding habits of sharks. Sharks are generally portrayed as\nopportunistic feeders but the authors wish to qualify this somewhat. First, in most species\ntend to dominate in stomach content. Diet also changes with ontogenetic\nteleosts development; juveniles, especially when they are at inshore nursery areas have a different diet, in\nmore crustaceans for example. There may also be seasonal variation due to changes\neating availability. Similarly prey may vary due to habitat; the authors cite a study Kaneohe (Clarke 1971) Bay,\nprey showing that scalloped hammerhead diet varied from one location to another in in\nOahu, Hawaii. Among their conclusions, Wetherbee et al. (1990) state that feeding occurs\nshort bouts followed by longer periods of digestion and there is not well established\nperiodicity for feeding. Sharks's daily ration is apparently lower than for teleosts.\nPacific fisheries\nDetermination of total catch for sharks is difficult since they are bycatch in Pacific towards region\nIn the Hawaii-based longline fishery there has been an increasing trend\nfisheries. cutting off the dorsal fins as these may be dried and are valued in Asian markets. market Mako value. and\nthresher shark carcasses are sometimes retained because their meat has some total\na full discussion of the bycatch issue refer to section 4.1 of this amendment.) be The\n(For number of sharks caught in the longline and purse seine fisheries is thought to large\nand McCoy 1997). Pacific-wide, blue sharks are the most significant component but relies of\n(Heberer catches, as they are in the region's fisheries. Bonfil (1984) gives a regional summary of the total\nStrasburg's report (1958) to derive a breakdown by species based on estimates falciformis),\non number of sharks hooked. For 1989, he estimates 19,897 mt of silky sharks (C. for\nmt of whitetips (C. longimanus), 8,193 of blue shark and 1,545 mt of other species estimated\nSouth 10,799 Pacific longline fisheries. For North Pacific (above 20°N) longline fisheries author\nis 39,059 mt of blue shark, 145 mt of whitetip and 1,789 of other species. The describes is\ncatch unable to make similar estimates for the purse-seine fishery but cites Au (1991) who\nthe nature of associations in different types of tuna schools.\nAs noted above, the bycatch discussion in this amendment provides some data on shark\ncatches in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. From Table 4.1.b the following numbers and\npercentages can be derived for 1997: blue sharks 79,712 (93.21%), mako sharks data 1,164\n(1.36%), thresher sharks 2,321 (2.71%), other sharks 2,326 (2.72%). Published\n(WPRFMC 1997) does not break down shark landings by species. In addition, estimated landings 4.5 data\ndoes not account for discards. In 1996 (the most recent data available) an of\nmillion lb (2,041 mt) were landed in Hawaii. (Shark landings represent an estimate Samoa whole\nweight based on the number of fins landed in addition to any carcasses.) American for\nestimated landings were 12,747 lb (5.78 mt), and 3,348 lb (1.52 mt) were estimated Pacific Guam.\nThe regional total is thus 4,516,095 lb (2,048 mt). Total landings for the western\nregion are about 2.5% of the estimated Pacific regional total of 80,927 mt.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Shark species complex\nIf all sharks in the four MUS families are used as a basis for delineating EFH then it will\nA3-156","necessarily be large because the families contain both offshore and inshore species occupying\na wide variety of habitats. It is probably more realistic to base the delineation only on the more\ncommonly caught pelagic species. Even so, the designation will encompass all epipelagic of and\nmesopelagic EEZ waters. This broad designation results from the wide-ranging - nature\nspecies (taken together covering tropical, temperate and even boreal seas) and lack of\nmany knowledge about relative density, although for all species taken together densities are higher\nin neritic and inshore waters. Very small-scale distribution maps are found in Compagno\n(1984); Strasburg (1958) has two distribution maps for \"common\" and \"uncommon\" species\nbased on hooking rates.\nA3-157","Carcharhinidae: 10° N - 10° S. for C. falciformis\npaucus uncertain but more restricted subtropical\nand C. longmanus, other species highly variable\nCarcharinidae: highly variable, major captured\nwarm temperate and tropical seas; S. zygaena-\ninshore benthic, neritic to epipelagic, mesopelagic\nSphyrnidae: S. lewini- circumglobal in coastal\nAlopiidae: 20°N-20° S to 50° N-40° S for A.\ntropical; L. ditropis boreal-temperate (above\nunknown, captured species associate with tuna\nsome cases billfish, other elasmobranchs, squid,\nAlopiidae: neritic to offshore, but not truly\nLamnidae: 50°N--45°S for I. oxyrinchus, I\nomnivorous, teleost fish, notably scombrids, in\nLamnidae: epipelagic to mesopelagic\nhighly variable for inshore species\namphitemperate and tropical\nHabitat description for pelagic sharks (Alopiidae, Carcharinidae, Lamnidae, Sphynidae)\n35°) in North Pacific\nspecies epipelagic\ncrustaceans, molluscs\nto 20 years or more\nvulpinus\npelagic\nschools\nAdult\ninshore benthic, neritic\nvariable/unknown, see\nvariable/unknown, see\nJuvenile / Sub-Adult\nto 5-10 years or more\nA3-158\nadult distribution\nomnivorous, fish,\nadult distribution\nhighly variable\nto epipelagic\nunknown\nhighly\nhighly\nsquid\nsuch as Sphyrnids and probably\nMajor pelagic species gestation\nwholly pelagic. Some species,\nvariable, depends on adults\nand parturition is probably\nmany Carcharhinids have\ninshore nursery grounds\nGestation\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nFeatures\nOceanic\nLocation\nColumn\nSeasonal\nDuration\nWater\nDiet","Bibliography\nAu DW. 1991. Polyspecific nature of tuna schools: shark, dolphin and seabird associates. US\nNat Mar Fish Serv Fish Bull 89(3):343-54.\nBonfil R. 1884. Overview of world Elasmobranch fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture\nOrganization. 119 p. FAO Fish Tech Paper nr 341.\nBranstetter S. 1987. Age, growth and reproductive biology of the silky shark, Carcharrhinus\nfalciformis, and the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, from the northwestern Gulf of\nMexico. Environ Biol 19:161-74.\nBranstetter S. 1990. Early life-history implications of selected Carcharinoid and Lamnoid\nsharks of the northwest Atlantic. In: Pratt HL, Gruber SH,. Taniuchi T, editors.\nElasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the\nstatus of the fisheries. p 17-24. NOAA technical report NMFS 90.\nCastro JI. 1987. The position of sharks in marine biological communities, an overview. In:\nCook S, editor. Sharks, an inquiry into biology, behavior, fisheries, and use. Corvallis\n(OR): Oregon State University Extension Service. p 11-7.\nClarke, TA. 1971. The ecology of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, in\nHawaii. Pac Sci 25:133-44.\nCompagno LJV. 1984. FAO Species Catalogue. Volume 4, Parts 1-2, Sharks of the world: an\nannoted and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Rome: Food and\nAgriculture Organization. 655 p. Report nr FIR/S125.\nCrow GL, Lowe CG, Wetherbee BM. 1996. Shark records from longline fishing programs in\nHawai'i with comments on Pacific Ocean distributions. Pac Sci, 50(4):382-92.\nHeberer CF, McCoy MA. 1997. Overview of Pacific fisheries agencies and institutions\ncollecting shark catch data. Honolulu: WPRFMC. 108 p.\nHoenig JM, Gruber SH. 1990. Life-history patterns in the Elasmobranchs: implications for\nfisheries management. In: Pratt HL, Gruber SH, Taniuchi T, editors. Elasmobranchs as\nliving resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of the\nfisheries. p 1-16. NOAA technical report nr NMFS 90.\nHolland KN, Wetherbee BM Peterson JD, et al. 1993. Movements and distribution of\nhammerhead shark pups on their natal grounds. Copeia, 2(3):495-502.\nKato S. 1964. Sharks of the genus Carcharhinus associated with the tuna fishery in the eastern\ntropical Pacific Ocean. 22 p. US Fish and Wildlife circular nr 172.\nA3-159","Pratt HL, Casey JG. 1983. Age and growth of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, using four\nmethods. Can J Fish Aquat. Sci. 40:1944-57.\nSpringer S. 1967. Social organization of shark populations. In: Gilbert PW, Mathewson RF,\nRall DP, editors. Sharks, skates and rays. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr. p 149-74.\nStrasburg DW. 1958. Distribution, abundance and habits of pelagic sharks in the central\nPacific Ocean. Fish Bull 58:335-61.\nTricas TC, Taylor LR, Naftel G. 1981. Diel behaviour of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, at\nFrench Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Islands. Copeia 4:904-8.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nFishery Management Council. 26 pp. + appendices.\nWetherbee BM, Crow GL, Lowe CG. 1996. Biology of the Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus\ngalapagensis, in Hawai'i. Environ Biol Fish 45(3):299-310.\nWetherbee BM, Gruber SH, Cortes E. 1990. Diet, feeding habits, digestion and consumption\nin sharks, with special reference to the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris. In: Pratt HL,\nGruber SH, Taniuchi T, editors. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the\nbiology, ecology and systematics, and the status of the fisheries. p 29-47. NOAA technical\nreport nr NMFS 90.\nA3-160","Common name\nPelagic thresher\nBigeye thresher\nShortfin mako\nSalmon shark\nLongin mako\nGreat white\nSilvertip\nThresher\nCoastal and mostly amphitemperate, Marshall Is., Hawaii\nOceanic and coastal, virtually cricumglobal in warm seas,\nOceanic and tropical, Near Phoenix and north of Hawaii\nCoastal and oceanic, temperate and tropical, 50°N-40° S\nOceanic and coastal, virtually cirumtropical, N and S of\nOceanic and wide ranging in the Indo-Pacific, Hawaii\nCoastal-liitoral and epipelagic in boreal and cool\ntemperate waters, not in management area?\nCoastal-pelagic tropical, Guam\nA3-161\nFanning Is., Hawaii\nHabitat/Range\nHawaii\nOccur in\nAreas 71\nFishing\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\nor 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\nFAO\n77\nORDER CARCHARINIFORMES\nFamily Carcharhinidae (Requiem\n(Strasburg 1958, I. glaucus- bonito\n(Strasburg 1951, mackerel shark)\nFamily Lamnidae (Porkbeagles,\nCarcharinus albimarginatus\nName (Order, Family,\nFamily Alopiidae (Thresher\nORDER LAMNIFORMES\nCarcharodon carcharias\n(Ground Sharks)\nGenus, species)\n(Mackerel Sharks)\nIsurus oxyrinchus\nAlopias pelagicus\nLamna ditropis\n(Strasburg 1958)\nWhite Sharks\nsuperciliosus\nSharks)\nvulpinus\npaucus\nSharks)\nsh.)","Nervous shark\nCreek whaler\nPondicherry\nSpinner shark\nWhitecheek\nGalapagos\nGrey reef\nGraceful\nCopper\nBorneo\nBull\nBignose\nSilky\nPigeye\nLittle known Indo-West Pacific. Not in management area\nCoastal, estuarine continental. Not in management area?\nLittle known South Pacific reef shark of shallow water on\ncontinental and insular shelves. not in management area?\ntropical, near the edge of continental and insular shelves\nRare coastal, inshore, tropical shark of Indo-West Pacific,\nCommon but habitat limited tropical shark inshore and\nand in open sea, Caroline, Hawaiian, Phoenix and Line\nshelves, common on coral reefs, coastal areas throughout\nAbundant offshore, oceanic and epipelagic and littoral,\nOffshore, bottom-dwelling warm-temperate and tropical,\nCommon coastal-pelagic, warm-temperate and tropical\nCommon inshore shark of continental shelves, not in\noffshore, Marianas, to Marshalls, Hawaiian group\nInshore, Indo-West Pacific, not in management area\nInshore to offshore warm temperate shark, possibly\nLittle known, common tropical inshore and offshore\nCoastal pelagic frequenting continental and insular\nLittle known, Australian littoral. Not found in\nshark of continental and insular shelves, not in\nconfined to continental margins? Not found in\nprobably not found in management area\nA3-162\nmanagement area?\nmanagement area\nmanagement area?\nincluding NWHI\nmanagement area?\nmanagement area\nIslands\nHawaii\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71. 77\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n77\n71\n(Strasburg 1951, Eulamia\namblyrhynchoides\ngalapagensis\namblyrhynchos\nfitzroyensis\nfloridanus)\nhemiodon\namboinensis\ndussumieri\nfalciformis\nbrachyurus\nbrevipinna\nborneensis\nleucas\ncautus\naltimus","Oceanic whitetip\nHardnose shark\nBlacktip reef\nSpeartooth\nBlackspot\nBroadfin\nSmalltail\nSpot-tail\nSandbar\nSliteye\nBlacktip\nDusky\nNight\nTiger\nCommon wide-ranging coastal pelagic, tropical and warm\nAbundant inshore and offshore, coastal pelagic, temperate\nCoastal, shallow-water shark of Indo-West Pacific, not in\nCommon oceanic-epipelagic, occasionally coastal, tropical\nAtlantic shark with possible extension to Pacific Panama,\nLittle known continental shark, not in management area\nLittle known Indo-West Pacific, not in management area\nCommon inshore shark of continental areas, Indo-Wes\nCommon coastal-pelagic shark of continental margins.\nWidespread in all tropical and subtropical shelves; not\nCommon coastal shark of Indo-West Pacific, not in\ntemperate shark with wide habitat tolerance, found\nCommon inshore shark of tropical America, not in\nand warm temperate, throughout management area\nLittle known shark of Bornea, New Guinea and\nand tropical, Hawaii? Not in management area?\nCommon shallow water reef shark throughout\nQueensland, not in management area\nPacific, not in management area\nthroughout management area\nA3-163\nNot in management area?\nnot in management area\ntruly oceanic, Hawaii\nmanagement area\nmanagement area\nmanagement area\nmanagement area\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71\n71\n71\n77\n71\n71,\n77\n71\n(Strasburg 1951, Pterolamiops\nLamniopsis temmincki\nLoxodon macrohinus\nGaleocerdo cuvier\n(Strasburg 1951)\nGlyphis glyphis\nmelanopterus\nlongimanus)\nlongimanus\nplumbeus\nobscurus\nsignatus\nporosus\nlimbatus\nsorrah\nmacloti\nsealei","Scalloped hammerhead\nScalloped bonnethead\nGreat hammerhead\nAustralian sharpnose\nPacific sharpnose\nGrey sharpnose\nWhitetip reef\nSicklefin lemon\nScoophead\nWinghead\nLemon shark\nMilk\nBlue\nCommon tropical inshore shark of continental shelves and\nLittle known, tropical America, not in management area.\nCommon tropical shark of continental and insular shleves,\nLittle known, tropical America, not in management area\nAbundant coastal-pelagic, warm temperate and tropical,\nAbundant inshore shark of tropical Americas and Atlantic,\nisland terraces. Wide ranging from Indo-West Pacific to\nShallow water on continental and insular shelves, Indo-\nWide ranging, oceanic-epipelagic and fringe littoral to at\nCommon but little known littoral, inshore and offshore\nTropical inshore shark of continental and insular shelves\nand terraces, Palau Marshall Islands, not in management\nAbundant on tropical littoral and continental shelf of\nCoastal pelagic and semi-oceanic tropical, not in\nAbundant inshore and offshore shark of continental\ntropical, Palau?, not in management area?\nclose inshore. Not in management area.\nWest Pacific, not in management area.\nAustralia, not in management area.\nAmerica, not in management area.\nshelves, not in management area\nA3-164\nnot in management area\nmanagement area?\ncentral Pacific.\nleast 152 m\nHawaii\narea?\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71, 77\n71\n71, 77\n77\n71. 77\n77\n71\n71\n71\n77\n71\n77\nHammerhead, Scoopehead Sharks)\nFamily Sphyrnidae (Bonnethead,\nScoliodon laticaudus\nTriaenodon obesus\n(Strasburg, 1958)\nNegaprion acutidena\nSphyrna corona\nEuphyra blochii\n(Strasburg 1951)\nPrionace glauca\nRhzoprionodon\nmokarran\nbrevirostis\noligolinx\nmedia\nlongurio\nlewini\ntaylori\nacutus","Smooth hammerhead\nBonnethead\narea Abundant inshore, tropical America, not in management\nCommon, coastal pelagic, semi-oceanic, Hawaii.\nA3-165\n77\n77\n(Strasburg, 1958)\nzygaena\ntiburo","2.2.11 Habitat description for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThe main sources used in this description are Foreman (1980) and Collette and Nauen (1983).\nOther reviews include Bartoo and Foreman (1994) and Murray (1994).\nThe albacore is a member of the Scombridae family mackerels and tunas, composed of 15\nand 49 species. Thunnus is one of four genera in the tribe Thunni, unique among bony\ngenera fishes in having central and lateral heat exchangers. Separate northern and southern stocks,\nwith separate spawning areas and seasons, are believed to exist in the Pacific. In the North\nPacific there may be two sub-stocks, separated due to the influence of bathymetric features on\nwater masses (Laurs and Lynn 1991). Growth rates and migration patterns differ between\npopulations north and south of 40°N (Laurs and Wetherall 1981, Laurs and Lynn 1991).\nIn the north Pacific albacore are distributed in a swath centered on 35°N and as far as 50°N in\nthe west. In the south Pacific they are concentrated between 10° and 30°S in the central Pacific\n(150°E to 120°W) and as far south as 50°S. They are absent from the equatorial eastern\nPacific, southeast of Hawaii (which apparently lies near the edge of its range) in an area\nstretching roughly from 165°W to the American coast and between 15°N and the equator.\nTemperature is recognized as the major determinant of albacore's distribution. Albacore are\nboth surface dwelling and deep-swimming. The distribution maps in Foreman (1980) show the\nthe distribution of deep-swimming albacore, which are generally more concentrated in\nwestern Pacific but with eastward extensions along 30°N and 10°S. Depth distribution is\ngoverned by vertical thermal structures, and they are found to a depth of at least 380 m. The\n15.6° to 19.4° C SST isotherms mark the limits of abundant distribution although deep-\nswimming albacore have been found in waters between 13.5° and 25.2°C (Saito 1973). Laurs\nand Lynn (1991) describe North Pacific albacore distribution in terms of the North Pacific\nTransition Zone, which lies between the cold, low salinity waters north of the sub-arctic front\nand the warm, high salinity waters south of the sub-tropical front. This band of water, roughly\nbetween 40° and 30-35°N (the Transition Zone is not a perfectly stable feature) also helps to\ndetermine migration routes (see below). Telemetry experiments demonstrate that albacore that will\nenter water as cold as 9.5°C for short periods of time. Laurs and Lynn (1991) argue\nacoustic tracking demonstrates that albacore have a wider temperature range than stated\npreviously; their normal habitat is 10°-20°C with a dissolved oxygen saturation level greater\nthan 60%. The overall thermal structure of water masses, rather than just SST, has to be taken\ninto account in describing total range. Albacore exhibit marked vertical movement and will\nmove into water as cold as 9°C at depths of 200 m. They move through temperature gradients is\nof to 10°C within 20 minutes. This reflects the many advanced adaptations of this fish; it\nthermo-regulating up endotherm with a high metabolic rate and advanced cardiovascular\na system. Albacore have differential temperature preferences according to size, with larger fish\npreferring cooler water, although the opposite is true in the northeast Pacific. They are\nA3-166","considered epi- and mesopelagic in depth range. The minimum oxygen requirement is\nreckoned to be 2 ml/l.\nAlbacore are noted for their tendency to concentrate along thermal fronts, particularly the\nKuroshio front east of Japan and the North Pacific Transition Zone. Laurs and Lynn (1991)\nnote that they tend to aggregate on the warm side of upwelling fronts. Near continental areas\nthey prefer warm, clear oceanic waters adjacent to fronts with cool turbid coastal that water\nIt is not understood why they don't cross these fronts, especially given they are\nmasses. able to thermo-regulate, but it may be because of water clarity since they are sight-dependent\nforagers. Further offshore fishing success correlates with biological productivity.\nAlbacore have a complex migration pattern with the North and South Pacific stocks having\ntheir own patterns. Most migration is undertaken by pre-adults, 2-5 years old. A further model sub-\ndivision of the northern stock, each with separate migration, is also suggested. The\nsuggested by Otsu and Uchida (1963) shows trans-Pacific migration by year class. Generally 30°\na given year class migrates east to west and then east again in a band between the\nspeaking, 45°N, leaving the northeast Pacific in September-October, reaching waters off Japan 6-\nand following summer and returning to the east in the summer of the following year. Four- to al.\nyear-old albacore enter sub-tropical waters south of 30°N and west of Hawaii (Kimura, et\n1997) where they spawn. Migration may also be influenced by large-scale climate events that\naffect the Kuroshio Current regime (Kimura, et al. 1997). Albacore may migrate to the eastern\nPacific when the Kuroshio takes a large meander path. This also affects the southward\nextension of the Oyashio Current and may reduce the availability of forage, primarily saury, in\nthe western Pacific.\nThe aforementioned sub-stocks apparently divide along 40°N. Albacore tagged off the US\nWest Coast north of 40°N apparently undertake more westward migration (58% of tag returns\nfrom the western Pacific west of 180°) versus those tagged to the south (only 10% were\ncome recovered in the western Pacific, 78% from the tagging area) (Laurs and Lynn 1991).\nMurray (1994), summarizing the work of Jones (1991), describes migration in the South and\nPacific. Juveniles move from the tropics into temperate waters at about 35 cm LCF the then\ngenerally eastward along the Sub-Tropical Convergence Zone. They do not return to\ntropics until they are about 85 cm LCF. As they move towards the tropics it is presumed North they\nmove deeper, probably due to water temperature. Seasonal patterns are similar to the\nPacific. Juveniles prefer cooler water and move south from sub-tropical waters to temperate in\nthe austral spring. Adults occur from the tropics to temperate zone throughout the years.\nalbacore congregate in large, loosely aggregated schools, at least off the West Coast schools of\nNorth Young America. Larger fish are observed to form more compact schools, but the dense\ncommon to yellowfin and skipjack tuna are not true of albacore.\nAs noted above, the most noted habitat feature affecting abundance and density of albacore\npopulations is their preference for oceanic fronts or temperature discontinuities.\nA3-167","Foreman (1980) summarizes estimates of von Bertalanffy equation parameter in tabular form\n(Table 2). Growth rates for fish below 38°N are reportedly higher than those taken to the\nnorth. Reported age-length relationships are also summarized. Estimates of the size at one\nyear range from 38 to 57.3 cm, about a third of estimates for size at the von Bertalanffy\nasymptote, 104-145.3 cm. Juvenile growth has been estimated at 3.12 cm per month (Yoshida\n1979). Bartoo and Foreman (1994) give the following von Bertalanffy parameter as the most\nreasonable for assessment purposes: L. = 135.6 cm, K = 0.17 and -0.87.\nAlbacore or heterosexual with no external characters to distinguish males from females.\nImmature fish generally have an even sex ratio but males predominate in catches of mature\nfish. Table 4 in Foreman (1980) summarizes published information on sex ratios. For mature\nfish, male-female ratios range from 1.63:1 to 2.66:1. Like many other pelagic fish, it is\nbelieved that albacore release their gametes indiscriminately without selecting partners.\nRamon and Bailey (1996) report sexual dimorphism in South Pacific stocks, confirming\nfindings by Otsu and Sumida (1968) with the males being larger. Fecundity is estimated at\n0.8-2.6 million eggs per spawning.\nAlbacore spawn in the summer in subtropical waters. There is also some evidence of multiple\nspawning (Otsu and Uchida 1959). Foreman (1980) provides a map showing distribution of\nspawning areas. In the North Pacific the area centers on 25°N and 160°E and does not extend\neast of about 150°W. In the south Pacific the band is narrower, centered at about 25°S and\nstretching from the sea east of Queensland, Australia, to about 110°W. Ramon and Bailey\n(1996) discuss spawning seasonality in the South Pacific, near New Caledonia and Tonga.\nOctober to December was found to be peak spawning season. Maturing albacore were mostly\ntaken between 20° and 23°S. The same map in Foreman (1980, Figure 4) shows larval\ndistribution, which is more restricted in extent than estimates of total spawning area.\nThe review articles consulted for this description summarize the main albacore fisheries in the\nPacific. They may be distinguished as either surface or deep water. The surface fisheries are\ntrolling operations off the American coast from Baja to Canada, baitboat operations south of\nJapan at the Kuroshio Front and a fishery in New Zealand waters. A troll fishery has also\ndeveloped south of Tahiti. Purse-seine is also considered a surface method but apparently is\nnot a major fishery. Albacore are occasionally bycatch in other tuna fisheries. Elsewhere,\nmainly the northwest and South Pacific, longline gear is used to capture deep-swimming fish.\nTaiwanese and Japanese high seas drift gillnetters rapidly expanded effort in the South Pacific\nafter 1988, targeting albacore. A number of regional and international initiatives were put\nforward to limit or ban this fishery, and by 1990 operations had ceased (Wright and Doulman\n1991). Foreman (1980) and Bartoo and Foreman (1994) provide maps of the major fishing\nareas. Generally, surface fisheries occur in cooler waters and target immature fish; the\nlongline fishery, targeting deep-swimming fish, occurs closer to the equator.\nThe most recent report for pelagic fisheries in the western Pacific region (WPRFMC 1997)\nnotes that albacore landings in Hawaii by longline, handline and other gear types have\nincreased dramatically in the past five years with much of the catch sent to the US West Coast\nas a fresh frozen product. Hawaii landings have increased from 300,000 1b (136 mt) in 1987 to\n3 million 1b (1,361 mt) in 1996, a tenfold increase. The only other area reporting landings in\nA3-168","American Samoa, with 232,721 lb (105.56 mt). American Samoa also reports\n44,500 1996 was (40,370 mt) of albacore landed at the canneries there. Albacore represent 10% of total\npelagic landings in Hawaii and 11% of total pelagic landings in the region.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\n(1955) and Otsu and Uchida (1959) describe the eggs of albacore, taken from in\nUeyanagi maturing fish. Roe is reported to be the same size as cod roe and light reddish-brown Foreman color.\nThe incubation period is estimated at no more than four days (Matsumoto 1958).\n(1980) provides references for papers describing larval albacore. They are easily distinguished\nfrom other tuna larvae except yellowfin.\nDavis et al. (1990) studied diel distribution of tuna larvae, including albacore in the in Indian the\nOcean off of northwest Australia. They found that albacore migrate to the surface southern day\ndeeper at night. This diel pattern was much more marked in albacore than\nand bluefin are tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) larvae. Total vertical range was limited by pycnocline depth,\n16-22 m in the study area. They concluded that the pycnocline acts as a physical\nwhich barrier was to movement. Albacore may forage during daylight hours and simply sink to neutral of\ndepth at night when they cease swimming. Other studies indicate that the top boundary the\npycnocline can be an area of concentration for larvae.\nYoung and Davis (1990) report on larval feeding of albacore in the Indian Ocean. They found\nCorycaeus spp., Farranula gibbula (Cyclopoida) and Calanoid nauplii to be major prey\nitems. Diet breadth was greatest for larvae less than 5.5 mm. Calanoid nauplii were more\nin the diet of smaller larvae; Cyclopoids were eaten by larvae of all sizes but more\nimportant frequently by larger larvae. As noted above, albacore feed only during the day, although there\nis some evidence of increased activity around dusk.\nLeis et al. (1991) found high concentrations of tuna larvae, including albacore, at sample sites\ncoral reefs on three islands in French Polynesia. They note that tuna larvae are sparsely\nnear distributed in the open ocean, possibly because they congregate near islands. Their had findings not\nsimilar to Miller's (1979) findings around Oahu, Hawaii. Since their sampling\nare been intended for tuna larvae (they were studying reef fish larvae), it was not possible to\nestablish a inshore-offshore gradient from the data. They speculate on why larvae might of be\nconcentrated inshore and warn that \"anthropogenic impact on near-reef waters will be\nconcern to tuna fishery management.\"\nnoted above, Foreman (1980) provides a map showing distribution of larval albacore,\nAs which gives some idea of their preferred habitat. If the suggestion made by Leis et al. (1991) to\ncan be confirmed, it may be that inshore areas represent a habitat feature of special value\nlarval stage albacore.\nJuvenile\nSmall juvenile albacore range from 12 to 300 mm in length and have been found in coastal\nwaters from a number of areas in the western Pacific including the Mariana Islands, Japanese\nA3-169","coastal waters, Fiji, waters east of Australia and Tuvalu. They have also been reported from\nHawaiian waters. Albacore are not mature until about 5 years old. As noted above, immature\nfish prefer cooler water and enter the tropics as adults.\nAdult\nThe size range of adults has already been discussed. Based on age groups it is believed that\nmaximum longevity is around 10 years. Female albacore reach maturity by about 90 cm, while\nmature males are somewhat larger. Ueyanagi (1957) postulates that males reach maturity at 97\ncm. This length would accord with ages between 5 and 7 years, based on length-at-age\nestimates.\nBased on stomach content analysis, the type of food consumed varies among fisheries. Other\nfish and squid tend to predominate; crustaceans are the other major constituent, although\nminor in comparison (Iversen 1962). Iversen (1962) also discusses variation in forage based\nlatitude and distance from land. Smaller (younger) fish had a higher proportion of\non squid age, in their diet. Gempylids and Bramids were more prevalent in the diet of fish nearer vertical the\nequator, sauries predominated in temperate waters. This may be due to differences in\ndistribution. Squid were also more prevalent in the diet of fish further from the equator\n(outside of 5°S-5°N). In the tropics squid increased as a part of the diet with greater distance\nfrom land. Foreman's (1980) summary emphasizes that albacore feed steadily during both\nnight and day, although less SO at night since they are dependent on sight for foraging. Species of\ncomposition of forage varies by area, and there is a direct relationship between the amount\nfood in stomachs and the biomass of micronektonic animals (Laurs and Nishimoto 1973).\nAlbacore are considered opportunistic feeders.\nThe habitat features affecting density and abundance of adults are poorly understood. As\ndiscussed above, water temperature, D.O, and salinity are of primarily importance\nEssential Fish Habitat: Temperate species complex\nEFH can be described in terms of the 15.6° and 19.4°C SST isotherms that circumscribe the\nareas of major catches. In the North Pacific the transition zone represents an area of preferred\nhabitat. Albacore are described as epi- and mesopelagic so EFH may be depth limited to about\n400 m. Albacore occur throughout the EEZ waters of the western Pacific region. Deep-\nswimming adults are probably more prevalent, although overall albacore are concentrated\nfrom the tropics and outside of the region's EEZ waters. It is recognized that oceanic\naway fronts are areas where albacore congregate, but it is probably not practical to identify these\nfeatures, which are not temporally stable with respect to location, as HAPC. Given the\nfindings of Leis et al. (1991), inshore areas, particularly near coral reefs, might be considered\nof HAPC although findings are still preliminary in this matter. Foreman (1980) provides a\nwide variety of distribution maps, as noted in this description, for albacore life stages and the\nlocation of major fisheries.\nA3-170","Bramids near equator),\nepi- to mesopelagic\n10°-30°S, seasonal\ncentered on 35° N,\nmovement to sub-\nsquid, crustaceans\nfish (sauries away\nto about 10 years\nin north Pacific\noceanic fronts\ntropical waters\nGempylids and\nsouth Pacific\nfrom tropics,\noffshore\nAdult\nNA\nwaters in comparison\npreference for cooler\nepi- to mesopelagic\nto adult, seasonal\ntemperate waters\noceanic fronts\nHabitat description for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)\nmovement to\nto 4-6 years\noffshore\nsee adult\nJuvenile\nNA\npossible preference for\nCalanoid nauplii (from\nA3-171\nCorycaeus spp. and\nFarranula gibbula\nepipelagic above\npossibly inshore\n(Cyclopoida) and\nstudies in Indian\nsomewhat more\nspawning area,\nrestricted than\ninshore areas\npycnocline\nweeks (?)\nOcean)\nLarvae\nNA\nPacific area centers on\nabout 150°W; in south\ncentered at about 25°S\nPacific narrower band\nbased on spawning:\n25°N and 160°E to\nsub-tropical, north\nfrom Australia to\nabout 110°W\nabout 4 days\nepipelagic\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBartoo N, Foreman TJ. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for North Pacific albacore of\n(Thunnus alalunga). In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors. Interactions\nPacific tuna fisheries. Volume 2, Papers on biology and fisheries. Proceedings of the First\nFAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11;\nNoumea, New Caledonia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. p 173-87. FAO fish\ntechnical paper nr 336/2.\nCollette BB, Nauen CE 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos and relateds species known to date. FAO species catalogue. Volume 2, Scombrids\nof the world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 118 p.\nDavis TLO, Jenkins GP, Young JW. 1990. Diel patterns of vertical distribution in larvae Ecol of\nsouthern bluefin Thunnus maccoyii and other tuna in the East Indian Ocean. Mar\nProg Series 59(1-2):63-74.\nForeman TJ. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the albacore tuna, Thunnus alalunga\n(Bonnaterre, 1788), in the Pacific Ocean. In: Bayliff WH, editor. Synopses of Tuna biological\ndata on eight species of Scombrids. La Jolla (CA): Inter-American Tropical\nCommission. p 21-70. Special report nr 2.\nIversen RTB. 1962. Food of the albacore, Thunnus germo (Lacepede), in the central and\nnortheastern Pacific. Fish Bull 62(214):459-81.\nJones JB. 1991. Movements of albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) in the South Pacific:\nevidence from parasites. Mar Biol 111(1):1-10.\nKimura S, Nakai M, Sugimoto T. 1997. Migration of albacore, Thunnus alalunga, in the\nNorth Pacific Ocean in relation to large oceanic phenomena. Fish Oceanog 6(2):51-7.\nLaurs MR, Nishimoto RN. 1973. Food-habits of albacore caught in offshore area. In: Laurs\nMR, editor. Report of the Joint National Marine Fisheries Service-American Fishermen's\nResearch Foundation albacore studies conducted during 1973. Washington: NMFS\n(NOAA). p 36-40.\nLaurs RM, Wetherall JA. 1981. Growth rates of North Pacific albacore, Thunnus alalunga,\nbased on tag returns. Fish Bull 79(2):293-302.\nLaurs RM, Lynn RJ. 1991. North Pacific albacore ecology and oceanography. In: Wetherall\nJA, editor. Biology, oceanography and fisheries of the North Pacific Transition Zone and\nSubarctic Frontal Zone. Washington: NMFS (NOAA). p 69-87. NOAA technical report nr\nNMFS 105.\nA3-172","Leis J.M, Trnski T, Harliem-Vivien M, et al. 1991. High concentrations of tuna larvae (Pisces:\nScombridae) in near-reef waters of French Polynesia (Society and Tuamotu Islands (South\nPacific Ocean). Bull Mar Sci 48(1):150-8.\nMatsumoto WM. 1958. Description and distribution of larvae of four species of tuna in central\nPacific waters. Fish Bull 58(128):31-72.\nMiller JM. 1979. Nearshore abundance of tuna (Pisces: Scombridae) larvae in the Hawaiian\nIslands. Bull Mar Sci 29:19-26.\nMurray T. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for albacore, Thunnus alalunga, in the\nSouth Pacific Ocean. In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors. Interactions of\nPacific tuna fisheries. Volume 2, Papers on biology and fisheries. Proceedings of the First\nFAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11;\nNoumea, New Caledonia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. p 188-206. FAO\nfish tech paper nr 336/2.\nOtsu T, Sumida RF. 1968. Distribution, apparent abundance and size composition of albacore,\nThunnus alalunga, taken in the longline fishery based in American Samoa, 1954-65. Fish\nBull 67:47-69.\nOtsu T, Uchida RN. 1959. Sexual maturity and spawning of albacore in the Pacific Ocean.\nFish Bull 59:287-305.\nOtsu T, Uchida RN. 1963. Distribution and migration of albacore in the North Pacific Ocean.\nFish Bull 63(1):33-44.\nRamon D, Bailey K. 1996. Spawning seasonality of albacore, Thunnus alalunga, in the South\nPacific Ocean. Fish Bull 94(4):725-733.\nSaito S. 1973. Studies on fishing of albacore (Thunnus alalunga Bonnaterre) by experimental\ndeep-sea tuna longline. Hokkaido Univ Mem Fac Fish 21(2):107-84.\nUeyanagi S. 1955. On the ripe ovary of the albacore, Germo germo (Lacepede), taken from\nthe Indian Ocean. Tokyo Univ Fish Jour 44(1-2):105-29.\nUeyanagi S. 1957. Spawning of the albacore in the western Pacific. Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab\n6:113-24.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional\nFishery Management Council. p 26 + appendices.\nWright A, Doulman DJ. 1991. Drift-net fishing in the South Pacific. Mar Policy\n15(5):303-37.\nA3-173","Yoshida HO. 1979. Compilation of published estimates of tuna life history and population\ndynamics param. NMFS (NOAA). 15 p. NMFS-SWFC administrative report nr H-79-8.\nYoung JW, Davis TLO. 1990. Feeding ecology of larvae of southern bluefin, albacore and\nskipjack tunas (Pisces: Scombridae) in the eastern Indian Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Series\n61 (1-2):17-30.\n2.2.12 Habitat Description for Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Island.\nBigeye tuna occur throughout the entire region of Council jurisdiction and in all neighboring\nstates, territories and adjacent high seas zones.\nLife History and General Description\nSeveral studies on the taxonomy, biology, population dynamics and exploitation of bigeye\ntuna have been carried out, including comprehensive reviews by Alverson and Peterson\n(1963), Collette and Nauen (1983), Mimura and Staff (1963) and Whitelaw and Unnithan\n(1997). Calkins (1980), Martinez and Bohm (1983) and Miyabe (1994) provide descriptions\nof bigeye tuna biology and fisheries specific to the Pacific or Indo-Pacific region. Solov' yev\n(1970) provides information specific to Indian Ocean bigeye tuna.\nDuring November 1996, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) held the\nfirst world meeting on bigeye tuna at their headquarters in La Jolla, California, with\nparticipation from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the\nIndian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour\nle Developpement en Coopération (ORSTOM) of France, the Instituto Español de\nOceanografia (IEO) of Spain, the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries (NRIFSF)\nof Japan, the South Pacific Commission (SPC; currently, the Secretariat of the Pacific\nCommunity), the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the University of the\nAzores, and the University of Hawaii. The objectives of the meeting were to review and\ndiscuss current information on the species and associated fisheries and to make\nrecommendations for necessary areas of research. Review papers on the biology and fisheries\nfor bigeye tuna in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans were tabled by Pallarés et al. (1998),\nStobberup et al. (1998) and Miyabe and Bayliff (1998) and published in the proceedings to the\nmeeting. Information provided in this document relies heavily on these review papers which\nrepresent the latest published information on bigeye tuna worldwide.\nBigeye tuna are trans-Pacific in distribution, occupying epipelagic and mesopelagic waters of\nthe Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The distribution of the species within the Pacific\nA3-174","stretches between northern Japan and the north island of New Zealand in the western Pacific\nand from 40°N to 30°S in the eastern Pacific (Calkins 1980).\nA single, Pacific-wide stock has been proposed as well as a two stock hypothesis separating\nthe eastern Pacific from a central/western Pacific stock. Mitochondrial DNA and DNA\nmicrosatellite analyses have been conducted on bigeye otoliths from nine geographically\nscattered regions of the Pacific (SPC 1997b). The results of this study are not conclusive but\ndo support a single stock hypothesis for areas of jurisdiction within the Council's jurisdiction.\nAlthough there is currently not enough information available to determine the stock structure\nof bigeye in the Pacific (Miyabe and Bayliff 1998), a single stock hypothesis is generally\naccepted for Pacific bigeye tuna and, for the purposes of the region of the Council, a single\nstock is assumed.\nLarge, mature-sized bigeye tuna are sought by high value sub-surface fisheries, primarily\nlongline fleets landing sashimi grade product. Smaller, juvenile fish are taken in many surface\nfisheries, either as a targeted catch or as a bycatch with other tuna species (Miyabe and Bayliff\n1998). Basic environmental conditions favorable for survival include clean, clear oceanic\nwaters between 13°C and 29°C. Hanamoto (1987) estimated optimum bigeye habitat to exist\nin water temperatures between 10° to 15°C at salinities ranging between 34.5% to 35.5%\nwhere dissolved oxygen concentrations remain above 1 ml/l. He further suggested that bigeye\nfrom the surface layers to depths of 600 m. However, evidence from archival tagging\nrange studies indicates that greater depths and much lower ambient temperatures can be tolerated by\nthe species. Juvenile bigeye occupy an ecological niche similar to juvenile yellowfin of a\nsimilar size. Large bigeye generally inhabits greater depths, cooler waters and areas of lower\ndissolved oxygen compared to skipjack and yellowfin, occupying depth strata at or below the\nthermocline at water temperatures of 15°C or lower.\nThe species is a mixture between a tropical and temperate water tuna, characterized by\nequatorial spawning, high fecundity andrapid growth during the juvenile stage with\nmovements between temperate and tropical waters during the life cycle. It is believed that the\nspecies is relatively long lived in comparison to skipjack and yellowfin tuna.\nFeeding is opportunistic at all life stages, with prey items consisting primarily of crustaceans,\ncephalopods and fish (Calkins 1980). There is significant evidence that bigeye feed at greater\ndepths than yellowfin tuna, utilizing higher proportions of cephalopods and mesopelagic\nfishes in their diet thus reducing niche competition (Whitelaw and Unnithan 1997). Spawning\nbroad areas of the Pacific and occurs throughout the year in tropical waters and\nspans seasonally at higher latitudes at water temperatures above 23° or 24°C (Kume 1967). Bigeye\nare serial spawners, capable of repeated spawning at near daily intervals with batch fecundities\nof millions of ova per spawning event (Nikaido et al. 1991. Sex ratio is commonly accepted to\nbe essentially 1:1 until a length greater than 150 cm after which the proportion of males\nincreases.\nThere have been far fewer bigeye tagged in the Pacific in comparison to skipjack and\nyellowfin, and movement data from tagging programs is not conclusive. Miyabe and Bayliff in\n(1998) present summary information of some long distance movements of tagged bigeye\nA3-175","the Pacific. Hampton et al. (1998) describes 8,000 bigeye releases made in the western Pacific\nduring 1990-1992. Most of the fish were recaptured close to the point of release,\napproximately 25% had moved more than 200 nm and more than 5% had moved more than\n1,000 nm. No tag recoveries have been made in the Indian Ocean or eastern tropical Pacific.\nConventional tagging projects on bigeye tuna began in Hawaiian waters in 1996 and will\ncontinue into the year 2000 (Itano 1998b). The NMFS Honolulu Laboratory is conducting\narchival tagging of bigeye tuna in the Hawaiian EEZ.\nBigeye are clearly capable of large-scale movements which have been documented by tag and\nrecapture programs, but most recaptures have occurred within 200 miles of the point of\nrelease. The tuna appear to move freely within broad regions of favorable water temperature\nand dissolved oxygen values. If the majority of spawning takes place in equatorial waters, then\nthere must be mass movements of juvenile fish to higher latitudes and return movements of\nmature fish to spawn. However, the extent to which these are directed movements is unknown\nand the nature of bigeye migration in the central and western Pacific remains unclear.\nBigeye tuna, especially during the juvenile stages, aggregate strongly to drifting or anchored\nobjects, large marine animals and regions of elevated productivity, such as near seamounts\nand areas of upwelling (Blackburn 1969; Calkins 1980; Hampton and Bailey 1993). Major\nfisheries for bigeye exploit aggregation effects either by targeting biologically productive\nareas and deep and shallow seamount and ridge features or by utilizing artificial fish\naggregation devices (FADs) to aggregate commercial concentrations of bigeye. Bigeye tuna\nare exploited by purse-seine, longline, handline and troll gear within the Council area of\njurisdiction (WPRFMC 1997, SPC 1997a).\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nThe eggs of bigeye tuna resemble those of several scombrid species and can not be\ndifferentiated by visual means. Therefore, the distribution of bigeye eggs has not been\ndetermined in the Pacific Ocean. However, the duration of the fertilized egg phase is very\nshort and egg distributions can be assumed to be roughly coincident with documented larval\ndistributions. Eggs are epipelagic, buoyed at the surface by a single oil droplet until hatching\noccurs.\nKume (1962) examined artificially fertilized bigeye eggs in the Indian Ocean, noting egg\ndiameters ranging from 1.03 to 1.08 mm with oil droplets measuring 0.23 to 0.24 mm.\nHatching began 21 hours post-fertilization, and larvae measured 1.5 mm in length. Larval\ndevelopment soon after hatching has been described by Kume (1962) and Yasutake et al.\n(1973). Descriptions of bigeye larvae and keys to their differentiation from other Thunnus\nspecies are given by Matsumoto et al. (1972) and Nishikawa and Rimmer (1987). However,\nthe early larval stages of bigeye and yellowfin are difficult or impossible to differentiate\nwithout allozyme or mitochondrial DNA analyses (Graves et al. 1988). An indexed\nbibliography of references on the eggs and early life stages of tuna is provided by Richards\nand Klawe (1972).\nA3-176","The distribution or areas of collection of larval bigeye in the Pacific has been described or\nestimated by Nishikawa et al. (1978), Strasburg (1960) and Ueyanagi (1969). Bigeye larvae\nare most common in warm surface waters between 30°N and 20°S in the Pacific. Data\ncompiled by Nishikawa et al. (1978) indicates that bigeye larvae are relatively abundant in the\nwestern and eastern Pacific compared to central Pacific areas and are most common in the\nwestern Pacific between 0°N and 15°S. The basic environment of bigeye larvae can be\ncharacterized as warm, oceanic surface waters at the upper range of temperatures utilized by\nthe species, which is a consequence of preferred spawning habitat. Kume (1967) noted a\ncorrelation between mature but sexually inactive bigeye at SSTs below 23° or 24°C which\nmay represent a lower limit to spawning activity. In the eastern Pacific, bigeye spawning\noccurs between 10°N and 10°S throughout the year and during summer months at higher\nlatitudes (Collette and Nauen 1983). Hisada (1979) noted from a study in the Pacific that a\ntemperature of 24°C and a maximum depth of 50 m were necessary for maturity and\nspawning, suggesting a similar seasonal pattern of spawning in the western Pacific. The study\nby Boehlert and Mundy (1994) in Hawaiian waters and McPherson (1991a) in eastern\nAustralian waters supports the concept of equatorial spawning throughout the year and\nseasonal spawning of bigeye at higher latitudes. Additional information on the maturity and\nspawning of western and central Pacific bigeye is provided by Kikawa (1953, 1957, 1961,\n1962, 1966), Nikaido et al. (1991) and Yuen (1955). Additional information on the maturity\nand spawning of eastern Pacific and Atlantic bigeye is given in Goldberg and Herring-Dyal\n(1981), Pereira (1985, 1987) and Rudomiotkina (1983). It can be assumed that bigeye larvae\nare common at SSTs above 26°C but may occur in some regions with SSTs of approximately\n23°C and above.\nBigeye larvae appear to be restricted to surface waters of the mixed layer well above the\nthermocline and at depths less than 50 to 60 m, with no clear consensus on diurnal preference\nby depth or patterns of vertical migration (Matsumoto 1961, Strasburg 1960, Ueyanagi 1969).\nPrey species inhabit this zone, consisting of crustacean zooplankton at early stages, shifting to\nfish larvae at the end of the larval phase and early juvenile stages. The diet of larval and\njuvenile bigeye tuna is similar to that of yellowfin tuna, consisting of a mix of crustaceans,\ncephalopods and fish (Uotani, et al. 1981).\nThe age and growth of larval, post-larval and early juvenile bigeye is not well known or\nstudied. Yasutake et al. (1973) recorded newly hatched larvae at 2.5 mm in total length,\ngrowing to 3.0 and 3.1 mm at 24 and 48 hours. The early post-larval stage was achieved at 86\nhours after hatching. However, it is likely that the early development of bigeye tuna is similar\nto that of yellowfin tuna which is the subject of current land based tank studies by the IATTC\n(IATTC 1997). The larval stages of bigeye tuna likely extend for approximately two to three\nweeks after hatching.\nThe short duration of the larval stage suggests that the distribution of bigeye larvae is nearly\ncoincident with the distribution of bigeye spawning and eggs. It has been suggested that areas\nof elevated productivity are necessary to support broad spawning events that are characteristic\nof skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna whose larvae would subsequently benefit from being in\nareas of high forage densities (Sunc et al. 1981, Miller 1979, Boehlert and Mundy 1994).\nA3-177","Juvenile\nThe juvenile phase of bigeye is not clearly defined in the literature. Calkins (1980) suggests the\ngrouping bigeye into larval, juvenile, adolescent, immature adult and adult stages. For and\nof defining EFH, this report will utilize the categories of egg, larval, juvenile\npurposes adult. The juvenile phase extends from the time of transformation from the post-larval phase the\ninto a small tuna up to the onset of sexual maturity at approximately 3 years of age. For\nof discussion, the juvenile phase will include sexually immature fish to\npurposes approximately 60 cm FL; pre-adult, 61 to 99 cm FL; and adult, greater than or equal to 100\ncm FL.\nThe distribution of juvenile bigeye tuna less than 35 cm FL is not known but is assumed to be\nsimilar to that of larval bigeye, i.e. occupying warm surface waters. The distribution of\njuveniles greater than 35 cm FL is better understood as they begin to enter catch statistics of\npurse-seine, pole-and-line and handline fisheries worldwide. Bigeye as small as 32 cm are\ntaken in the Japanese coastal pole-and-line fishery (Honma et al. 1973). Juvenile and pre-adult\nbigeye of 35 cm to approximately 99 cm are regularly taken as a bycatch in the eastern and\nwestern Pacific purse-seine fisheries, usually on sets made in association with floating objects\n(Hampton and Bailey 1993). Bigeye tuna enter a seamount-associated handline fishery and\nFAD-based pole-and-line and handline fisheries in Hawaii at approximately 40 cm FL (Boggs\nand Ito 1993, Itano 1998). Juvenile and pre-adult bigeye of increasing sizes appear in higher\nlatitude fisheries, so one can infer a movement away from equatorial spawning grounds as the\nfish grow and begin to utilize greater amounts of sub-surface habitat.\nJuvenile bigeye form mono-specific schools at or near the surface with similar-sized fish or\nmay be mixed with skipjack and/or juvenile yellowfin tuna (Calkins 1980). Yuen (1963) has\nsuggested that the mixed-species schools are actually separate single-species schools that\ntemporarily aggregate to a common factor such as food. Echo sounder, sonar traces and test\nfishing strongly support a separation of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack schools that are\naggregated to the same floating object, with the bigeye beneath the other species (Itano, pers.\nobserv.). It is well known that juvenile bigeye aggregate strongly to drifting or anchored\nobjects or to large, slow-moving marine animals, such as whale sharks and manta rays\n(Calkins 1980, Hampton and Bailey 1993). This phenomenon has been exploited by surface\nfisheries to aggregate juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna to anchored or drifting FADs (Sharp\n1978). Juvenile and adult bigeye tuna are also known to aggregate near seamounts and\nsubmarine ridge features where they are exploited by pole-and-line, handline and purse-seine\nfisheries (Fonteneau 1991, Itano 1998a).\nThe majority of feeding studies conducted on bigeye tuna have examined large longline-\ncaught fish. However, juvenile bigeye are generally recognized to feed opportunistically\nduring day and night on a wide variety of crustaceans, cephalopods and fish in a manner\nsimilar to yellowfin of a similar size (Collette and Nauen 1983). Prey items are epipelagic or\nmesopelagic members of the oceanic community or pelagic post-larval or pre-juvenile stages\nof island-, reef- or benthic-associated fish and crustaceans. Alverson and Peterson (1963) state\nthat juvenile bigeye less than 100 cm generally feed at the surface during daylight, usually\nnear continental land masses, islands, seamounts, banks or floating objects.\nA3-178","Adult\nEstimates of size at maturity for Pacific bigeye vary between authors (Whitelaw and Unnithan\n1997). Kikawa (1957,1961) estimate size at first maturity for males at 101-105 cm and 91-95\ncm for females and select 100 cm as a general size for \"potential maturity\" for Pacific bigeye.\nThe following description will use 100 cm as a rough definition for adult bigeye.\nAdult bigeye are distributed across the tropical and temperate waters of the Pacific, between\nnorthern Japan and the north island of New Zealand in the western Pacific, and from 40 °N of to\n30°S in the eastern Pacific (Calkins 1980). Numerous references exist on the distribution\nPacific bigeye tuna in relation to general distribution and migration (Hanamoto 1986; Kume\n1963, 1967, 1969a, 1969b; Kume and Shiohama 1965; Laevastu and Rosa 1963 ); the oceanic\nenvironment (Blackburn 1965, 1969; Hanamoto 1975, 1976, 1983, 1987; Nakamura and\nYamanaka 1959; Suda et al. 1969; Sund et al. 1981; Yamanaka et al.1969 ); the physiology of\ntunas (Magnuson 1963; Sharp and Dizon 1978; Stretta and Petit 1989); and fish aggregation\ndevices (Holland et al. 1990).\nThere is some consensus that the primary determinants of adult bigeye distribution are water\ntemperature and dissolved oxygen levels. Salinity does not appear to play an important role in\ntuna distribution in comparison to water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels and water\nclarity. Hanamoto (1987) reasons that optimum salinity for bigeye tuna ranges from 34.5% to\n35.5% given the existence of a 1:1 relationship between temperature and salinity within the\noptimum temperature range for the species. Alverson and Peterson (1963) state that bigeye\ntuna are found within SST ranges of 13° to 29°C with an optimum temperature range of 17°\n22° C. However, the distribution of bigeye tuna can not be accurately described by SST data\nto since the fish spend a great deal of time at depth in cooler waters. Hanamoto (1987) analyzes\nlongline catch and gear configurations in relation to vertical water temperature profiles to\nestimate preferred bigeye habitat. He notes that bigeye are taken by longline gear at ambient\ntemperatures ranging from 9° to 28°C and concludes from relative catch rates within this\nthat the optimum temperature for large bigeye lies between 10° and 15°C if available\nrange dissolved oxygen levels remain above 1ml/l. In a similar study in the Indian Ocean, the\noptimum temperature for bigeye tuna was estimated to lie between 10° and 16°C (Mohri et al.\n1996).\nAccording to several authors, bigeye can tolerate dissolved oxygen levels as low as 1 ml/l,\nwhich is significantly lower than the dissolved oxygen requirements of skipjack and yellowfin\ntuna (Sund et al. 1981). Brill (1994) has proposed a physiological basis to explain how bigeye\nare able to utilize oxygen in a highly efficient manner thereby allowing them to forage in areas of\nthat are not utilized by other tuna species. He theorizes that bigeye tuna spend the majority\ntheir time at depth, making short excursions to the surface to warm up. This vertical\nmovement pattern, which has been clearly demonstrated by sonic tracking experiments of\nbigeye tuna, is exactly the opposite pattern demonstrated by skipjack and yellowfin tuna\n(Holland et al. 1992). Sonic tracking and archival tagging of bigeye tuna consistently indicate\ndeep foraging during the daytime near or below the thermocline and shallow swimming\nbehavior during at night.\nA3-179","Hanamoto (1987) examines vertical temperature profiles of water masses within the known\nrange of bigeye in the Pacific and proposes that bigeye range from the surface to as deep as\n600 m in areas where suitable temperatures exist at that depth. However, evidence from\narchival tagging experiments (Boggs, pers. comm.) suggests that bigeye tuna are capable of\ndiving to greater depths and to temperatures well below the values cited by Alverson and\nPeterson (1963) or estimated by Hanamoto (1987). This work is still in progress and currently\nunpublished.\nThe fact that large bigeye take longline hooks at greater depths than yellowfin coupled with a\nrising demand for sashimi-grade tuna and improved storage techniques prompted a shift to\ndeep longline gear to target bigeye tuna during the late 1970s and early 1980s (Sakagawa et al.\n1987, Suzuki et al. 1977). This development promoted numerous studies on differential catch\nrates and gear configurations to define productive hooking depths for bigeye given different\noceanographic conditions (Bahar 1985, 1987; Boggs 1992; Gong et al. 1987, 1989; Hanamoto\n1974; Nishi 1990; Saito 1975; Shimamura and Soeda 1981; Suzuki and Kume 1981, 1982;\nSuzuki et al. 1979).\nSeveral investigators have proposed that the greater depth distribution of bigeye is a foraging\nstrategy to exploit regions less utilized by yellowfin or skipjack tuna, thus reducing niche\ncompetition. Bigeye tuna are opportunistic feeders like yellowfin, relying on a mix of\ncrustaceans, fish and cephalopods with feeding taking place during the day and night (Calkins\n1980; Collette and Nauen 1983). However, several authors support the notion that the\ncomposition of bigeye diet differs significantly from that of similar-sized yellowfin (Watanabe\n1958, Talbot and Penrith 1963, Kornilova 1980). Adult bigeye appear to forage at significant\ndepths, utilizing a higher proportion of squid and mesopelagic fishes compared to yellowfin.\nSolov' yev (1970) suggests that the preferred feeding depth of large bigeye is 218-265 m,\nwhich is the most productive depth for longline catches. Miyabe and Bayliff (1998)\nsummarize diet items of bigeye in the Pacific in tabular form from studies by Alverson and\nPeterson (1963), Blunt (1960), Juhl (1955), King and Ikehara (1956) and Watanabe (1958).\nBigeye tuna are also known to aggregate to large concentrations of forage, such as the\nspawning aggregations of lanternfish (Diaphus sp.) [MYCTOPHIDAE] that occur seasonally\nin the Australian Coral Sea (Hisada 1973, McPherson 1991b).\nWhitelaw and Unnithan (1997) provide a useful summary of studies on the age and growth of\nbigeye tuna in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Pertinent references include Iverson (1955),\nKume and Joseph (1966), Marcille and Stequert (1976), Peterson and Bayliff (1985),\nTankevich (1982) and Talbot and Penrith (1960). There is some consensus, which is\nsupported by tagging data, that the bigeye's growth is rapid during the first couple of years\nsimilar to yellowfin's and then slows down and that the bigeye's lifespan is longer than the\nyellowfin's. Age studies of bigeye tuna are not complete and the subject requires further work.\nA recent study by Matsumoto (1998) analyzing presumed daily otolith increments finds a\nrelationship indicating 200 and 400 increments corresponding to fish 40 and 55 cm FL.\nCurrently, an age validation study using daily growth increments on otoliths is being\nconducted by the IATTC and the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research\nOrganization (CSIRO) of Australia. Bigeye age and growth is being investigated by the\nA3-180","Offshore Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) using\npresumed daily increments on otoliths and tagging data. (Hampton and Leroy slow 1998, growing IATTC\n1997, SPC 1997b). Preliminary results indicate that bigeye may be relatively\nand long lived after year 4.\nEstimates of length at maturity for Pacific bigeye vary, and a large-scale study using\nhistological methods is required. Kikawa (1957, 1961) proposed 100 cm as the length (1962) for\npotential to be sexually mature, which appears to be a reasonable estimate. Kume\nrecorded a length at first maturity of 92 cm, and McPherson (1988) recorded mature the bigeye best of\n100 A 100 cm fish corresponds approximately to a fish of age 3 according to\navailable cm. estimates of age and growth reviewed in Whitelaw and Unnithan (1997).\nInformation on sex ratios of bigeye are inconsistent though there is general agreement that\nmales are more abundant in the larger size classes, > 150 cm. Spawning occurs throughout the\nin tropical waters and at higher latitudes when SSTs rise above 23° to 24°C (Kume\nyear 1967). Bigeye are serial spawners, capable of near daily spawning periodicity during afternoon spawning\nseasons of unknown length (Nikaido et al. 1991). Spawning takes place during the\nor evening hours at or near the surface (McPherson 1991a).\nAdult bigeye tuna aggregate to drifting flotsam and anchored buoys, though to a where lesser degree they\njuvenile fish. Bigeye also aggregate over deep seamount and ridge features\nthan are targeted by some longline and handline fisheries. Regions of elevated primary productivity of surface\nand high zooplankton density-such as near regions of upwelling and convergence and\nof different densities that are very important to the distribution of skipjack if\nwaters yellowfin tuna-are less important to the distribution of adult bigeye. This is logical adult one\nskipjack and yellowfin are inhabitants of the upper mixed layer while the deep bigeye\nassumes sub-surface in nature, more closely tied to the thermocline and organisms of much\nare scattering layer. Water temperature, thermocline depth and season appear to have\ninfluences on the distribution of large bigeye (Calkins 1980). Hanamoto (1987) to\nstronger that productive longline fishing grounds for bigeye do not necessarily equate\nproposes of higher abundance, but \"are nothing more than areas where the hook depths of\nregions to coincide with the optimum temperature layer and where the amount dissolved Nakamura\nhappened oxygen happened to be greater than the minimum required for bigeye tuna (1ml/l).\" or current\n(1969) suggests that bigeye are closely associated with particular water masses grounds around\nduring different life stages. Fish taken in the northern longline fishing while the fish\nsystems 30°N are reproductively inactive young adults or pre-adults or spent spawners\ntaken in the equatorial longline fishery are actively spawning adults (Calkins 1980).\nEssential Fish Habitat: Temperate species complex\nA3-181","convergence including\nnorthern Japan to north\n(longevity of 9+ years)\nisland of New Zealand\n10° to 15°C, dissolve\nknown to concentrate\nin western Pacific and\napproximately 6 years\ntemperature between\nseamount and ridge\nbelow thermocline,\nPacific-wide, from\npelagic, surface to\ncephalopods, fish\n40°N to 30°S in\nin areas of high\noxygen > 1ml/l\noffshore waters\noptimum water\neastern Pacific\nAdult\nproductivity,\ncrustaceans,\nupwelling,\nfeatures\nNA\nconvergence including\napproximately 25°N to\nregion of thermocline\nknown to concentrate\napproximately 3 years\nseamount and ridge\npelagic, surface to\ncephalopods, fish\nlittle information\nin areas of high\noffshore waters\nJuvenile\nproductivity,\nHabitat Description for Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)\ncrustaceans,\nupwelling,\navailable\nfeatures\n25°S\nNA\nconvergence, oceanic\nthroughout the year in\nwhere SST is above\nareas of upwelling,\nzooplankton, larval\nA3-182\nto approximately 3\ntropics, seasonally\noffshore waters\nLarvae\ngyres, general\nproductivity\nepipelagic\n23°-24°C\nweeks\nNA\nfish\nconvergence, oceanic\nthroughout the year in\nwhere SST is above\nareas of upwelling,\ntropics, seasonally\napproximately 24\noffshore waters\ngyres, general\nEgg\nproductivity\nepipelagic\n23°-24°C\nhours\nNA\nNA\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom type\nSeason/Time\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nAlverson FG, Peterson CL. 1963. Synopsis of the biological data on bigeye tuna Parathunnus\nsibi (Temminck and Schlegel) 1844. FAO Fish Rep 6(2):482-514.\nBahar S. 1985. Study on deep tuna long line for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) fishing. A\nstudy on the use of deep tuna longline by employing various number of branchlines per\nbasket to catch bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in Banda Sea. Mar Fish Res Rep (32):39-51.\nBahar S. 1987. A study on the deep longlining for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the waters\nwest off Sumatra. J Mar Fish Res 40: 51-63.\nBlackburn M. 1965. Oceanography and ecology of tunas. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev\n(3):299-322.\nBlackburn M. 1969. Conditions related to upwelling which determine distribution of tropical\ntunas off western Baja California. Fish Bull US 68:147-76.\nBlunt CEJr. 1960. Observations on the food habit of longline caught bigeye and yellowfin\ntuna from the tropical eastern Pacific 1956-63. Calif Fish and Game 46(1):69-80.\nBoehlert GW, Mundy BC. 1994. Vertical and onshore-offshore distributional patterns of tuna\nlarvae in relation to physical habitat features. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 107:1-13.\nBoggs CH. 1992. Depth, capture time, and hooked longevity of longline-caught pelagic\nfish-timing bites of fish with chips. Fish Bull 90(4):642-58.\nBoggs CH, Ito RY. 1993. Hawaii's pelagic fisheries. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):69-82.\nBrill RW. 1994. A review of temperature and oxygen tolerance studies of tunas pertinent to\nfisheries oceanography, movement models and stock assessments. Fish Oceanogr\n3(3):204-16.\nCalkins TP. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus (Lowe,\n1839), in the Pacific Ocean. In: Bayliff WH, editor. Synopses of biological data on eight\nspecies of scombrids. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. p 213-60. Special\nreport nr 2.\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fish Synopsis, Volume 2, nr 125. Rome:\nFood and Agriculture Organization. 137 p.\nFonteneau A. 1991. Sea mounts and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlantic. Aquat Living Resour\n4(1):13-25.\nA3-183","Goldberg SR, Herring-Dyal H. 1981. Histological gonad analyses of late summer-early winter\ncollections of bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus, and yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares, from\nthe northwest Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA tech memo. 11 p.\nGong Y, Lee JU, Kim YS. 1987. Fishing efficiency of Korean deep longline gear and vertical\ndistribution of tunas in the Indian Ocean. In: Collective volume of working documents.\nExpert Consultation of Stock Assessment of Tunas in the Indian Ocean; 1986 Dec 4-8;\nColombo. p 367-72.\nGong Y, Lee JUK, Kim YS, Yang WS. 1989. Fishing efficiency of Korean regular and deep\nlongline gears and vertical distribution of tunas in the Indian Ocean. Bull Korean Fish Soc\n22(2):86-94.\nGraves JE, Simovich MA, Schaefer KM. 1988. Electrophoretic identification of early juvenile\nyellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares. Fish Bull 86(4):835-8.\nHampton J, Leroy B. 1988. Note on preliminary estimates of bigeye growth from presumed\ndaily increments on otoliths and tagging data. Eleventh meeting of the Standing\nCommittee on Tuna and Billfish; 1998 May 28-June 6; Honolulu, HI. 3 p. Working paper\nnr 18.\nHampton J, Lewis A, Williams P. 1998. Estimates of western and central Pacific Ocean\nbigeye tuna catch and population parameters. In: Deriso RB, Bayliff WH, Webb NJ,\neditors. Proceedings of the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna. Inter-American Tropical\nTuna Commission. p 212-34. Special report nr 10.\nHanamoto E. 1974. Fishery oceanography of bigeye tuna. Part 1, Depth of capture by tuna\nlongline gear in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. La mer 12 (3): 10-8.\nHanamoto E. 1975. Fishery oceanography of bigeye tuna. Part 2, Thermocline and dissolved\noxygen content in relation to tuna longline fishing grounds in the eastern tropical Pacific\nOcean. La mer 13 (2):58-79.\nHanamoto E. 1976. Swimming depth of bigeye tuna. Bull Jap Soc Fish Oceanogr 29:41-4.\nHanamoto E. 1983. Vertical distribution of bigeye tuna. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish Oceanogr\n44:126-7.\nHanamoto, E. 1986. Distribution of bigeye tuna catch in the Pacific Ocean. Bull Jap Soc Fish\nOceanogr 51:9-15.\nHanamoto E. 1987. Effect of oceanographic environment on bigeye tuna distribution. Bull Jap\nSoc Fish Oceanogr 51 (3):203-16.\nA3-184","Hampton J, Bailey K. 1993. Fishing for tunas associated with floating objects: a review Tuna of the\nwestern Pacific fishery. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission. 48 p.\nand Billfish Assessment Programme technical report nr. 31.\nHisada K. 1973. Investigations on tuna handline fishing ground and some biological\nobservations on yellowfin and bigeye tunas caught in the north-western coral sea. Far Seas\nFish Res Lab Bull 8:35-69.\nHisada K. 1979. Relationship between water temperature and maturity status of bigeye Bull tuna\ncaught by longline in the central and eastern Pacific ocean. Far Seas Fish Res Lab\n17:159-75.\nKikawa S. 1953. Observations on the spawning of bigeye tuna (Parathunnus mebachi, 1.\nKishinouye) near South Marshall Islands. Con Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab\nHolland KN, Brill RW, Chang RKC. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin\nand bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish Bull 88(3):493-507.\nHolland KN, Brill RW, Chang RKC. 1992. Physiological and behavioral thermoregulation in\nbigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus). Nature 358(6385):410-2.\nHonma M, Warashina Y, Suzuki Z. 1973. Identification of young yellowfin and bigeye tunas\nin the western Pacific Ocean. Examination of practical standards based on external\ncharacteristics and the reliability in field survey. Far Seas Fish Res Lab Bull 8:1-23.\n[IATTC] Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. 1997. Quarterly report, fourth quarter\n1996. La Jolla, CA: IATTC. 58 p.\nItano DG. 1998a. Hawaii offshore handline fishery: a seamount fishery for juvenile bigeye\ntuna. Eleventh meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish; 1998 May\n28-June 6; Honolulu, HI. 13 p. Working paper nr 44.\nItano DG. 1998b. Hawaii tuna tagging project. In: Deriso RB, Bayliff WH, Webb NJ, editors.\nProceedings of the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna. La Jolla, CA: Inter-American\nTropical Tuna Commission. p 235-7. Special report nr 10.\nIverson ES. 1955. Size frequencies and growth of central and western Pacific bigeye tuna. US\nFish and Wildlife Service special scientific report on fish nr 162.\nJuhl R. 1955. Notes on the feeding habits of subsurface yellowfin and bigeye tunas of the\neastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Calif Fish Game 41(1):99-101.\nKikawa S. 1957. The concentrated spawning areas of bigeye tuna in the western Pacific. Rep\nNankai Reg Fish Res Lab 5:145-157.\nA3-185","Kikawa S. 1961. The group maturity of bigeye tuna Parathunnus mebachi in the spawning\narea of Pacific. Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 13:35-46.\nKikawa S. 1962. Studies on the spawning activity of Pacific tunas, Parathunnus mebachi and\nNeothunnus macropterus, by gonad index examination. p 43-56. Nankai Reg Fish Res\nLab occassional report nr 1.\nKikawa S. 1966. The distribution of maturing bigeye and yellowfin and an evaluation of their\nspawning potential in different areas in the tuna longline grounds in the Pacific. Nankai\nReg Fish Res Lab 23:131-208.\nKing JE, Ikehara II. 1956. Notes on feeding habits of subsurface yellowfin and bigeye tunas of\neastern Pacific Ocean. Fish Bull US Fish Wildlife Serv 57:108.\nKornilova GN.1980. Feeding of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares, and bigeye tuna, Thunnus\nobesus, in the equatorial zone of Indian Ocean. J Icthyol 20(6):111-9.\nKume S. 1962. A note on the artificial fertilisation of bigeye tuna, Parathunnus mebachi\n(Kishinouye). Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 15:79-84.\nKume S. 1963. Ecological studies of bigeye. Part 1, On the distribution of the bigeye tuna in\nthe Pacific. Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 17:121-31.\nKume S. 1967. Distribution and migration of bigeye tuna in the Pacific ocean. Rep Nankai\nReg Fish Res Lab 25:75-80.\nKume S. 1969a. Ecological studies of bigeye tuna. Part 5, A critical review of its distribution, of\nsize composition and stock structure of bigeye tuna in the North Pacific Ocean (north\n16°N). Far Seas Fish Res Lab Bull 1:57-75\nKume S. 1969b. Ecological studies of bigeye tuna. Part 6, A review of distribution and size\ncomposition in the equatorial and South Pacific Ocean. Far Seas Fish Res Lab Bull\n1:77-98.\nKume S, Joseph J. 1966. Size composition, growth and sexual maturity of bigeye tuna,\nThunnus obesus (Lowe), from Japanese longline fishery in eastern Pacific Ocean. Inter-\nAmer Trop Tuna Comm Bull 11(2):45-99.\nKume S, Shiohama T. 1965. Ecological studies on bigeye tuna. Part 2, Distribution and size\ncomposition of bigeye tuna in the equatorial Pacific. Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab\n22:71-83.\nLaevastu T, Rosa H. 1963. Distribution and relative abundance of tunas in relation to their\nenvironment. FAO Fish Rep (6):1835-51.\nA3-186","Magnuson JJ. 1963. Tuna behaviour and physiology: a review. FAO Fish Rep (6): 1057-66.\nMarcille J, Stequert B. 1976. Croises des jeunes albacores Thunnes albacares et patudo,\nThunnus obesus de la cote nord-ouest de Madagascar. Cah ORSTOM (Oceanogr)\n4(2):152-62.\nMartinez FZ, Bohm SG. 1983. Biological synopsis of Thunnus obesus (Lowe) with special\nreference to the eastern Pacific Ocean. Regional seminar on fish resources and their\nfisheries in the southeast Pacific. Rev Com Perm Pac Sur 13:103-23.\nMatsumoto WM. 1961. Identification of larvae of four species of tuna from the Indo-Pacific\nregion. Part 1, The Carlsberg Foundation's oceanic expedition round the world 1928-30\nand previous Dana expeditions. Dana Rep 5:16.\nMatsumoto T. 1998. Preliminary analyses of age and growth of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)\nin the eastern Pacific Ocean based on otolith increments. In: Deriso RB, Bayliff WH,\nWebb NJ, editors. Proceedings of the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna. La Jolla, CA:\nInter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. p 238-42. Special report nr 10.\nMatsumoto WA, Alhstrom EH, Jones S, Klawe WJ, Richards WJ, Ueyanagi S. 1972. On the\nclarification of larval tuna identification, particularly in the genus Thunnus. US Fish Bull\n70(1):1-12, figs 1-6.\nMcPherson GR. 1988. Reproductive biology of yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the eastern\nAustralian Fishing Zone with special reference to the north-western Coral Sea.\nQueensland, Australia: Dept Prim Ind Res Branch. 80 p. Technical report nr FRB 88/10.\nMcPherson GR. 1991a. Reproductive biology of yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the eastern\nAustralian Fishing Zone, with special reference to the north western Coral Sea. Aust\nJ.Mar Freshwater Res 42:465-77.\nMcPherson GR. 1991b. A possible mechanism for the aggregation of yellowfin and bigeye\ntuna in the north-western Coral Sea. Queensland, Australia: Dept Prim Ind Res Branch.\n11 p. Information series nr Q191013.\nMiller JM. 1979. Nearshore abundance of tuna (Pisces: Scombridae) larvae in the Hawaiian\nIslands. Bull Mar Sci US 29:19-26.\nMimura K et al. 1963. Synopsis on the biology of bigeye tuna, Parathunnus mebachi\nKishinouye 1923 (Indian Ocean). p 350-79. In: Rosa H Jr, editor. Proceedings of the\nWorld Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species; Rome: Food and\nAgriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2272 p. FAO fish report nr 6(2).\nA3-187","Miyabe N. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus, in the\nPacific Ocean. In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors. Interactions of Pacific tuna\nfisheries. Proceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific\nTuna Fisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11; Noumea, New Caledonia. Rome: FAO. Volume 2; p\n207-43.\nMiyabe N, Bayliff WH. 1998. A review of the biology and fisheries for bigeye tuna, Thunnus\nobesus, in the Pacific Ocean. In: Deriso RB, Bayliff WH, Webb NJ, editors. Proceedings\nof the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna. La Jolla, CA: Inter-American Tropical Tuna\nCommission. p 129-170. Special report nr 9.\nMohri M, Hanamoto E, Takeuchi S. 1996. Optimum water temperatures for bigeye tuna in the\nIndian Ocean as seen from tuna longline catches. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 62(5):761-4.\nNakamura EL. 1969. A review of field observations on tuna behavior. FAO Fish Rep\n62(2):59-68.\nNakamura H, Yamanaka H. 1959. Relation between the distribution of tunas and the ocean\nstructure. Oce Soc Jap J 15:143-9.\nNikaido H, Miyabe N, Ueyanagi S. 1991. Spawning time and frequency of bigeye tuna,\nThunnus obesus. Bull Nat Res Inst Far Seas Fish 28:47-73.\nNishi T. 1990. The hourly variations of the depth of hooks and the hooking depth of yellowfin\ntuna (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) of tuna longline in the eastern\nregion of the Indian Ocean. Mem Fac Fish Kagoshima Univ (Kagoshimadai Suisangakabu\nKiyo) 39:81-98.\nNishikawa Y, Kikawa S, Honma M, Ueyanagi S. 1978. Distribution atlas of larval tunas,\nbillfishes and related species. Results of larval surveys by R/V Shunyo Maru and R/V\nShoyo Maru, 1956-75. Far Seas Fish Res Lab, S Series (9):99 p.\nNishikawa Y, Rimmer DW. 1987. Identification of the larval tunas, billfishes and other\nScombroid fishes (Suborder Scombroidei): an illustrated buide. CSIRO Marine\nLaboratories. 20 p. Report nr 168.\nPallares P, Pereira J, Miyabe N, Fonteneau A. 1998. Atlantic bigeye tuna: overview of present\nknowledge (November 1996). In: Deriso RB, Bayliff WH, Webb NJ, editors. Proceedings\nof the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna. La Jolla, CA: Inter-American Tropical Tuna\nCommission. p 20-80. Special report nr 9.\nPereira J. 1985. Observations on the sex ratio of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) in the Azores.\nCollect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 23 (2):237-41.\nPereira J. 1987. Sexual maturity and sex ratio of bigeye tuna caught in the Azores. Collect Vol\nSci Pap ICCAT 26(1):168-73.\nA3-188","Peterson CL, Bayliff WH. 1985. Size composition, growth and sexual maturity Pacific of bigeye Ocean. tuna\nThunnus obesus (Lowe), from the Japanese longline fishery in the eastern\nBull IATTC 11:45-100.\nRichards WJ, Klawe WL. 1972. Indexed bibliography of the eggs and young of tunas NMFS and\nother scombrids (Pisces, Scombridae), 1880-1970. NOAA. 107 p. Tech report nr\nSSRF 652.\nRudomiotkina GP. 1983. Areas, periods and conditions of bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus\n(Lowe), spawning in the tropical part of the Atlantic Ocean. Collect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT\n18(2):355-62.\n[SPC] South Pacific Commission. 1997a. South Pacific Commission tuna fishery yearbook, 104 p.\n1996. Lawson T, editor. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission.\n[SPC] South Pacific Commission. 1997b. Oceanic Fisheries Programme work programme Tuna and\nreview 1996-97 and work plans for 1997-98. Tenth Standing Committee on\nBillfish; 1997 Jun 16-18; Nadi, Fiji. 45 p. Working paper nr 2.\nSaito S. 1975. On the depth of capture of bigeye tuna by further improved vertical longline in\nthe tropical Pacific. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish 41(8):831-41.\nSakagawa GT, Coan AL, Bartoo NW. 1987. Patterns in longline fishery data and catches of\nbigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus. Mar Fish Rev 49 (4):57-66.\nSharp GD. 1978. Behavioral and physiological properties of tunas and their effects on\nvulnerability to fishing gear. In: Sharp GD, Dizon AE, editors. The physiological ecology\nof tunas. New York: Academic Pr. p 379-449.\nSharp GD, Dizon AE, editors. 1978. Physiological ecology of tunas. New York: Academic Pr.\n485 p.\nShimamura T, Soeda H. 1981. On the catch by deep-layer tuna fishing. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish\n47(12):1559-65.\nSolov' yev BS. 1970. Distribution and biology of bigeye tuna in the Indian Ocean. Rybn Khos\n3.\nStrasburg EW. 1960. Estimates of larval tuna abundance in the central Pacific. Fish Bull US\nFish Wildl Serv 60(167):231-55.\nStrobberup KA, Marsac F, Anganuzzi AA. 1998. A review of the biology of bigeye tuna,\nThunnus obesus, and fisheries for this species in the Indian Ocean. In: Deriso RB, Bayliff\nWH, Webb NJ, editors. Proceedings of the First World Meeting on Bigeye Tuna; La Jolla,\nCA: Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. p 81-128. Special report nr 9.\nA3-189","Stretta JM, Petit M. 1989. In: Le Gall JY, editor. Physiological aspects of thermoecology in\ntunas. 3.2, Catchability/surface temperature relationship. Satellite geosensing and oceanic\nfisheries: teledetection. p 49-50. FAO document technlogique peches nr 302.\nSuda A, Kume S, Shiohama T. 1969. An indicative note on a role of permanent thermocline\nas a factor controlling the longline fishing ground for bigeye tuna. Bull Far Seas Fish Res\nLab 1:99-114.\nSund PN, Blackburn M, Williams F. 1981. Tunas and their environment in the Pacific Ocean:\na review. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 19:443-512.\nSuzuki Z, Kume S. 1981. Fishing efficiency of deep longline for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic the as\ninferred from the operations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Document prepared for\nSCRS Symposium of the ICCT; 1981 Nov 30 p.\nSuzuki Z, Kume S. 1982. Fishing efficiency of deep longline for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic as\ninferred from the operation in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Inter Comm Cons\nAtlan. Tunas, Coll Vol Sci Pap 17(2):471-86.\nSuzuki S, Warashina Y, Kishida M. 1977. The comparison of catches by regular and deep\ntuna longline gears in the western and central Pacific. Bull Far Seas Fish Res Lab\n15:51-89.\nSuzuki Z, Warashina Y, Kaneko K. 1979. The comparison of length of catches by regular and\ndeep longline gears for bigeye, yellowfin and blue marlin in the western and central\nequatorial Pacific. Background Paper, Workshop on the Assessment of Selected Tunas\nand Billfish Stocks in the Pacific and Indian Oceans; 1979 Jun 13-22; Shimizu, Japan.\nRome: FAO. Report nr SAWS/BP/16.\nTalbot FH, Penrith MJ. 1963. Synopsis on the biological data on species of the genus Thunnus\nof South Africa. FAO Fish Rep 6 (2):609-46.\nTankevich PB. 1982. Age and growth of bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus (Scombridae) in the\nIndian Ocean. J Icthyol 22(4):26-31.\nUeyanagi S. 1969. Observations on the distribution of tuna larvae in the Indo-Pacific Ocean Bull\nwith emphasis on the delineation of spawning areas of albacore, Thunnus alelunga.\nFar Seas Fish Res.Lab 2:177-256.\nUotani I, Matsuzaki K, Makino Y, Noka K, Inamura o, Horikawa M. 1981. Food habits of\nlarvae of tunas and their related species in the area. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish 47(9):1165-72.\nWatanabe H. 1958. On the difference of stomach contents of the yellowfin and bigeye tunas\nfrom the western equatorial Pacific. Rep Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab 12:63-74.\nA3-190","[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic fisheries\nof the western Pacific region, 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nWhitelaw AW, Unnithan VK.1997. Synopsis of the distribution, biology and fisheries of the\nbigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus, Lowe) with a bibliography. CSIRO Marine Laboratory. 62\np. Report nr 228.\nYamanaka H, Morita J, Anraku N. 1969. Relation between the distribution of tunas and water\ntypes of the North and South Pacific Ocean. Bull Far Seas Fish Res Lab 2:257-73\nYasutake H, Nishi G, Mori K. 1973. Artificial fertilization and rearing of bigeye tuna\n(Thunnus obesus) on board, with morphological observations on embryonic through to\nearly post-larval stage. Bull Far Seas Fish Res Lab 8:71-8.\nYuen HSH. 1955. Maturity and fecundity of bigeye tuna in the Pacific. US Fish and Wildlife\nService. p 1-30. Special report nr 150.\nYuen HSH. 1963. Schooling behavior within aggregations composed of yellowfin and\nskipjack tuna. FAO Fish Rep 6(3):1419-29.\n2.2.13 Habitat Description for Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Island.\nYellowfin tuna within the jurisdiction of the Council are managed under the FMP for the\nPelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Yellowfin tuna occur throughout the entire\nregion of council jurisdiction and in all neighboring states, territories and adjacent high seas\nzones.\nLife History and General Description\nSeveral studies on the taxonomy, biology, population dynamics and exploitation of yellowfin\ntuna have been carried out, including comprehensive reviews by Cole (1980), Collette and\nNauen (1983), Wild (1994) and Suzuki (1994). The information in this brief synopsis of\nyellowfin tuna distribution and habitat relies heavily on these works.\nYellowfin tuna are trans-Pacific in distribution, occupying the surface waters of all warm\noceans and form the basis of large surface and sub-surface fisheries. Basic environmental\nconditions favorable for survival include clean oceanic waters between 18°C and 31° within\nsalinity ranges normal for the pelagic environment with dissolved oxygen concentrations\ngreater than 1.4 to 2.0 ml/l (Blackburn 1965, Sund et al. 1981). Larval and juvenile yellowfin\noccupy surface waters with adults increasingly utilizing greater depth strata while remaining\nwithin the mixed layer, i.e., generally above the thermocline (Suzuki et al. 1978).\nA3-191","The species is a tropical tuna characterized by a rapid growth rate and development to\nmaturity and high spawning frequency and fecundity with a high natural mortality and\nrelatively short life span. Feeding is opportunistic at all life stages, with prey items consisting\nprimarily of crustaceans, cephalopods and fish (Cole 1980). Spawning spans broad areas of\nthe Pacific and occurs throughout the year in tropical waters and seasonally at higher latitudes\nat water temperatures over 24°C (Suzuki, 1994). Yellowfin are serial spawners, capable of\nrepeated spawning at near daily intervals with batch fecundities of millions of ova per\nspawning event (June 1953, Nikaido 1988, McPherson 1991, Schaefer 1996). Sex ratio is\ncommonly accepted to be essentially 1:1 until a length of approximately 120 cm after which\nthe proportion of males increases (Kikawa 1966, Yesaki 1983).\nYellowfin are clearly capable of large-scale movements, which have been documented by tag\nand recapture programs, but most recaptures occur within a short distance of release. The tuna\nappear to move freely within broad regions of favorable water temperature and are known to\nmake seasonal excursions to higher latitudes as water temperatures increase with season.\nHowever, the extent to which these are directed movements is unknown, and the nature of\nyellowfin migration in the central and western Pacific remains unclear (Suzuki 1994).\nYellowfin tuna are known to aggregate to drifting flotsam, large marine animals and regions\nof elevated productivity, such as near seamounts and regions of upwelling (Blackburn 1969,\nWild 1994, Suzuki 1994). Major fisheries for yellowfin exploit aggregation effects either by\nutilizing artificial fish aggregation devices (FADs) or by targeting areas with vulnerable\nconcentrations of tuna (Sharp 1979). Yellowfin are exploited by purse-seine, longline,\nhandline and troll gear within the Council area (WPRFMC 1997, SPC 1996).\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nThe eggs of yellowfin tuna resemble those of several scombrid species and can not be\ndifferentiated by visual means. (Cole 1980). Therefore, the distribution of yellowfin eggs has\nnot been determined in the Pacific. However, the duration of the fertilized egg phase is very\nshort, and egg distributions can be assumed to be roughly coincident with documented larval\ndistributions. Eggs are epipelagic, floating at the surface until hatching. The observation of\nyellowfin spawning and the development of yellowfin egg and early larval stages is now\npossible at shore-based facilities where yellowfin spawning was first observed during late\n1996 (IATTC 1997). Egg diameter ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 mm, and the duration of the egg\nstage was approximately 24 hours. The notochord lengths of larvae at hatching ranged from\n2.2 to 2.5 mm. The duration of the larval stage has been variable in laboratory reared\nspecimens. Research on yellowfin larvae collected at sea and identified as yellowfin tuna by\nmitochondrial DNA analysis indicate that wild larvae grow at a rate approximately twice that\nof laboratory reared larvae and average sizes are 1.5 to 2.5 larger than laboratory reared\nspecimens of a similar age (Wexler 1997).\nThe larval development from artificially fertilized eggs has been described by Harada et al.\n(1971), Mori et al. (1971) and Harada et al. (1980). A review of research on the development,\ninternal anatomy and identification yellowfin larvae and early life stages is available in Wild\n(1994). The early larval stages of yellowfin and bigeye are difficult or impossible to\nA3-192","differentiate without allozyme or mitochondrial DNA analyses. The distribution of larval\nyellowfin in different regions of the Pacific has been described by several authors (Matsumoto Yabe et\n1958, Strasburg 1960, Sun' 1960). Studies on the larval distribution of yellowfin by\nal. (1963), Matsumoto (1966), Ueyanagi (1969) and Nishikawa et al. (1985) encompass broad\nareas of the Pacific.\nYellowfin larvae are trans-Pacific in distribution and found throughout the year in tropical\nbut are restricted to summer months in sub-tropical regions. For example, peak larval\nwaters abundance occurs in the Kuroshio Current during May and June and in the East Australian been\nCurrent during the austral summer (November to December). Yellowfin larvae have\nreported close to the MHI in June and September but were not found in December and April\n(Beohlert and Mundy 1994).\nThe basic environment of yellowfin larvae can be characterized by warm, oceanic surface\nwith a preference toward the upper range of temperatures utilized by the species, which\nwaters be a reflection of preferred spawning habitat. It can be assumed that yellowfin larvae of are\nmay at SST above 26°C (Ueyanagi 1969) but may occur in some regions with SST\ncommon approximately 24°C and above. Harada et al. (1980) found the highest occurrence of normally found\nhatched larvae at water temperatures between 26.4°C to 27.8°C with no normal larvae\nin water less than 18.7°C or greater than 31.9°C from laboratory observations.\nYellowfin larvae appear to be restricted to surface waters of the mixed layer well above the\nthermocline and at depths less than 50 to 60 m, with no clear consensus on diurnal preference\nby depth or patterns of vertical migration (Matsumoto 1958, Strasburg 1960, Ueyanagi of the 1969).\nPrey species inhabit this zone, consisting of crustacean zooplankton at early stages\nyellowfin larval phase with some fish larvae at the end of the larval phase.\nAge and growth of yellowfin larvae has been investigated under a variety of laboratory\nconditions and from field collections. Observations from both laboratory raised and wild\nspecimens indicate highly variable growth rates, with wild fish consistently exhibiting higher the\ngrowth rates compared to laboratory reared specimens (IATTC 1997). It was suggested\ndifferences in growth rates and size at age were due to less than optimal growth conditions the in\nthe laboratory environment. Two critical periods of larval mortality have been identified, the\nfirst at 4-5 days and the second at about 11 days after hatching; the latter corresponds fish to\ntime period when the diet of yellowfin larvae is proposed to shift from crustaceans to\nlarvae (FSFRL 1973).\nThe distribution of yellowfin larvae has been linked to areas of high productivity and islands,\nbut how essential these areas are to the life history of the species is not known. Grimes and\nLang (1991) note high concentrations of yellowfin larvae in productive waters on the edge to of\nthe Mississippi River discharge plume, and Thunnus larvae (most likely yellowfin due\nspawning distributions) have been noted to be relatively abundant near the Hawaiian Islands\ncompared to offshore areas (Miller 1979, Boehlert and Mundy 1994).\nA3-193","Juvenile\nThe distribution of juvenile tuna less than 35 cm FL has not been well documented but is\nassumed to be similar to that of larval yellowfin. Juveniles occupy warm oceanic surface\nwaters above the thermocline and are found throughout the year in tropical waters. Published\naccounts on the capture of juvenile tuna have been summarized by Higgins (1967). Juveniles\nhave been reported in the western Pacific between 31 °N near the east coast of Japan to 23°S\nand 23°N near the Hawaiian Islands to 23°S in the central Pacific region. Juvenile yellowfin\nform single species schools at or near the surface of similar-sized fish or may be mixed with\nother tuna species such as skipjack or juvenile bigeye tuna. Yuen (1963) has suggested that\nthe mixed-species schools are actually separate single-species schools that temporarily\naggregate to a common factor such as food. Juvenile fish will aggregate beneath drifting\nobjects or with large, slow moving animals such as whale sharks and manta rays (Hampton\nand Bailey 1993). This characteristic has been exploited by surface fisheries to aggregate\nyellowfin tuna, most of which are juvenile fish, to anchored or drifting FADs. Juvenile and\nadult yellowfin tuna are also known to aggregate near seamounts and submarine ridge features\n(Fonteneau 1991).\nJuvenile yellowfin feed primarily during the day and are opportunistic feeders on a wide\nvariety of forage organisms, including various species of crustaceans, cephalopods and fish\n(Reintjes and King 1953, Watanabe 1958). Prey items are epipelagic or mesopelagic members\nof the oceanic community or pelagic post-larval or pre-juvenile stages of island-, reef- or\nbenthic-associated organisms. Significant differences in the composition of prey species of\nFAD- and non-FAD-associated yellowfin have been noted in Hawaii (Brock 1985), American\nSamoa (Buckley and Miller 1994) and the southern Philippines (Yesaki 1983).\nAdult\nThe habitat of adult yellowfin can be characterized as warm oceanic waters of low turbidity\nwith a chemical and saline composition typical of tropical and sub-tropical oceanic\nenvironments. Adult yellowfin are trans-Pacific in distribution and range to higher latitudes\ncompared to juvenile fish. The adult distribution in the Pacific lies roughly within latitudes\n40°N to 40°S as indicated by catch records of the Japanese purse-seine and longline fishery\n(Suzuki et al. 1978). SSTs play a primary role in the horizontal and vertical distribution of\nyellowfin, particularly at higher latitudes. Blackburn (1965) suggests the range of yellowfin\ndistribution is bounded water temperatures between 18°C and 31°C with commercial\nconcentrations occurring between 20°C and 30°C. Salinity does not appear to play an\nimportant role in tuna distribution in comparison to water temperature and clarity.\nEstimates of length at maturity for central and western Pacific yellowfin vary widely with\nsome studies supporting an advanced maturity schedule for yellowfin in coastal or\narchipelagic waters (Cole 1980). However, most estimates suggest that the majority of\nyellowfin reach maturity between 2 and 3 years of age on the basis of length-age estimates for\nthe species (Ueyanagi 1966). Longevity for the species has not been defined, but a maximum\nage of 6 to 7 years appears likely based on growth estimates and tag recapture data.\nObservations of length at first maturity for female yellowfin range widely from 56.7 cm in the\nA3-194","(Bunag 1956) to 112.0 cm for western Pacific yellowfin (Sun and Yang 1983). far\nPhilippines most of these studies were based on macroscopic staging techniques that are fishes. less\nHowever, accurate compared to histological methods for determining maturity in serial spawning the length\nhistological analysis of yellowfin ovaries, McPherson (1991) estimates that handline\nUsing 50% maturity for yellowfin in the Australian Coral Sea is 107.9 cm in the inshore Kikawa\nat and 120.0 cm in the offshore longline fishery. These results are similar to\nfishery (1962) who notes from the central and western tropical Pacific that a few longline caught between\nyellowfin were reproductive at 80-110 cm and estimates a length at 50% maturity form\nand 120 cm from GI analysis. Itano (1997) notes that 50% of yellowfin sampled\npurse-seine 110 and longline gear at 105 cm were histologically classified as mature of from 107.9 a large cm.\ndata set from the western tropical Pacific and predicts a length at 50% maturity\nSpawning occurs throughout the year in tropical waters at least within 10 degrees of the\nand seasonally at higher latitudes when SSTs rise above 24°C (Suzuki 1994). the Several central\nequator different areas and seasons of peak spawning for yellowfin have been proposed for for\nand western equatorial Pacific. Koido and Suzuki (1989) propose a peak spawning period the\nyellowfin in the western tropical Pacific from April to November. Kikawa (1966) report occur\nspawning potential of yellowfin in the western tropical Pacific (120°E-180°) taken to\npeak December-January and April-May east of the dateline (180°-140°W). Fish by purse-\nare more reproductively active with a higher spawning frequency than longline\nseine caught gear fish in the same areas. A positive relationship between spawning activity and waters areas of\nforage abundance has been noted (Itano 1997). Yellowfin spawn in Hawaiian\nhigh the spring to fall period. June (1953) notes well-developed ovaries in yellowfin caught\nduring by longline close the MHI from mid-May to the end of October. Spawning in Hawaiian estimates waters\nhas been histologically confirmed from April to October, and spawning frequency\napproach a daily periodicity during the peak spawning period of June to August (Itano 1997).\nAdult yellowfin tuna are opportunistic feeders, relying primarily on crustaceans, cephalopods allows\nand fish as has been described for juvenile fish. However, the larger size of adult fish\nthe exploitation of larger prey items, with large squid and fish species becoming more\nimportant diet items. For example, Yesaki (1983) notes a high degree of cannibalism of of large\nFAD-associated yellowfin on juvenile tunas in the southern Philippines. The baiting\nlonglines with saury, mackerel and large squid also implies that mature fish will take large\nprey items if available.\nYellowfin tuna are known to aggregate to drifting flotsam, anchored buoys, porpoise and of large\nmarine animals (Hampton and Bailey 1993). Adult yellowfin also aggregate in regions\nelevated productivity and high zooplankton density, such as near seamounts and regions of\nupwelling and convergence of surface waters of different densities, presumably to capitalize\nthe elevated forage available (Blackburn 1969, Cole 1980, Wild 1994, Suzuki 1994).\non However, the degree to which these regions are essential or simply advantageous to yellowfin\nis not known.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nA3-195","year in tropics, seasonally\ncrustaceans, cephalopods,\nSpawning throughout the\n40°N -40°S, within SST\nknown to concentrate in\nproductivity, upwelling,\napproximately 4-5 years\nmixed layer, occasional\nwhere SST is above\npelagic, throughout\nabundant between\nexcursions below\nrange 18°-31°C,\noffshore waters\nareas of high\nconvergence\nthermocline\n24°-25°C\n20°-30°C\nAdult\nNA\nfish\ncrustaceans, cephalopods,\n31°N near Japan, at least\nknown to concentrate in\nproductivity, upwelling,\napproximately 2 years\n23°N-23°S in central\nHabitat Description for Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)\npelagic, upper mixed\noffshore waters\nareas of high\nconvergence\nJuvenile\nPacific\nlayer\nNA\nfish\nA3-196\nto approximately 3 weeks\ntropics, seasonally where\nSST is above 24°-25°C\nzooplankton, larval fish\nconvergence, oceanic\nthroughout the year in\nareas of upwelling,\noffshore waters\ngyres, general\nproductivity\nepipelagic\nLarvae\nNA\nconvergence, oceanic\nthroughout the year in\nwhere SST is above\nareas of upwelling,\ntropics, seasonally\noffshore waters\ngyres, general\nproductivity\nepipelagic\n24°-25°C\n24 hours\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nWater Column\nBottom type\nSeason/Time\nLocation\nFeatures\nOceanic\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBlackburn M. 1965. Oceanography and the ecology of tunas. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev\n3:299-322.\nBlackburn M. 1969. Conditions related to upwelling which determine distribution of tropical\ntunas off western Baja California. Fish Bull US 68(1):147-76.\nBoehlert GW, Mundy BC. 1994. Vertical and onshore-offshore distributional patterns of tuna\nlarvae in relation to physical habitat features. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 107:1-13.\nBrock RE. 1985. Preliminary study f the feeding habits of pelagic fish around Hawaiian fish\naggregation devices, or can fish aggregation devices enhance local fish productivity? Bull\nMar Sci 37:40-9.\nBuckley TW, Miller BS. 1994. Feeding habits of yellowfin tuna associated with fish\naggregation devices in American Samoa. Bull Mar Sci 55(2-3):445-59.\nBuñag DM. 1956. Spawning habits of some Philippine tuna based on diameter measurements\nof the ovarian ova. J Philipp Fish 4(2):145-77.\nCole JS. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares\n(Bonnaterre, 1788), in the Pacific Ocean. In: Bayliff WH, editor. Synopses of biological\ndata on eight species of scombrids. La Jolla, CA: Inter-American Tropical Tuna\nCommission. p 71-150. Special report nr 2.\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fish Synop 2(125):137\nFonteneau A. 1991. Seamounts and tuna in the tropical rastern Atlantic. Aquat Living Resour\n4(1):13-25.\n[FSFRL] Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory. 1973. Report on experiments on the\ndevelopment of tuna culturing techniques (April 1970-March 1973). FSFRL. 165 p. S\nSeries nr 8.\nHampton J, Bailey K. 1993. Fishing for tunas associated with floating objects: a review Tuna of the\nwestern Pacific fishery. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission. 48 p.\nand Billfish Assessment Programme technical report nr 31.\nHiggins BE. 1970. The distribution of juveniles of four species of tunas in the Pacific Ocean.\nProc Indo-Pac Fish Coun 12(2):79-99\nHampton J, Bailey K. 1993. Fishing for tunas associated with floating objects: a review Tuna of the\nwestern Pacific fishery. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission. 48 p.\nand Billfish Assessment Programme technical report nr 31.\nA3-197","Harada T, Murata o, Oda S. 1980. Rearing of and morphological changes in larvae and\njuveniles of yellowfin tuna. Bull Fac Agric Kinki Univ (13):33-6.\nHarada T, Mizuno K, Murata o, Miyashita S, Furutani H. 1971. On the artificial fertilization\nand rearing of larvae in yellowfin tuna. Bull Fac Agric Kinki Univ (4):145-51\n[IATTC] Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. 1997 Quarterly report, fourth quarter\n1996. La Jolla, CA: IATTC. 58 p.\nItano DG. 1997. Yellowfin tuna biology and fisheries in the Pacific. Honolulu: Pelag Fish Res\nProg Newslet 2(4):6-8.\nJune FC. 1953. Spawning of yellowfin tuna in Hawaiian waters. US Dept Interior, Fish Wildl\nServ Fish Bull 77(54):47-64.\nKikawa S. 1962. Studies on the spawning activity of the Pacific tunas, Parathunnus mebachi\nand Neothunnus macropterus, by the gonad index examination. Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab,\nOccas Rep 1:43-56.\nKikawa S. 1966. The distribution of maturing bigeye and yellowfin and an evaluation of their\nspawning potential in different areas in the tuna longline grounds in the Pacific. Rep\nNankai Reg Fish Res Lab 23:131-208.\nKoido T, Suzuki Z. 1989. Main spawning season of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares, Lab in the\nwestern tropical Pacific Ocean based on the gonad index. Bull Far Seas Fish Res\n26:153-64.\nMatsumoto WM. 1958. Description and distribution of larvae of four species of tuna in central\nPacific waters. Fish Bull US Fish Wildl Serv 59(128):31-72.\nMatsumoto WM. 1966. Distribution and abundance of tuna larvae in the Pacific Ocean. In:\nManar TA, editor. Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Central Pacific Fishery\nResources; . p 221-30.\nMcPherson GR. 1991. Reproductive biology of yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the eastern\nAustralian Fishing Zone, with special reference to the north western Coral Sea. Aust J Mar\nFreshwater Res 42:465-77.\nMiller JM. 1979. Nearshore abundance of tuna (Pisces: Scombridae) larvae in the Hawaiian\nIslands. Bull Mar Sci US 29:19-26.\nMori K, Ueyanagi S, Nishikawa Y. 1971. The development of artificially fertilized reared\nlarvae of the yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares. [In Jpn;Engl Synop.] Bull Far Seas Fish\nRes Lab (5):219-32.\nA3-198","Nishikawa Y, M Honma Y, Ueyanagi S, Kikawa S. 1985. Average distribution of larvae of\noceanic species of scombroid fishes, 1956-1981. Far Seas Fish Res Lab. 99 p. S Series nr\n12.\nReintjes JW, King JE. 1953. Food of yellowfin tuna in the central Pacific. US Fish Wildl\nServ, FishBull 54(81):91-110.\nSchaefer KM. 1996. Spawning time, frequency, and batch fecundity of yellowfin tuna,\nThunnus albacares, near Clipperton Atoll in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Fish Bull\n94:98-112.\nSharp GD. 1978. Behavioral and physiological properties of tunas and their effects on\nvulnerability to fishing gear. In: Sharp GD, Dizon AE, editors. The physiological ecology\nof tunas. New York: Academic Pr. p 379-449.\n[SPC] South Pacific Commission. 1996. South Pacific Commission tuna fishery yearbook,\n1995. Lawson T, editor. Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC. 92 p.\nStrasburg EW. 1960. Estimates of larval tuna abundance in the central Pacific. Fish Bull US\nFish Wildl Serv 60(167):231-55.\nSun' Tszi-Dzen'. 1960. Larvae and juveniles of tunas, sailfishes and swordfish (Thunnidae,\nIstiophoridae, Xiphiidae) from the central and western part of the Pacific Ocean. Trudy\nInst Okeanol 41:175-91.\nSun CL, Yang RT. 1983. The inshore tuna longline fishery of Taiwan-fishing ground,\nfishing seasons, fishing conditions and a biological study of the major species, yellowfin\ntuna, 1981-82. J Fish Soc Taiwan 10(2):11-41.\nSund PN, Blackburn M, Williams F. 1981. Tunas and their environment in the Pacific Ocean:\na review. Ocenaogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 19:443-512.\nSuzuki Z, Tomlinson PK, Honma M. 1978. Population structure of Pacific yellowfin tuna.\nInter-Am Trop Tuna Comm Bull 19(2):169-260.\nUeyanagi S. 1966. Biology of tunas and bill fishes. Jap Soc Sci Fish Bull 32(9):739-55, 828.\nUeyanagi S. 1969. Observations on the distribution of tuna larvae in the Indo-Pacific Ocean\nwith emphasis on the delineation of the spawning areas of albacore, Thunnus alalunga.\nBull Far Seas Fish Res Lab (2):177-256.\nWatanabe, H. 1958. On the difference of the stomach contents of the yellowfin and bigeye\ntunas from the western equatorial Pacific. Nankai Reg.Fish.Res.Lab. Rep., 7:72-81.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic fisheries\nof the western Pacific region, 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nA3-199","Wexler JB, Margulies D, Chow S. 1997. Laboratory and in situ growth rates of yellowfin\ntuna, Thunnus albacares, larvae and early-stage juveniles. In: Scott M, Olson R, editors.\nProceedings of the 48th annual Tuna Conference; 73 p.\nYabe H, Yabuta Y, Ueyanagi S. 1963. Comparative distribution of eggs, larvae and adults in\nrelation to biotic and abiotic environmental factors. FAO Fish Rep 6(3):979-1009.\nYesaki M. 1983. Observations on the biology of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and skipjack\n(Katsuwonus pelamis) tunas in Philippine waters. FAO/UNDP Indo-Pac Tuna Dev Mgt\nProgramme. 66 p. Report nr IPTP/83/WP/7.\nYuen HSH. 1963. Schooling behavior within aggregations composed of yellowfin and\nskipjack tuna. FAO Fish Rep 6(3): 1419-29.\n2.2.14 Habitat description for northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nMaterial for this habitat description is drawn from Bayliff (1994) and Collette and Nauen\n(1983). Bayliff provides an extensive list of references which are not, in general, re-cited here.\nThere are seven species in the genus Thunnus, a member of the Thunnini tribe of the\nsubfamily Scombrinae. Three of these species, T. thynnus, T. alabacares (yellowfin tuna) and\nT. obsesus (bigeye tuna) are PMUS. Tunas of this genus are unique in their high metabolic\nrate and vascular heat exchanger systems allowing thermo-regulation and endothermy. The\nPacific northern bluefin is considered a sub-species. T. thunnus orientalis (Temminck and\nSchlegel) along with an Atlantic sub-species, T. thynnus thynnus (Linnaeus). The Pacific\npopulation is considered a single stock but with a long range, complex migratory pattern (see\nbelow).\nThe range of the species is between about 20° and 40° N in the eastern and central Pacific, but\nwith a northern extension to the Gulf of Alaska in the east. In the western Pacific they are\nfound as far south as 5° N and north to Sakhalin Island near the Asian mainland. This\nrepresents the limits of distribution; based on historic fish landings they are concentrated\nbetween about 25° and 40°N in the central and western Pacific. In the eastern Pacific bluefin\nare caught mostly between Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico and Point Conception,\nCalifornia. They are occasionally caught further north along the California coast, in Oregon\nand Washington and to Shelikoff Straight in Alaska. This probably represents an occasional\nrange extension due to elevated SST. In the eastern and central Pacific preferred habitat as\ndefined by temperature is between 17° and 22° or 23°C. In the western Pacific off Japan\noptimal temperature is reported as between 14° and 19° or 15° and 17°. Juvenile fish are\nA3-200","caught by Japanese coastal fishermen in warmer water, as high as 29°C for fish 15 to 31 cm.\nTemperature range reportedly increases with size. Bayliff (1994) provides maps of the areas of\nthe North Pacific bounded by the 17° and 23°C isotherm by season. Roughly, in winter it is\na\nband centered on 30°N latitude and in summer on 40°N.\nIn addition to the review article cited earlier, migration is described in Bayliff, et al. (1991)\nand Bayliff (1993). Bluefin spawn in the western Pacific, off of the Philippines (April-June)\nand Japan (July-August). Larvae, postlarvae and juveniles are transported northward in the\nKuroshio Current. Some fish remain in the western Pacific while others migrate eastward after\ntheir first winter. Bayliff suggests that the isotherm band described above, which coincides\nroughly with the North Pacific Subarctic-Subtropical Transition Zone (see the habitat\ndescription for albacore tuna for more discussion of this oceanographic feature), bounds their\nmigration path. The migration time is relatively brief, seven months or less. It is unclear how\nlong fish remain in the eastern Pacific or whether they make multiple migrations back and the\nforth, although this seems unlikely. Eventually fish return to the western Pacific to spawn; is\nreturn journey takes longer, around two years, as the minimum time based on tag returns\n674 days. Some juvenile fish also move southward from the spawning areas off the\nPhilippines and Japan. Northern bluefin have been caught as far south as New Zealand and are\noccasionally caught off of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands.\nHowever, there is no evidence of spawning in these areas.\nIn addition to the temperature ranges discussed above, habitat features mentioned by Bayliff\nthat may affect population abundance and density include the California Current in the eastern\nPacific, the aforementioned Pacific Transition Zone and the Kuroshio Current off of Japan.\nThe papers by Bayliff cited above discuss age and growth. While von Bertalanffy parameter\nestimates have been made, Bayliff et al. (1991) argue for a two-stage model with separate\nparameter estimates for fish less than 564 mm following the Gompertz model and linear\ngrowth for fish greater than 564 mm. The parameters are also presented in Bayliff (1994) but 76.3\nwill not be reproduced here. Estimates for size at age for 1-year-old fish range from 43 to\ncm and for 4-year-old fish, 113.1 to 178 cm (see Table 1 in Bayliff (1991)). Bayliff (1993)\npresents age at length-by month-for bluefin in the eastern Pacific. The maximum size fish\ncaught in the North Pacific is reported as 300 cm. Using the growth equations presented by\nBayliff this corresponds to an age of about 9.5 years, but bluefin from the Pacific have lived as\nlong as 16 years in captivity. Bayliff (1993) discusses the coefficient of natural mortality and\narrives at a range of 0.161-0.471 for the 90% confidence interval. Using these figures, at 10\nyears about 79% and 99%+ mortality is achieved respectively.\nBluefin may be sexually dimorphic with respect to size as is common in other tunas; fish\nraised in captivity reached a size of 1,190 mm for males and 1,353 mm for females at 3 years\nof age (Hirota et al. 1976). Male-female sex ratios reported in Bayliff (1993) range from 45:0\nfor fish caught in the eastern Pacific by purse seine to 28:47 (1:1.68) for longline caught fish\nlanded off of Taiwan. Fecundity has been estimated at 10 million eggs for fish 270-300 kg.\nSpawning areas and seasons were discussed above. Larvae were reported off of Oahu, Hawaii,\nby (Miller,1979) but other unpublished sampling data (from 1984-85) reported by Bayliff\nA3-201","(1993) found no bluefin larvae off of Oahu.\nThe major fisheries for bluefin in the eastern Pacific are a sport fishery and commercial in this purse\nseining off the US West Coast; foreign longliners also catch a small number of fish\nIn the western Pacific a variety of gear is used, primarily in coastal fisheries but also\nregion. by seiners in an area about 30°-42°N and 140°-152°E. Bayliff (1993) discusses effort landing\ntrends; purse CPUE trend is only available for the eastern Pacific. There both CPUE and\ndeclined during the 1980s and early 1990s.\nIn the western Pacific region only Hawaii reported commercial bluefin tuna landings in 1996.\nAll of this total of 100,000 lbs (45.36 mt) was landed by the longline fleet (WPRFMC 1997).\nNo information is given on catch areas, but they are most likely north and west of the\nHawaiian Islands and mostly in international waters. Total landings in managed fisheries is\nsmall in comparison to total catch in the Pacific. For example Bayliff (1993) reports 13,183\nmt landed in 1986 by all Japanese vessels, almost 300 times 1996 Hawaii landings.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nEggs and larvae are probably confined to known spawning areas in the western Pacific,\noutside of the management area. As noted above, Miller (1979) reports larvae from Hawaiian\nwaters but later more extensive sampling in Hawaii failed to turn up larvae. Given the\ndistance from known spawning areas it would seem unlikely the bluefin larvae normally occur\nin Hawaiian waters. Larvae reportedly feed on small zooplankton, mainly copepods (Uotani et\nal. 1990).\nBayliff (1994) provides no details on larval growth and habitat. More information may be\nfound in Yabe and Ueyanagi (1962) and Yabe et al. (1966).\nJuvenile\nBluefin are estimated to reach maturity at 3-5 years, with the latter age more likely according\nto Bayliff and equivalent to a size of about 150 cm. As already noted, some juvenile fish\nmigrate across the Pacific, probably within the Transition Zone, and remain off the American to\nWest Coast from Baja to southern California. Juvenile fish migrate seasonally (November the\nApril) offshore, perhaps into the central Pacific but probably not returning all the way to\nwestern Pacific. Fish stay in the eastern Pacific for several years, up until 5 or 6 years of age,\nbut return to the western Pacific at or before sexual maturity, eventually to spawn.\nFeeding habits of bluefin in the eastern Pacific would represent juvenile food preferences.\nThese are reviewed by Bayliff (1994). Major prey items include anchovies, red crabs\n(Pleurocodes planipes), sauries (Cololabis saira), squid (Loligo opalescens) and hake\n(Merluccius productus); anchovies make up 80% of stomach contents by volume. Anchovies,\ncrustaceans and squid are also reported as the main prey items for immature fish caught in the\nwestern Pacific.\nA3-202","The distribution and preferred habitat of juveniles has already been discussed in connection\nwith migration.\nAdult\nAs already noted, bluefin reach maturity at about 5 years of age or possibly somewhat earlier.\nTheir distribution and habitat preferences have already been discussed. Prey items are squid\nand a variety of fish including anchovies (Engraulis japonica and Stolephorus zollingeri),\nherring (Etrumeus teres), pampanos (Carangidae), mackerel (Scomber spp.) and other tunas\n(Auxis spp. and Katsuwonus pelamis). In the western Pacific, Bluefin are also reported to\nassociate with schools of sardine (Sardinops melanosticta), which are probably also an\nimportant prey item.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Temperate species complex\nBluefin is caught in significant quantifies by the Hawaii-based longline fleet. The North\nPacific Transition Zone, areas off the west coast of America and off of east Asia are all\nimportant habitat areas outside of the region.\nA3-203","mackerels, other tunas\nnorth and west Pacific\noutside management\noffshore and inshore\nespecially anchovies,\nPacific to spawning\nKuroshio Current,\nand south in west\nTransition Zone\nto about 10 years\nNorth Pacific\nfish and squid,\nand sardines\nepipelagic\nAdult\nareas\narea\nNA\nJapan and north, North\nto 5 years or somewhat\ncrustaceans, especially\nto southern California\nwestern Pacific off of\nAmerican coast Baja\noutside management\noffshore and inshore\nCalifornia Current\nKuroshio Current,\nHabitat description for northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)\nPacific Transition\nTransition Zone,\nZone and off the\nNorth Pacific\nepipelagic\nfish, squid,\nanchovies\nJuvenile\narea\nNA\nless\nPhilippines to Japan\nA3-204\nKuroshio Current\nwestern Pacific,\nepipelagic\noffshore?\ncopepods\nLarvae\nweeks\nNA\nPhilippines to Japan\nKuroshio Current\nwestern Pacific,\nepipelagic\noffshore?\nNA\ndays\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nBayliff WH. 1993. Growth and age composition of northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus,\ncaught in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as estimated from length-frequency data, with\ncomments on trans-Pacific migrations. Inter Am Trop Tuna Comm Bull 20(9):503-40.\nBayliff WH. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus\nthunnus) in the Pacific Ocean. In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors.\nInteractions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries. Volume 2, Papers on biology and fisheries.\nProceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna\nFisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11; Noumea, New Caledonia. Rome: FAO. p 244-95. Fish Tech\nPap nr 336/2.\nBayliff,WH, Ishizuka Y, Deriso RB. 1991. Growth, movement and attrition of northern\nbluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in the Pacific Ocean, as determined by tagging. Inter Am\nTrop Tuna Comm Bull 20(1):1-94.\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos, and related species known to sate. FAO Species Catalogue. Volume 2, Scombrids\nof the World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 118 pp.\nHirota H, Morita M, Taniguchi N. 1976. An instance of the maturation of 3 full years old\nbluefin cultured in the floating net. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish 42(8):939.\nMiller JM. 1979. Nearshore abundance of tuna (Pisces: Scombridae) larvae in the Hawaiian\nIslands. Bull Mar Sci 29:19-26.\nUotani I, Saiot T, Hiranuma K, et al. 1990. Feeding habit of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus\nlarvae in the western North Pacific Ocean. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 56(5):713-7.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC. 26 p +\nappendices\nYabe H, Ueyanagi S. 1962. Contributions to the study of the early life history of the tunas.\nLocation: Nankai Reg Fish Res Lab. p 57-72. Occasional report nr 1.\nYabe H, Ueyanagi S, Watanabe H. 1966. Studies on the early life history of bluefin tuna\nThunnus thynnus and on the larvae of the southern bluefin tuna T. maccoyii. Rep Nankai\nReg Fish Res Lab 23:95-129.\n2.2.15 Habitat description for skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reff, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker\nA3-205","Islands Midway Island and Wake Island.\nLife History and General Description\nMajor reviews of skipjack tuna life history and distribution used in the preparation of this\ndescription include Matsumoto et al. (1984), Forsburgh (1980) and Wild and Hampton\n(1991).\nMorphological and genetic research indicate that Katsuwonis pelamis is one worldwide\nspecies, and no subspecies are recognized. Serological and genetic analysis of Pacific\npopulations has not conclusively determined the sub-population structure. The species is\ngenetically heterogeneous across the Pacific. A longitudinal variation in the esterase Est 1\ngene was argued to be discontinuous, at least in the southern hemisphere, supporting the\nargument that there are at least two sub-populations in the eastern and western Pacific (Fujino\n1972, 1976). A longitudinal cline has also been detected in Est 2 gene frequency between\n140°E and 130°W (SPC 1981). Sharp (1978) argued that there are at least five sub-\npopulations, but Ianelli (1993) consider this improbable. Richardson (1983) argues that\nskipjack exist in a series of semi-isolated \"genetic neighborhoods\" enclosing a group of\nrandomly breeding adults. However, it is difficult to reliably delimit the size and location of\nthese neighborhoods. In sum, two hypotheses are currently considered: an isolation by\ndistance model where the probability of two individuals mating is inversely proportional to\nthe distance between them at birth and a discrete sub-population model where breeding groups\nare relatively distinct. Wild and Hampton (1991) state that \"the difficulties that are\nencountered in applying either the isolation-by-distance or discrete-sub-population hypotheses\nprevent the choice of a single, descriptive model of the skipjack population at this time.\"\nSkipjack tuna are found in large schools across the tropical Pacific. They prefer warm, well-\nmixed surface waters. Barkley (1969) and Barkley et al. (1978) describe the hypothetical\nhabitat for skipjack as areas where a shallow salinity maximum occurs seasonally or\npermanently. Matsumoto et. al. (1984) describe the habitat in terms of temperature and\nsalinity: \"1) a lower temperature limit around 18°C, 2) a lower dissolved O2 level of around\n3.5 p/m, and 3) a speculative upper temperature limit, ranging from 33°C for the smallest\nskipjack tuna caught in the fishery to 20°C or less for the largest.\" These limits represent\nconstraints on activity based on available dissolved oxygen and water temperature. Wild and\nHampton (1991) suggest a minimum oxygen level of 2.45 ml/l in order to maintain basal\nswimming speed. (Since skipjack lack a swim bladder Sharp (1978) calculated that a 50 cm\nskipjack must swim 60.5 km/d just to maintain hydrodynamic stability and respiration.) A\nmaximum range is proposed as an area bounded by the 15°C or roughly between 45°N and S\nin the western Pacific and 30°N and S in the east. This range is more restricted in the eastern\nPacific due to the basin-wide current regime, which brings cooler water close to the equator in\nthe east. (See Figure 10 in Matsumoto et al. (1984) for a map of skipjack distribution.)\nWild and Hampton (1991) note the a variety of other oceanographic and biological features\ninfluence distribution, including thermocline structure, bottom topography, water\ntransparency, current systems, water masses and biological productivity. In the tropics these\nfactors may be more important in determining distribution than temperature. Temperature\nA3-206","change in sub-tropical regions affects seasonal abundance. Large-scale climatic features, of\nwhich El Niño is the most well known, also affect distribution. This primarily affects\nlocalized distribution in the eastern tropical Pacific.\nVertical distribution is generally limited by the depth profile of the temperature and oxygen\nconcentrations given as minimums above. Dizon et al. (1978) found that skipjack move\nbetween the surface and 263 m during the day but remain within 75 m of the surface at night.\nAlthough skipjack form large schools, these are not stable and often break up at night.\nTagging data indicate that school membership is not stable over time (Bayliff 1988, Hilborn\n1991). From analysis of parasite fauna, Lester et al. (1985) determine that school half-life is\nlikely to be only a few weeks.\nPre-recruits disperse from the central Pacific, arriving in the eastern Pacific at 1 to 1/2 years\nold and return to the central Pacific at 2 to 2 1/2 years old (Wild and Hampton 1991). Migrants\nto the eastern Pacific split between a northern and southern group off of Mexico and Central\nand South America respectively. Ianelli (1993) reviews three possible migration models that\nmight account for this north-south distribution. These models are based on large-scale current\npatterns in the region.\nIn the western Pacific substantial work has been carried out, although Wild and Hampton\n(1991) note that many issues have not been resolved. In some cases data indicate that there is\nrelatively little movement, particularly in the Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands area.\nThere is also evidence of an eastward migration in the Micronesian region (Mullen 1989,\nPolacheck 1990).\nA reliable means for establishing an age-length relationship does not exist. Matsumoto et al.\n(1984) estimate a maximum age for skipjack of 8-12 years based on the largest individual\ndocumented in the literature (Miyake 1968) as in 106.5-108.4 cm size class. Matsumoto et. al.\n(1984) provide an extensive review of growth estimates. Estimates for a 1-year-old are 26-41\ncm and 54-91 cm for 4-year-olds.\nSkipjack are heterosexual with a few instances of hermaphroditism being recorded. Sex ratio\nis variable: young fish have ratios dominated by females, and older fish have a higher\nproportion of males (Wild and Hampton 1991). Observations by Iversen et al. (1970) suggest\ncourtship behavior between pairs of tuna. Mating is most likely promiscuous (Matsumoto et\nal. 1984). Although relatively little has been published on the fecundity of skipjack, in the\nPacific the reported range is between 100,000 and 2 million ova for fish 43-87 cm.\nSkipjack spawn more than once in a season, but the frequency is not known. They spawn year-\nround in tropical waters and seasonally, spring to early fall, in sub-tropical areas.\nHistorically bait boats (pole-and-line) were the main gear used in catching skipjack. Since the\n1950s purse seiners have come to dominate the fishery. (Some skipjack are also caught\nincidentally by longliners targeting on yellowfin tuna.)\nA3-207","There are two major fisheries in the eastern Pacific. The most important is located east of\n100°W off of Central and South America. The northern fishery, separated by a region of low\nabundance (described above) occurs near Baja California, the Revillagigedo Islands and\nClipperton Island. In the western Pacific the fishery is diverse, occurring in the waters of a\nnumber of island nations and carried out by both small domestic fleets and distant water fleets\nfrom developed nations, primarily Japan and the US. Fishing effort is concentrated in the\nwaters around Micronesia and northern Melanesia.\n1996\n1995\n75,967\n179,104\nAmerican\nSamoa\n21,5944\n192,218\nGuam\n2,300,000\n1,700,000\nHawaii\n132,155\n105,423\nNorthern\nMariana Islands\n2,726,062\n2,178,740\nTotal\nTable 1: Commercial landings (lb.) of skipjack\ntunas in the management plan area.\nSkipjack tuna are caught throughout the management plan area by a variety of methods. The\nlargest fishery is in Hawaii utilizing bait boats. The other principle method of capture is by\ntrolling. Skipjack are also caught by longliners although they are usually not the target species.\nFor comparison, 666,834 mt of skipjack tuna were caught in the SPC statistical area in 1995.\nThe management plan area landings represent about 0.2% of this amount. A significant\namount of tuna caught outside of the management plan area is delivered to canneries in\nAmerican Samoa.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nMatsumoto et al. (1984) summarize larval development; Ueyanagi et al. (1974) is the primary\nsource. Ripe eggs are described as spherical smooth, transparent and usually containing a\nsingle yellow oil droplet. Diameter range from 0.80 to 1.135 mm. They are comparable in\nappearance to the eggs of other tunas and thus difficult to distinguish in plankton tows.\nTherefore, distribution cannot be determined although it is assumed to be coincident with\nlarval distribution since eggs hatch rapidly. Spawned eggs are buoyant and thus epipelagic.\nOnce fertilized, eggs hatch in about 1 day, depending on temperature.\nMatsumoto et al. (1984) describe the typical characteristics of larvae as \"a disproportionately\nlarge head which is bent slightly downward in relation to the body axis, the appearance of 2 or\n3 melanophores over the forebrain area when the larvae are about 7 mm long (the number of\nmelanophores increase to about 12 in larvae 14.5 mm in length), heavy pigmentation over the\nmidbrain area throughout all sizes, and the appearance of the first dorsal fin spines in larvae\nabout 7 mm long (the number increases to about 12 in larvae about 14.5 mm in length), heavy\npigmentation over the mid-brain area throughout all sizes, and the appearance of the first\nA3-208","dorsal fin spines in larvae about 7 mm long (the number of spines increase to about 13 in\nlarvae 11 mm TL).\"\nMatsumoto et al. (1984) state that the onset of the juvenile stage is evidenced by \"attainment\nof the full complement of 15 spines and 15 rays in the first and second dorsal fins,\nrespectively, and 15 rays in the anal fin \" These developments occur by the time larvae to\nreach about 12 mm, which conflicts somewhat with the earlier description of larvae up\nabout 14.5 mm. No age for this size is given but it is probably about 2-3 weeks.\nNo information was given on feeding and food, but likely food are phytoplankton and for\nlarger-sized larvae, zooplankton also.\nAs noted earlier, skipjack spawn year-round in tropical waters SO it would be expected that in\ntropical waters eggs and larvae would be present much of the time. The distribution of larvae al.\nhas been documented by Japanese research vessel net tows (Ueyanagi 1969, Nishikawa et\n1985). (See Matsumoto et al., 1984, Fig. 11 for a map of larval distribution.) Like adults,\nlarvae have a wider latitudinal distribution in the western Pacific than in the east. Kawasaki\n(1965) suggests that the center of abundance of skipjack tuna larvae in the Pacific Ocean of lies\nbetween 5°N and 4°S and 160°E and 140°W. Matsumoto (1975) later reports the center\nabundance between 160°E and 140°W but moderate between 100°W and 140°W and 120°E\nand 160°E. Areas above 20°N with relatively high larval abundance include the Hawaiian\nIslands. Klawe (1963) did not find any larvae below the mixed layer. Larvae apparently\nmigrate to the surface at night while staying deeper at night (Wild and Hampton 1991).\nWild and Hampton (1991) state that skipjack larval distribution is strongly influenced by\ntemperature. Forsbergh (1989) demonstrates that the concentration of larvae in the Pacific\napproximately doubles with each 1°C increase in SST between 24°-29°C and then begins to\ndecrease above 30°C. Matsumoto et al. (1984) present a limit for larval distribution based on\nthe 25°C isotherm. As noted above, larvae remain in the mixed layer.\nLeis et al. (1991) found particularly high concentrations of skipjack larvae near coral reefs of\nislands in French Polynesia. It may be that the more productive waters around oceanic islands\nand reefs provide preferred habitat for larval development.\nJuvenile\nMori (1972) defines juveniles as smaller than 15 cm (but above 12-15 mm as the upper limit\nfor larvae as defined by Matsumoto et al. (1984)) while young are 15-35 cm. Skipjack first\nat about 40 cm length (see below). Relatively little is known about the juvenile phase and\nspawn (especially the adolescent or pre-adult stage) since they do not turn up in plankton tows\nare too small to enter any fishery. Most have been collected from the stomachs of larger tunas\nand billfish (Wild and Hampton 1991).\nSkipjack have closely spaced gillrakers, allowing them to consume a variety of prey (Ianelli\n1993). Matsumoto et al. (1984) note that smaller skipjack tuna mainly rely on crustaceans for\nfood, presumably zooplankton.\nA3-209","No information on juvenile habitat is available although the range appears to be similar to that\nof larvae. Matsumoto et al (1984) note that the distribution in the Pacific Ocean is generally\nfrom 35°N to 35°S in the west and between 10°N and 5°S in the east. (See figure 13 in this\npublication for a distribution map based on captures.)\nNo information is available on special habitat features that affect density and abundance.\nAdult\nMatsumoto et al. (1984), reviewing a variety of sources, argue that the minimum size for\nfemale skipjack at maturity is 40 cm and initial spawning occurs between 40-45 cm. Based on\ngrowth estimates, skipjack are about 1-year-old at this size.\nSkipjack are opportunistic foragers, and an extensive range of species have been found in their\nstomachs. Matsumoto et al. (1984) document taxonomic groups found in various studies\nanalyzing stomach contents; 11 invertebrate orders and 80 or more fish families are listed. In\nthe western and central Pacific fishes are the most important prey, followed by molluscs and\ncrustaceans. Scombrids are the most important group of fish consumed by skipjack.\nExperiments with captive skipjack indicate that a intense feeding period occurs in the early\nmorning (Magnuson 1969). Despite intense feeding these fish did not immediately fill their\nstomachs; apparently they ate slowly over the entire 2-hour feeding. Fish ate about 15% of\ntheir body weight per day. In another experiment it was observed that fish feed intensively at\nfirst and then in smaller amounts throughout the day; they could not feed effectively at night;\nintroduced fish learned feeding methods from other fish that had been in the experimental\ntanks for some time; and fish never fed off the bottom of the tank (Nakamura 1965).\nIn the wild skipjack exhibit feeding peaks in the early morning and late afternoon.\nThe hypothetical habitat for skipjack tuna has already been described and the adult range\nencompasses all of the areas where earlier life stages are concentrated. Figures 56-60 in\nMatsumoto et al. (1984) provide information on the distribution of this habitat.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nEFH encompasses the whole EEZ of the management plan area in the near surface waters of\nthe mixed layer. Figure 57 in Matsumoto et al. (1984) suggests that the deepest habitat depth\nattained in the Pacific is around 300 m but in the management plan areas is probably half that\nor less. Since skipjack occur in schools, they are not distributed uniformly across the EEZ at\nany given time. However, all of these waters meet habitat criteria, and it is not possible to\ndetermine what part of this habitat is occupied at any given time, except perhaps for seasonal\nvariations in sub-tropical areas.\nWaters close to islands, banks and reefs may be areas of larval concentration and could be\nconsidered as HAPC.\nA3-210","eddies, upwelling, oceanic fronts and\n3.5 p/m dissolved O. 45°N-45°S in\nwaters. 15°-33°C maximum range.\nWarm well mixed oceanic waters.\n15°-33°C maximum range. Above\nthe west and 30°N and 30°S in the\nother areas of high productivity\nWarm well mixed upper oceanic\nhighly variable, fish, molluscs,\nAbove 3.5 p/m dissolved O-\n45°N-45°S in the west and\n30°N-30°S in the east.\npelagic, mixed layer\noffshore waters\nabove 40 cm\ncrustaceans\nAdult\nNA\neast.\nHabitat description for skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)\noceanic fronts and\neddies, upwelling,\nhigh productivity\n35°N-35°S in the\noffshore waters\n10°N-5°S in the\npelagic, mixed\nother areas of\nsimilar to adult\n15 mm-40 cm\nwest and\nJuvenile\nlayer\nNA\ndiet?\neast\nA3-211\ndecreasing above 29°C.\nFrom 24° to 29°C with\npelagic, upper mixed\npreference at higher\ndepends on adult\nto 12-15 mm (2-3\ntemperatures but\noffshore waters\npreferences\nzooplankton\nweeks?)\nLarvae\nlayer\nNA\ndepends on adult\nabundance: 5°N-\noffshore waters\n4° S and 160°\npreferences\nepipelagic\nE-140°W.\nCenter of\nspawning\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nDistribution:\nGeneral and\nFeatures\nLocation\nOceanic\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\n[SPC] South Pacific Commission. 1981. Report of the second Skipjack Survey and\nAssessment Programme workshop to review the results from genetic analysis of skipjack\nblood samples. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission. Technical report nr\n6.\nBarkley RA. 1969. Salinity maxima and the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. Bull Soc\nOceangr Special Issue:243-6.\nBarkley RA, Neill WH, Gooding RM. 1978. Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, habitat\nbased on temperature and oxygen requirements. US Fish Wildl Serv Fish Bull\n76(3):653-62.\nBayliff WH. 1988. Integrity of schools of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, in the eastern\nPacific Ocean, as determined from tagging data. Fish Bull 86(4):631-43.\nDizon AE, Brill RE, Yuen HSH. 1978. Correlations between environment, physiology, and\nactivity and the effects of thermoregulation in skipjack tuna. In: Sharp GD, Dizon AE,\neditors. The physiological ecology of tunas. New York:Academic Pr. p 233-59.\nForsbergh ED. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis\n(Linnaeus 1758), in the Pacific Ocean. In: Bayliff WH, editor. Synopses of biological data\non eight species of scombrids. La Jolla, CA: Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.\nSpecial report nr. 2.\nForsbergh ED. 1989. The influence of some environmental variables on the apparent\nabundance of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Inter-Am\nTrop Tuna Comm Bull 19(6):433-569.\nFujino K. 1972. Range of the skipjack tuna subpopulation in the western Pacific Ocean. In:\nProceedings of the Second Symposium on the Results of the Cooperative Study of the\nKuroshio and Adjacent Regions, The Kurshio II; 1970 Sep 28-Oct 1; Tokyo. Tokyo:\nSaikon Publ. p 373-84.\nFujino K. 1976. Subpopulation identification of skipjack tuna specimens from the\nsouthwestern Pacific Ocean. Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish 42:1229-35. (In Japanese.)\nHilborn R. 1991. Modeling the stability of fish schools-exchange of individual fish between\nschools of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(6):1081-91.\nIanelli JN. 1993. Studies on the population structure of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, in\nthe central and eastern Pacific Ocean [dissertation]. Seattle: University of Washington. 213\np.\nA3-212","Iversen RTB, Nakamura EL, Gooding RM. 1970. Courting behavior in skipjack tuna,\nKatusownus pelamis. FAO Fish Rep 62(3):849-59.\nKawasaki T. 1965. Ecology and dynamics of the skipjack population. Part I, Classification,\ndistribution and ecology. Jpn Fish Resour Prot Assoc Stud Ser 8:1-48. (In Japanese.)\nKlawe WL. 1963. Observations on the spawning of four species of tuna, Neothunnus\nmacropterus, Katsuwonus pelamis, Auxis thazard and Euthynnus lineatus, in the eastern\nPacific Ocean, based on the distribution of their larvae and juveniles. Inter-Am TropTuna\nComm Bull 6(9):447-540.\nLeis JM, Trnski T, Harmelin-Vivien M, Renon JP, Dufour V, El Moudni MK, Galzin R. of\n1991. High concentrations of tuna larvae (Pisces- Scombridae) in near-reef waters\nFrench Polynesia (Society and Tuamotu Islands). Bull Mar Sci 48(1):150-8.\nLester RJG, Barnes A, Habib G. 1985. Parasites of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus\npelamis-fishery implications. Fish Bull 83(3):343-56.\nMagnuson JJ. 1969. Digestion and food consumption by skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis).\nTrans Am Fish Soc 98:379-92.\nMatsumoto WM. 1975. Distribution, relative abundance and movement of skipjack tuna,\nKatsuwonus pelamis, in the Pacific Ocean based on Japanese tuna longline catches,\n1964-67. Washington: NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS SSRF.\nMatsumoto WM, Skillman RA, Dizon AE. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on skipjack\ntuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. Washington: NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS circular 451\nand FAO fisheries synopsis nr 136.\nMiyake MP. 1968. Distribution of skipjack in the Pacific Ocean, based on records of\nincidental catches by the Japanese longline tuna fishery. Inter-Am Trop Tuna Comm Bull\n12:509-608. (In English and Spanish.)\nMori K. 1972. Geographical distribution and relative apparent abundance of some scombrid\nfishes based on the occurrences in the stomachs of apex predators caught on tuna longline.\nPart I, Juvenile and young of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Far Seas Fish Res Lab\nBull 6:111-57. (In Japanese.)\nMullen AJ. 1989. Mobility of Tuna. Mar Policy 13(1):77-8.\nNakamura IL. 1965. Food and feeding habits of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) from the\nMarquesas and Tuamotu Islands. Trans Am Fish Soc 94:236-42.\nNishikawa Y, Honna M, Ueyanagi S, Kikawa S. 1985. Average distribution of larvae of\noceanic species of scombroid fishes, 1956-1981. Far Sas Fish Res Lab. 99 p. S series nr\n12.\nA3-213","Polacheck T. 1990. Another perspective on the need for international skipjack and yellowfin\ntuna management. Mar Policy 14(6):526-9.\nRichardson BJ. 1983. Distribution of protein variation in skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)\nfrom the central and south-western Pacific. Aust J Mar Freshwat Res 34(2):231-51.\nSharp GD. 1978. Behavioral and physiological properties of tuna and their effects on\nvulnerability to fishing gear. In: Sharp GD, Dizon AE, editors. The physiological ecology\nof tunas. New York: Academic Pr. p 397-449.\nUeyanagi S. 1969. Observations on the distribution of tuna larvae in the Indo-Pacific Ocean\nwith emphasis on the delineation of the spawning areas of albacore, Thunnus alalunga.\nFar Seas Fish Res Lab Bull 2:177-256.\nUeyanagi S, Nishikawa Y, Matsuokoa T. 1974. Artificial fertilization and larval 10:179-88. development (In\nof skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. Bull Far Seas Fish Res Lab Shimizu\nJapanese.)\nWild A, Hampton J. 1991. A review of the biology and fisheries for skipjack tuna,\nKatsuwonus pelamis, in the Pacific Ocean. In: Papers on biology and fisheries.\nProceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna\nFisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11; Noumea, New Caledonia. Rome: FAO.\n2.2.16 Habitat Description for kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island,\nHowland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nmain sources for this description were the review documents Yesaki (1994), Collette and\nThe Nauen (1983) and Yoshida (1979). Both Yesaki and Yoshida contain extensive reference lists;\nin general those references are not re-cited here.\nThe Euthynnus is a member of the Thunni tribe of the subfamily Scombrinae. from There the are\nthree genus species in the genus. Of the other two species, Euthynnus lineatus is reported\nAmerican west coast from southern California to Peru and Hawaii but is not a management\nunit species. For kawakawa no sub-species are recognized and no information is reported on\nstock separation.\nKawakawa is an epipelagic neritic species, mainly of the west and south Asian and east\nAfrican continental margin. It is found throughout the archepelagic waters of Southeast but Asia it\nto northern Australia. Most reports emphasize its association with continental margins,\nA3-214","also occurs around oceanic islands and island archipelagoes. Strays have also been reported\nfrom the American continental margin. Generally, its distribution is tropical-subtropical\nbetween 35°N and 35°S. In Hawaiian waters, kawakawa are reportedly confined to the 20-30\nfm (36.5-54.8 m) contour. Trolling studies in Thailand indicate that kawakawa are most\ncommonly taken in the outer neritic zone (50-200 m depth) with almost none caught in\ndeeper waters. Fish of 20-40 cm are more common in the inner neritic zone (less than 50 m\ndepth) and apparently move into deeper water after 50 cm (Yesaki 1982). In Japan and Hong\nKong favorable habitat characteristics include relatively low salinity (31.22 to 33.80 ppt in\nJapan, as low as 26 ppt during the monsoon in Hong Kong) and higher productivity either due\nto upwelling or estuarine influence. However, kawakawa are not found in brackish (i.e., very\nlow salinity) water. The species has a relatively wide temperature range, 18°-29°C according\nto Collette and Nauen (1983) or 14°-29°C for Hong Kong waters as reported by Williamson\n(1970).\nSeasonality in landings is reported throughout the kawakawa's range, although generally it is\nnot strong. However, no definitive migration pattern is reported. Kawakawa tend to form\nmixed schools, co-occurring with other tunas including yellowfin (Thunnus albacares),\nskipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and the frigate tuna (Auxis thazard). It also schools with the\ncarangid Megalaspis cordyla. Juveniles are commonly preyed upon by yellowfin and\nskipjack, and Yesaki (1994) suggests that all these species are probably competitors.\nYesaki (1994) reviews age and growth studies for kawakawa and concludes that \"studies of\nkawakawa completed to date give conflicting results\" (p 392). Lengths at age based on these\nstudies rang from 19-47 cm for 1-year-olds, 41-65 cm for 2-year-olds and 41- -72 cm for 3-\nyear-olds. The range in growth parameters given are K 0.37-0.96 (with an outlier of 2.23), L)\n59.5-81.0 cm and to -0.15 and -0.344 (only two studies reported this parameter). Yesaki\n(1994) emphasizes that all studies suggest rapid growth during the juvenile stage. Maximum\nage for the species is 5 or 6 years. The largest specimen reported by Yoshida (1979) is 87 cm\nand 8.6 kg although specimens over 100 cm have reportedly been taken from Japanese waters.\nKawakawa are heterosexual, and sexual dimorphism is not reported. Fecundity estimates\nrange from 202 to 2.5 million eggs. Kawakawa apparently spawn inshore based on captures\nof larval fish. Yesaki (1994) states that they are widely but very patchily distributed and\ngenerally taken close to land masses. Larvae are reported from Hawaii and French Polynesia,\nindicating spawning around oceanic islands where they occur, but the highest concentrations\nof larvae are found off of Australia, Java, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the\nRyukyu Islands of southern Japan. According to Yesaki (1994) there are two spawning\nseasons in the tropics, a main season in the first half of the year and a secondary season in the\nlatter half.\nTotal landings for kawakawa throughout its range are reported at 122,893 mt in 1989. The\nPhilippines generally reports the highest landings, and in 1989 they were 57,899 mt, or close\nto half total landings. Kawakawa are captured by a variety of gear in coastal fisheries\nincluding troll, gillnet, purse seine and ringnet. In general they are part of multi-species,\nsmall-pelagic coastal fisheries that are most intense in the Southeast Asian Indo-Pacific.\nA3-215","Kawakawa is not an important commercial species in the western Pacific region. In Hawaii,\nlandings of kawakawa are lumped in the \"miscellaneous pelagics\" category based on inshore longline\nlogbook reports. However, it is likely that kawakawa are more commonly caught by\nsmall boat fishermen. However, these landings do not appear in the Council's annual report.\nGuam reported 1996 landings of 4,043 lb (1,833.87 kg), but gear type is not specified;\nAmerican Samoa reported 225 lb (102.10 kg), all troll caught (WPRFMC 1997). In\ncomparison to total commercial landings in the western Pacific region or total landings of\nkawakawa throughout its range it can be seen that landings of kawakawa in the Council's\nmanagement area are negligible.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\ndistribution of eggs and larvae has already been discussed in connection with spawning.\nThe There is little information about kawakawa eggs. Reported egg diameter from one study are\n0.85-0.95 mm. Yoshida (1979) provides an extensive treatment of egg and larval\ndevelopment. Eggs take less than 24 hours to hatch.\nThe key descriptive paper on kawakawa larvae is Matsumoto (1958). The transition from\nlarval to juvenile stage occurs between 10 and 20 mm. No information on larval diet is of given the\nin the literature. As already noted, eggs and larvae are found close inshore. At the end\njuvenile stage fish move offshore, although adults are still found in the neritic environment.\nJuvenile\nYenagi (1994), summarizing various studies, states that kawakawa reach maturity at about As 38\ncm. Based at length at age estimates this would correspond to about a 1-year-old fish.\nalready noted, adult and juvenile kawakawa do not differ markedly in habitat.\nAdult\nand growth have already been discussed. Kawakawa are opportunistic feeders; according\nAge to Yoshida (1979) \"these fishes feed primarily on whatever is available at any particular place 17\nand time.\" He gives an extensive list of prey items, based on earlier studies. In excess of\nkinds of fish, some only identified to family or genus, are listed as well as various\ncephalopods (squid) and crustaceans.\nHabitat has already been discussed. As Yoshida (1979) points out for the genus as a whole,\nthey \"are generally coastal fishes and judging from the distribution of the various life stages of\nthese species, the entire life cycle is completed within the coastal province.\"\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nThe neritic environment can be considered EFH for this species. All of the review articles\nused in preparing this description contain a variety of distribution maps.\nA3-216","highly opportunistic\nunknown/coastal\ncoastal-neritic\nepipelagic\n5-6 years\ninshore\nAdult\nNA\nunknown/coastal\nsimilar to adult\nto about 1 year\ncoastal-neritic\nHabitat Description for kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis)\nepipelagic\nJuvenile\ninshore\nNA\nA3-217\nunknown/coastal\ncoastal-neritic\nepipelagic\nunknown\ninshore\nLarvae\nweeks\nNA\nunknown/coastal\ncoastal-neritic\nepipelagic\n24 hours\ninshore\nNA\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of bonitos, and Related\nSpecies known to date. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 2 Scombrids of the world. Rome:\nFood and Agriculture Organization. 118 p.\nMatsumoto WM. 1958. Description and distribution of larvae of four species of tuna in central\nPacific waters. Fish Bull 58(128):31-72.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC. 26 p +\nappendices.\nWilliamson GR. 1970. Little tuna Euthynnus affinis in the Hong Kong area. Bull Jap Soc Sci\nFish 36:9-18.\nYesaki M. 1982. Thailand. Biological and environmental observations. A report prepared for\nthe Pole-and-Line Tuna Fishing in Southern Thailand Project. Rome: Food and\nAgriculture Organization. 46 p. Report nr FI:DP/THA/77/008.\nYesaki M. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) in\nthe Indo-Pacific region. In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors. Interactions of\nPacific Tuna Fisheries. Volume 2, Papers on biology and fisheries. Proceedings of the\nFirst FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11;\nNoumea, New Caledonia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Association. p 409-39. FAO\nfisheries technical paper nr 336/2.\nYoshida HO. 1979. Synopsis of biological data on tunas of the genus Euthynnus. Washington:\nNOAA (NMFS). 57 p. NOAA technical report nr NMFS Circular 429 (FAO Fisheries\nSynopsis nr 122).\n2.2.17 Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nVery little is known about the biology of dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor), although it is\nwidely distributed throughout much of the Indo-Pacific faunal region, from the Red Sea\neastward to French Polynesia (Collette and Nauen 1983). This species is not found in the\nHawaiian Islands, although fishermen do refer to catches of the meso-pelagic snake mackerel\n(Gempylidae) as \"dogtooths.\"\nA3-218","G. unicolor is an epipelagic species, usually found individually or in small schools of six or\nless (Lewis et al. 1983). Dogtooth tuna are found in deep lagoons and passes, shallow\npinnacles and off outer-reef slopes (Collette and Nauen, 1983). It occurs in mid-water, from\nthe surface to depths of approximately 100 m, and has a preference for water temperatures\nranging from 20° to 28°C.\nG. unicolor is one of the few species of tuna that is found primarily in association with coral\nreefs (Amesbury and Myers 1982) and probably occupies a niche similar to other reef-\nassociated pelagic predators such as Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus spp) and queenfish\n(Scomberoides spp). Like the Spanish mackerels, large dogtooth tunas can become ciguatoxic\nfrom preying on coral reef herbivores, which themselves have become toxic through ingestion\nof the dinoflagellate, Gambierdiscus toxicus (Myers 1989).\nA positive correlation between size and depth has been observed in the distribution of this\nspecies based on limited information from Tuvalu, with larger individuals being found at\nprogressively greater depths (Haight 1998). This species reportedly reaches a maximum size\nof 150 cm FL and 80 kg (Lewis et al. 1983).\nObservations from Fiji suggest that dogtooth tuna obtain sexual maturity at approximately 65\ncm (Lewis et al. 1983), while Silas (1963) reported a partially spent 68.5-cm male dogtooth\ntuna from the Andaman Islands. Females outnumbered males by nearly 2:1 in Fiji, and all fish\nlarger than 100 cm were females, suggesting sexual size dimorphism in this species (Lewis et\nal. 1983). Lewis et al (1983) suggest that the vulnerability of female dogtooth tuna to trolling\ndeclines as the fish approach spawning condition.\nIn Fiji, spawning reportedly occurs during the summer months, i.e., between October and\nMarch (Lewis et al. 1983). Dunstan (1961) observed spawning dogtooth tuna in Papua New\nGuinea during March, August and December, and various other authors (Silas 1963) have\nprovided some evidence of summer spawning for this species. Okiyama and Ueyangi (1977)\nnote that the larvae of dogtooth tuna occurs over a wide area of the tropical and subtropical\nPacific Ocean, between 10°N and 20°S, with concentrations along the shallow coastal waters\nof islands, such as the Caroline Islands, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Dogtooth larvae were\ncollected in surface and subsurface tows, with greater numbers in the sub-surface tows at\ndepths between 20-30m. Older, better-developed larvae appear to make diurnal vertical\nmigrations, rising to the surface during the night. On the basis of larval occurrence throughout\nthe year, Okiyama and Ueyangi (1977) postulate year round spawning in tropical areas.\nThere are no fisheries specifically directed at dogtooth tuna in the western Pacific region. The\nprimary means of capture include pole and line, handlines and surface trolling (Severance\n1998, pers. comm; Collette and Nauen 1983). Dogtooth tuna have been sold in local markets\nin American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, but currently has little market value\n(Severance 1998, pers. comm.).\nDogtooth tuna are voracious predators, feeding on a variety of squids, reef herbivores such as\ntangs and unicorn fish (Acanthuridae), small schooling pelagic species including fusiliers\n(Caesio spp) and roundscads (Decapterus) (Myers 1989).\nA3-219","Essential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nDogtooth tuna are unique among the family Scombridae in having a such a close association\nwith coral reefs, although they are also found around rocky reefs in higher latitudes such as in\nKorea and Japan (Myers 1989). Within the western Pacific region, waters on and adjacent to\ncoral reefs down to a depth of about 100 m should designated EFH for this species.\nA3-220","lagoons and passes, shallow pinnacles\nthey are also found around rocky reefs\nmid-water, from the surface to depths\nDogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor)\nPolynesia. This species is not found in\nis widely distributed throughout much\nand unicorn fish (Acanthuridae), small\nassociation with coral reefs, although\nand off outer-reef slopes It occurs in\nfusiliers (Caesio spp) and roundscads\nthe Hawaiian Islands. Dogtooth tuna\nScombridae in having a such a close\nG. unicolor is an epipelagic species.\nof approximately 100 m, and has a\nsquids, reef herbivores such as tangs\nof the Indo-Pacific region, from the\npreference for water temperatures\nschooling pelagic species including\nDogtooth tuna are found in deep\npredators, feeding on a variety of\nare unique among the family\nranging from 20° to 28°C.\nRed Sea eastward to French\nDogtooth tuna are voracious\nin higher latitudes\n(Decapterus)\nUnknown\nUnknown\nN/A\nAdult\nHabitat Description for Dogtooth Tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor)\nDogtooth tuna obtain sexual maturity\nUnknown, unlikely to be different\nUnknown, unlikely to be different\nat approximately 65 cm\nUnknown\nepipelagic\nfrom adult\nfrom adult\nA3-221\nJuvenile\nN/A\nlarvae were collected in surface and\nnumbers in the sub-surface tows at\nover a wide area of the tropical and\nsubtropical Pacific Ocean, between\nThe larvae of dogtooth tuna occurs\nconcentrations along the shallow\ncoastal waters of islands, such as\nLarvae subject to advection by\nIslands and Vanuatu. Dogtooth\nthe Caroline Islands, Solomon\nsubsurface tows, with greater\ndepths between 20-30m\n10° N and 20°S, with\nprevailing currents\nepipelagic\nUnknown\nN/A\nLarvae\nEggs subject to\nadvection by\nprevailing\nepipelagic\ncurrents\nUnknown\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution\nFeatures\nOceanic\nBottom\nColumn\n: General\nSeasonal\nDuration\nWater\nType\nand\nDiet","Bibliography\nAmesbury SS, Myers RF. 1982. Guide to the Coastal Resources of Guam. Volume 1, The\nfishes. University of Guam Marine Laboratory. Contribution nr 173.\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos, and related species known to date. FAO Species Catalogue. Volume 2,\nScombrids of the world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 118 p.\nDunstan DJ. 1961. Trolling results of F/RV Tagula in Papua waters. Papua New Guin\nAgric J 13 (4):148-56\nHaight WR. 1998. NMFS/JIMAR, Honolulu Laboratory. Unpublished data.\nLewis AD, Chapman LB, Sesewa A. 1983. Biological notes on coastal pelagics fishes in\nFiji. Suva, Fiji: Fisheries Division (MAF). Technical report nr 4.\nMyers RF. 1989. Micronesian reef fishes. Coral Graphics. 298 p.\nOkiyama M, Ueyangi S. 1977. Larvae and juvenile of the Indo-Pacific dogtooth tuna,\nGymnodarda unicolor (Ruppell). Bull Far Seas Fish Lab 15:35-49.\n2.2.18 Habitat Description for Moonfish (Lampris guttatus): Opah or Moonfish\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nAmerican Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), Northwestern Hawaiian Islands\n(NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), Johnston Atoll, Kingman\nReef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nFor management purposes, opah are generally classified under the miscellaneous pelagics. In\nthe Hawaii-based longline fishery, miscellaneous pelagics make up only a small portion of\ntotal revenue; however, revenue from this group (led by moonfish) has increased for the three\nmost consecutive years of data (1994-96). Opah landings have increased consistently from\n1992 to a high of 760,000 lbs in 1996 averaging 0.52 fish/1000 hooks set; mean ex-vessel\nprice 1987-96 (based on whole weight) was $1.07/lb (Ito and Machado 1997).\nLife History and General Description:\nThe opah, also commonly known as moonfish, are not a target species in any fishery and as a\nresult, very limited biological and ecological information pertaining to the species is currently\navailable in the published literature. Opah was, however, a common incidental take in the now\ndefunct Asian high-seas driftnet fisheries and is a common bycatch in pelagic longline\nA3-222","fisheries targeting tunas and swordfish and to a lesser degree in U.S. coastal albacore and\nsalmon fisheries. On Japanese research cruises to waters east of Hawaii and to the equatorial\neastern Pacific, mean catch rate for opah was 0.98 and 0.57 fish/hooks, respectively.\nOpah are typically found well offshore in temperate and tropical waters of all the world's\noceans, including the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas (Russo 1981, Heemstra 1986). In\nthe Hawaii-based longline fishery where nearly 5000 opah are landed each year, catches and\ncatch rates for the species tend to be highest within the 200 mile EEZ around the main\nHawaiian Islands as compared to more distant waters offshore (outside the EEZ) or in the EEZ\naround the atolls and islets that comprise the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Ito and\nMachado 1997). Off the coast of Europe, Orkin (1950) reported opah to be often taken in 183\nm (100 fathoms) near the edge of the Continental Shelf.\nThrough the water column, opah reportedly inhabit waters from the surface to the lower\nepipelagial-mesopelagio in excess of 500 m (Miller and Lea 1972, Nakano et al. 1997). On\nlonglines set in the morning and retrieved during the afternoon-evening, opah were among\nspecies that are caught more frequently as the depth of the fished hooks increased; i.e., higher\ncatch rates at deeper depths (Nakano et al. 1997). Regular captures in high seas driftnets set\nin the evening and retrieved in the morning provide evidence that opah frequent waters within\n10 m of the surface at night (Seki, in prep). Because captures in driftnets took place\nexclusively in the northern Transition Zone, it is still not clear whether this species exhibits\ndiel vertical migration or more likely exhibit broad horizontal migrations and/or distributions\nwithin a preferential temperature range. In the northeast Atlantic, opah move northward into\nthe waters of the North Sea and off Norway in the summer (Muus and Dahlstrom 1974).\nOpah catch around Hawaii is usually highest in the fourth quarter of the calendar year (Ito and\nMachado 1987).\nOpah are generally solitary fish (Orkin 1950, Palmer 1986) and attains 185 cm in length and\nreportedly reach 227-282 kg in weight (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, Palmer 1986). Mean whole\nweight of opah taken in the Hawaii-based longline fishing fleet (1991-96) was 47.4 kg (104.5\nlbs) (Ito and Machado 1997). Little to no information is available on spawning habits, age, or\ngrowth or migrations. A single large female caught in the early spring off the west coast of\nNorth America appeared to be nearly ready to spawn suggesting that spawning probably takes\nplace during the spring months (Fitch and Lavenberg 1968). Off Scotland, ovaries in a 137\ncm (4.5 gravid female measured 290x70 mm and 240x70 mm and weighed 276 and 255\ngrams, respectively. The largest ova measured 0.82 mm in diameter (Herald 1939). Opah\neggs and larvae are pelagic; larvae range from less that 4.7 mm to 10.5 mm at which size fin\nray development is complete and juveniles resemble miniature adults in form (Olney 1984).\nSize at maturity is not known.\nAs adults, opah are midwater predators that feed on cephalopods (particularly oceanic squid),\nbony fishes (small pelagics) and to a lesser extent, crustaceans (Orkin 1950, Fitch 1951,\nMcKenzie and Tibbo 1963, Eschmeyer et al. 1983, Heemstra 1986). Predators of opah are not\nknown; no information is available on the diet and trophic relationships of larvae or juveniles.\nA3-223","and tropical waters of all the\nmidwater predators that feed\n(particularly oceanic squid),\nbony fishes (small pelagics)\n(1950) reported opah to be\nwell offshore in temperate\noften taken in 183 m (100\nfathoms) near the edge of\nworld's oceans, including\nOpah are typically found\nthe Mediterranean and\nCaribbean Seas. Orkin\nthe Continental Shelf.\nSize at maturity is not\nand to a lesser extent,\nAs adults, opah are\non cephalopods\nNot known\ncrustaceans\nepipelagic\nknown\nAdult\nN/A\nHabitat Description for Moonfish (Lampris guttatus): Opah or Moonfish\nSize at maturity is not\nNot known, unlikely\ndiffernet from adults\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nJuvenile\nknown\nN/A\nLarvae subject to advection\nA3-224\nby prevailing currents\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nNot known\nLarvae\nN/A\nEggs subject to advection\nby prevailing currents\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nNot known\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nFitch, J.E. 1951. Studies and notes on some California marine fishes. Calif. Fish Game\n37(2):111-120.\nHeemstra, P. C. 1986. Family No. 117. Lampridae. In M. M. Smith and P. C. Heemstra\n(editors). Smiths' Sea Fishes, p. 398, Springer-Verlag.\nIto, R. Y. and W. A. Machado. 1997. Annual report of the Hawaii-based longline fishery H- for\n1996. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, SW Fish. Sci. Ctr. Honolulu Lab. Admin. Rep.\n97-12, 48p.\nMcKenzie, R. A. and S. N. Tibbo. 1963. An occurrence of opah, Lampris regius\n(Bonnaterre), in the Northwest Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 20(4): 1097-1099.\nMiller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine added fishes 1976). of California. Calif.\nDep. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 157. 249 p. (addendum\nMuus, B. J. and P. Dahlstrom. 1974. Collins guide to the sea fishes of Britain and\nnorthwestern Europe. Collins, St. James Place, London, U.K. 244 p.\nNakano, H., M. Okazaki, and H. Okamoto. 1997. Analysis of catch depth by species for 34:43- tuna\nlongline fishery based on catch by branch lines. Bull. Nat. Res. Inst. Far Seas Fish.\n62.\nOlney, J.E. 1984. Lampriformes: development and relationships. In H. G. Moser, W.J\nRichards, D. M. Cohen, M. P. Fahay, A. W. Kendall, Jr., and S. L. Richardson (editors),\nOntogeny and systematics of fishes. pp. 368-379. Am. Soc. Ichthyol. Herpetol., Spec.\nPubl. 1.\nOrkin, P.A. 1950. A history of the opah, Lampris guttatus (Brünnich). Scottish Naturalist\n62(3):129-141.\nPalmer, G. 1986. Lampridae. In P. J. P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielson,\nand E. Tortonese (editors), Fishes of the western North Atlantic and the Mediterranean,\nVol. 2, pp. 725-726, UNESCO, Paris, France.\nRusso, J. L. 1981. Field guide to fishes commonly taken in longline operations in the western\nNorth Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circular 435, 50 p.\nSeki, M. P., Manuscr. in prep. Fishery atlas of the North Pacific high seas driftnet fisheries.\nNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southwest Fish. Sci. Center Honolulu\nLaboratory, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396.\nA3-225","2.2.19 Habitat Description for Oilfish Family (Gempylidae): the escolar (Lepidocybium\nflavobrunneum) and the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus)\nManagement Plan and Area:\nAmerican Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), Northwestern Hawaiian Islands\n(NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), Johnston Atoll, Kingman Wake\nReef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland and Baker Islands and\nIslands.\nIn the Pacific, several species of snake mackerels (Family Gempylidae) are caught in pelagic\nfisheries. Of particular interest are the two most commonly taken in western Pacific longline\nfisheries: the escolar, Lepidocybium flavobrunneum, and the oilfish, Ruvettus pretiosus. For\nmanagement purposes, the escolor and oilfish are generally classified under the miscellaneous\npelagics.\nLife History and General Description:\nNeither species of snake mackerel is a target species in any fishery and as a result, very\nlimited biological and ecological information pertaining to the species is currently incidental available in\nthe published literature. Both species were, however, among the more common in\ntakes in the now defunct Asian high-seas driftnet fisheries and are a common bycatch\npelagic longline fisheries targeting tunas and swordfish. On Japanese research cruises to\nwaters east of Hawaii, mean catch rate for escolar was 0.98 fish/1000 hooks; no oilfish were\ncaught (Nakano et al. 1997). In two areas off the west coast of Africa, escolar catches were\n0.20 and 0.17 fish/1000 hooks (Maksimov 1970). Between the two snake mackerel species,\nthe escolar is more frequently caught and possesses the greater commercial value.\nExcessively high oil content in the flesh of the oilfish renders the species unpalatable as a\nfood fish but historically has possessed value as a laxative (Fitch and Schultz 1978).\nBoth the escolar and the oilfish are widely distributed, typically found over the continental\nslope and offshore in all tropical and subtropical waters of the world's oceans but is\napparently nowhere abundant (Parin 1986). In a commercial scale fishing effort conducted in in\nPacific, catch rates were highest where topographic relief was steepest, namely\nthe the western vicinity of shoals, reefs, and seamounts (Nishikawa and Warashina 1988).\nThrough the water column, escolar inhabit epipelagic waters from the surface to about 200 m,\noilfish to the lower epipelagial-mesopelagic in excess of 700 m (Parin 1978, Nakano et al.\n1997). In the vicinity of New Caledonia and New Hebrides, Fourmanoir (1970) reported\ncatching escolar (74.3 to 91.8 cm SL) while fishing at depths of 110 to 195 m. Nakano et al.\n(1997) found similar catch rates for escolar throughout the water column and concluded no\nclear trend in escolar depth of capture. Escolar are also believed to vertically migrate upward\nat night to feed on pelagic fishes, crustaceans and especially squids (Nakamura and Parin\n1993). Captures in high seas driftnets set in the evening and retrieved in the morning provide\nevidence that both the escolar and oilfish frequent waters within 10 m of the surface at night\nA3-226","(Seki, in prep). Oilfish are typically solitary or in pairs when near the bottom. Like the\nescolar, oilfish feed predominantly on squids, also fishes and crustaceans (Parin 1986,\nNakamura and Parin 1993). Predators of juvenile escolar include yellowfin and albacore tuna,\nswordfish, and other escolars (Fourmanoir 1970, Maksimov 1970). Predators of adult escolar\nand oilfish are not known.\nLittle information is available on other life history aspects. From length frequencies,\nMaksimov (1970) concluded that escolar females grew faster than males but no ages were\nassigned. Based on the capture of larvae and juvenile stages of escolar, spawning seems to\ntake place in the vicinity of oceanic islands or the coasts of large islands (Nishikawa 1982,\n1987). Nishikawa (1982) also found all postlarvae forms of escolar were taken in horizontal\nsubsurface net tows while all juveniles were caught at the surface suggesting differential\nontogenetic habitats. In a similar pattern, oilfish were collected near topography particularly\nin warm waters of the western Pacific (Nishikawa 1987).\nEscolar attain about 200 cm SL , most commonly to 150 cm (Nakamura and Parin 1993).\nNakamura and Parin (1993) reports escolar weigh 6.5 kg at 77 cm SL (89 cm TL) and 13 kg at\n91 cm SL (105 cm TL). Nishikawa and Warashina (1988) reported the relationship between\nbody (fork) length (FL) and weight (in kg) for escolar as:\n(n=46, 59-95 cm FL).\nW = 1.46x10-5 FL2.96\nA3-227","epipelagial-mesopelagic in\n200 m, oilfish to the lower\ndistributed, typically found\nand offshore in all tropical\nover the continental slope\nand subtropical waters of\ninhabit epipelagic waters\nfrom the surface to about\nthe world's oceans but is\nepipelagic, Through the\nBoth the escolar and the\nFeed predominantly on\nwater column, escolar\nsquids, also fishes and\napparently nowhere\noilfish are widely\nexcess of 700\nNot known\ncrustaceans.\nNot known\nabundant\nN/A\nAdult\nepipelagic, juveniles are\nsuggesting differential\nontogenetic habitats.\ncaught at the surface\nNot known, unlikely\ndifferent than adults\nHabitat Description for Oilfish Family (Gempylidae)\nNot known\nNot known\nNot known\nJuvenile\nN/A\noceanic islands or the coasts\njuvenile stages of escolar,\nadvection be prevailing\nepipelagic, based on the\nspawning seems to take\nA3-228\nplace in the vicinity of\nLarvae are subject to\ncapture of larvae and\nof large islands\nNot known\nNot known\nNot known\ncurrents\nLarvae\nN/A\nadvection be prevailing\nEggs are subject to\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nNot known\ncurrents\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nFitch, J. E. and S. A. Schultz. 1978. Some rare and unusual occurrences of fishes off\nCalifornia and Baja California. Calif. Fish and Game 64(2):74-92.\nFourmanoir, P. 1970. Notes ichtyologiques (II). 3. Distribution de Lepidocybium\nflavobrunneum Smith (1849) prés de la Nouvelle-Calédonie: (Gempylidae).\nO.R.S.T.O.M., sér. Océnogr., 8(3):43-45.\nMaksimov, V.P. 1970. Some data on the biology of Lepidocybium blavobrunneum (Smith)\nin the eastern Atlantic. Voprosy Ikhtiologii, Acad. Sci. USSR, 10(1):40-45. [English\ntranslation, Scripta Technica, Inc.]\nNakamura, I., and N. V. Parin. 1993. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 15. Snake mackerels and\ncutlassfishes of the world (Families Gempylidaeand Trichiuridae). FAO Fish. Synopsis\n(125), vol. 15, 136 p.\nNakano, H., M. Okazaki, and H. Okamoto. 1997. Analysis of catch depth by species for tuna\nlongline fishery based on catch by branch lines. Bull. Nat. Res. Inst. Far Seas Fish. 34:43-\n62.\nNishikawa, Y. 1982. Early development of the fishes of the family Gempylidae. I. Larvae\nand juveniles of escolar, Lepidocybium flavobrunneum (Smith). Bull. Far Seas Fish. Res.\nLab., (19):1-14.\nNishikawa, Y. and I. Warashina. 1988. Escolar, Lepidocybium flavobrunneum (Smith),\ncommercially fished in waters adjacent to the Pacific coast of Japan. Bull. Fra Seas Fish.\nRes. Lab., (25):145-162.\nParin, N. V. 1986. Gempylidae. In P. J. P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J.\nNielson, and E. Tortonese (editors), Fishes of the western North Atlantic and the\nMediterranean, Vol. 2, pp. 967-973, UNESCO, Paris, France.\nSeki, M. P., Manuscr. in prep. Fishery atlas of the North Pacific high seas driftnet fisheries.\nNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southwest Fish. Sci. Center Honolulu\nLaboratory, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396.\n2.2.20 Habitat Description for Pomfret (family Bramidae): the sickle pomfret (Taractichthys\nsteindachneri) and the lustrous pomfret (Eumegistus illustris)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI),\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands\n(NMI), Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker\nIslands, Midway Island, and Wake Islands.\nA3-229","In the Pacific, several species of pomfret (Family Bramidae) are caught in pelagic fisheries.\nOf particular interest is the sickle pomfret, Taractichthys steindachneri, the species most\ncommonly taken in western Pacific longline fisheries and the lustrous pomfret, Eumegistus\nillustris, caught both in the longline fishery and in the deep bottomfish snapper fishery. For\nmanagement purposes, both the sickle and lustrous pomfret are generally classified under the\nmiscellaneous pelagics and marketed commercially as \"monchong\".\nLife History and General Description:\nNeither species of pomfret is a target species in any fishery and as a result, very limited\nbiological and ecological information pertaining to the species is currently available. Pacific Both\nspecies, as mentioned above however, are common incidental bycatch in western\nfisheries.\nAdult and juvenile (30-150 mm SL) sickle pomfret are widely distributed in the tropical\nwaters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans (Mead 1972). Lustrous pomfret are also known from in\nthe tropical Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean but unlike other bramids, are typically found\nassociation with topography (e.g., near islands and over seamounts or submarine ridges)\n(Mead 1972, Prut'ko 1986, Chave and Mundy 1994).\nThrough the water column, sickle pomfret inhabit epipelagic waters to at least 300 m (Nakano\net al. 1997). On longlines set in the morning and retrieved during the afternoon-evening,\nsickle pomfret were among the species that are caught more frequently as the depth of the\nfished hooks increased; i.e., higher catch rates at deeper depths (Nakano et al. 1997). Most of\nthe lustrous pomfrets caught in exploratory deep water bottomfishing at seamounts off Hawaii\nwere taken in depths less than 549 m (300 fathoms); no pomfret were caught at seamounts\nwhen the summit exceeded 457 m (250 fathoms) (Okamoto 1982).\nThere are no descriptions of food or feeding habits of the sickle pomfret. A single stomach\ncollected by a NMFS research cruise contained a pelagic squid, Moroteuthis spp. (NMFS,\nunpubl.) Lustrous pomfret taken on bottom handline rigs off Hawaii (Okamoto 1982) fishes as well\nas those caught in the Indian Ocean with trawl nets (Prut'ko 1986) fed on midwater\nsuch as lanternfishes, crustaceans and some squid Predators of juvenile pomfrets (both\nspecies) include tunas and swordfish (NMFS, unpubl.).\nSickle pomfret attain about 80 cm TL (Dotsu 1980). No maximum size for lustrous pomfret\nhas been reported but a single 70 cm FL individual was taken bottomfishing at Johnston Atoll\n(Ralston et al. 1986). The range of pomfret weights in Okamoto's (1982) exploratory study\noff Hawaii was 2.2 - 9.6 kg and averaged 5.5 kg. He further reported the relationship between\nbody (fork) length (FL) and weight (in kg) for escolar as:\n(n=75, 59-95 cm FL).\nW=3.0 x 10-6 FL3.442\nTrawl caught lustrous pomfret (n=100) in the Indian Ocean ranged from 44.0 to 67.0 cm SL\nand 2.36 to 7.05 kg in weight (Prut'ko 1986).\nA3-230","Little information is available on other life history aspects. A 60 cm sickle pomfret weighing\n11 kg was estimated to be 8 years old (Smith 1986). A 78 cm TL mature female (originally\nidentified as T. longipinnis but now considered a misidentified T. steindachneri), taken in the\nSoutheast Pacific possessed ova spherical in shape and 1.2 mm in diameter (Dotsu 1980).\nThe mature varies were small and about 90 g in weight, the gonadosomatic index (GSI) was\nless than 1 and the ovaries contained about 7.0 x 105 eggs (Dotsu 1980). The male to female\nratio in the Indian Ocean collection of lustrous pomfrets was 1:1 and judging from the\nadvanced maturation stages observed in the gonads, the school was in spawning condition\n(Prut'ko 1986).\nA3-231","water bottomfishing at seamounts off\nover seamounts or submarine ridges)\npomfrets caught in exploratory deep\nsickle pomfret are widely distributed\npomfret inhabit epipelagic waters to\nat least 300 m. Most of the lustrous\nAdult and juvenile (30-150 mm SL)\nOcean but unlike other bramids, are\nA 60 cm sickle pomfret weighing 11\nThere are no descriptions of food or\nfeeding habits of the sickle pomfret.\npomfret were caught at seamounts\nin the tropical waters of the Pacific\ntypically found in association with\nwhen the summit exceeded 457 m\ntropical Pacific and eastern Indian\ntopography (e.g., near islands and\nThrough the water column, sickle\nNMFS research cruise contained a\nkg was estimated to be 8 years old\nHawaii were taken in depths less\npomfret are also known from the\nA single stomach collected by a\npelagic squid, Moroteuthis spp.\nthan 549 m (300 fathoms); no\nand Indian Oceans. Lustrous\n(250 fathoms.\nNot known\nN/A\nAdult\nhabits of the sickle\nfood or feeding\ndescriptions of\nHabitat Description for Pomfret (family Bramidae)\nNot known\nThere are no\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nJuvenile\npomfret.\nN/A\nadvection by prevailing\nA3-232\nLarvae are subject to\nocean currents\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nNot known\nLarvae\nN/A\nadvection by prevailing\nEggs are subject to\nocean currents\nNot known\nepipelagic\nNot known\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nSeasonal\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nChave, E. H. and B. C. Mundy. Deep-sea benthic fish of the Hawaiian Archipelago, Cross\nSeamount, and Johnston Atoll. Pac. Sci. 48:367-409.\nDotsu, Y. 1980. A mature female of the bigscale pomfret, Taractichthys longipinnis\n(Bramidae) with notes on the ripe eggs. Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 27(1):88-89.\nMead, G. W. 1972. Bramidae. Dana Rep. (81), 166 p.\nNakano, H., M. Okazaki, and H. Okamoto. 1997. Analysis of catch depth by species for tuna\nlongline fishery based on catch by branch lines. Bull. Nat. Res. Inst. Far Seas Fish. 34:43-\n62.\nOkamoto, H. 1982. Deep bottomfish surveys - Hawaii. Completion report prepared for the\nPacific Tuna Development Foundation under Project no. 35, Deep Bottom Fishing\nSurveys - Hawaii Div. Aquat. Resour., Dep. Land Natur. Resour., Honolulu, 21 p.\nPrut'ko, V. G. 1986. Collection of pomfret, Eumegistus illustris (Bramidae), in the Indian\nOcean. J. Ichthyol. 25(5):151-154.\nSmith, M. M. 1986. Family No. 207. Bramidae. In M. M. Smith and P. C. Heemstra\n(editors). Smiths' Sea Fishes, p. 633-636, Springer-Verlag.\n2.2.21 Habitat description for bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) and frigate tuna (A. thazard)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nLife History and General Description\nThis description is based on the following summary documents: Yesaki and Arce (1994),\nCollette and Nauen (1983) and Uchida (1981).\nThe genus Auxis is a member of the Thunni tribe and the subfamily Scombrinae. For\nmanagement purposes, regulations identify these fish only to the generic level, but only two\ncosmopolitan species are currently recognized in this genus. However, there has been a lot of\nsynonymy in scientific names for the species; the two species are very similar in appearance both\nand usually only reported to the generic level in landings reports. Auxis are considered\nthe most primitive and the smallest of tunas in the Thunni tribe. No sub-species are\nrecognized. No information on stock separation is given in the review articles. Hybrids of the\ntwo species have been produced under artificial rearing conditions, but none lived beyond a\nmonth.\nA3-233","The is distributed worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Because of their similar\ngenus differential distribution is hard to determine. They are confined to neritic waters in\nappearance, of continental margins but have also been reported from coastal waters of oceanic islands\nthe Pacific including Hawaii. Total latitudinal range extends from northern Japan (about\n45°N) to southern New Zealand (almost 50°S) in the west and from northern California to\nnorthern Chile along the American coast. The 20°C isotherm has been suggested as a range\nlimit, but optimal temperature is probably higher. In any case, it seems clear that they have a\nfairly wide temperature tolerance. Preference for high fertility coastal waters has been reported\nfrom East Africa.\nThere is little information on migration. Studies conducted in Japan suggest seasonal\nmigration with northward movement in summer and southward movement in winter. Auxis\nhave a strong schooling instinct and form dense schools segregated by size. The two species\noften form mixed schools and have also been reported to school with other tunas and tuna-like\nfishes.\nThe largest reported frigate tuna (A. thazard) is 53 cm; bullet tuna (A. rochei) rarely exceed 30\ncm. Maximum ages are estimated to be 2 years and 1 year, respectively.\nAuxis are heterosexual and do not exhibit sexual dimorphism. Fecundity estimates are\n78,000-717,900 eggs for frigate tuna and 52,000-162,00 for bullet tuna. They generally\ninshore, although (Klawe 1963) found that while spawning occurred inshore at Baja,\nspawn California, it occurred in oceanic waters further south. Auxis also spawn around oceanic\nislands, including Hawaii, based on larval distribution and the occurrence of males of both\nspecies with freely flowing milt caught at Oahu. In general is appears that these tunas spawn\nin the warmer regions of their total range, but the precise distribution is unknown.\nYesaki and Arce (1994) state that \"there are two spawning seasons for bullet tuna, and most\nprobably frigate tuna, at least in the equatorial regions of their distributions.\"\nWorldwide most Auxis are caught in the Philippines; in 1988, total of 107,000 mt were landed\nthere, 61% of the world total. Yesaki and Arce (1994) provide a detailed review of the it\nPhilippine fishery. These authors also state that \"the world catch is low considering is\ngenerally acknowledged that Auxis is the most abundant tuna, in numerical terms, in the\nworld's oceans.\" The landings for these species are not reported separately in the western\nPacific region; however, total \"miscellaneous tunas\" reported for the region in 1996 is 12,558 in\nlbs (5.70 mt) (WPRFMC 1997). Clearly commercial landings of Auxis are negligible both\nterms of total western Pacific region landings and for Auxis in the Pacific.\nEgg and Larval Distribution\nEggs are pelagic and described by (Uchida 1981) as \"perfectly spherical, [having] a colorless The\nhomogeneous yolk mass and an average diameter of 0.87 mm (range of 0.88-1.09 mm.\"\nof both species hatch within 2 days. Larval/post-larval stages last to about 2 weeks.\neggs Uchida (1981) provides a comprehensive description of larval morphological characteristics,\nincluding differentiation among the species and larval and juvenile development.\nA3-234","Uchida (1981) states that temperature \"is clearly a highly important variable in explaining the\ndistribution of Auxis larvae.\" Optimum temperature is reported as 27.0°-27.9°C. The larvae\nare reported as only occurring above the thermocline. Salinity may also affect distribution, diel and\nlarvae are reported for a relatively narrow range, 33.2-35.4 ppt. They may also undergo\nmigration, being more common near the surface at night. Larval habitat is generally coastal, as\nwith adults.\nJuvenile\nNo information is provided in the review papers on juvenile distribution, but as a neritic\nepipelagic species juveniles probably occur in the same coastal habitat as adults. Planktonic and\ncrustaceans and fishes are the main prey items of juveniles, including larval copepods\ndecapods.\nAdult,\nFrigate tuna reach maturity at about 30-35 cm. In one study all fish measured were mature by\n42.1 cm. Bullet tuna were found to reach first maturity in the Philippines 17.0 cm. A study\nfrom India indicated that 50% maturity was 24.0 cm for males and 23.8 cm for females.\nAdults feed on a wide variety of organisms with fish the most common item, followed by\ncrustaceans. Common prey fishes include herring and herring-like fish, anchovies and in other\nsmall fishes. Adults also cannibalize their young and are reported to feed on plankton\nJapanese waters. In a study from Indian waters fish formed the major constituent of the\njuvenile diet, while crustaceans were prevalent in the diet of adults. Frigate tuna also are\nknown to occasionally prey on squid.\nEssential Fish Habitat: Tropical species complex\nThere is relatively little information on the habitat preferences of these two species. They are\nalso not important to managed fisheries in the western Pacific region. Nonetheless, given that\nthey are cosmopolitan neritic epipelagic species, the inshore waters may be considered EFH,\nalthough it cannot be defined with any precision.\nA3-235","west, somewhat less in\ncoastal waters, Pacific\nroughly 45°N-45°S in\nopportunistic feeders:\nA. thazard-2 years,\nsubtropical neritic /\nA. rochei-1 year\nNA or unknown\nlatitudinal range\nfish, crustaceans\ncosmopolitan in\ntropical and\nepipelagic\nunknown\nneritic\nAdult\neast\nHabitat description for bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) and frigate tuna (A. thazard)\ndistribution not known\nplanktonic crustaceans\nNA or unknown\nneritic / inshore\n1 year or less\nepipelagic\ndifferential\nunknown\nJuvenile\nand fish\nA3-236\nNA or unknown\nas with eggs\nas with eggs\nnot reported\nepipelagic\nunknown\n2 weeks\nLarvae\nneritic, coastal areas in\nnereitc/inshore ? also\nfound offshore but\ngenerally not mid-\nthe warmer waters\nthroughout range\nNA or unknown\nabout 40 hours\nepipelagic\nunknown\nocean\nEgg\nNA\nDistribution: General\nOceanic Features\nWater Column\nBottom Type\nand Seasonal\nLocation\nDuration\nDiet","Bibliography\nCollette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels,\nbonitos and related species known to date. FAO species catalogue. Volume 2, Scombrids\nof the world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 118 p.\nKlawe WL. 1963. Observations on the spawning of four species of tuna (Neothunnus\nmacropterus, Katsuwonus pelamis, Auxis thazard and Euthynnus lineatus) in the eastern\nPacific Ocean, based on the distribution of their larvae and juveniles. Inter-Am Trop Tuna\nComm Bull 6:447-540.\nUchida RN. 1981. Synopsis of biological data on frigate tuna, Auxis thazard, and bullet tuna,\nA. rochei. Washington: NOAA (NMFS). 67 p. NOAA technical report nr NMFS Circular\n436 (FAO fisheries synopsis nr 124).\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1997. Pelagic Fisheries\nof the Western Pacific Region 1996 Annual Report. Honolulu: WPRFMC. 26 p +\nappendices.\nYesaki M, Arce F. 1994. A review of the Auxis fisheries of the Philippines and some aspects\nof the biology of frigate (A. thazard) and bullet (A. rochei) tunas in the Indo-Pacific\nregion. In: Shomura RS, Majkowski J, Langi S, editors. Interactions of Pacific tuna\nfisheries. Volume 2, Papers on biology and fisheries. Proceedings of the First FAO Expert\nConsultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 1991 Dec 3-11; Noumea, New\nCaledonia. Rome: Fisheries and Agriculture Organization. p 409-39. FAO fisheries\ntechnical paper nr 336/2.\nA3-237","PRECIOUS CORALS SPECIES\n3\nGeneral Distribution of Precious Corals\n3.1\nBesides the references noted, the Council's 1979 environmental impact statement and FMP and\n2\nfor the precious corals fisheries in the western Pacific region as well as Amendments for the 1\nto the FMP and their accompanying environmental assessments were sources\nfollowing sections.\nPrecious corals are known to exist in American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii and the Northern\nMariana Islands, as well as other US possessions in the Pacific (Tables 1 and 2). known However,\nlittle is known about their distribution and abundance. A summary of the follows.\nvery distribution and abundance of precious corals in the western Pacific region\nAmerican Samoa\nThere is little information available for the deepwater species of precious corals in American\nSamoa. Much of the information available comes from the personal accounts of fishermen In\nAll known commercial quantities of Corallium sp. occur north of 19°N (Grigg 1984). the\nSouth Pacific there are no known commercial beds of pink coral (Carleton and Philipson\nSurvey work begun in 1975 by the Committee for Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting three\n1987). Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas (CCOP/SOPAC) has identified\nfor of Corralium off Western Samoa: off eastern Upolu, off Falealupo and at Tupuola Bank\nareas (Carleton and Philipson 1987). Pink coral has been reported off Cape Taputapu, but no\ninformation concerning the quality or quantity of these corals or the depths where they occur\nis available. Unidentified precious corals have also been reported in the past off Fanuatapu about at\nof around 90 m. Precious corals are known to occur at an uncharted seamount, 300 m.\ndepths three-fourths of a mile off the northwest tip of Falealupo Bank at depths of around\nCommercial quantities of one or more species of black coral are known to exist at depths and, of\n40 m and deeper. However, these are found in the territorial waters of American Samoa\ntherefore, are not subject to the Council's authority.\nGuam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas\nThere no known commercial quantities of precious corals in the Northern Mariana Islands taken\narchipelago are (Grigg and Eldredge 1975). In the past, Japanese fishermen claimed to have\nsome Corralium north of Pagen Island and off Rota and Saipan.\nHawaii\nIn the Hawaiian Islands there are six known beds of pink, gold and bamboo corals (Grigg\n1974). These six locations are as follows:\nIn the MHI, precious coral beds have been found only in the deep inter-island channels\nand off promontories such as Keahole Point on the Big Island of Hawaii.\nA3-238","Common name\nSpecies\nPink coral\nCorallium secundum\nRed coral\nCorallium regale\nRed coral\nCorallium laauense(sp)\nGold coral\nGerardia sp.\nGold coral\nNarella sp.\nGold coral\nCalyptrophora sp.\nGold coral\nCallogorgia gilberti\nBamboo coral\nLepidisis olapa\nBamboo coral\nAcanella sp.\nBlack coral\nAntipathes dichotoma\nBlack coral\nAntipathes grandis\nBlack coral\nAntipathes ulex\nTable 1: Precious corals covered under the FMP.\nAlso in the MHI, the Makapuu bed is located off Makapuu, Oahu, at depths of between\n350 and 450 m. Discovered in 1966, it the only precious coral bed that has been accurately\nsurveyed in the Hawaiian chain. Its total area is about 4.5 km². Its substrate consists\nlargely of hard limestone (Grigg 1988). Careful examination during numerous dives is with a\nsubmersible has determined that about 20% of the total area of the Makapuu bed\ncomprised of irregular lenses of thin sand, sediments and barren patches (WPRFMC\n1979). These sediment deposits are found primarily in low lying areas and depressions\n(Grigg 1988). Thus, the total area used for extrapolating coral density is 3.6 km², or 80%\nof 4.5 km2 (WPRFMC 1979). The preliminary results of a recent resurvey of the Makupuu\nbed show that the bed may actually be as much as 15% larger then previously thought\n(Grigg 1998, pers. comm.).\nAlso in the MHI is a bed off Kaena Point, Oahu.\nthe NWHI, a very small bed of deepwater precious corals have been found on WesPac\nIn bed, between Nihoa and Necker Islands and east of French Frigate Shoals. This bed is not\nlarge enough to sustain commercial harvests. However, large areas of potential habitat\nexist in the NWHI on seamounts and banks near 400 m depth. Based on the abundance the of\npotential habitat it is thought that stocks of precious corals may be more abundant in\nnorthwestern end of the island chain.\nA3-239","A small precious coral bed has also been discovered at Brooks Banks, located sustain near Cross\nSeamount southwest of the island of Hawaii. This bed is no large enough to\ncommercial harvests\nPrecious corals have also been discovered at the 180 Fathom Bank, north of Kue Island, in\nEEZ waters surrounding Palmyra Island, a US possession in the western Pacific. The\nof this bed is not known. While little is known about the distribution and abundance beds\nextent of precious corals in the western Pacific region, it is almost certain that undiscovered\nof precious corals exist in the EEZ waters of the region covered by the Council.\nArea in km2\nLong. W.\nLat. N\nDescription\n0.24\n156°06.0\"\n19°46.0\"\nOff Keahole Point,\nHawaii\n4.2\n157°35.5\"\n21°18.0'\nOff Makapuu, Oahu\n0.24\n158°22.9\"\n21°35.4'\nOff Kaena Point, Oahu\n0.8\n162°35'\n23°18'\nWesPac Bed, between\nNihoa and Necker\nIslands\n1.6\n166°48'\n24°06.0\"\nBrooks Banks\n0.8\n178°53.4\"\n28°50.2\"\n180 Fathom Bank, north\nof Kue Island\nTable 2: Location of known precious coral beds. Source: WPRFMC 1979\nSystematics of the Deepwater Coral Species\n3.2\nPrecious corals have a global distribution (Grigg 1993). The richest beds are found on\nseamounts in the western North Pacific Ocean and the western Mediterranean Sea. Precious\ncorals are found principally in three orders of the class Anthozoa: Gorgonacea, Antipatharia,\nand Zoanthiae (Grigg 1984). In the western Pacific region, pink coral (Corallium secundum), coral\ngold coral (Gerardia sp. and Parazoanthus sp.), black coral (Antipathes sp.) and bamboo the\n(Lepidistis olapa) are the primary species/genera of commercial importance. Of these, corals\nmost valuable precious corals are species of the genus Corallium, the pink and red\n(Grigg 1984). Pink coral (Corallium secundum) and Midway deep-sea coral (Corallium sp.\nnov) are two of the principal species of commercial importance in the Hawaiian and from Emperor\nSeamount chain's (Grigg 1984). C. secundum, is found in the Hawaiian archipelago\nMilwaukee Banks in the Emperor Seamounts (36°N) to the Island of Hawaii (18°N);\nCorallium sp nov. is found between 28°-36°N, from Midway to the Emperor Seamounts\n(Grigg 1984). In addition to the pink corals, the bamboo corals, Lepidistis olapa and Acanella\nare commercially important precious corals in the western Pacific region (Grigg 1984).\nsp., Pink coral and bamboo coral are found in the order Gorgonacea in the subclass Octocorallia of of\nthe class Anthozoa, in the Phylum Coelenterata (Grigg, 1984). The final two major groups\ncommercially important precious corals, gold coral and black coral, are found in separate\norders, Zoanthidea and Antipatharia, in the subclass Hexacorallia in the class Anthozoa and\nA3-240","the phylum Coelenterata. The gold coral, Gerardia sp., is endemic to the Hawaiian and\nEmperor Seamount chain (Grigg 1984). It inhabits depths ranging from 300-400 m (Grigg\n1974, 1984). In Hawaii, gold coral, Gerardii sp., grows in association with Acanella as a\nparasitic overgrowth (Brown 1976, Grigg 1984). Gold coral is, therefore, only found growing\nin areas that were previously inhabited by colonies of Acanella (Grigg 1993).\nGrigg (1984) classifies black corals in the order Antipatharia. Grigg says there are 200 known\nspecies of black coral that occur in the oceans of the world, and of this total, only about 10\nspecies are of commercial importance, almost all of which are found in the genus Antipathes.\nMany species of gorgonian corals are known to occur within the habitat of pink, gold and\nbamboo corals in the Hawaiian Islands. At least 37 species of precious corals in the order\nGorgonacea have been identified from the Makapuu bed (Grigg and Bayer 1976). In addition,\n14 species of black coral (order Antipatharia) have been reported to occur in Hawaiian waters\n(Grigg and Opresko 1977, Oishi 1990).\nBiology and Life History\n3.3\nPrecious corals may be divided into two groups of species based on the depths that they\ninhabit, the deepwater species and the shallow water species. In the EEZ waters of the western\nPacific region, precious corals are found in two principal depth zones: 350-450 m and\n1,000-1,500 m. In the Hawaiian Islands, these two zones comprise 1,700 nm2 and 5,900 nm2\nof potential habitat, respectively, and range from 18° N to 35° S.\nThe deepwater precious coral species include pink coral (Corallium secundum), gold coral\n(Gerardia sp., and Parazoanthus sp.) and bamboo coral (Lepidistis olapa). As previously\ndiscussed, the most valuable precious corals are in the genus Corallium (Grigg 1984). There\nare seven varieties of pink and red precious corals in the western Pacific region, six of which\nare recognized as distinct species of Corallium (Grigg 1981). As mentioned, the two species\nof Corallium of commercial importance in the EEZ around the Hawaiian Islands are C.\nsecundum (pink coral) and Corallium sp. Nov. (Midway deep-sea). The Midway deep-sea\ncoral (Corallium sp. Nov), a previously undescribed species of Corallium, was discovered in\n1980-1981 by Japanese vessels fishing for precious corals on the Emperor Seamounts\nnorthwest of Midway Island. The discovery of this rich, unexploited deepwater precious coral\nspecies resource underscores the potential of the coral fishery in the NWHI.\nThe second group of species is found in shallow water between 30 and 100 m (Grigg 1993).\nThe shallow water fishery is comprised of three species of black coral, Antipathes dichotoma,\nA. grandis and A. ulex, which have historically been harvested in Hawaii (Oishi 1990). In\nHawaii, A. dichotoma accounts for around 90% of the commercial harvest of black coral\n(Oishi 1990). A. grandis accounts for 9% and A. ulex 1% of the total black corals harvested. In\nHawaii, roughly 85% of all black coral harvested are taken from within state waters. Black\ncorals are managed jointly by the State of Hawaii and the Coucnil. Within state waters (0-3\nnmi), black corals are managed by the State of Hawaii (Grigg 1993).\nA3-241","Depth Range (m)\nSpecies and Common Name\n350-475\nCorallium secundum Angle skin coral\n1,000-1,500\nCorallium sp nov. Midway deepsea coral\n300-400\nGerardia sp. Hawaiian gold coral\n350-400\nLepidisis olapa bamboo coral\n30-100\nAntipathes dichotoma, black coral\n45-100\nAntipathes grandis, pine black coral\n40-100\nAntipathes ulex, fern black coral\n20-60\nAntipathes anguina, wire black coral\nTable 3: Depth zonation of all species of precious coral in the Western Pacific. (Source:\nGrigg 1993)\nWhile different species of precious corals inhabit distinct depth zones, their habitat\nrequirements are strikingly similar. Grigg (1984) notes that these corals are non-reef building\nand inhabit depth zones below the euphotic zone. In an earlier study, Grigg (1974) determined\nthat precious corals are found in deep water on solid substrate in areas that are swept relatively\nclean by moderate to strong bottom currents (>25 cm/sec). Strong currents help prevent the\naccumulation of sediments, which would smother young coral colonies and prevent settlement\nof new larvae. Grigg (1984) notes that, in Hawaii, large stands of Corralium are only found in\nareas where sediments almost never accumulate. He also notes that 1971-75, surveys of all\npotential sites for precious corals in the MHI conducted using a manned submersible show\nthat most shelf areas in the MHI near 400 m are periodically covered with a thin layer of silt\nand sand. Grigg (1988) concludes that the concurrence of oceanographic features (strong\ncurrents, hard substrate, low sediments) necessary to create suitable precious coral habitat are\nrare in the MHI.\nThe habitat sustaining precious corals is generally in pristine condition. There are no known\nareas that have sustained damage due to resource exploitation, notwithstanding the alleged\nheavy foreign fishing for corals in the Hancock Seamounts area. Although unlikely, if future\ndevelopment projects are planned in the proximity of precious coral beds, care should be\ntaken to prevent damage to the beds. Projects of particular concern would be those that\nsuspend sediments or modify water-movement patterns.\nThere is a correlation between the location and abundance of Corallium beds and the\nKuroshio Current in the western Pacific region (Grigg 1984). This relationship further\nillustrates the importance of suitable current regimes in determining suitable precious coral\nhabitat. Currents also play an important ecological role in transporting food to and carrying\nwastes away from corals.\nA3-242","There has been very little research conducted concerning the food habits of precious corals.\nPrecious corals are filter feeders (Grigg 1984, 1993). The sparse research available suggests\nthat particulate organic matter and microzooplankton are important in the diets of pink and\nbamboo coral (Grigg 1970). Many species of pink coral (Corallium), gold coral (Gerardia)\nand black coral (Antipathes) form fan shaped colonies (Grigg 1984, 1993). This type of\nmorphological adaption maximizes the total area of water that is filtered by the polyps (Grigg\n1984, 1993). Bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa), unlike other species of precious corals, is\nunbranched (Grigg 1984). Long coils that trail in the prevailing currents maximize the total\namount of seawater that is filtered by the polyps (Grigg 1984). While clearly, the presence of\nstrong currents is a vital factor determining habitat suitability for precious coral colonies, their\nrole to date is not fully understood.\nPrecious corals are known to grow on a variety of bottom substrate types. Precious coral\nyields, however, tend to be higher in areas of shell sandstone, limestone and basaltic or\nmetamorphic rock with a limestone veneer.\nLight is one of the most important determining factors of the upper depth limit of many\nspecies of precious corals (Grigg 1984). The larvae of two species of black coral, Antipathes\ngrandis and A. dichotoma, are negatively phototaxic.\nGrigg (1984) states that temperature does not appear to be a significant factor in delimiting\nsuitable habitat for precious corals. In the Pacific Ocean, species of Corallium are found in\ntemperature ranges of 8° to 20°C, he observes. Temperature may determine the lower depth\nlimits of some species of precious coral, including two species of black corals in the MHI, he\nsuggests. In the MHI, the lower depth range of two species of black corals (Antipathes\ndichotoma and A. grandis) coincides with the top of the thermocline (about 100 m), Grigg\nobserves.\nIn pink coral (Corallium secundum), the sexes are separate (Grigg 1993). Based on the best\navailable data, it is believed that C. secundum becomes sexually mature at a height of\napproximately 12 cm (13 years) (Grigg 1976). Pink coral reproduce annually, with spawning\noccurring during the summer, during the months of June and July. Coral polyps produce eggs\nand sperm. Fertilization of the oocytes is completed externally in the water column (Grigg\n1976, 1993). The resulting larvae, called planulae, drift with the prevailing currents until\nfinding a suitable site for settlement.\nPink, bamboo and gold corals all have planktonic larval stages and sessile adult stages. Larvae\nsettle on solid substrate where they form colonial branching colonies. Grigg (1993) notes that\nthe length of the larval stage of all deepwater species of precious corals is not known. Clean\nswept areas exposed to strong currents provide important sites for settlement of the larvae,\nGrigg adds. The larvae of several species of black coral (Antipathes) are negatively\nphotoactic, he notes. They are most abundant in dimly lit areas, such as beneath overhangs in\nwaters deeper than 30 m, he observes. In an earlier study, Grigg (1976) found that \"[w]ithin\ntheir depth ranges, both species are highly aggregated and are most frequently found under\nvertical dropoffs. Such features are commonly associated with terraces and undercut notches\nrelict of ancient sea level still stands. Such features are common off Kauai and Maui in the\nA3-243","MHI. Both species are particularly abundant off of Maui and Kauai, suggesting that their\nabundance is related to suitable habitat.\" Off of Oahu, many submarine terraces that otherwise\nwould be suitable habitat for black corals are covered with sediments, Grigg (1976) adds.\nGrigg (1993) observes that precious corals have low recruitment and mortality. They are slow\ngrowing and long lived, believed to reach the age of 75 years and older, he notes. Common\ncauses of mortality include smothering by sediments and toppling of colonies due to erosion\nof the substrate, he concludes. (Another cause is worms boring into the colony, weakening it\nand causing it to collapse.)\nA variety of invertebrates and fish are known to utilize the same habitat as precious corals.\nThese species of fish include onaga (Etelis coruscans), kahala (Seriola dumerallii) and the\nshrimp (Heterocarpus ensifer). These species do not seem to depend on the coral for shelter or\nfood.\nDensities of pink, gold and bamboo coral have been determined for an unexploited section of\nthe Makapuu bed (Grigg, 1976). As noted in the FMP for precious corals, the average density\nof pink coral in the Makapuu bed is 0.022 colonies/m². This figure was extrapolated to the\nentire bed (3.6 million m²), giving an estimated standing crop of 79,200 colonies. At the 95%\nconfidence limit, the standing crop is 47,500 to 111,700 colonies. The standing crop of\ncolonies was converted to biomass (3N;Wi), resulting in an estimate of 43,500 kg of pink coral\nin the Makapuu bed.\nIn addition to coral densities, Grigg (1976) determined the age-frequency distribution of pink\ncoral colonies in Makapuu bed. He applied annual growth rates to the size frequency to\ncalculate the age structure of pink coral at Makapuu Bed (Table 4).\nNumber of Colonies\nAge Group (years)\n44\n0-10\n73\n10-20\n22\n20-30\n12\n30-40\n7\n40-50\n0\n50-60\nTable 4: Age-Frequency Distribution of Corallium secundum (Source: Grigg 1973)\nEstimates of density were also made for bamboo (Lepidisis olapa) and gold coral (Gerardia\nsp.) for Makapuu bed. The distributions of both these species are patchy. As noted in the\nFMP, the area where they occur comprises only half of that occupied by pink coral (1.8 km2).\nEstimates of the unexploited abundance of bamboo and gold coral were 18,000 and 5,400\ncolonies, respectively. Estimates of density for the unexploited bamboo coral and gold coral in\nA3-244","the Makapuu bed are 0.01 colonies/m² and 0.003 colonies/m². Using a rough estimate for the\nmean weights of gold and bamboo coral colonies (2.2 kg and 0.6 kg), a standing crop of about\n11,880 kg of gold coral and 10,800 kg for bamboo for Makapuu bed was obtained.\nGrowth rates for several species of precious corals found in the western Pacific region have\nbeen calculated.\nGrigg (1976) determines that the height of pink coral (C. secundum) colonies increases about of\n0.9 cm/yr up to about 30 years of age. As noted in the FMP for precious corals, the height\nthe largest colonies of Corallium secundum at Makapuu bed rarely exceed 60 cm. Colonies The of\ngold coral are known to grow up to 250 cm tall while bamboo corals may reach 300 cm.\nnatural mortality rate of pink coral at Makapuu bed is believed to be 0.066, equivalent to an\nannual survival rate of about 93%.\nBibliography\nGrigg RW, Bayer FM. 1976. Present knowledge of the systematics and zoogeography of\nthe Order Gorgonacea in Hawaii. Pac Sci 30(2):167-75.\nGrigg RW, Opreska D. 1977. Order Antipatharia: black corals. In: editor(s). Reef and\nshore fauna of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Pr. p 242-61. Special publication\nnr 64(1).\nGrigg RW. 1974. Growth rings: annual periodicity in two gorgonian corals. Ecology\n55:876-81.\nGrigg RW. 1976. Fishery management of precious and stony corals in Hawaii. Honolulu:\nUniv Hawaii Pr. 48 p. Report nr SEAGRANT-TR-77-03\nGrigg RW.1982. Status of the precious coral industry in 1982. Final report to the Western\nPacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu: WPRFMC.\nGrigg RW. 1988. Recruitment limitations of deep benthic hard-bottom octocoral\npopulations in the Hawaiian Islands. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 45:121-6.\nGrigg RW.1993. Precious coral fisheries of Hawaii and the US Pacific Islands. Mar Fish\nRev 55(2):50-60.\nOishi FG.1990. Black coral harvesting and marketing activities in Hawaii-1990.\nHonolulu: DAR, Dept of Land and Natural Resources.\nA3-245","CRUSTACEAN SPECIES\n4\nHabitat\n4.1\nAdult spiny lobsters are typically found on rocky substrate in well protected areas, in crevices\nand under rocks (Pitcher 1993, FAO 1991). Unlike many other species of Panulirus, the\njuveniles and adults of P. marginatus are not found in separate habitat apart from one another\n(MacDonald and Stimson 1980, Pitcher 1993, Parrish and Polovina 1994). Juvenile P.\nmarginatus recruit directly to adult habitat; they do not utilize separate shallow water nursery\nhabitat apart from the adults as do many Palinurid lobsters (MacDonald and Stimson 1980,\nParrish and Polovina 1994). Juvenile and adult P. marginatus do utilize shelter differently\nfrom one another (MacDonald and Stimson 1980). Similarly, juvenile and adult P.\npencillatus also share the same habitat (Pitcher 1993).\nIn the NWHI P. marginatus is found seaward of the reefs and within the lagoons and atolls\nof the islands , (WPRFMC 1983). Uchida (1986) reports that P. penicillatus rarely occur in the\ncommercial catches of the NWHI lobster fishery. In the NWHI, P. pencillatus is found\ninhabiting shallow waters (<18 m) (Uchida and Tagami 1984).\nIn the NWHI, the relative proportion of slipper lobsters to spiny lobsters varies between\nbanks; several banks produce relatively higher catch rates of slipper lobster than total spiny\nlobster (Uchida 1986; *Clarke et al. 1987, WPRFMC 1986). The slipper lobster is taken in\ndeeper waters than the spiny lobster (Clarke et al., 1987, WPRFMC 1986). Uchida (1986)\nreports that the highest catch rates for slipper lobster in the NWHI occur between the depths\nof 20-55 m.\nPitcher (1993) observes that, in the southwestern Pacific, spiny lobsters are typically found in\nassociation with coral reefs. Coral reefs provide shelter as well as a diverse and abundant\nsupply of food items, he notes. Pitcher also states that in this region, P. pencillatus inhabits\nthe rocky shelters in the windward surf zones of oceanic reefs, an observation also noted by\nKanciruk (1980). Other species of Panulirus show more general patterns of habitat utilization,\nPitcher continues. At night, P. penicillatus moves on to reef flat to forage, Pitcher continues.\nSpiny lobsters are nocturnal predators (FAO 1991).\nMorphology\n4.2\nSpiny lobsters are non-clawed, decapod crustaceans with slender walking legs of roughly\nequal size (Uchida 1986, FAO 1991). Spiny lobster have a large spiny carapace with two\nhorns and antennae projecting forward of their eyes and a large abdomen terminating in a\nflexible tailfan (FAO 1991).\nUchida (1986) provides a detailed description of the morphology of S. squammosus and S.\nhaanii. He notes that the two species are very similar in appearance and are easily confused\n(Uchida 1986). The appearance of the slipper lobster is notably different than that of the spiny\nlobster.\nA3-246","4.3 Reproduction\nlobsters (Panulirus sp.) are dioecious (Uchida 1986). Generally, the different 1993). species The of\nSpiny Panulirus have the same reproductive behavior and life cycle (Pitcher abdomen\nthe male genus spiny lobster deposits a spermatophore or sperm packet on the female's occurs\n1983, Uchida 1986). In Panulirus sp., the fertilization of the eggs releasing\n(WPRFMC (Uchida 1986a). The female lobster scratches and breaks the mass, oviduct the\nexternally (WPRFMC 1983). Simultaneously, ova are released for the female's 1983, Pitcher and\nspermatozoa fertilized and attach to the setae of the female's pleopod (WPRFMC The\nare then At this point the female lobster is ovigerous, or \"berried\" (WPRFMC 1983). Uchida\n1993). hatch into phyllosoma larvae after 30-40 days (MacDonald 1986,\nfertilized eggs lobsters are very fecund (WPRFMC 1983). The release of the phyllosoma 1993). larvae\n1986). Spiny to be timed to coincide with the full moon and dawn in some species (Pitcher\nappears In Scyllarides sp. fertilization is internal (Uchida 1986b).\nLarval Stage\n4.4\nlittle is known about the planktonic phase of the phyllosoma larvae of Panulirus\nVery (Uchida et al. 1980). After hatching, the \"leaf-like\" larvae (or phyllosoma) varies depending enter a\nmarginatus phase (WPRFMC 1983). The duration of this planktonic phase\nplanktonic the species and geographic region (WPRFMC 1983). The planktonic larval 1983, stage may last\non 6 months to 1 year from the time of the hatching of the eggs (WPRFMC that\nfrom MacDonald 1986). There are 11 dissimilar morphological stages of development phase the\nphyllosoma larvae pass through before they transform into the postlarval puelurus\n(Johnson 1986, MacDonald 1986).\nThe pelagic phyllosoma stage of development is followed by the puerulus free-swimming stage. The puelurus and\nlasts 6 months or less (WPRFMC 1983). Spiny lobster pueruli are 1983,\nstage return to shallow, nearshore waters in preparation for settlement (WPRFMC of\nactively MacDonald 1986). Johnston (1973) reports that the phyllosoma phase of some species the\nScyllarides is somewhat shorter. MacDonald and Stimson (1980) found pelagic,\ngenera puerulus larvae settlement to occur at approximately 1 cm in length. MacDonald lunar phase (1986) in found\npuerulus settlement occurred primarily at the new moon and first quarter Hawaiian Island\nThe settlement of puerulus is higher in the central portion of the 1986).\nHawaii. chain than what, and it is higher in the NWHI than around the MHI (MacDonald\nThere is a lack of published data pertaining to the preferred depth distribution of phyllosoma of\nin Hawaii. However, the depth distribution of phyllosoma larvae of other species Sastry\nlarvae Panulirus common in the Indo-Pacific region have been documented. Phillips and is\nthat the newly hatched larvae of the western rock lobster (P. cygnus)\n(1980) reports found within 60 m of the surface. Later stages of the phyllosoma larvae are found to the at\ntypically between 80-120 m. P. cygnus undergoes a diurnal vertical migration, Research ascending has\ndepths surface at night, descending to lower depths during the day, the authors add. the authors\nshown that early phyllosoma larvae display a photopositive reaction to dim light,\nA3-247","add. In the Gulf of Mexico, the depth to which Panulirus larvae descend is restricted by the\ndepth of the thermocline, Phillips and Sastry note.\nMacDonald (1986) state that after settlement the pueluri molt and transform into post-pueruli,\na transitional phase between the pelagic phyllosama phase and the juvenile stage. Yoshimura\nand Yamakawa (1988) note that very little is known about the habitat requirements of\nPalinurid pueruli after settlement occurs. However, Pitcher (1993) states that the post-pueruli\nof Panulirus penicillatus has been observed inhabiting the same \"high-energy reef-front\nhabitat\" as adults of the species. Studying the benthic ecology and habitat utilization of newly\nsettled pueruli and juveniles of the Japanese spiny lobster (P. japonicus), Yoshimura and\nYamakawa (1988) conclude that microhabitats, such as small holes in rocks and boulders and\nalgae, provide important habitat for the newly settled pueruli and juvenile lobsters. The\nJapanese spiny lobster is found inhabiting shallow waters at depths of 1-15 m on rocky\nbottom (FAO 1991).\nThe oceanographic and physiographic features that result in the retention of lobster larvae\nwithin the Hawaiian archipelago are not understood (WPRFMC 1983). Johnston (1968)\nsuggests that fine-scale oceanographic features, such as eddies and currents, serve to retain\nphyllosoma larvae within the Hawaiian Island chain. In the NWHI, puerulus settlement\nappears to be linked to the north and southward shifts of the North Pacific Central Water\n(NPCW) type (MacDonald 1986). The relatively long pelagic larval phase for palinurids\nresults in very wide dispersal of spiny lobster larvae; palinurid larvae are transported up to\n2,000 miles by prevailing ocean currents (Johnston 1973, MacDonald 1986).\nLife Histories and Habitat Descriptions for Crustacean Species\n4.5\n4.5.1 Habitat Description for Hawaiian Spiny Lobster (Panulirus marginatus)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, MHI, NWHI, Northern Mariana\nIslands, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Island, Howland\nand Baker Islands and Wake Islands.\nThe Hawaiian spiny lobster, within the Council's jurisdiction are managed under the FMP for\nthe Crustaceans of the Western Pacific Region\nGeneral Description and Life History\nThe Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panuliris marginatus) is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and\nJohnston Atoll (Brock 1973, FAO 1991). The relative abundance of P. marginatus at Johnston\nAtoll is very low (Brock 1973). The spiny lobster is distributed throughout the entire NWHI,\nfrom Kure Atoll to Nihoa (Uchida 1986a). P. marginatus is the principal species landed in the\nNWHI spiny lobster fishery (WPRFMC.1983).\nThe reported depth distribution of this species in the NWHI is 5-100 fm (WPRFMC 1983).\nWhile this species is found down to depths of 100 fm it usually inhabits shallower waters\nA3-248","(FAO 1991). Uchida and Tagami (1984) report that P. marginatus is most abundant in waters\nof 90 m or less. Moffitt (1998, pers. comm.) states that spiny lobster are found in greatest\nabundance between the depths of 10-50 fm. At Maro Reef, in the NWHI, large adult spiny\nlobsters have been captured at depths as shallow as 10 feet (Moffitt 1998, pers comm.).\nUchida and Tagami (1984) note that within the NWHI there is a dramatic shift between depth\nand relative abundance. They report that in the vicinity of the northern most islands and banks\nrelative abundance of spiny lobsters was highest at depths of 19-54 m and that at the lower\nend of the chain the highest abundance of spiny lobsters were observed between 55-73 m.\nNorth of Maro Reef the highest relative abundance of spiny lobsters is found at shallower\ndepths, they continue. They suggest that this variability may be due to differences in the\ntemperature regime in the NWHI.\nP. marginatus is typically found on rocky substrate in well-protected areas such as crevices\nand under rocks (FAO 1991). During the day, spiny lobsters are found in dens or crevices in\nthe company of one or more other lobsters (WPRFMC 1983). MacDonald and Stimson\n(1980), studying the population biology of spiny lobsters at Kure Atoll in the NWHI, found\nthat 57% of the dens examined were inhabited by solitary lobsters. The remaining 43% were\noccupied by more than one lobster, with adult and juvenile lobsters of both sexes often found\nsharing the same dens. However, the authors note, adult and juvenile spiny lobsters exhibit\ndistinctly different den occupancy patterns, with juveniles (less than 6 cm in carapace length)\ntypically in multiple occupancy dens with other lobsters. Adult and juvenile spiny lobsters are\nnot segregated by geographic area or habitat type at Kure Atoll, MacDonald and Stimson\nobserve. They found that juvenile spiny lobsters do not utilize separate nursery habitats apart\nfrom the adult lobsters. The larval spiny lobster puerulus recruits directly to the adult habitat\n(Parrish and Polovina 1994). This is in contrast to the juveniles of other species of spiny\nlobsters that tend to reside in shallow water and migrate to deeper, offshore waters as they\nmature (MacDonald and Stimson 1980).\nThere are limited data available concerning growth rates, reproductive potentials and natural\nmortality rates at the various life history stages (WPRFMC 1983). The relationship between\negg production, larval settlement, and stock recruitment are poorly understood (WPRFMC\n1983).\nEggs\nThe Hawaiian spiny lobster (P. marginatus) is dioecious (Uchida 1986a). The male spiny\nlobster deposits a spermatophore or sperm packet on the female's abdomen (WPRFMC 1983,\nUchida 1986a). In P. marginatus, fertilization of the eggs occurs externally (Uchida 1986a).\nThe female lobster scratches and breaks the mass, releasing the spermatozoa (WPRFMC\n1983). Simultaneously, ova are released for the female's oviduct, where they are then\nfertilized and attach to the setae of the female's pleopod (WPRFMC 1983). At this point the\nfemale lobster is ovigerous, or \"berried\" (WPRFMC 1983). The fertilized eggs hatch into\nphyllosoma larvae after 30-40 days (MacDonald 1986, Uchida 1986a).\nA3-249","The spawning season for P. marginatus varies throughout the Hawaiian Island chain (Uchida\n1986a). In the northwestern end of the NWHI spawning occurs primarily during the early\nsummer months (Uchida et al. 1980, Uchida, 1986a). MacDonald and Stimson (1980) found\novigerous females at Kure Atoll between the months of May to September. Uchida et al\n(1980) found the peak abundance of ovigerous female lobsters at Nihoa, French Frigate\nShoals between late summer and early winter. It is believed that reproduction is nearly\ncontinuous in the warmer waters south of Maro Reef in the NWHI (WPRFMC 1983). Around\nthe island of Oahu spawning occurs year-round (Uchida 1986a). In the MHI, peak spawning\nactivity occurs between the months of May and August with a minimal amount of activity\nfrom November to January (Uchida 1986a). Egg-bearing females are found year-round in the\nMHI (WPRFMC 1983).\nSpiny lobsters are very fecund (WPRFMC 1983). Honda (1980) found that fecundity\nincreased with size. Most female spiny lobsters reach sexually maturity at 2 years of age\n(WPRFMC 1983). Estimating size at maturity for male and female spiny lobsters at Necker\nIsland and Oahu, Prescott (19 concludes the Necker Island females reach sexual maturity at\n60.7 mm, males at 59.2 mm, while Oahu females reach sexual maturity at 58.6 mm, males at\n63.6 mm. At Necker Island the smallest mated lobster observed was 48.3 mm; it is not\nconclusive that the ovaries of females are mature at this size (Uchida and Tagami 1984).\nGrowth rates for male spiny lobsters at Necker Island have been calculated as follows: 3.7 cm\nCL at 1 year, 5.7 cm at 2 years, 7.3 cm at 3 years, 8.5 cm at 4 years, 9.4 cm at 5 years been and 10.1\ncm in 6 years (Uchida 1986a). Due to insufficient data the growth of females has not\ncalculated (Uchida 1986a).\nLarvae\nAfter hatching, the larvae (or phyllosoma) enter a planktonic phase (WPRFMC 1983). The\nduration of this planktonic phase varies depending on the species and geographic region\n(WPRFMC 1983). Very little is known about the planktonic phase of the phyllosoma larvae 1 of\nP. marginatus (Uchida et al. 1980). The planktonic larval stage may last from 6 months to\nfrom the time of the hatching of the eggs (WPRFMC 1983, MacDonald 1986). There are\nyear 11 dissimilar stages of development that the phyllosoma larvae pass through before they\ntransform into the postlarval puelurus phase (Johnson 1968, MacDonald 1986).\nThe pelagic phyllosoma stage of development is followed by the puerulus stage. Spiny lobster\npueruli are free-swimming and actively migrate into shallow, near-shore waters in preparation less\nfor settlement (WPRFMC 1983, MacDonald 1986). The puelurus stage lasts 6 months or\n(WPRFMC 1983). MacDonald and Stimson (1980) found pelagic, puerulus larvae settlement\nto occur at approximately 1 cm in length. After settlement the pueluri molt and transform into\npostpueruli, a transitional phase between the pelagic phyllosama phase and the juvenile stage\n(MacDonald 1986).\nIt is believed, that because of the endemic nature of P. marginatus in the Hawaiian\narchipelago, the resident population is the source of larval recruits (Uchida et al. 1983).\nShaklee (1962) found no genetic variation within the various spiny lobster populations at the\ndifferent islands and banks in the NWHI chain. These data suggest that a single stock of spiny\nA3-250","exists in the NWHI (WPRFMC 1983). Recruitment of puerulus lobster larvae from occurred\nlobster at Kure Atoll beginning in the spring and lasting to October; no recruitment occurred in the\nOctober to March (MacDonald and Stimson 1980). The distribution of lobster larvae\nsurrounding the banks and islands of the NWHI is patchy (Parrish and Polovina chain 1994).\nwaters Settlement of palinurid larvae tends to be higher in the middle of the Hawaiian Island\nand higher in the NWHI than in the MHI (MacDonald, 1986).\nThere is evidence that the recruitment of puelerus lobster larvae is tied to the lunar phase with\nmaximum recruitment occurring during the new moon and first quarter phases (MacDonald\nand Stimson 1980).\nJuvenile\nand Polovina (1994) found that banks with summits deeper than 30 m had consistently\nParrish lower catches of spiny lobster; six of eight banks surveyed with summits at depths greater threshold then\ndid not provide commercial quantities of spiny lobster. They suggest a depth in\n30 may m prevent the successful settlement and/or survival of pueruli of the spiny lobster\ncommercial quantities at these banks.\nParrish and Polovina (1994) studied the production rates of three banks in the NWHI; two\ncommercially productive banks, Maro Reef and Necker Island, and one commercially\nunproductive bank, Lisianski. In this study the percent coverage of the different relief substrate habitat\nwere measured and classified into four habitat types. The intermediate the\ntypes (5-30 cm) was found to support the highest abundance of juvenile lobsters. Based habitat on\nresults of their analysis, Parrish and Polovina conclude that the intermediate relief\nprovides optimal habitat for juvenile spiny lobster. This intermediate relief habitat rarely\nexceeded 10 cm in height and was comprised of macroalgaes including Dictopterus sp.,\nSargassum sp. and Padina sp. Parrish and Polovina determined that a much greater and proportion Necker\nof intermediate substrate exists at the two productive banks studied, Maro Reef of\nthan at the unproductive bank, Lisianski Island. They conclude that the amount\nIsland, suitable habitat may be a factor limiting the total abundance of adult lobster production. The\nintermediate relief habitat provides suitable habitat for the settlement, survival and growth of\nP. marginatus pueruli and post pueruli. It does not provide enough structural relief to support the lack\ncommunity of predatory reef fish, Parrish and Polovina note. Furthermore, they add, lobster\na of structural relief provides little shelter or protection for fish that forage on juvenile\nfrom large piscovores such as sharks and jacks.\nParrish and Polovina (1994) describe the substrate of Necker Island and Maro Reef as\npredominantly comprised of intermediate relief algal communities. However, prolonged\nchanges in water temperature could greatly modify the algal abundance, they note. The effects\nof such changes might include increased predation, reduced recruitment and reduced\navailability of food, they conclude.\nAnnual exploratory trapping survey at Maro Reef in the NWHI have been conducted by\nNMFS since 1994. Haight (1998) explains that the survey was designed to identify juvenile\nspiny lobster habitat and determine abundance. Preliminary results of this survey indicate that\nA3-251","northwestern portion of Maro Reef supports higher concentrations of juvenile P.\nthe than are found at other sample stations within the reef. The northwest portion action of and\nmarginatus the reef extends outward from the lagoon and as a result is exposed to greater wave the\nthan other areas of Maro Reef, Haight observes. The benthic habitat at\ncurrents northwestern site (site 1) is distinctly different from that of other sites sampled within of Maro\nhe continues. Of particular note was the predominance of live coral colonies\nReef, and Pocillopora corals, he observes. However, colonies of Acropora outside sp. coral the reef were\nAcropora found at any of the stations sampled within the reef and are rarely found heads\nnot Parrish, unpub. data. in Haight 1998). Three other sites-comprised of coral the\n(F. interspersed with barren sand patches and coral rubble-were sampled during survey, and\nthe majority of spiny lobsters found at them were adults (Haight 1998). The specific of\necological and physical mechanisms that are responsible for higher abundance juvenile\nspiny lobster at the northwestern portion of Maro Reef need further study.\nMacDonald and Stimson (1980) found juvenile spiny lobsters to exhibit a restricted home\nwhile adult spiny lobsters displayed a much wider home. Uchida and Tagami nmi (1984) or\nrange, observed that 90 percent of recaptured adult spiny lobsters showed movement of 5 less,\nwhile MacDonald and Stimson (1980) found spiny lobsters had a dispersal rate that rarely\nexceeded several hundred m.\nAdult\nlobsters are distributed throughout the NWHI, from Nihoa to Kure Atoll (WPRFMC chain.\nSpiny 1983). The distribution of adult spiny lobsters is uneven throughout the NWHI found\nResearch conducted prior to advent of commercial exploitation of spiny lobsters 1980, the\nabundance of lobsters at Necker and Maro Reef in the NWHI (Uchida et al. from\ngreatest WPRFMC 1983). Surprisingly, the benthic habitat of Maro Reef differs markedly The\nconditions found at Necker Island (Uchida et al 1980, WPRFMC 1983). sandstone substrate\nbottom Necker Island is largely composed of coral interspersed with sandy areas and\nat outcroppings. The bottom at Maro Reef is primarily composed of coral rubble and sand,\nlacking the type of habitat features normally thought to be lobster habitat (WPRFMC 1983).\nUchida et al (1980) found significant differences in the average sizes among spiny lobsters\nat the various banks and islands they sampled. MacDonald and Stimson (1980)\npopulations found there to be a seasonal variation in the size distribution of the spiny lobster population to at\nKure Atoll in the NWHI. Small lobsters were more abundant in the months of June\nSeptember while larger lobsters were found to be more abundant in January. These Male\nresearchers found males to be more abundant than females throughout the year. class. spiny\nlobsters were also found to comprise the majority of individuals in the larger-sized\nlobsters are nocturnal predators (FAO 1991). Spiny lobsters are regarded as\nSpiny omnivorous, opportunistic scavengers (Pitcher 1993). Food items reported from the diets and of\nPanulirus sp. include echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs (primarily gastropods) algae\nseagrass (Pitcher 1993).\nA3-252","areas, in crevices and under rocks.\nrocky substrates in well protected\nmolluscs (primarily gastropods)\nAdults are typically found on\nDiet of Panulirus sp. includes\nNWHI, MHI, Johnston Atoll\nNo information available\nechinoderms, crustaceans,\nalgae and seagrass\nNot known\nBenthic\nAdult\nBanks with summits deeper than 30 m\nHabitat Description for Hawaiian Spiny Lobster (Panulirus marginatus)\nJuvenile P. marginatus recruit directly\nseparate shallow water nursery habitat\n(5-30 cm) seems to provide optimal\nsupport lower abundance of juvenile\nAreas of intermediate relief habitat\nlobsters. The NW portion of Maro\nto adult habitat; they do not utilize\nsupports higher concentrations of\napart from the adults as do many\nNo information available\nNo information available\nhabitat for juveniles\nPalinurid lobsters.\njuvenile lobsters.\nNot known\nBenthic\nJuvenile\nA3-253\nbe linked to the north and southward\nIn the NWHI, settlement appears to\nsurvival if summit of bank is deeper\nPuerulus larvae seem to have a low\nshifts of the North Pacific Central\ntransported great distances by the\nPlanktonic Phyllosoma stage (6-12\noccurrs primarily at the new moon\nprevailing water currents, up to\nmonths), free-swimming pueruli\nIn Hawaii, puerulus settlement\nrate of settlement success and\nPelagic - Palinurid larvae are\nand first quarter lunar phase\nNo information available\nWater (NPCW) type.\nstage (up to 6 months).\n(MacDonald 1986)\n2,000 miles\nthan 30 m.\nLarvae\nN/A\nfemale spiny lobster may\nbroods the eggs until they\ncurrents to release newly\nlarvae appears to be timed\nmove to areas of strong\nmoon and dawn (Pitcher\nhatched larvae into the\nto coincide with the full\nduring summer months,\nin MHI spawning takes\noceanic environment.\nRelease of phyllosoma\nspawning takes place\nfemale spiny lobster\nplace year round.\n1993). In NWHI\n30-40 days.\nhatch\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nEgg\nBottom Type\nDistribution\nFeatures\nOceanic\nLocation\nColumn\nDuration\nWater\nDiet","Bibliography\nCooke WJ, MacDonald CD. 1981. The puerulus and post-puerulus of the Hawaiian spiny lobster,\nPanulirus marginatus. Proc Bioll Soc Wash 94(4): 1226-32.\n[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 1991. Marine lobsters of the world. Rome: FAO. # p.\nFAO fisheries synopsis nr 125, volume 13\n[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 1995. Fishery statistics, catches and landings. FAO\nyearbook, volume 80. Rome: FAO. # p.\nHaight WR. 1998. Maro Reef juvenile spiny lobster survey, 1993-1997. Honolulu: NMFS\nSouthwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory. # p. Administrative report nr H-98-\n01.\nJohnston MW. 1968. Palinurid phyllosoma larvae from the Hawaiian archipelago (Palinuridea).\nCrustaceana Supplemental II:59-79.\nJohnston MW. 1974. On the dispersal of lobster larvae into the eastern Pacific barrier (Decapoda,\nPalinuridea). Fish Bull 72(3):639-47.\nKanciruk P. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Palinuridae (spiny lobsters). In: Cobb JS, Phillips\nBF, editors. The biology and management of lobsters. Vol. 2, Ecology and management.\nSydney, Australia: Academic Pr. p 11-57.\nMacDonald CD. 1986. Recruitment of the puerulus of the spiny lobster Panulirus marginatu, in\nHawaii. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 43:2118-125.\nParrish FA, Polovina JJ. 1994. Habitat threshold and bottlenecks in production of the spiny\nlobster (Panulirus marginatus) in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Bull Mar Sci\n54(1):151-61.\nPhillips BF, Sastry AN. 1980. Larval ecology. In: Cobb JS, Phillips BF, editors. The biology and\nmanagement of lobsters. Volume 2, Ecology and management. Sydney: Academic Pr. p\n11-57.\nPitcher RC. 1993. Spiny lobster. In: Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore marine resources of the\nSouth Pacific. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. p 539-607.\nPolovina JJ. 1993. The lobster and shrimp fisheries in Hawaii. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):28-33.\nUchida RN.1986(a). Palinuridae. In: Fishery Atlas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, (R.N.\nUchida and J.H. Uchiyama, eds.), pp. 70-71. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 38. p 66-7\nA3-254","Uchida RN. 1986(b). Scyllaridae. In: Fishery Atlas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, (R.N.\nUchida and J.H. Uchiyama, eds.), pp. 70-71. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 38. p 68-9.\nUchida RN. Raninidae. In: Fishery Atlas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, (R.N. Uchida and\nJ.H. Uchiyama, eds.), pp. 70-71. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 38. p 70-1.\nUchida, RN, Uchiyama JH, Humphreys RL Jr, Tagami DT. 1980. Biology, distribution, and\nestimates of apparent abundance of spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus (Quoy and Gaimard), and\nI\nin waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Part I, Distribution in relation to depth\ngeographical areas and estimates of apparent abundance. In: Grigg RW, Pfund RT, editors.\nProceedings of the Symposium on Status of Resource Investigations in the Northwestern\nHawaiian Islands; 1980 Apr 24-25; Honolulu, HI. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. p 121-30.\nreport nr UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-80-04.\nUchida RN, Tagami DT. 1984. Biology, distribution and population structure and preexploitation\nabundance of spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus (Quoy and Gaimard 1825), in the\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands. In: Grigg RW, Tanoue KY, editors. Proceedings of the Second\nSymposium on Resource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; 1. date; location.\nHonolulu: University of Hawaii.p 157-98. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01.\nUchida RN, Uchiyama JH, editors. 1986. Fishery atlas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.\nWashington: NOAA. Technical report nr NMFS 38.\n[WPRFMC] Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1986. Honolulu:\nWPRFMC.\nYoshimura T, Yamakawa H. 1988. Microhabitat and behavior of settled pueruli and juveniles of\nJapanese spiny lobster Panulirus japonicus at Kominato, Japan. J Crust Biol 8(4):524-31.\n4.5.2 Habitat Description for Kona Crab (Ranina ranina)\nManagement Plan and Area: American Samoa, Guam, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI),\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI),\nJohnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker Islands and\nWake Islands.\nVery little is known about the life history of Ranina ranina. The kona crab is found in the\nnorthwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) from Kure Atoll to Nihoa at depths of 24 to 115 m\n(Uchida, 1986; Edmonson, 1946). R. ranina is also found in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI).\nIt is believed that female kona crabs obtain sexual maturity somewhere between 54.3 and 63 mm\nCL. Uchida (1986) reports that 60% of male kona crabs >60 mm were sexually mature.\nKona crabs are dioecious and display sexual dimorphism. The males tend to grow to a larger size\n(Uchida, 1986). The sex ratio of males to females has been found to be skewed in favor of males\nA3-255","(Fielding and Haley, 1976; Onizuka, 1972).\nThis species spawns at least twice during the spawning season (Uchida, 1986). The female kona\ncrab usually spawns a second time approximately nine days after the first bacth of eggs hatch.\nFertilization of the eggs occurs externally. The fertilized eggs adhere to the females numerous\nseatae (Uchida, 1986). In the MHI, ovigerous females have been found to occur only from May to\nSeptember (Uchida, 1986; Fielding and Haley, 1976). There are insufficient data available to\ndefine the exact spawning season in the NWHI (Uchida, 1986).\nA small, directed fishery for kona crabs exists in the MHI. There is no directed fishery for kona\ncrabs in the NWHI however it is taken incidentally in the spiny lobster fishery. The principal gear\nused in the fishery is the kona crab net. R. ranaina is also taken in lobster traps. In the MHI from\n1961 to 1979 the average total landings for kona crab averaged 13,519 kg.\nEgg and larval distribution\nKona crab eggs are spherical and orange. They hatch at approximately 29 days after fertilization\n(Uchida, 1986). About 5 days prior to hatching the eggs change from an orange to brown color at\nthe onset of the eyed stage (Uchida, 1986).\nLarvae\nLittle is known about the plankton larval stage of kona crabs. The first molt occurs at 7-8 after\nhatching, the second molt about seven days later (Uchida, 1986).\nJuvenile distribution\nThere is no information available concerning the distribution or habitat utilization patterns of\njuvenile kona crabs.\nAdult distribution\nAdult kona crabs are found inhabiting sandy bottom habitat at depths between 24 to 115 m. Kona\ncrabs are opportunistic carnivores that feed throughout the day. It buries itself in the sand where it\nlies in waits for prey or food particles (Uchida, 1986).\nThe Council has designated EFH for the juvenile and adult life stages of Ranina ranina as the\nshoreline to a depth of 100 m. EFH for this species larval stage is designated as the water column\nfrom the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ down to 150 m.\nA3-256","Duration\nDiet\nSeasonal\nDistribution: General and\nOceanic Features\nBottom Type\nWater Column\nfertilization\nApproximately 29 days after\nEgg\nN/A\nFertilization of the eggs\nN/A\nN/A\ndemersal\nfemales numerous seatae.\nfertilized eggs adhere to the\noccurs externally. The\nHabitat Description for Kona Crab (Ranina ranina)\nLittle is known about the\nLarvae\nNot known\nmolt about seven days later.\nafter hatching, the second\nThe first molt occurs at 7-8\nlarval stage of kona crabs.\nduration of the plankton\nkona crabs\nplankton larval stage of\nLittle is known about the\nN/A\npelagic?\ncurrents.\nadvection by prevailing\nLarvae are subject to\nA3-257\nNot known\nJuvenile\nNot known\njuvenile kona crabs\navailable concerning the\nThere is no information\nutilization patterns of\ndistribution or habitat\nN/A\nN/A\nDemersal\nNo inforamtion available\nAdult\nthat feed throughout the\nopportunistic carnivores\nKona crabs are\nto 115 m.\nhabitat at depths between 24\ninhabiting sandy bottom\nAdult kona crabs are found\nfor prey or food particles\nsand where it lies in waits\nday. It buries itself in the\nN/A\nsandy bottom\ndemersal","Bibliography\nEdmonson, C.H. 1946. Reef and shore fauna of Hawaii. Bishop Museum special publication\n22, 381 pp.\nFielding, A., and S.R. Haley. 1976. Sex Ratio, size at reproductive maturity, and reproduction\nof the Hawaiian kona crab, Ranina ranina (Linnaeus)(Brachyura Gymnopleura,\nRaninidae). Pacific Science 30:131-145.\nOnizuka, E.W. 1972. Management and development investigations of the kona crab, Ranina\nranina (Linnaeus). Final Report. DLNR, Division of Fish and Game, Hawaii. 28 pp.\nUchida, Richard N. 1986. Raninidae. In Fishery Atlas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands,\n(R.N. Uchida and J.H. Uchiyama, eds.), pp. 70-71. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 38.\nA3-258","Appendix 4\nEssential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for the\nHawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nPage 1\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key for the Islands of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish\nManagement Plan\nPage 2\nBottomfish EFH of the Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of bottomfish for the entire\nHawaiian Island chain\nMap No. HIBF1\nPage 3\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nMap No. HIBF2\nPage 4\nBottomfish HAPC for Juvenile Snapper of the Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the locations where 15 or greater\njuvenile snapper were recorded per sampling day from 444 surveys\nMap No. HIBF3\nPage 5\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Niihau to Necker Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes from\nNiihau to Necker Island\nMap No. HIBF4\nPage 6\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Necker Island to Gardner Pinnacles\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes from\nNecker Island to Gardner Pinnacles\nMap No. HIBF5","Page 7\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Raita Bank to Lisianski Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes from\nRaita Bank to Lisianski Island\nMap No. HIBF6\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Pearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\nPage 8\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes from\nPearl and Hermes to Kure Atoll\nMap No. HIBF7\nPage 9\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of bottomfish associated with slopes and escarpments\nbetween the depths of 40 to 280 meters for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap No. HIBF8\nPage 10\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC from Niihau to Necker Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of bottomfish associated with slopes and escarpments\nbetween the depths of 40 to 280 meters from Niihau to Necker Island\nMap No. HIBF9\nPage 11\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Necker Island to Gardner Pinnacles\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of bottomfish associated with slopes and escarpments\nbetween the depths of 40 to 280 meters from Necker Island to Gardner\nPinnacles\nMap No. HIBF10\nPage 12\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Raita Bank to Lisianski Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of bottomfish associated with slopes and escarpments\nbetween the depths of 40 to 280 meters from Raita Bank to Lisianski\nIsland\nMap No. HIBF11\nPage 13\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH from Pearl and Hermes to Kure Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of bottomfish associated with slopes and escarpments\nbetween the depths of 40 to 280 meters from Pearl and Hermes to Kure\nIsland\nMap No. HIBF12","Page 14\nCrustaceans EFH and HAPC Map Key for the Islands of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Hawaiian Islands Crustacean\nManagement Plan\nPage 15\nCrustacean EFH of the Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of Crustaceans for the entire\nHawaiian Island chain\nMap No. HICRUS1\nPage 16\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap No. HICRUS2\nPage 17\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Niihau to Necker Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans from Niihau to Necker Island\nMap No. HICRUS3\nPage 18\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Necker Island to Maro Reef\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans from Necker Island to Maro Reef\nMap No. HICRUS4\nPage 19\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Laysan to Lisianski Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans from Laysan to Lisianski Island\nMap No. HICRUS5\nPage 20\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Pearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans from Midway Island to Kure Atoll\nMap No. HICRUS6\nPage 21\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for the Islands of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands. The HAPC is\ndefined as the banks and Pinnacles with summits less than 30 meters deep\nMap No. HICRUS7","Page 22\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for Niihau to Necker Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands for Niihau to Necker\nIsland. The HAPC is all banks and pinnacles with Summits less than 30\nmeters deep.\nMap No. HICRUS9\nPage 23\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for Necker Island to Maro Reef\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands for Necker to Maro\nReef. The HAPC is all banks and pinnacles with Summits less than 30\nmeters deep.\nMap No. HICRUS10\nPage 24\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for Laysan to Lisianski Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands for Laysan to\nLisianski Island. The HAPC is all banks and pinnacles with Summits less\nthan 30 meters deep.\nMap No. HICRUS11\nPage 25\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for Pearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands for Pearl and Hermes\nReef to Kure Island. The HAPC is all banks and pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 meters deep.\nMap No. HICRUS12\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC of Necker Island, Gardner Pinnacles\nPage 26\nand Maro Reef\nMap in ArcInfo GIS Format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans in the Hawaiian Islands for the reefs and\nbanks associated with Necker Island, Garner Pinnacles and Maro Reef.\nMap No. HICRUS13\nPage 27\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key for the Islands of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Hawaiian Islands Pelagics\nManagement Plan","Page 28\nPelagic Fish EFH of the Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of pelagic fish for the entire\nHawaiian Island chain\nMap No. HIPEL1\nPage 29\nPelagic Fish HAPC for the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format designating the waters overlying the off axis\nseamounts located southwest of the island of Hawaii as HAPC\nMap No. HIPEL2\nPage 30\nPelagic Fish HAPC from French Frigate Shoals to Lisianski Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format designating the waters overlying the\nseamounts located adjacent to the Northwest Hawaiian Island chain from\nFrench Frigate Shoals to Lisianski Island as HAPC\nMap No. HIPEL3\nPage 31\nPelagic Fish HAPC from Pearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format designating HAPC for pelagic fish. The area\nidentified constitutes the waters overlying the off axis seamounts located\nadjacent to the Northwest Hawaiian Islands from Pearl and Hermes Reef\nto the northwest extent of the Hawaiian Island EEZ\nMap No. HIPEL4\nPage 32\nPrecious Corais EFH and HAPC Map Key for the Islands of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Hawaiian Islands Precious\nCorals Management Plan\nEstimated Bathymetric Bounds of the Range of Precious Corals\nPage 33\nin the Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the areas within the EEZ of the\nHawaiian Islands that meet the depth range of black and all other precious\ncorals\nMap No. HIPC1\nPage 34\nEstimated Bathymetric Bounds of the Range of Precious Corals\nin the Main Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the boundaries adjacent to Main\nHawaiian Islands and the off axis seamounts that meet the depth range of\nblack and all other precious corals\nMap No. HIPC2","Page 35\nEstimated Bathymetric Bounds of the Range of Precious Corals\nin the Northwest Hawaiian Islands\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the boundaries adjacent to\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands and the off axis seamounts that meet the\ndepth range of black and all other precious corals\nMap No. HIPC10\nPage 36\nPrecious Corals EFH off the Southwest Side of the Island of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a\nblack coral bed that designates EFH for the Precious Corals Management\nPlan\nMap No. HIPC3\nPage 37\nPrecious Corals EFH at Keahole Point off the Island of Hawaii\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a\nprecious coral bed off Keahole Point that is composed of species other\nthan black coral\nMap No. HIPC4\nPage 38\nPrecious Corals EFH and HAPC of the Auau Coral Bed\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a\nblack coral bed in the Auau Channel between the islands of Maui and\nLanai that designates EFH and HAPC for the Precious Corals\nManagement Plan\nMap No. HIPC5\nPage 39\nPrecious Corals EFH and HAPC off the Island of Oahu\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of two\nprecious coral beds off the island of Oahu. The Makapuu bed is located\noff the East end of the island and is designated as EFH and HAPC. The\nKaena bed is located off the West end of Oahu and is designated as EFH.\nBoth beds are composed of species other than black coral and designate\nEFH for the Precious Corals Management Plan\nMap No. HIPC6\nPage 40\nPrecious Corals EFH off the Island of Kauai\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a black\ncoral bed located off the southern side of the island of Kauai that\ndesignates EFH for the Precious Corals Management Plan\nMap No. HIPC7","Page 41\nPrecious Corals EFH and HAPC of the WesPac Bed\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a\nprecious coral bed located between Nihoa and Necker Islands that is\ncomposed of species other than black coral. The bed designates EFH and\nHAPC for the Precious Corals Management Plan\nMap No. HIPC8\nPage 42\nPrecious Corais EFH and HAPC at Brooks Banks\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the estimated boundaries of a\nprecious coral bed at Brooks Banks in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands\nthat is composed of species other than black coral and designates EFH for\nthe Precious Corals Management Plan\nMap No. HIPC9\nPage 43\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key for American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the American Samoa Bottomfish\nManagement Plan\nPage 44\nBottomfish EFH for American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of bottomfish from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of American Samoa\nMap No. ASBF1\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for the Banks and Slopes Associated with\nPage 45\nthe Islands of Tutuila and the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nbanks and slopes around Tutuila and the Manu'a Group of American\nSamoa\nMAP No. ASBF2\nPage 46\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Tutuila and South Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\narea surrounding Tutuila and South Bank\nMap No. ASBF3","Page 47\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for The Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\narea surrounding the Manu'a Group\nMap No. ASBF4\nPage 48\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Rose Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\narea surrounding Rose Atoll\nMap No. ASBF5\nPage 49\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Swain's Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\narea surrounding Swain's Island\nMap No. ASBF6\nPage 50\nBottomfish HAPC for American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages from the shorelines to the EEZ boundary of\nAmerican Samoa\nMap No. ASBF7\nPage 51\nBottomfish HAPC for Islands of Tutuila and the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the area surrounding Tutuila and the\nManu'a Group of American Samoa\nMAP No. ASBF8\nPage 52\nBottomfish HAPC for Tutuila and South Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the area surrounding Tutuila South Bank\nof American Samoa\nMap No. ASBF9\nPage 53\nBottomfish HAPC for The Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the area surrounding the Manu'a Group of\nAmerican Samoa\nMap No. ASBF10","Page 54\nBottomfish HAPC for Rose Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the area surrounding Rose Atoll of\nAmerican Samoa\nMap No. ASBF11\nPage 55\nBottomfish HAPC for Swain's Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the area surrounding Swain's Island of\nAmerican Samoa\nMap No. ASBF12\nPage 56\nCrustacean EFH and HAPC Map Key for American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the American Samoa Crustacean\nManagement Plan\nPage 57\nCrustacean EFH of American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of from the shorelines to the\nEEZ boundary of American Samoa\nMap No. ASCRUSI\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Banks and Islands Associated with\nPage 58\nthe Islands of Tutuila and the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stages of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nTutuila and the Manu'a Group of American Samoa\nMAP No. ASCRUS2\nPage 59\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Tutuila\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nTutuila\nMap No. ASCRUS3\nPage 60\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nthe Manu'a Group\nMap No. ASCRUS4","Page 61\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Rose Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nRose Atoll\nMap No. ASCRUS5\nPage 62\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Swain's Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nSwain's Island\nMap No. ASCRUS6\nPage 63\nCrustacean HAPC of American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for Crustaceans\nfrom the shorelines to the EEZ boundary of American Samoa\nMap No. ASCRUS7\nCrustacean HAPC for the Banks and Islands Associated with\nPage 64\nthe Islands of Tutuila and the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stages of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nTutuila and the Manu'a Group of American Samoa.\nMAP No. ASCRUS8\nPage 65\nCrustacean HAPC for Tutuila\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stages of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nTutuila\nMap No. ASCRUS9\nPage 66\nCrustacean HAPC for the Manu'a Group\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nthe Manu'a Group\nMap No. ASCRUS10","Page 67\nCrustacean HAPC for Rose Atoll\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nRose Atoll\nMap No. ASCRUS11\nPage 68\nCrustacean HAPC for Swain's Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustacean management species for the area surrounding\nSwain's Island\nMap No. ASCRUS12\nPage 69\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key for American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the American Samoa Pelagic\nFish Management Plan\nPage 70\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC of Amercian Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of pelagic from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of American Samoa. The map also\npresents the banks that compose HAPC for the Pelagic Fish Management\nPlan\nMap No. ASPELI\nPage 71\nPelagic Fish HAPC of American Samoa\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for pelagic fish\nof the waters overlying the seamounts and banks within the EEZ boundary\nof American Samoa\nMap No. ASPEL2\nPage 72\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key for Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Guam Bottomfish\nManagement Plan\nPage 73\nBottomfish EFH for Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of bottomfish from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of Guam\nMap No. GUAMBF1\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for the Banks and Slopes Associated with\nPage 74\nthe Island of Guam","Map in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nbanks and slopes around Guam\nMap No. GUAMBF2\nPage 75\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for\nSanta Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMap No. GUAMBF3\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for the Reef at 14°14' E and 142°52' N\nPage 76\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\n22 Fathom Reef west of Guam\nMap No. GUAMBF4\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC for the Banks and Slopes Associated with\nPage 77\nthe Island of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the banks and slopes around Guam\nMAP No. GUAMBF5\nPage 78\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC for Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the bottomfish EFH for the\npostlarval life history stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish\ncomplexes for Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMAP No. GUAMBF6\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC for the Reef at 14°14' E and 142°52' N\nPage 79\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\n22 Fathom Reef west of Guam\nMap No. GUAMBF7\nPage 80\nCrustacean EFH and HAPC Map Key for Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Guam Crustacean\nManagement Plan\nPage 81\nCrustacean EFH of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of crustaceans from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of Guam\nMAP No. GCRUS1","Page 82\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Island of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the crustacean EFH for the\npostlarval life history stages for the Island of Guam\nMap No. GCRUS2\nPage 83\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the crustacean EFH for the\npostlarval life history stages for Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nMap No. GCRUS3\nPage 84\nCrustacean HAPC for the Island of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the crustacean HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stages for the Island of Guam\nMap No. GCRUS4\nPostlarval Crustacean HAPC for the Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank\nPage 85\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating crustacean HAPC for postlarval\nlife history stages for Santa Rosa Reef and Galvex Bank.\nMap No. GCRUS5\nPage 86\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key for Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the Guam Pelagic Fish\nManagement Plan\nPage 87\nPelagic Fish EFH of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of pelagic fish from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of Guam\nMap No. GPEL1\nPage 88\nPelagic Fish HAPC of Guam\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for pelagic fish\nfor the waters overlying the seamounts and banks of Guam\nMap No. GPEL2\nPage 89\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key for CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the CNMI Pelagic Fish\nManagement Plan\nPage 90\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of pelagic fish from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of CNMI. The map also presents the\nseamounts that compose HAPC for the Pelagic Fish Management Plan","Map No. CNMIPEL1\nPelagic Fish HAPC of the Northeast Section of the EEZ of CNMI\nPage 91\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for pelagic fish\nfor the waters overlying the seamounts and banks the northeast section of\nthe EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIPEL2\nPelagic Fish HAPC of the Southeast Section of the EEZ of CNMI\nPage 92\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for pelagic fish\nfor the waters overlying the seamounts and banks of the southeast section\nof the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIPEL3\nPelagic Fish HAPC of the Northeast Section of the EEZ of CNMI\nPage 93\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of HAPC for pelagic fish\nfor the waters overlying the seamounts and banks of the northeast section\nof the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIPEL4\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key for CNMI\nPage 94\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the CNMI Bottomfish\nManagement Plan\nBottomfish EFH for CNMI\nPage 95\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of bottomfish from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIBF1\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for the Island of Rota\nPage 96\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nbanks and slopes around Rota\nMap No. CNMIBF2\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nPage 97\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for\nAguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap No. CNMIBF3","Page 98\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Farallon de Medinilla to Zealandia Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for\nFarallon de Medinilla to Zealandia Bank\nMap No. CNMIBF4\nPage 99\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for\nGuguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap No. CNMIBF5\nPage 100\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for\nAsuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap No. CNMIBF6\nPage 101\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH of the Southwest Section of the\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating EFH for the postlarval life history\nstage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nsouthwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIBF7\nPage 102\nPostlarval Bottomfish EFH of the Northwest Section of the\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating EFH for the postlarval life history\nstage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nnorthwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIBF8\nPage 103\nBottomfish HAPC for the Island of Rota\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating Bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stage for the banks and slopes around Rota\nMap No. CNMIBF9\nPage 104\nBottomfish HAPC for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap No. CNMIBF10\nPage 105\nBottomfish HAPC for Farallon de Medinilla to Zealandia Bank\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history for Farallon de Medinilla to Zealandia Bank","Map No. CNMIBF11\nBottomfish HAPC for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nPage 106\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history stage for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap No. CNMIBF12\nBottomfish HAPC for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nPage 107\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the bottomfish HAPC for the\npostlarval life history for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap No. CNMIBF13\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC of the Southwest Section of the\nPage 108\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nsouthwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIBF14\nPostlarval Bottomfish HAPC of the Northwest Section of the\nPage 109\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of the shallow and deep species bottomfish complexes for the\nnorthwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMIBF15\nCrustacean EFH and HAPC Map Key for CNMI\nPage 110\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the location of each of the maps\ngenerated to present EFH and HAPC for the CNMI Crustacean\nManagement Plan\nCrustacean EFH for CNMI\nPage 111\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the area of EFH for both eggs and\nlarvae as well as postlarval life history stages of crustaceans from the\nshorelines to the EEZ boundary of CNMI\nMap No. CNMICRUS1\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for the Island of Rota\nPage 112\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the banks and slopes around Rota\nMap No. CNMICRUS2\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nPage 113\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap No. CNMICRUS3","Page 114\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Farallon de Medinilla to Sarigan\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for Farallon de Medinilla to Sarigan\nMap No. CNMICRUS4\nPage 115\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap No. CNMICRUS5\nPage 116\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap No. CNMICRUS6\nPage 117\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH of the Southwest Section of the\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the southwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMICRUS7\nPage 118\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH of the Northwest Section of the\nEEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the northwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMICRUS8\nPage 119\nCrustaceans HAPC for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the crustaceans HAPC of the\npostlarval life history stage for Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan\nMap No. CNMICRUS9\nPage 120\nCrustacean HAPC for Farallon de Medinilla to Sarigan\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Crustacean HAPC of the\npostlarval life history stage for Farallon de Medinilla to Sarigan\nMap No. CNMICRUS10\nPage 121\nCrustacean HAPC for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the Crustacean HAPC of the\npostlarval life history stage for Guguan Island to Agrihan Island\nMap No. CNMICRUS11","Page 122\nCrustacean HAPC for Asuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the crustacean HAPC of the\npostlarval life history stage for Asuncion Island to Faralon de Pajaros\nMap No. CNMICRUS12\nPage 123\nCrustacean HAPC of the Southwest Section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the HAPC for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the southwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMICRUS13\nPage 124\nCrustacean HAPC of the Northwest Section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap in ArcInfo GIS format illustrating the EFH for the postlarval life\nhistory stage of crustaceans for the northwest section of the EEZ of CNMI\nMap No. CNMICRUS14","HIBF1\nN\n8\nW\nHIBF8\nHIBF2\nHIBF3\nANDH\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key\nHIBF4\nO\nHIBF9\nIslands of Hawaii\n200 Miles\nHIBF10\nHIBF5\n100\nHIBFII\nHIBF6\n0\nand\n100\n\"\nC\nEFH and HAPC Maps\nHIBF12\nHIBF7\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary","Map No. HIBF1\nE\nN\nS\nW\nEntire EEZ from 0 to 400 Meters\nBottomfish EFH\nIslands of Hawaii\n200 Miles\nEgg and Larval Stages:\n©\nIII\nEEZ and Boundary of EFH for Eggs and Larvae\n100\n0\nUT\n100\nE\nDo\n0 to 400 Meter Contour\nIslands","155 W\nMap No. HIBF2\nHawaii\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex:\nMaxi\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nBottomfish EFH\n156 W\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nMolokai\n157 W\nLanai\n80 Miles\n158 W\nOabu\nE\n40\nN\nS\nW\n159 W\n0\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\n40\nKanai\nIslands\n160 W\n19 N\n20 N\n21 N\n2 N","Map No. HIBH3\nE\nS\nN\nW\nHawaiian Islands of Oahu and Molokai\nBottomfish HAPC\nJuvenile Snapper Habitat\n20 Miles\nKailua Bay\n10\nKaneohe Bay\n0\nGreater than 15 Juveniles Collected\n10\n0 to 400 Meter Contour\nper Sampling Day\nIslands","160 W\nNiiban\nE\nMap No. HIBF4\nN\nS\nW\n161 W\nNiboa Island\nHawaiian Islands from Niihau to Necker Island\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\n162 W\nBottomfish EFH\n40 Miles\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\n20\n163 W\nShallow Species Complex: 0 to 100 Meters\nDeep Species Complex: 100 to 400 Meters\n0\n20\nNecker Island\n164 W\n165 W\n22 N\nN\n24 N","164 W\nNecker Island\nMap No. HIBF5\nE\nN\nS\nW\n165 W\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nNecker Island to Gardner Pinnacles\n40 Miles\nFrench Frigate Shoals\nHawaiian Islands from\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\n166 W\n20\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\n0\nBrooks Banks\nSt. Rogatien Bank\n20\nShallow Species Complex: Olto 100 Meters\nDeep Species Complex: 100 to 400 Meters\n167 W\nGardner Pinnacles\n168 W\n23 N\n24 N\n25 N","Raita Bank\nMap No. HIBF6\n170 W\nE\nN\nS\nMaro Reef\nW\n171 W\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nLaysan Island\n40 Miles\nRaita Bank to Lisianski Island\nHawaiian Islands from\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nShallow Species Complex:\n20\n172 W\nDeep Species Complex:\n0\n20\nShallow Species Complex: 0 to 100 Meters\nDeep Species Complex: 100 to 400 Meters\n173 W\nLisianski Island\n174 W\n25 N\n24 N\n27 N\n26 N","175 W\nPearl and Hermes Reef\nE\nN\nS\nW\nMap No. HIBF7\n40 Miles\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\n20\nHawaiian Islands from\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nShallow Species Complex:\n0\nDeep Species Complex:\nSalmon Bank\n20\nMidway Island\nShallow Species Complex: 0 to 100 Meters\nDeep Species Complex: 100 to 400 Meters\n178 W\nKure Island\n28 N\n27 N\n29 N","Map No. HIBF8\n155 W\nHawati\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nMaxi\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nBottomfish HAPC\n156 W\nMolokai\n157 W\nLanai\n60 Miles\n30\n158 W\nE\nOahu\n0\nN\nS\nW\n30\n159 W\nKauai\nBottomfish HAPC\nIslands\n160 W\n19 N\n20 N\n1 N\nN\n2","160 W\nNiiban\nE\nMap No. HIBF9\nS\nN\nW\n161 W\nNiboa Island\nHawaiian Islands from Niihau to Necker Island\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\n162 W\n60 Miles\nBottomfish HAPC\n30\n163 W\n0\n30\nBottomfish HAPC\n164 W\nNecker Island\nIslands\n165 W\n2 N\nN","164 W\nNecker Island\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nMap No. HIBF10\nNecker Island to Gardner Pinnacles\nBottomfish HAPC\nHawaiian Islands from\n165 W\nFrench Frigate Shoals\n166 W\nBrooks Banks\nSt. Rogatien Bank\nE\nS\nN\n167 W\nGardner Pinnacles\nBottomfish HAPC\nIslands\n168 W\n23 N\n25 N\n24","Raita Bank\nMap No. HIBF11\n15\n170 W\nE\nMaro Reef\nN\nS\nW\n171 W\nLaysan Island\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nRaita Bank to Lisianski Island\nBottomfish HAPC\nHawaiian Islands from\n60 Miles\n172 W\n30\n173 W\n0\n30\nBottomfish HAPC\nLisianski Island\n174 W\nIslands\n-\n25 N\n24 N\n26 N\n27 N","175 W\nPearl and Hermes Reef\nE\nN\nS\nMap No. HIBF12\nW\nwith\n&\n,\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nPearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\nHawaiian Islands from\nBottomfish HAPC\n40 Miles\nMidway Island\n20\n0\n178 W\n20\nBottomfish HAPC\nKure Island\nIslands\n27 N\n29 N\n28 N","HICRUS1\nHICRUS7\nE\nN\n5\nHICRUS2\nW\nCrustaceans EFH and HAPC Map Key\nHICRUS9\nHICRUS3\n200 Miles\nIslands of Hawaii\nHICRUS10\nHICRUS13\n.\n100\nHICRUS4\nV\n0\n100\n00\nHICRUS11\nHICRUS5\nD\nEFH and HAPC Maps\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nHICRUS12\nHICRUS6","Crustaceans EFH\nIslands of Hawaii\nEggs and Larvae:\nEntire EEZ from 0 to 150 Meters\nN\nE\nW\nS\n0\nin\nIslands\n150 Meter Contour\nEEZ and Boundary of EFH for Eggs and Larvae\n300 Miles\n0\n300\nMap No. HICRUS1\nA4-15","Map No. HICRUS2\n155 W\nE\nN\nW\nMavi\n156 W\nHawaii\nand\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nCrustaceans EFH\nMolokai\n157 W\nLanai\n60 Miles\nPostlarval Crustadean EFH\nBO\n158 W\nOabu\n0\nIslands\n-\n30\n159 W\nKanai\n19 N\n20 N\n21 N\n22 N","160 W\nMap No. HICRUS3\nNtiban\nE\nN\nS\nW\n161 W\n60 Miles\nNiboa Island\n30\n162 W\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nNiihau to Necker Island\n0\nCrustaceans EFH\nHawaiian Islands from\n30\n163 W\nIII\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH\n164 W\nNecker Island\nIslands\n165 W\n21 N\n22 N\n23 N\n24 N","164 W\nMap No. HICRUS4\nE\nNecker Island\nS\nN\nW\n165 W\n70 Miles\n166 W\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meter Depth\n0\n167 W\nNecker Island to Maro Reef\nEFH for Crustaceans\nGardner Pinnacles\n168 W\n70\n169 W\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH\n170 W\nIslands\nMaro Reef\n171 W\n22 N\n23 N\nN\n25 N\n26 N","Laysan Island\nMap No. HICRUS5\nE\nN\nS\nW\n172\n40 Miles\nEFH for Crustaceans\nLaysan to Lisianski Island\n20\nShoreline to 100 Meter Depth\nW\n173\n0\n20\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH\nLisianski Island\n174 W\nIslands\n25 N\n26 N\n27 N","Pearl and Hermes Reef\nE\nN\nS\nMap No. HICRUS6\nW\n176 W\n40 Miles\nPearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\nShorelines and Bank from 0 to 100 Meters\nHawaiian Islands from\nCrustaceans EFH\n20\n0\nMidway Island\n20\nPostlaryal Crustacean EFH\nIslands\nKure Island\n179 W\n29 N\n27 N\n28 N","Crustaceans HAPC\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nIslands of Hawaii\nN\nE\nW\nS\nIslands\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\nEEZ\n300 Miles\n0\n300\nMap No. HICRUST\nA4-21","160 W\nMap No. HICRUS9\nNiiban\nE\nS\nN\nW\n161 W\n60 Miles\nNiboa Island\n30\n162 W\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nNiihau to Necker Island\n0\nCrustaceans HAPC\nHawaiian Islands from\n30\nless than 30 Meters\n163 W\nPostlarval Stages:\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n164 W\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\nNecker Island\nIslands\n165 W\n21 N\n22 N\n23 N\n24 N","164 W\nMap No. HICRUS10\nE\nNecker Island\nN\nS\nW\n165 W\n70 Miles\n166 W\nU\n0\nNecker Island to Maro Reef\n167 W\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nCrustaceans HAPC\nHawaiian Islands from\nGardner Pinnacles\n168 W\nless than 30 Meters\n70\nPostarval Stages:\n169 W\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\n170 W\nIslands\nMaro Reef\n171 W\n23 N\n22 N\n25 N\n26 N","Laysan Island\nMap No. HICRUS11\nE\nS\nN\nW\n172 W\n40 Miles\nLaysan to Lisianski Island\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\n20\nIslands of Hawaii from\nCrustaceans HAPC\n173 W\n0\nless than 30 Meters\nPostlarval Stages:\n20\nLisiansk Island\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\n174 W\nIslands\n25 N\n26 N\n27 N","Pearl and Hermes Reef\nE\nS\nN\nMap No. HICRUS12\nW\n176 W\n40 Miles\nPearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nCrustaceans HAPC\n20\nHawaiian Islands from\nless than 30 Meters\n0\nPostlarval HAPC:\nMidway Island\n20\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\nIslands\nVIII\nKure Island\n179 W\n29 N\n27 N\n28 N","164 W\nMap No. HICRUS13\nE\nNecker Island\nS\nN\nW\n165 W\n70 Miles\n166 W\nW\nNecker Island, Gardner Pinnacles and Maro Reef\n0\n167 W\nCrustaceans HAPC\nGardner Pinnacles\n168 W\n70\n169 W\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\n170 W\nIslands\nMaro Reef\n171 W\n23 N\n22 N\n25 N\n26 N","HIPEL1\nE\nN\nHIPEL2\nW\nDEED\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key\nIslands of Hawaii\n180 Miles\nHIPEL3\n90\n0\n90\nEFH and HAPC Maps\nHIPELA\nOff Axis Seamounts\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary","Pelagic Fish EFH\nALI Life History Stages:\nEntire EEZ to a Depth of 1000 Meters\nIslands of Hawaii\nN\nE\nW\nS\n0\nK\nIslands\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary and EFH for Pelagic Fish\n400 Miles\n200\n0\n200\nMap No. HIPEL1\nA4-28","154 W\n155 W\n156 W\n157 W\n158 W\n159 W\nN\n160W\nE\nW\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nS\nOff Axis Seamounts to a Depth of 1000 Fathoms\n24 N\nMain Hawaiian Islands\n23 N\nKavai\n22 N\nOabu\nMolokai\nMaxi\n21 N\nLanai\nHawaii\n20 N\nIslands\n1000 Fathom Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nPerret Seamount\nJagger Seamount\nEllis Seamount\n19 N\nW asbington Seamouni\nBrigbam Seamount\nMcCall Seamount\nB\nCross Seamount\n0\nSpordfish Seamount\nPensacola Seamount\nE\n18 N\nMiles\n30\n60\n30\n0\n17 N\nMap No. HIPEL2\n16 N\nA4-29","167 W\n170 W\n171 W\n169\nW\n168 W\n172 W\n173 W\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nOff Axis Seamounts to a Depth of 1000 Fathoms\n28 N\nHawaiian Islands from\nFrench Frigate Shoals to Lisianski Island\nN\nE\nW\n27 N\n8\nLisianski Island\n26 N\nMaro Ree\nGardnerPinnacles\n25 N\nFrench Frigate\n-\nSboais\n24 N\nIslands\n1000 Fathom Contour\nEEZ Boundary\n80 Miles\n40\n0\n40\n23 N\n22 N\n21 N\nMap No. HIPEL$\nA4-30","CHIPP\n172 W\n100 Miles\nMap No. HIPEL4\nOff Axis Seamounts to a Depth of 1000 Fathoms\nPearl and Hermes Reef to Kure Island\n50\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nHawaiian Islands from\n:-\n0\nPearl and Hermes Reef\n50\nSTATE\n177 W\nMidway Island\n178 W\nKure Island\n179 W\nFathom Contout\nBoundary\nE\nN\n8\n180 W\nIslands\nIIIC\n1000\nEEZ\nW\nAND\n179 E\n27 N\n28 N\n30 N\n29 N\n31 N","HIPC1\nE\nN\n8\nHIPC2\nHIPC5\nW\nHIPC4\nHIPC3\nHIPC6\nHIPC7\nPrecious Corals EFH and HAPC Map Key\nHIPC8\nIslands of Hawaii\n180 Miles\nHIPC9\n90\n0\n90\nDo\nEFH and HAPC Maps\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nHIPC10","400 Miles\nMap No. HIPC1\nPrecious Corals Estimated Bathymetric Boundaries\n200\n0\nAll Other Precious Corals: 300 to 1500 Meters\n200\nIslands of Hawaii\nBlack Coral: 20 to 100 Meters\nEstimated Bathymetric Range for all Other Precious Corals\nEstimated Bathymetric Boundaries for Black Corals\nLess Than 20 Meters Deep\nEEZ Boundary\nE\nN\n8\nW","155 W\n156 W\n157 W\nN\n158 W\n159 W\n160 W\nE\nW\n24N\nS\nPrecious Corals Estimated Bathymetric Boundaries\nBlack Coral: 20 to 100 Meters\nAH Other Precious Corals: 300 to 1500 Meters\n23 N\nMain Hawaiian Islands\nKauai\nThank\n22 N\nOahx\nMolokai\nevin\nMaxi\n21 N\n20 N\nIslands\nRange Black Corals\nRange for all Other Precious Corals\nHawa\n19N\n0\n18 N\n120 Miles\n60\n0\n60\n17 N\nMap No. HIPC2\nA4-34","Niboa Ish\nMap No. HIPC10\nNecker Island\nE\nS\nN\nW\nSt. Regatien Bank\nGardner Pinnacles\nPrecious Corals Estimated Bathymetric Boundaries\nc\nFrench Frigate Shoals\nRaita Bank\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands\nAll Others: 300 to 1500 Meters\nBlack Corals: 20 to 100 Meters\nLaysan Island\nMaro\n200 Miles\nDo\nLisianski Island\nBathymetric Boundaries for all Other Precious Corals\nPearl and Hermes\nBathymetric Boundaries for Black Coral\nMidway Island\n0\n0\nLess than 20 Meters Depth\n0\nDo\nSalmon Bank\nKure Island\nEEZ Boundary\n200","Map No. HIPC3\nE\n$\nN\n155.5 W\n5 Miles\nIsland of Hawaii\nEstimated Location of Black Coral Beds\nPrecious Corals EFH\nSouth Point\nHawaiian Islands\nWest Hawaii\n0\n5\n100 Meter Contour\nKauna Point\n20 Meter Contour\nIslands\nBetween 20 and 100 Meter\nBlack Coral Beds Located\nMilolii to South Point\nMilolii\nDepth from\n156.0 W\n19.0 N","156.0 W\nN\nPrecious Corals EFH\nEstimated Boundary of Known\nPrecious Coral Bed Off Keahole Point\nE\nW\nIsland of Hawaii\nS\nHawaiian Islands\n20.01 N\nIsland of Hawaii\nKeshole Point\nKani Point\nKnown Precious Coral Bed\nIsland of Hawaii\n300 Meter Isobath\n1500 Meter Isobath\n8 Miles\n4\n0\n4\n19.5N\nKrahkekuz Bay\nMap No PIPCA\nA4-37","157 W\nN\nE\nW\nIsland of Mebka\nS\n21 N\nIsland of Mas\nPrecious Corals EFH\nFederates Location\nand HAPC\nof\nBlack Coret Bed\nEstimated Boundary of\nBlack Coral Bed Located Between\nthe Islands of Lanai and Msui\nIsland of Love\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\nIslands\nBlack Coral Bed\n20 Meter Contour\n100 Meter Contour\nA4-38\nMap No. HIPC5","-\nHIPC6\nArea of EFH and HAPC\n157.5 W\nE\n18 Miles\nS\nN\nW\nPrecious Coral EFH and HAPC\nEstimated Boundaries of Precious Coral Beds\nOff the Island of Oahu\nIsland of Oahu\n0\n158.0 W\n1500 Meter Contour\nPrecious Coral Beds\n300 Meter Contour\nKaena Point\nArea of EFH\n21.5 N","8 Miles\nMap No. HIPC7\n4\n0\n4\nE\nS\nN\nW\nBlack Coral Beds between 20 and 100 Meter Depth\nPrecious Corals EFH\nOff the Island of Kauai\n159.5 W\nIsland of Kauai\nEstimated Boundary of Black Coral Bed\n100 Meter Contour\n20 Meter Contour\n-\n22.0 N","Map No. HIPC8\nE\nNiboa Island\n60 Milee\nS\nN\n162.0 W\nW\nWesPac Bed\nWest Bank\nPrecious Corals EFH and HAPC\nEstimated Boundary of Known Precious Coral Bed\n30\nBetween Necker and Nihoa Islands\n162.5 W\nNorthwest Hawaiian Islands\n0\n163.0 W\n30\nEstimated Boundary of Precious Coral Bed\n163.5W\nNecker Island\n164,0 W\n0 to 100 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\n300 Meter Contour\n164.5 W\nIslands\n165.0 W\n22.0 N\n22.5 N\n23.0 N\n23.5 N\n24.0 N\n24.5 N","N\n166.5N\n167.0N\n167.5 N\nE\n25.01\ns\nPrecious Corals EFH\nKnown Precious Coral Bed\nIslands of Hawaii at\nBrooks Banks\n24.51\nSt Regatien Bank\nBrooks Banks Bed\nBrooks Banks\n24.0N\nFrench Frigate Shoals\nEstimated Area of Precious Corals Bed\n0 to 100 Meter Contour\n300 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\n23.5N\nMiles\n16\n8\n8\n0\nMap No. HIPC9\nA4-42","N\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Maps\nE\nAmerican Samoa\n=\nASBF1\nASBF7\nASBF6\nASBF12\nASBF2\nASBF8\nISBF3\nASBF4\nASBF5\nASBF9\nASBF11\nASBF10\n80 Miles\n40\n0\n40\nIslands\nEFH and HAPC Msp Boundaries\nEFH for Shallow Species Complex\nEFH for Deep Species Complex\nEEZ Boundary\nA4-43","E\nEggs and Larval Stages: Entire EEZ to 400 Meters\nN\ns\nShoreline and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nBottomfish EFH\nW\nAmerican Samoa\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nMap No. ASBF1\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\nRose Atoll\n20 40 Miles\n0\n20\nManu'a Grasp\n169 W\nSouth Bank\n170 W\n171 W\nTutuila\nSwain's Island\nEFH for Shallow Species Complex\n172 W\nEFH for Deep Species Complex\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\n173 W\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\n174 W\n16 S\n14 S\n15 S\n12 S\n13 S\n11 S\n10 S","------------------\n169.0 W\n12 Miles\nMap No. ASBF2\nE\nN\n8\n6\nMann'a Group\nW\n0\n6\n169.5 W\nSoutheast Bank\nEFH for Shallow Species Complex\nEFH for Deep Species Complex\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nNortheast Bank\nEEZ Boundary\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meter Depth\nAmerican Samoa\nIslands\n170,0 W\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\n1\n170.5 W\nSouth Bank\nTutuila\n171.0 W\n0\n15.0 S\nS\n14.5\n14.0\n3.5","170.5 W\n171.0 W\nN\nBottomfish EFH\nE\nW\nShallow Species Complex:\ns\nShoreline and Banks to 100 Meters\n14.0 S\nDeep Species Complex:\n100 to 400 Meters\nAmerican Samoa\nTutuila\n145 S\n8 Miles\n0\n4\n4\nIslands\nEFH for Shallow Species Complex\nEFH for Deep Species Complex\nEEZ Boundary\nSouth Bank\n15.0 S\nMap No. ASBF3\nA4-46","Map No. ASBF4\nE\nN\nS\nMiles\nW\n169.5 W\n8\nManu'a Group\n4\n0\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\n4\nBottomfish EFH\nAmerican Samoa\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nShallow Species Complex\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\nDeep Species Complex:\n1000 Meter Isobath\nIslands\n170.0 W\nNortheast Bank\n14.5 S\n14.0 S","168 W\nMap No. ASBF5\nE\nS\nN\n6 Miles\nW\n3\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nRose Atoll\n0\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nRose Atoll\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\n3\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\n3000 Meter Isobath\n2000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\nIslands\n14.5 S","6 Miles\nMap No. ASBF6\n---------------\nE\nN\nS\n3\nW\n0\n3\n171.0 W\nShorelines and Banks from o to 100 Meters\nBottomfish EFH\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nSwain's Island\nShallow Species Complex:\nDeep Species Complex:\nEFH for Shallow Species Complex\nSwain's Island\nEFH for Deep Species Complex\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\nIsland's\n11.0 S","E\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\nN\nS\nW\nBottomfish HAPC\nAmerican Samoa\nMap No. ASBF7\n80 Miles\n40\nRose Atoll\n0\nR\n40\nManu'a Group\n169 W\nSouth Bank\n2\n170 W\n-\nTutuila\n171 W\nor\nD\nIsland\nHAPC for Bottomfish\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\n172 W\nSwain's\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\n173 W\n18 S\n174 W\n17 S\n16 S\n15 S\n14 S\n13 S\n12 S\n11 S\n10 S","169.0 W\n20 Miles\nMap No. ASBF8\nE\nManu'a Group\nN\nS\nW\n10\nSoutheast Bank\n169.5 W\n0\n10\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\nNortheast Bank\nBottomfish HAPC\nAmerican Samoa\n170.0 W\n170.5 W\n1\nSouth Bank\nTutuila\nHAPC for Bottomfish\n1000 Meter Isobath\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\nEEZ Boundary\n171.0 W\nIslands\n0\n15.0 S\n14.5%\n14.0,S\n13.5 S","170.5 W\n171.0 W\nN\nHAPC for Bottomfish\nW\nE\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\nS\nAmerican Samoa\n14.0 S\nTutvila\n14.5 S\n18 Miles\n9\n0\n9\nIslands\nHAPC for Bottomfish\nEEZ Boundary\nSouth Bank\n15.0 S\nMap No. ASBF9\nA4-52","----------\nMap No. ASBF10\nMiles\n169.5 W\n8\nManu'a Group\n4\na\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\n4\nBottomfish HAPC\nAmerican Samoa\n170.0 W\nHAPC for Bottomfish\n2000 Meter Isobath\n1000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\nNortheast Bank\nIslands\n14.5 S\n14.0 S","168W\nMap No. ASBF11\nE\nN\nS\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\n-\nRose Atoll\nBottomfish HAPC\nAmerican Samoa\nHAPC for Bottomfish\n1000 Meter Isobath\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\n14.5 S","4 Miles\nE\nMap No. ASBF12\nN\nS\n2\nW\n0\n-----------\n2\nSlopes and Escarpments Between 40 and 280 Meters\n171.0 W\nBottomfish HAPC\nAmerican Samoa\nSwain's Island\nHAPC for Bottomfish\n1000 Meter Isobath\n2000 Meter Isobath\n3000 Meter Isobath\nIsland\n11.0S","Crustacean EFH and HAPC Maps\nAmerican Samoa\nASCRUS1\nASCRUST\nASCRUS6\nASCRUS12\nASCRUS2\nASCRUS8\nASCRUS4\nASCRUS3\nASCRUS10\nASCRUS9\nASCRUS5\nASCRUS11\n-\nIslands\n120 Miles\n60\n60\n0\nEFH Maps\nCrustacean EFH\nEEZ Boundary\nA4-56","Map No. ASCRUS1\nE\n165 W\nN\nS\nW\n166 W\n120 Miles\n167 W\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nRose Atoll\nEggs and Larval Stages: Entire EEZ to 150 Meters\n60\n168 W\nCrustaceans EFH\n0\nManula Group\nAmerican Samoa\n169 W\n60\n170 W\nSouth Bank\nSwain's Island\nEEZ and EFH of Eggs and Larvae\nTxtuila\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH\n171 W\n172 W\nIslands\n173 W\n174 W\n18 S\n16 S\n15 S\n17 S\n14 S\n13 S\n11 S\n12 S\n10 S","Map No. ASCRUS2\nManu'a Group\n16 Miles\n169.5 W\nE\n8\nN\nS\n0\nW\nNortbeast Bank\n8\nPostlarval Crustacean EFH\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\n170.0 W\n1000 Meter Contour\n500 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nCrustaceans EFH\nIslands\nAmerican Samoa\n170.5 W\nSouth Bank\nTutuila\n171.0 W\n15.0 S\n14,0 S\n14.5 S","169.5 W\n171.0 W\nCrustaceans EFH\n14.0 S\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nN\nAmerican Samoa\nE\nW\nS\nTutvila\n14.5 S\n10 Miles\n5\n5\n0\nIslands\nEFH for Crustaceans\n500 Meter Contour\n1000 Meter Contour\nSouth Bank\n15.0 S\nMap No. ASCRUS3\nA4-59","Map No. ASCRUS4\nE\nN\nS\n10 Miles\nW\n169.5 W\nManu'a Group\n5\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\n0\nCrustaceans EFH\n5\nAmerican Samoa\nEFH for Crustaceans\n1000 Meter Contour\n500 Meter Contour\nIslands\n170.0 W\nNortheast Bank\n14.5 S\n4.0 S","168.1 W\n168.2 W\n168.3 W\nCrustaceans EFH\n4.4S\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nAmerican Samoa\nN\nE\nW\nS\n145 S\nRose Atall\n14.6 S\n4 Miles\n2\n0\n2\nEFH for Crustaceans\n500 Meter Contour\n1000 Meter Contour\n14.7 S\nMap No. ASCRUS5\nA4-61","171.0 W\nCrustaceans EFH\nPostlarval Stages: Shorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nAmerican Samoa\nN\nE\nW\nS\n11.0S\nSparks Island\n6 Miles\nIslands\n3\n0\n3\nEFH for Crustaceans\n500 Meter Contour\n1000 Meter Contour\nMap No. ASCRUS6\nA4-62","165 W\nMap No. ASCRUS7\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\n100 Miles\n166 W\nCrustaceans HAPC\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\nE\nN\nS\nW\n167 W\n50\nRose Atoll\n0\n168 W\n@\n50\nGroup\n169 W\nManu'd\n170 W\nSwain's Island\nTutuila\n$\n171 W\nC\nHAPC for Crustaceans\n172 W\nEEZ Boundary\n173 W\nIslands\n174 W\n18 S\n17 S\n16 S\n15 S\n14 S\n13 S\n11 S\n12 S\n10 S","171.0 W\n170.5 W\n14.0 S\nHAPC for Crustaceans\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\nTutuila\n14.5 S\nIslands\nHAPC for Crustaceans\n10 Miles\n500 Meter Contour\n5\n0\n5\n1000 Meter Contour\nSouth Bank\n15.0 S\nA4-64\nMap No. ASCRUS9","Map No. ASCRUS8\nManu'a Group\n169.5 W\n16 Miles\nE\nS\nN\nW\nNortheast Bank\n8\n170.0 W\n0\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nCrustaceans HAPC\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\n8\n170.5 W\nSouth Bank\nHAPC for Crustaceans\n1000 Meter Contour\nMeter Contour\nTutuila\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\n171.0 W\n500\n15.0 S\n14.5 S\n14.0 S","Map No. ASCRUS10\nE\n10 Miles\nN\nS\nW\n169.5 W\nManx'a Group\n5\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nCrustaceans HAPC\n0\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\n5\nHAPC for Crustaceans\n1000 Meter Contour\n500 Meter Contour\nIslands\n170.0 W\nNortheast Bank\n14.5 S\n14.0 S","168.1 W\n168.2 W\n168.3 W\nCrustaceans HAPC\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\n4.4\nS\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\nN\nE\nW\ns\n145 S\nRon Anil\n14.6 S\n4 Miles\n2\n0\n2\nEFH for Crustaceans\n500 Meter Contour\n1000 Meter Contour\n14.7 S\nMap No. ASCRUS11\nA4-67","171.0 W\nCrustaceans HAPC\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nAmerican Samoa\nN\nE\nW\nS\n11.0S\nH\nIslands\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\nHAPC for Crustaceans\n500 Meter Contour\n1000 Meter Contour\nMap No. ASCRUS12\nA4-68","N\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Maps\nE\nW\nAmerican Samoa\nS\nASPEL1\nASPEL2\n-\n0\n0\nIslands\n120 Miles\n60\n60\n0\nEFH Maps\nEEZ Boundary\nA4-69","N\nPelagic Fish EFH\nAll Life History Stages:\nW\nE\nEntire EEZ to a depth of 1000 Meters\nAmerican Samoa\nS\nMap No. ASPEL1\nIslands\n140 Miles\n70\n0\n70\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nA4-70","Rose Atoll\nMap No. ASPEL2\n20 Miles\n10\n0\nE\n10\n169 W\nS\nN\nW\nManu'a Group\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nSeamounts and Banks to a Depth of 1000 Fathoms\nIslands\nSoutheast Bank\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nNortbeast Bank\nAmerican Samoa\n170 W\nSouth Bank\nTutuila\n171 W\n14.08\n5.0 S","GUAMBF1\nE\nN\n80 Miles\nW\n40\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key\n0\n40\nGUAMBF2\nGUAMBF5\nGuam\nGUAMBF3\nGUAMBF6\n400 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nGUAMBF4\nGUAMBF7\nIslands\n-","20 0 20 40 Miles\nonly for general guidelines until complete bathymetry\nMap No. GUAMBF1\n149 E\nall bottomfish hebitat. This map should be used\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\n148 E\nE\nN\nS\nW\nis available.\n147 E\n146 E\nEEZ and Boundary of EFH for Eggs and Larvae\nShoreline to the EEZ Boundary\nBottomfish EFH\nIsland of Guam\n145 E\nfrom 0 to 400 Meters\nEgg and Larval Stages:\nMeter Contour\nGuam\n144 E\nIsland\n143 E\n142 E\n141 E\n10 N\n11 N\n12 N\n3 N\n4 N\n5 N\nN","145.0 E\n144.5 E\nBottomfish EFH\nN\n1 4.0 N\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nE\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nS\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nIsland of Guam\nGuam\n135N\n12 Miles\n6\n0\n6\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nIslands\nonly for general guidelines until complete bathymetry\nShallow Species Complex\nis available\nDeep Species Complex\n13.0 N\nMap No. GUAMBF2\nA4-74","145.0 E\n144.5 E\n144.0 E\n1 4.0 N\nN\nBottomfish EFH\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nS\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex:\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nIsland of Guam\nGuan\n13.5 N\n13.0N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidleines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\n12.5N\nIslands\n14 Miles\n7\n7\n0\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nMap No. GUAMBF3\nA4-75","143,1 E\n143.0 E\n142.8 E\n142.9 E\n142.7 E\n142.6 E\n14.6 N\nN\nBottomfish EFH\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex\nShorelines and Banks from o to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex:\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nS\nIsland of Guam\n14.5 N\n14.4 N\n14.3 N\n14.2 N\n14.1 N\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\n14.0 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nIslands\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nShallow Species Complex\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nDeep Species Complex\nbathymetry is available\n13.9 N\nMap No. GUAMBF4\nA4-76","145.0 E\n144.5 E\n14.0N\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\nE\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nS\nIsland of Guam\nGram\n13.5\nN\n14 Miles\n7\n0\n7\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nIsland\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\n13.0 N\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nBottomfish HAPC\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. GUAMBF5\nA4-77","144.5 E\nBottomfish HAPC\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nIsland of Guam\nN\nW\nE\nS\n13.0 N\nGalvez Bank\nSanta Rosa Reef\n12 Miles\n6\n0\n6\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nIsland\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nBottomfish HAPC\n12.5 N\nonly for general guidelines until complete\n1000 Meter Contour\nbathymetry is available\n2000 Meter Contour\nMap No. GUAMBF6\nA4-78","143.0 E\n142.9 E\n142.8 E\n14.5 N\n142.7 E\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\nE\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nS\nIsland of Guam\n14.4 N\n14.3 N\n14.2 N\n14.1 N\nMiles\n6\n3\n0\n3\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\n2000 Meter Contour\nonly for general guidelines until complete\n14.0 N\nBottomfish HAPC\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. GUAMBF7\nA4-79","80 Miles\nGCRUS1\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nE\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nN\nS\n40\nW\nbathymetry is available.\n0\n40\nCrustacean EFH and HAPC Map Key\nGCRUS2\nGCRUS4\nGuam\nGCRUS3\nGCRUS5\n100 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\n-","Map No. GCRUS1\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nE\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nN\nS\nW\nbachymetry is available.\n80 Miles\n40\nShoreline to the EEZ Boundary\nCrustaceans EFH\nfrom 0 to 150 Meters Depth\n0\nGuam\n40\nEggs and Larvae:\n145 E\nGuam\nEEZ and Boundary of EFH for Eggs and Larvae\n150 Meter Contour\nIsland\n10 N\n5 N","145.0 E\n144.5 E\nN\n14.0N\nE\nW\nCrustacean EFH\nShores and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nS\nGuam\n13.5N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nIsland\nPostlarwal Crustacean EFH\n8 Miles\n4\n0\n4\n13.0N\nGCRUS2\nA4-82","144.5 E\nCrustacean EFH\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nGuam\n13.0N\nGalvez Bank\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nSanta Rosa Reef\n12 Miles\n6\n6\n0\n12.5 N\nIslands\nCrustaceans EFH\n1000 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nMap No. GCRUS3\nA4-83","N 145.0 E\n144.9 E\n144.8 E\n144.6 E\n144.7 E\n/\nE\nW\n13.7N\nCrustacean HAPC\nS\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nGuam\n13.6 N\nGuam\n13.5 N\n13.4 N\n13.3 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\n13.2N\nbathymetry is available\nIsland\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\n13.1 N\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nMap No. GCRUS4\nA4-84","144.5 E\n13.5 N\nCrustacean HAPC\nGuam\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nless than 30 Meters Deep\nGuam\nN\nE\nW\nS\n13.0 N\nGalvez Bank\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nSanta Rosa Reef\n10 Miles\n5\n0\n5\n12.5 N\nIsland\nLess than 30 Meter Contour\n30 to 100 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nMap No. GCRUS5\nA4-85","100 Miles\nGPEL1\nGPEL2\n50\n0\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key\n50\nGuam\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands","Map No. GPEL1\nE\n80 Miles\nN\nS\nW\n40\n0\n40\nShorelines to the EEZ Boundary\nPelagic Fish EFH\nto 2 Depth of 1000 Meters\nAll Life History Stages:\nGuam\n145 E\nEEZ Boundary and EFH for Pelagic Fish\n2000 Meter Contour\nIsland\n140 E\n10 N\n15 N","-\n100 Miles\nMap No. GPEL2\n50\n0\n50\nWaters Overlying Off Axis Seamounts with\nSummits less than 2000 Meters Deep\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nAll Life History Stages:\n145 E\nGuam\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nEEZ Boundary\nIsland\n140 E\n10 N\n15 N","CNMIPEL1\nPelagic Fish EFH and HAPC Map Key\nN\nCommonwealth of the\nE\nW\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nS\nCNMIPEL2\nCNMIPEL4\nB\nCNMIPEL3\n60 Miles\n30\n30\n0\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\nA4-89","150 E\n145 E\n20 N\nN\nPelagic Fish EFH\nE\nW\nAll Life History Stages:\nShorelines to EEZ Boundary\nS\nto a Depth of 1000 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n0\n0\n00\n15 N\n8\nO\n10 N\nIslands\nEEZ Boundary and EFH for Pelagic Fish\n2000 Meter Contour\n80 Miles\n40\n40\n0\nMap No /CNMIPEL1\nA4-90","149 E\n148 E\n147 E\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nN\nOff Axis Seamounts to 2 Depth of 2000 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\n21 N\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nS\nNortheast Section of EEZ\n20 N\n19 N\n18 N\n40 Miles\n20\n0\n20\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nEEZ Boundary\nCNMIPEL2\nMap No.\nA4-91","143 E\n142 E\n141 E\nN\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nE\nW\nOff Axis Seamounts to a Depth of 2000 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nSouthwest Section of EEZ\n16 N\n15 N\n14N\n40 Miles\n20\n0\n20\nPelagic Fish HAPC\nEEZ Boundary\n13 N\nMap No. CNMIPEL3\nA4-92","144 E\n141 E\n142 E\n143 E\n140 E\nN\nE\nW\nPelagic Fish HAPC\n22 N\nS\nOff Axis Seamounts to a Depth of 2000 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nNortheast Section of EEZ\n21 N\n20 N\n19 N\n18 N\n17 N\nPelagic Fish HAPC\n40 Miles\nEEZ Boundary\n20\n0\n20\nMap No. CNMIPEL4\n16 N\nA4-93","CNMIBF1\nN\nBottomfish EFH and HAPC Map Key\nW\nE\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nCNMIBF8\nCBNIBF6\nCNMIBF15\nCNMIBF13\nCNMIBF5\nCNMIBF12\nCNMIBF4\nCNMIBF11\nCNMIBF3\nCNMBF14\nCNMIBF10\nCNMIBF7\nCNMIBF2\n400 Meter Contour\n80 Miles\n40\n40\n0\nEEZ Boundary\nCNMIBF9\nIslands\nA4-94","145 E\n140 E\nN\n25 N\nE\nW\nBottomfish EFH\nS\nEgg and Larval Stages:\nShoreline to EEZ Boundary\nfrom 0 to 400 Meters Depth\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n0\nD\n20 N\nDC\na\noo\n15 N\n40 0 40 80 Miles\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nIslands\nbathymetry is available\n400 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary and EFH for Eggs and Larvae\nA4-95\nMap No. CNMIBF1","145.3 E\n145.2 E\n145.1 E\nBottomfish EFH\n14.4 N\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nE\nW\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nIsland of Rota\n14.3 N\n14.2 N\nRota\n14.1 N\nNote: The ETOPOS bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\n14.0 N\nIsland\n6 Miles\n3\nShallow Species Complex\n0\n3\nDeep Species Complex\nMap No. CNMIBF2\nA4-96","146.0 E\n145.5 E\nN\nBottomfish EFH\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nS\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\n15.5 N\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAguijan to Saipan\nSaipan\n15.0 N\nTinian\nEsmeralda Bank\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nAguyan\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nIslands\n10 Miles\n5\n0\n5\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nA4-97\nMap No. CNMIBF3","146.0 E\n145.9 E\nBottomfish EFH\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nE\nW\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nFarallon de Medinilla to Zealandia Bank\n16.2 N\nZealandia Bank\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottomfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nSarigan\n16.1 N\nAnataban\nIslands\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nFarallon de Medinilla\n16.0 N\n14 Miles\n7\n0\n7\nMap No. CNMIBF4\nA4-98","146.1 E\n146.0 E\n145.9 E\n145.8 E\n19.1 N\nBottomfish EFH\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nE\nW\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n19.0 N\nGuguan to Agriban\nAgrihan\n18.9 N\nPagan\n18.8 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmifish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general-guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nAlamagan\n18.7 N\nIslands\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nGuguan\nMiles\n20\n10\n0\n10\nA4-99\n18.6 N\nMaD No. CNMIBF5","145.1 E\n145.0 E\n144.9 E\nBottomfish EFH\nN\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\n20.1 N\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex:\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAsuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nFarallon de Pajaros\n20.0 N\nSupply Reef\nMaug Islands\n19.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5. bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nAsuncion Island\n20 Miles\n10\n10\n0\n19.8 N\nIslands\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nMap No. CNMIBF6\nA4-100","143.1 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\nBottomfish EFH\n17.1 N\nN\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex:\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nSoutheast Section of EEZ\n17.0 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\n16.9 N\nMiles\n10\n20\n10\n0\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\n16.8 N\nMap No. CNMIBF7\nA4-101","143.1 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\n21.1 N\nBottomfish EFH\nN\nPostlarval Stages of Shallow Species Complex:\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages of Deep Species Complex\nDepth of 100 to 400 Meters\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nNorthwest Section of EEZ\n21.0 N\n20.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\n20.8 N\n10 0 10 20 Miles\nShallow Species Complex\nDeep Species Complex\nEEZ Boundary\n20.7 N\nA4-102\nMap No. CNMIBF8","145.3 E\n145.2 E\n145.1 E\nBottomfish HAPC\n14.4 N\nN\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nIsland of Rota\n14.3 N\n14.2 N\nRota\n14.1 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth-contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\n14.0 N\nIsland\nBottomfish HAPC\n1000 Meter Contour\nMap No. CNMIBF9\nA4-103","146.0 E\n145.5 E\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\nE\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNortbern Mariana Islands\n15.5 N\nAguijan to Saipan\nSaipan\n15.0 N\nEsmeralda Bank\nTinian\nAguijan\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nIslands\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nBottomfish HAPC\nonly for general guidelines until complete\n1000 Meter Contour\nbathymetry is available.\n6 Miles\n3\n0\n3\nMap No. CNMIBF10\nA4-104","146.0 E\n145.9 E\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\nE\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nFarallon de Medimilla to Zealandia Bank\nZealandia Bank\n16.2 N\nNote: The ETOPOS bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nSarigan\n16.1 N\nAnataban\nFarallon de Medimilla\nIslands\nBottomfish HAPC\n16.0 N\n1000 Meter Contour\n14 A4-105 Miles\n7\n7\n0\nMap No. CNMIBF11","146.1 E\n145.9 E\n146.0 E\n145.8 E\n19.1 N\nBottomfish HAPC\nN\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nGuguan to Agrihan\n19.0 N\nAgrihan\n18.9 N\nPagan\n18.8 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nAlamagan\n18.7 N\nGuguan\nIslands\n20 Miles\n10\n0\n10\nBottomfish HAPC\n1000 Meter Contour\nMap No. CNMIBF12\nA4-106\n18.6 N","145.1 E\n145.0 E\n144.9 E\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\nE\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\n20.1 N\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAsuncion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nFarallon de Pajaros\n20.0 N\nSupply Reef\nMaug Islands\nO\n19.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nAsuncion Island\n19.8 N\n20 Miles\nIslands\n10\n0\n10\nBottomfish HAPC\n1000 Meter Contour\nA4-107\nMap No. CNMIBF13","143.1 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\nN\nBottomfish HAPC\n17.1 N\nE\nW\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNortbern Mariana Islands\nIsland of Rota\n17.0 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\n16.9 N\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nEEZ Boundary\n20 Miles\n10\n0\n10\nBottomfish HAPC\n1500 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\n16.8 N\nMap No. CNMIBF14\n4-108","143.1 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\n21.1 N\nBottomfish HAPC\nSlopes and Escarpments between 40 and 280 Meters\nN\nCommonwealth of the\nE\nW\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nS\nNorthwest Section of EEZ\n21.0 N\n20.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\n20.8 N\nall bottmfish habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nMiles\n40\n+ 20\n0\n20\nEEZ Boundary\nBottomfish HAPC\n1500 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\n20.7 N\nMap No. CNMIBF15\nA4-109","CNMICRUS1\nN\nCrustacean EFH and HAPC Map Key\nW\nE\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nCNMICRUS6\nCNMICRUS13\nCNMICRUS8\nCNMICRUS15\nCNMICRUS5\nCNMICRUS12\nCNMICRUST\nCNMICRUS4\nCNMICRUS14\nCNMICRUS11\nB\nCNMICRUS3\nCNMICRUS10\n80 Miles\n100 Meter Contour\n40\n0\n40\nEEZ Boundary\nIslands\nCNMICRUS2\nCNMICRUS9\nA4-110","25 N\n145 E\nCrustacean EFH\nN\nEggs and Larvac:\nShorelines to the EEZ Boundary\nE\nW\nfrom 0 to 150 Meters Depth\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n0\n0\n20 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nD\na\n80 Miles\n40\no\n40\n15 N\nIslands\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nMap No. CNMICRUS1\nA4-111","145.3 E\n145.2 E\n145.1 E\nCrustacean EFH\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nS\nIsland of Rota\n14.3 N\nRota\n14.2N\n14.1 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathrmetry is available.\n14.0 N\nMiles\n4\n2\n0\n2\nIsland\nCrustacean EFH\nMap No. CNMICRUS2\n13.9 N\nA4-112","146.0 E\n145.5 E\nCrustacean EFH\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAguijan to Saipan\n1 5.5 N\nSaipan\nTinian\n15.0 N\nEsmeralda Bank\nAguijan\n12 Miles\n6\n6\n0\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\nIslands\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nCrustacean EFH\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\n1000 Meter Contour\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\n1500 Meter Contour\n14.5 N\nMap No. CNMICRUS3\nA4-113","146.0 E\nCrustacean EFH\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nCommonwealth of the\nW\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nS\nFarallon de Mendinilla to Sarigan\nSarigan\n16.1 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nAnataban\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nIslands\nCrustacean EFH\n1000 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\nFarallon de Mendinilla\n1 6.0 N\n8 Miles\n4\n4\n0\nMap No. CNMICRUS4\nA4-114","146.1 E\n146.0 E\n145.9 E\n145.8 E\nN\nCrustacean EFH\nE\nW\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n19.0 N\nGuguan to Agriban\nAgrihan\n18.9 N\nPagan\n18.8 N\nIslands\nCrustacean EFH\n1000 Meter Contour\nMiles\n16\n8\n0\n8\n1500 Meter Contour\nAlamagan\n18.7N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nGuguan\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\ne\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. CNMICRUS5\nA4-115","145.1 E\n144.9 E\n145.0 E\nCrustacean EFH\nN\n20.1 N\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAsucion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nFarallon de Pajaros\n20.0 N\nMaugIslands\n19.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nAsucion Island\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\n19.8N\nIslands\n20 Miles\n10\n0\n10\nCrustacean EFH\n1000 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\nMap No. CNMICRUS6\n19.7 N\nA4-116","143.1 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\n142.8 E\n1 7.1 N\nCrustacean EFH\nN\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nE\nW\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nSouthwest Section of EEZ\n1 7.0 N\n16.9 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nalkcrustacean habitat. This map should be used\n16.8 N\nonly-for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nCrustacean EFH\n1500 Meter Contour\n40 Miles\n2000 Meter Contour\n20\n0\n20\nEEZ Boundary\n16.7 N\nCNMICRUS7\nMap No.\nA4-117","142.8 E\n143.0 E\n142.9 E\n143.1 E\nN\nCrustacean EFH\nE\nW\nShorelines and Banks from 0 to 100 Meters\nCommonwealth of the\nS\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n21.0 N\nNorthwest Section of EEZ\n20.9 N\n20.8 N\n40 Miles\n20\n20\n0\nCrustacean EFH\n1500 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\n20.7 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. CNMICRUS8\nA4-118","146.0 E\n145.5 E\nN\nE\nCrustacean HAPC\nPostlarval Stages:\nS\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\n15.5 N\nAguijan to Saipan\nSaipan\nTinian\n15.0 N\nEsmeralda Bank\nAguijan\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustaceans habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nIslands\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\n10 Miles\n1000 Meter Contour\n5\n0\n5\nMap No. CNMICRUS9\n1500 Meter Contour\n14.5 N\nA4-119","146.0 E\nCrustacean HAPC\nN\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nW\nE\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nS\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nFarallon de Mendenilla to Sarigan\nSarigan\n16.1 N\nAnatahan\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nIslands\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\n1000 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\nFarallon de Mendinilla\n16.0N\n8 Miles\n4\n0\n4\nMap No. CNMICRUS10\nA4-120","146.1 E\n146.0 E\n145.9 E\n145.8 E\nN\nCrustacean HAPC\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nS\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nCommonwealth of the\n19.0 N\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nGuguan to Agrihan\nAgriban\n18.9 N\nPagan\n1 8.8 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate-these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available\nIslands\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\nAlamagan\n1000 Meter Contour\n1500 Meter Contour\n18.7 N\n18 Miles\n9\n9\n0\nGuguan\nCNMICRUS11\nA4-121","145.0 E\n145.1 E\n144.9 E\nN\nCrustacean HAPC\nE\nW\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\n20.1 N\nS\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nCommonwealth of the\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nAsucion Island to Farallon de Pajaros\nFarallon de Pajaros\n20.0 N\nMaugIslands\n19.9 N\nAsucion Island\nIslands\n19.8 N\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\n10\n20 Miles\n10\n0\n1000\nMeter Contour\n1500\nMeter Contour\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. CNMICRUS12\n19.7 N\nA4-122","142.8 E\n142.9 E\n143.0 E\n143.1 E\n1 7.1 N\nCrustacean HAPC\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nN\nCommonwealth of the\nW\nE\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nSouthwest Section of EEZ\nS\n17.0 N\n16.9 N\n16.8 N\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\n40 Miles\n20\n0\n20\n1500 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\n16.7 N\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. CNMICRUS13\nA4-123","142.8 E\n142.9 E\n143.1 E\n143.0 E\nCrustacean HAPC\nN\nPostlarval Stages:\nAll Banks and Pinnacles with Summits\nW\nE\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\nS\nCommonwealth of the\n21.0N\nNorthern Mariana Islands\nNorthwest Section of EEZ\n19.9 N\n19.8 N\nLess than 30 Meters Deep\n20\n0\n20\n40 Miles\n30 to 100 Meters Deep\n1500 Meter Contour\n2000 Meter Contour\nEEZ Boundary\n19.7 N\nNote: The ETOPO5 bathymetric data used to\ngenerate these depth contours does not resolve\nall crustacean habitat. This map should be used\nonly for general guidelines until complete\nbathymetry is available.\nMap No. CNMICRUS14\nA4-124","Appendix 5\nGeneral Description of Non-fishing Impacts to Bottomfish, Crustacean,\nPelagic and Precious Coral Habitat in the Western Pacific\nA5-1\nINTRODUCTION\n1.0\nA5-2\n1.1\nDredging\nA5-2\nDredge Material Disposal and Fill\n1.2\nA5-4\n1.3\nMarine Mining\nA5-4\n1.4\nWater Intake Structures\nA5-5\n1.5\nAquaculture\nA5-5\n1.6\nWastewater Discharge\nDischarge of Oil or Release of Hazardous Substances\nA5-6\n1.7\nA5-7\nFish Enhancement Structures\n1.8\nA5-7\nCoastal Development Impacts\n1.9\nA5-8\nIntroduction of Exotic Species\n1.10\nA5-8\nAgricultural Practices\n1.11\nCONSERVATION MEASURES FOR NONFISHING IMPACTS TO WESTERN\n2.0\nPACIFIC BOTTOMFISH, CRUSTACEAN, PRECIOUS CORAL AND PELAGICS\nA5-9\nHABITATS\nA5-10\nBackground\n2.1\nA5-10\n2.2\nMeasures\nA5-11\n2.2.1\nDredging\nA5-11\nFills/dredge material disposal\n2.2.2\nA5-12\n2.2.3\nMarine Mining\nA5-12\n2.2.4\nWater intake structures\nA5-13\nAquaculture facilities\n2.2.5\nA5-13\n2.2.6\nWastewater discharge\nDischarge of oil or release of hazardous substances\nA5-14\n2.2.7\nA5-14\n2.2.8\nFish enhancement structures\nA5-14\n2.2.9\nCoastal development impacts\nA5-15\nIntroduction of exotics\n2.2.10\nA5-15\n2.2.11 Agricultural practices","1.0\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Magnuson-Stevens Act contains provisions for the description and identification of essential\nfish habitat (EFH) in fishery management plans (FMPs), including adverse nonfishing impacts\non such habitat. To fulfill this goal, the Act requires that all Councils identify activities that have\nthe potential to adversely affect EFH quantity or quality, or both. Section 600.815 (a) (5) of the\nEFH regulations identifies the following broad categories of nonfishing impacts that can\nadversely affect EFH: dredging, fill, excavation, mining, impoundment, water diversions, actions\nthat contribute to nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation, thermal discharge, introduction of\npotentially hazardous materials, introduction of exotic species and the conversion of aquatic\nhabitats that may eliminate, diminish or disrupt the functions of EFH. Other sources of impacts\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following: point source pollution, ocean dumping, coastal\ndevelopment, ocean-thermal energy conversion (OTEC), aquaculture, power plants, oil\ndevelopment, sewage outfall, hydrological modifications, volcanic activity, fish enhancement\nstructures, marine debris and shoreline stabilization.\nThe FMP should describe the EFH most likely to be adversely affected by these or other\nactivities. For each activity, the FMP should describe known and potential adverse impacts to\nEFH. The descriptions should explain the mechanisms or processes that may cause the adverse\neffects and how these may affect habitat function. If a proposed activity appears to have the\npotential to impact EFH, a EFH assessment will need to be undertaken by the action agency to\ndetermine whether the activity or activities proposed will impose an adverse impact to the quality\nand quantity of the habitat.\nFMPs must also identify and describe (1) measures to mitigate (avoid, minimize, compensate)\nadverse impacts on EFH and (2) actions to conserve, enhance or restore EFH. These actions will\nbe used to guide and direct consultations between NMFS and federal agencies that propose\nactivities within areas designated as EFH after October 11, 1998, as required by the Act.\nThe following is a general description of nonfishing related activities that directly or\ncumulatively, temporarily or permanently may threaten the physical, chemical and biological\nproperties of the habitat utilized by western Pacific bottomfish, pelagics, crustacaen and\nprecious corals management unit species and their prey. The direct result of these threats is that\nthe function of EFH may be eliminated, diminished or disrupted. The list includes common and\nnot\nSO common activities that all have known or potential impacts to EFH. The list is not prioritized\nnor is it to be considered as all-inclusive.\nThe potential impacts addressed in this paper are germane to the EFH of species of western\nPacific bottomfish, pelagic fish, crustaceans and precious corals and the prey of these species.\nA5-1","1.1 Dredging\nDredging navigable waters is a re-occuring impact primarily to benthic habitats but also to\nadjacent habitats in the construction and operation of marinas, harbors and ports. Routine\ndredging, that is, the excavation of soft bottom substrates, is required to provide or create\nnavigational access to ships and boats at port and mariana docking facilities. Dredging is used to\ncreate deepwater navigable channels or to maintain existing channels that periodically fill with\nsediments from rivers or from movement caused by wind, wave or tidal dynamics. In the process\nof dredging, excessive quantities and associated qualities of the seafloor are removed, disturbed\nand resuspended. Turbidity plumes may arise. Legal mandates covering dredging are the federal\nWater Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the River and Harbor Act of\n1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).\nAdverse Impacts: Dredging may adversely affect infaunal and bottom-dwelling organisms at the\nsite by removing immobile forms, such as polychaete worms and other prey types, or forcing\nmobile forms, such as fish, to migrate. Benthic forms present prior to a discharge are unlikely to\nrecolonize if the composition of the deeper layers of sediment are drastically different.\nDredging events can result in greatly elevated levels of fine-grained mineral particles, usually\nsmaller than silt, and organic particles in the water column. These turbidity plumes of suspended\nparticulates may reduce light penetration and lower the rate of photosynthesis (e.g., in adjacent\nseagrass beds); if present for extended periods of times, the plumes may also lower the primary\nproductivity of an aquatic area. If suspended particulates persist, fish may suffer reduced feeding\nability and sensitive habitats, such as submerged aquatic vegetation beds which provide source of\nfood and shelter, may be damaged. The contents of the suspended material may react with the\ndissolved oxygen in the water and result in short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources.\nToxic metals and organic substances, pathogens and viruses absorbed or adsorbed to fine-grained\nparticulates in the material may become biologically available to organisms either in the water\ncolumn or through food chain processes.\nDredging as well as the equipment used, such as pipelines, may damage or destroy spawning,\nnursery habitat and other sensitive habitats, such as coral reefs. Dredging may also modify\ncurrent patterns and water circulation of the habitat by changing the direction or velocity of water\nflow and water circulation or otherwise altering the dimensions of the water body traditionally\nutilized by fish for food, shelter or reproductive purposes.\nDredge Material Disposal and Fill\n1.2\nThe discharge of dredged materials subsequent to dredging operations or the use of fill material\nin the construction and development of harbors results in sediments (e.g., dirt, sand, mud)\ncovering or smothering existing submerged substrates.\nA5-2","Adverse Impacts: The disposal of dredged or fill material can result in varying degrees of change\nin the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the substrate. Discharges may\nadversely affect infaunal and bottom-dwelling organisms at the site by smothering immobile\nforms (e.g., prey invertebrate species) or forcing mobile forms (e.g., benthic-oriented fish\nspecies) to migrate from the area. Infaunal invertebrate forms present prior to a discharge are\nunlikely to recolonize if the composition of the discharged material is drastically different.\nErosion, slumping or lateral displacement of surrounding bottom by such deposits can also\nadversely affect substrate outside the perimeter of the disposal site by changing or destroying\nbenthic habitat. The bulk and composition of the discharged material and the location, method\nand timing of discharges may all influence the degree of impact on the substrate.\nThe discharge of dredged or fill material can result in greatly elevated levels of fine-grained\nmineral particles, usually smaller than silt, and organic particles in the water column (i.e.,\nturbidity plumes). These suspended particles may reduce light penetration and lower the rate of\nphotosynthesis as well as the primary productivity of an aquatic area if the particles are\nsuspended for lengthy intervals. Subaquatic vegetation, such as seagrass beds, may also be\naffected. Fish may suffer reduced feeding ability leading to limited growth and lowered\nresistance to disease if high levels of suspended particles persist. The contents of the suspended\nmaterial may react with the dissolved oxygen in the water and result in oxygen depletion. Toxic\nmetals and organic substances, pathogens and viruses absorbed or adsorbed to fine-grained\nparticles in the material may become biologically available to organisms either in the water\ncolumn or through food chain processes.\nThe discharge of dredged or fill material can change the chemistry and the physical\ncharacteristics of the receiving water at the disposal site by introducing chemical constituents in\nsuspended or dissolved form. Changes in the clarity and the addition of unacceptable\ncontaminants can reduce, change or eliminate the suitability of water bodies for populations of\nfish species and their prey. The introduction of nutrients or organic material to the water column\nas a result of the discharge can lead to a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which in turn\ncan lead to reduced dissolved oxygen, thereby potentially affecting the survival of many aquatic\norganisms. Increases in nutrients can favor one group of organisms, such as polychaetes or algae,\nto the detriment of other types.\nThe discharge of dredged or fill material can modify current patterns and water circulation by\nobstructing flow, changing the direction or velocity of water flow and circulation or otherwise\naltering the dimensions of a water body. As a result, adverse changes can occur in the location,\nstructure and dynamics of aquatic communities; shoreline and substrate erosion and deposition\nrates; the deposition of suspended particulates; the rate and extent of mixing of dissolved and\nsuspended components of the water body; and water stratification.\nDisposal events may lead to the full or partial loss of habitat functions because of the extent of\nthe burial at the site. Loss of habitat function can be temporary or permanent.\nA5-3","Marine Mining\n1.3\nMining for sand in coastal waters to support beach nourishment and restoration poses several\npotential threats to EFH. These include, modification of the substrate, destruction of in infaunal\nbenthic communities, changes in circulation patterns and decreased dissolved oxygen\nconcentrations at excavation sites where flushing is minimal. Sand mining elevates suspended\nmaterials at the mining site. The resulting turbidity plume may impact areas up to several km\naway from the mining site. Suspended sediments may contain contaminants, including\npesticides, heavy metals, herbicides and other toxins.\nThe mining of cobalt-rich manganese crust on the Pacific seamounts located within the EEZ\nposes a potential threat to EFH. The potential impacts of this proposed activity include the\nphysical destruction of benthic habitat and associated biological communities, discharge of toxic\nsurface plume (which may potentially affect pelagic larvae and eggs), alteration of phytoplankton\nspecies composition and of trophic dynamics, increased turbidity in surface layer (which could\nalter feeding behavior and health of fish in the affected area), changes in circulation patterns and\ndecreased dissolved oxygen concentrations in affected surface layers.\nWater Intake Structures\n1.4\nThe withdrawal of ocean water by offshore water intake structures is a common coastwide\noccurrence. Water may be withdrawn to provide sources of cooling water for coastal power\ngenerating stations or sources of potential drinking water, as in the case of desalinization plants.\nIf not properly designed, these structures may create unnatural and vulnerable conditions to many\nfish at various life stages and their prey. In addition, freshwater withdrawals from riverine\nsystems to support industrial and agricultural operations also occur.\nAdverse Impacts: The withdrawal of seawater can create unnatural conditions to the EFH of\nmany species. Water intake operations can affect fish at various life stages by such adverse\nimpacts as entrapment through water withdrawal, impingement on intake screens and\nentrainment through the heat-exchange systems or discharge plumes of both heated and cooled\neffluent. High approach velocities along with unscreened intake structures can create an\nunnatural current making it difficult for fish species and their prey to escape. These structures\nmay withdraw most larval and postlarval marine fishery organisms and some proportion of\norganisms at more advanced life stages. Periods of low light (e.g, turbid waters, nocturnal\nperiods) may also entrap adult and sub-adult species many of which are either commercially or\nrecreationally utilized or serve as the prey of these species.\nFreshwater withdrawal also reduces the volume and perhaps timing of freshwater reaching\nestuarine environments and thereby potentially alters circulation patterns, salinity and the\nupstream migration of the saltwater wedge.\nA5-4","1.5\nAquaculture\nThe culture of estuarine, marine and freshwater species in coastal areas can reduce or degrade\nhabitats used by native stocks. The location and operation of these facilities will determine the\nlevel of impact on the marine environment.\nAdverse Impacts: A major concern of aquaculture operations is the discharge of organic waste\nfrom the farms. Wastes are composed primarily of feces and excess feed, and the buildup of\nwaste products into the receiving waters will depend on water depths and circulation patterns.\nThe release of these wastes may introduce nutrients or organic materials into the surrounding\nwater body and lead to a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which may reduce dissolved\noxygen, thereby potentially affecting the survival of many aquatic organisms in the area. Nutrient\noverloads at the discharge site can also favor one group of organisms to the detriment of other\nmore desirable prey types, such as polychaete worms.\nIn the case of cage mariculture operations for grow-out operations, impacts to the seafloor below\nthe cages or pens may occur. The composition and diversity of the bottom-dwelling community\n(e.g, prey organisms) due to the buildup of organic materials on the seafloor may be impacted.\nGrowth of submerged aquatic vegetation, which may provide shelter and nursery habitat for a\nnumber of fish species and their prey, may be inhibited by shading effects.\nMariculture operations also have the potential to release high levels of antibiotics as well as\nallow cultured organisms to escape into the environment. Both events have unknown but\npotential adverse impacts on fish habitat.\nWastewater Discharge\n1.6\nThe discharge of point and nonpoint source wastewater from commercial activities including\nmunicipal wastewater treatment plants, power generating stations, industrial plants and storm\ndrains into open ocean waters, bay or estuarine waters can introduce chemical constituents or\nsalinities potentially detrimental to estuarine and marine habitats. These constituents include\npathogens, nutrients, sediments, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, hydrocarbons and\ntoxicants. Historically, wastewater discharges have been one of the largest sources of\ncontaminants into coastal waters. Outfall-related changes in community structure, function,\nhealth and abundance may result. Many of these changes can be long-lasting.\nAdverse Impacts: It is generally assumed that wastewater effluent affects the growth and\ncondition of fish and their prey associated with wastewater outfalls as a result of high\ncontaminant levels (e.g., chlorinated hydrocarbons, trace metals, polynuclear aromatic\nhydrocarbons). For fish, assimilation of contaminants into fish tissues can be manifested in such\nways as impaired reproduction. Many of these contaminant effects result from the consumption\nof animals living on the sediments that have elevated concentrations of contaminants. Outfall\nsediments may alter the composition and abundance of benthic community invertebrates living in\nA5-5","or on the sediments. Due to bioturbation, diffusion and other upward transport mechanisms that\nmove buried contaminants to the surface layers and eventually to the water column, pelagic and\nnektonic biota may also be exposed through mobilization into the water column.\nThe use of biocides (e.g., chlorine, heat treatments) to prevent biofouling can reduce or eliminate\nthe suitability of water bodies for populations of fish species and their prey in the general vicinity\nof the discharge pipe. These compounds may change the chemistry and the physical\ncharacteristics of the receiving water at the disposal site by introducing chemical constituents in\nsuspended or dissolved form.\nExtreme discharge velocities of the effluent may also cause scouring at the discharge point as\nwell as entrain particulates and thereby create turbidity plumes. These turbidity plumes of\nsuspended particulates may reduce light penetration and lower the rate of photosynthesis (e.g., in\nthe case of coral reefs and algae beds) and the primary productivity of an aquatic area if\nsuspension persists. Fish may suffer reduced feeding ability especially if suspended particulates\npersist. The contents of the suspended material may react with the dissolved oxygen in the water\nand result in oxygen depletion.\nMass emissions of suspended solids, contaminants and nutrient overloading from these outfalls\nmay also affect nearshore marine ecosystems, such as corals reefs and submerged aquatic\nvegetation sites. These ecosystems are frequently utilized by fish species for shelter and\nprotection from predators and for food by consuming organisms associated with these habitats.\nStorm-water runoff, which can include both urban and agricultural runoff, is also a large source\nof particular contaminants to the marine environment affecting both water column and benthic\nhabitats. These contaminants find their way into the food web through benthic infaunal\ncommunities and subsequently bioaccumulate in numerous fish species.\nDischarge of Oil or Release of Hazardous Substances\n1.7\nAccidental spills of oil or the release of a hazardous substance into estuarine and marine habitats\ncan create significant pollution events. These inadvertent releases occur from both facilities and\nvessels during the production, transportation, refinement and utilization of hazardous materials.\nAdverse Impacts: Exposure to petroleum products and hazardous substance can have both acute\nand chronic effects on fish resources and their prey and also potentially reduce the marketability\nof target species. Direct physical contact with discharged oil or released hazardous substances\n(e.g., toxicants, oil dispersants, mercury) or indirect exposure resulting from food chain\nprocesses can produce a number of biological responses in fish resources and their prey. These\nresponses can occur in a variety of habitats including the water column, seafloor, bays and\nestuaries. Depending on the biological pathway involved, these responses may include death,\ndisease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions\n(including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations of commercially and\nrecreationally important fish.\nA5-6","Other issues related to the category include efforts to cleanup spills or releases that in themselves\ncan create serious harm to the habitat. For example, the use of potentially toxic dispersants to\nbreak up an oil spill may adversely effect the egg and larval stages of most species.\nFish Enhancement Structures\n1.8\nFish enhancement structures, or \"artificial reefs,\" are a popular management tool employed by\nboth state and federal governments and private groups. They have been used for centuries to\nenhance fishery resources and fishing opportunities and usually entail placing miscellaneous\nmaterials in ocean or estuarine environments void of physical or \"hard-bottom\" relief. Although\nscientists still debate whether these reefs attract and/or produce fish biomass, their proliferation\ncontinues. This popularity is the result of increased demands on fish stocks by both commercial\nand recreational fishermen and losses of habitat productivity due to development and pollution.\nThe introduction of artificial reef material into the marine or estuarine environment can produce\nnegative impacts.\nAdverse Impacts: The use of artificial reefs can impact the aquatic environment in at least two\nways. The first deals with the loss of habitat upon which the artificial reef material is placed.\nUsually, artificial reef materials are set upon flat sand bottoms or \"biological deserts,\" which end\nup burying or smothering faunal and bottom-dwelling organisms at the site or even preventing\nmobile forms (e.g., benthic-oriented fish species) from utilizing the area as habitat as has been\nshown in Hawaii. In Hawaii, areas of flat featureless bottom have typically been thought of as\nproviding low value fishery habitat. As a result, these areas are often seen as ideal locations to\nsite artificial reefs. Recent research has demonstrated that areas of very low relief bottom habitat\nare utilized as juvenile nursery grounds by several valuable species of deepwater bottomfish.\nAnother potential impact deals with the use of materials that may be inappropriate for the marine\nenvironment (e.g., automobile tires, compressed incinerator ash) and that may serve as potential\nsources of habitat degradation. For example, automobile tires are potential sources of toxic\nreleases and can cause physical damage to existing habitat when they break free of their\nanchoring systems.\nThere is also a long-standing debate as to whether artificial reefs actually increase the standing\nstock of marine fishes by providing suitable habitat or simply cause fish to aggregate.\nCoastal Development Impacts\n1.9\nCoastal development involves changes in land use by the construction of urban, suburban,\ncommercial and industrial centers and the corresponding infrastructure. Vegetated and open\nforested areas, including wetlands important for exporting nutrients and energy as well as serving\nas fish nursery areas, are removed by cut-and-fill activities for enhancing the development\npotential of the land. Portions of the natural landscape are converted to impervious surfaces, thus\nincreasing runoff volumes. Runoff from these developments include heavy metals, sediments,\nnutrients and organic substances, including synthetic and petroleum hydrocarbons, yard\nA5-7","trimmings, litter, debris and pet droppings. As residential, commercial and industrial growth\ncontinues, the demand for water escalates. As groundwater resources become depleted or\ncontaminated, greater demands are placed on surface water through dam and reservoir\nconstruction or other methods of freshwater diversion. The consumptive use and redistribution of\nsignificant volumes of surface freshwater causes reduced river flows that can affect salinity\nregimes as saline waters intrude further upstream.\nAdverse Impacts: Development activities within watersheds and in coastal marine areas often\nimpact fish habitat on both long-term and short-term scales. Runoff of toxic materials from\ndevelopment sites introduces pesticides, fertilizers, petrochemicals and construction chemicals\n(e.g., concrete products, seals and paints) to suitable fish habitat and thus reduces their quality\nand quantity. Sediment runoff can also restrict tidal flows and tidal elevations and thus destroy\nimportant fauna and flora (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation). Shoreline stabilization projects\nthat affect reflective wave energy can impede or accelerate natural movements of sand and\nthereby impact intertidal and sub-tidal habitats. Reduced freshwater flow into estuaries and\nwetlands can impact the extent and location of the mixing (or entrapment) zone and thereby\nreduce productivity and habitat quality for fish.\n1.10 Introduction of Exotic Species\nOver the past two decades, there has been an increase in the introductions of exotic species into\naquatic habitats. Introductions can be intentional (e.g., for the purpose of stock or pest control) or\nunintentional (e.g., fouling organisms).\nAdverse Impacts: Exotic species introductions create five types of negative impacts: (1) habitat\nalteration, (2) trophic alteration; (3) gene pool alteration, (4) spatial alteration; and, (5)\nintroduction of diseases. Habitat alteration includes the excessive colonization of exotics that\npreclude endemic organisms. Community structure alterations occurs through predation on\nnative species or by population explosions of the introduced species. Although hybridization is\nrare, gene pool deterioration may occur between native and introduced species. Spatial alteration\noccurs when territorial introduced species compete with native species and end up displacing the\nendemic species. One of the most severe threats to a native fish community is the introduction of\nbacteria, viruses and parasites that reduce the quality of the habitat.\nAgricultural Practices\n1.11\nThrough uncontrolled nonpoint source runoff, agricultural operations can introduce animal\nwastes, sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals into riverine, estuarine\nand marine environments. Excessive, uncontrolled or improper irrigation practices often\nexacerbate contaminant flushing.\nAdverse Impacts: The introduction of animal wastes, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and other\nchemicals into the aquatic environment, especially estuaries, can affect the growth of aquatic\nA5-8","plants , which in turn affects fish, invertebrates and the general ecological balance of the water\nbody. Pollutants associated with these products include oxygen demanding substances, such as\nnitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients; organic solids; bacteria, viruses and other\nmicroorganisms; and salts. These pollutants and wastes may reduce the quality of habitats to the\npoint where they are no longer suitable for shelter, feeding or spawning; if conditions become\nextreme, fish will die.\nCONSERVATION MEASURES FOR NONFISHING IMPACTS TO WESTERN\n2.0\nPACIFIC BOTTOMFISH, CRUSTACEAN, PRECIOUS CORALS AND PELAGIC\nHABITATS\nThe FMP must describe options to avoid, minimize or compensate for the adverse effects to and\npromote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Generally, non-water dependent actions\nshould not be located in EFH if such actions may have adverse impacts on EFH. Activities that\nmay result in significant adverse affects on EFH should be avoided where less environmentally\nharmful alternatives are available. If there are no alternatives, the impacts of these actions should\nbe minimized. Environmentally sound engineering and management practices should be\nemployed for all actions that may adversely affect EFH. Disposal or spillage of any material\n(dredge material, sludge, industrial waste, or other potentially harmful materials) that would\ndestroy or degrade EFH should be avoided. If avoidance or minimization is not possible, or will\nnot adequately protect EFH, compensatory mitigation to conserve and enhance EFH should be\nrecommended. FMPs may recommend proactive measures to conserve or enhance EFH. When\ndeveloping proactive measures, Councils may develop a priority ranking of the recommendations\nto assist federal and state agencies undertaking such measures. FMPs should provide a variety of\noptions to conserve or enhance EFH, which may include, but are not limited to:\nEnhancement of rivers, streams, and coastal areas. Initiation of federal, state or local government\nplanning processes to restore watersheds associated with such rivers, streams or coastal areas\nmay be recommended.\nWater quality and quantity. This category of options may include use of best land management\npractices for ensuring compliance with water quality standards at state and federal levels,\nimproved treatment of sewage, proper disposal of waste materials and appropriate in-stream flow\nto prevent adverse effects to estuarine areas.\nHabitat restoration or creation. Under appropriate conditions, habitat creation (converting non-\nEFH to EFH) may be considered as a means of replacing lost or degraded EFH. However, habitat\nconversion at the expense of other naturally functioning systems must be justified within an\necosystem context.\nA5-9","2.1\nBackground\nFrom a broad perspective, fish habitat is the geographic area where the species occurs at any time\nduring its life. This area can be described in terms of ecological characteristics, location and\ntime. Ecologically, essential habitat includes waters and substrate that focus distribution (e.g.,\ncoral reefs) and other characteristics that are less distinct (e.g., turbidity zones, salinity\ngradients). Spatially, habitats and their use may shift over time due to climatic change, human\nactivities and impacts. The type of habitat available, its attributes and its functions are important\nto species productivity, diversity, health and survival.\nThe final rule for EFH (Federal Register 62, No. 244 December 19,1997) requires that\nManagement Councils, through Fishery Management Plans, identify nonfishing impacts to EFH\nand provide general conservation measures.\n2.2\nMeasures\nEstablished policies and procedures of the WPRFMC and NMFS provide the framework for\nconserving and enhancing EFH. Components of this framework include adverse impact\navoidance and minimization; provision of compensatory mitigation whenever the impact is\nsignificant and unavoidable; and incorporation of enhancement. New and expanded\nresponsibilities contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act\nwill be met through appropriate application of these policies and principles. In assessing the\npotential impacts of proposed projects, the WPRFMC and the NMFS are guided by the following\ngeneral considerations:\nThe extent to which the activity would directly and indirectly affect the occurrence,\nabundance, health and continued existence of fishery resources;\nThe extent to which the potential for cumulative impacts exists;\nThe extent to which adverse impacts can be avoided through project modification, alternative\nsite selection or other safeguards;\nThe extent to which the activity is water dependent if loss or degradation of EFH is involved;\nand\nThe extent to which mitigation may be used to offset unavoidable loss of habitat functions\nand values.\nThe following activities have been identified as directly or indirectly affect the habitat utilized by\nmanagement unit species: dredging, fills/dredge material disposal, marine mining, water intake\nstructures, aquaculture, wastewater discharge, discharge of oil or release of hazardous\nsubstances, fish enhancement structures, introduction of exotic species, coastal development, and\nA5-10","agricultural practices. The following measures are not all inclusive, but are good examples of\nmeasures that will aid in minimization or avoidance of adverse effects of these nonfishing\nactivities on EFH.\n2.2.1 Dredging\nTo the maximum extent practicable, dredging should be avoided. Activities that require\n1.\ndredging (such as placement of piers, docks, marinas, etc.) should be sited in deepwater\nareas or designed in such a way as to alleviate the need for maintenance dredging.\nProjects should be permitted only for water-dependent purposes, when no feasible\nalternatives are available.\nDredging in coastal and estuarine waters should be performed during the time frame\n2.\nwhen management unit species and prey species are least likely to be entrained. Dredging\nshould be avoided in areas with submerged aquatic vegetation.\nAll dredging permits should reference latitude-longitude coordinates of the site SO\n3.\ninformation can be incorporated into Geographic Information Systems(GIS). Inclusion of\naerial photos may also be required to help geo-reference the site and evaluate impacts\nover time.\nSediments should be tested for contaminants as per Environmental Protection Agency\n4.\nand US Army Corps of Engineers requirements.\nThe cumulative impacts of past and current dredging operations on EFH should be\n5.\naddressed by federal, state and local resource management and permitting agencies and\nconsidered in the permitting process.\nIf dredging needs are caused by excessive sedimentation in the watershed, those causes\n6.\nshould be identified and appropriate management agencies contacted to assure action is\ndone to curtail those causes.\nPipelines and accessory equipment used in conjunction with dredging operations should,\n7.\nto the maximum extent possible, avoid coral reefs, seagrass beds, estuarine habitats and\nareas of subaquatic vegetation.\n2.2.2 Fills/dredge material disposal\nTo the extent possible, fill materials resulting from dredging operations should be placed\n1.\non an upland site. Fills should not be allowed in areas with subaquatic vegetation or other\nareas of high productivity.\nA5-11","The cumulative impacts of past and current fill operations on EFH should be addressed\n2.\nby federal, state and local resource management and permitting agencies and considered\nin the permitting process.\nThe disposal of contaminated dredge material should not be allowed in EFH.\n3.\nWhen reviewing open-water disposal permits for dredged material, state and federal\n4.\nagencies should identify the direct and indirect impacts such projects may have on EFH.\nWhen practicable, benthic productivity should be determined by sampling prior to any\ndischarge of fill material. Sampling design should be developed with input from state and\nfederal resource agencies.\nThe areal extent of the disposal site should be minimized. However, in some cases, thin\n5.\nlayer disposal may be less deleterious. All non-avoidable impacts should be mitigated.\nAll spoil disposal permits should reference latitude-longitude coordinates of the site SO\n6.\ninformation can be incorporated into GIS systems. Inclusion of aerial photos may also be\nrequired to help geo-reference the site and evaluate impacts over time.\nFurther fills in estuaries and bays for development of commercial enterprises should be\n7.\ncurtailed.\n2.2.3 Marine mining\nMining in areas identified as juvenile bottomfish habitat should be avoided.\n1.\nMining in areas of high biological productivity should be avoided.\n2.\nMitigation should be provided for loss of habitat due to mining.\n3.\n2.2.4 Water intake structures\nNew facilities that rely on surface waters for cooling should not be located in areas where\n1.\nfishery organisms are concentrated, such as estuaries, inlets, heads of submarine canyons,\nrock reefs or small coastal embayments. Discharge points should be located in areas that\nhave low concentrations of living marine resources, or they should incorporate cooling\ntowers that employ sufficient safeguards to ensure against release of blow-down\npollutants into the aquatic environment.\nIntake structures should be designed to prevent entrainment or impingement of MUS\n2.\nlarvae and eggs.\nDischarge temperatures (both heated and cooled effluent) should not exceed the thermal\n3.\nA5-12","tolerance of the plant and animal species in the receiving body of water.\nMitigation should be provided for the loss of essential fish habitat from placement of the\n4.\nintake structure and delivery pipeline.\n2.2.5 Aquaculture facilities\nFacilities should be located in upland areas as often as possible. Tidally influenced\n1.\nwetlands should not be enclosed or impounded for mariculture purposes. This includes\nhatchery and grow-out operations. Siting of facilities should also take into account the\nsize of the facility, the presence or absence of submerged aquatic vegetation, proximity of\nwild fish stocks, migratory patterns, competing uses, hydrographic conditions and\nupstream uses. Benthic productivity should be determined by sampling prior to any\noperations. Areas of high productivity should be avoided to the maximum extent\npossible. Sampling design should be developed with input from state and federal resource\nagencies.\nTo the extent practicable, water intakes should be designed to avoid entrainment and\n2.\nimpingement of native fauna.\nWater discharge should be treated to avoid contamination of the receiving water and\n3.\nshould be located only in areas having good mixing characteristics.\nWhere cage mariculture operations are undertaken, water depths and circulation patterns\n4.\nshould be investigated and should be adequate to preclude the buildup of waste products,\nexcess feed and chemical agents.\nNon-native, ecologically undesirable species that are reared may pose a risk of escape or\n5.\naccidental release, which could adversely affect the ecological balance of an area. A\nthorough scientific review and risk assessment should be undertaken before any non-\nnative species are allowed to be introduced.\nAny net pen structure should have small enough webbing to prevent entanglement by\n6.\nprey species.\nMitigation should be provided for the EFH areas impacted by the facility.\n7.\n2.2.6 Wastewater discharge\nOutfall structures should be placed sufficiently far enough offshore to prevent discharge\n1.\nwater from affecting areas designated as EFH. Discharges should be treated using the best\navailable technology, including implementation of up-to-date methodologies for reducing\ndischarges of biocides (e.g., chlorine) and other toxic substances.\nA5-13","Benthic productivity should be determined by sampling prior to any construction activity.\n2.\nAreas of high productivity should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Sampling\ndesign should be developed with input from state and federal resource agencies.\nMitigation should be provided for the degradation or loss of habitat from placement of\n3.\nthe outfall structure and pipeline as well as the treated water plume.\n2.2.7 Discharge of oil or release of hazardous substances\nContainment equipment and sufficient supplies to combat spills should be on-site at all\n1.\nfacilities that handle oil or hazardous substances.\nEach facility should have a \"Spill Contingency Plan,\" and all employees should be trained\n2.\nin how to respond to a spill.\nTo the maximum extent practicable, storage of oil and hazardous substances should be\n3.\nlocated in an area that would prevent spills from reaching the aquatic environment.\nConstruction of roads and facilities adjacent to aquatic environs should include a storm-\n4.\nwater treatment component that would filter out oils and other petroleum products.\n2.2.8 Fish enhancement structures\nBenthic productivity should be determined by sampling prior to any construction activity.\n1.\nAreas of high productivity should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Sampling\ndesign should be developed with input from state and federal resource agencies.\nPrior to construction, an evaluation of the impact resulting from the change in habitat\n2.\n(sand bottom to rocky reef, etc.) should be performed. The importance of the site as\njuvenile bottomfish habitat should be evaluated.\n2.2.9 Coastal development impacts\nPrior to installation of any piers or docks, the presence or absence of submerged aquatic\n1.\nvegetation should be determined. Vegetated areas should be avoided. Benthic\nproductivity should also be determined, and areas with high productivity avoided.\nSampling design should be developed with input from state and federal resource\nagencies.\nA5-14","The use of dry stack storage is preferable to wet mooring of boats. If that method is not\n2.\nfeasible, construction of piers, docks and marinas should be designed to minimize\nimpacts to the substrate and subaquatic vegetation.\nBioengineering should be used to protect altered shorelines. The alteration of natural\n3.\nstable shorelines should be avoided.\nFilling of estuaries and bays for commercial enterprises should be curtailed.\n4.\n2.2.10 Introduction of exotics\nVessels should discharge ballast water far enough out to sea to prevent introduction of\n1.\nnon-native species to bays and estuaries.\nExotics should not be introduced for aquaculture purposes unless a thorough scientific\n2.\nevaluation and risk assessment are performed (see section on aquaculture).\nEffluent from public aquaria displays and laboratories and educational institutes using\n3.\nexotic species should be treated prior to discharge.\n2.2.11 Agricultural practices\nThe use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in areas that would allow for their entry\n1.\ninto the aquatic environment should be avoided.\nThe best land management practices should be used to control topsoil erosion and\n2.\nsedimentation.\nA5-15","Explore beneficial use of clean dredged material\nDon't dispose contaminated dredge material in\nTake actions to prevent impacts to flora/fauna\nPlace dredge spoils upland if possible; avoid\nIdentify direct and indirect impacts on EFH\nReference past/current dredging operations\nCurtail sources of excessive sedimentation\nMinimize areal extent of the disposal site\nMaintain seafloor contours as practicable\nAvoid impacts of accessory equipment\nCurtail/minimize dredging activities as\nAvoid juvenile bottomfish habitat\nProvide compensatory mitigation\nAvoid areas of high productivity\nGeo-reference all dredge sites\nAddress cumulative impacts\nConservation Measures\nCurtail sloughing events\nGeo-reference the site\nfills in productive areas\nAssay contaminants\nProvide mitigation\nMinimize turbidity\npracticable\nEFH\nCurrent patterns/ water circulation modfication\nResuspension of fine-grained mineral particles\nBiological availability of toxic substances\nInfaunal and bottom-dwelling organisms\nInfaunal and bottom-dwelling organisms\nComposition of the substrate altered\nBioavailability of toxic substances\nWater circulation modification\nDamage to sensitive habitats\nDamage to sensitive habitats\nA5-16\nLoss of habitat function\nLoss of habitat function\nTurbidity plumes\nTurbidity plumes\nTurbidity plumes\nImpacts\n2. Dredge Material Disposal/Fills\n3. Marine Mining\n1. Dredging\nActivity","Undertake risk assessment prior to introducing\nCONSERVATION MEASURES\nMitigate as required for water quality/habitat\nMaintain on-site containment equipment and\nLocate facilities away from productive areas\nPrevent entrainment or impingement of prey\nAvoid entrainment and impingement losses\nPrevent spills from reaching the aquatic\nMinimize water/habitat quality impacts\nHave on-site \"Spill Contingency Plan\"\nPrevent entanglement of prey species.\nAvoid areas of high productivity\nPreclude waste product buildups\nContain discharge temperatures\nTreat and mix water discharges\nMitigate habitat/fishery losses\nTreat storm-water\nMitigate impacts\nnon-native species\nenvironment.\nsupplies\nspecies.\nlosses\nImpacts to the seafloor below the cages or pens\nAffected submerged aquatic vegetation sites\nEntrapment, impingement, and entrainment\nWastewater effluent with high contaminant\nDischarge of organic waste from the farms\nHigh nutrient levels downcurrent of these\nBiocides to prevent biofouling\nA5-17\nIndirect exposure resulting\nDirect physical contact\nLoss of prey species\nStorm-water runoff\nTurbidity plumes\nThermal effects\nIMPACTS\nCleanup\noutfalls\nlevels\n7. Oil Discharge/ Hazardous Substances Release\n4. Water Intake Structures\n6. Wastewater Discharge\nACTIVITY\n5. Aquaculture","Avoid shoreline construction in productive areas\nTake precautions to prevent non-native species\nAvoid livestock grazing in areas with invasive,\nUndertake risk assessment prior to introducing\nCONSERVATION MEASURES\nAvoid livestock impacts to tidal wetland areas\nAvoid migration of pesticides, herbicides and\nCurtail fills in estuaries, wetlands and bays\nnon-native species for aquacultural purposes\nDetermine productivity of structures after\nUse dry stack storage over wet mooring\nEvaluate impacts to existing habitat\nfertilizers into aquatic environments\nTreat effluents prior to discharge\nAvoid areas of high productivity\nnon-indigenous vegetation\nintroductions by vessels\nconstruction\nShoreline stabilization projects\nIntroduction of animal wastes\nA5-18\nAggregation VS. production\nIntroduction of chemicals\nIncreased sedimentation\nInappropriate materials\nIntroduction of disease\nGene pool alteration\nContaminant runoff\nTrophic alteration\nHabitat alteration\nSpatial alteration\nSediment runoff\nLoss of habitat\nIMPACTS\n10. Introduction of Exotic Species\n9. Coastal Development Impacts\n8. Fish Enhancement Structures\n11. Agricultural Practices\nACTIVITY\nTable 1","References\nDredging\nCollins MA.1995. Dredging-induced near-field resuspended sediment concentration and source\nstrengths. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Miscellaneous\npaper D-95-2. NTIS nr AD A299 151.\nFarnworth EG, Nichols MC, Vann CN, Wolfson LG, Bosserman RW, Hendrix PR, Golley FB,\nCooley JL. 1979. Impacts of sediment and nutrients on biota in surface waters of the United\nStates. Athens, GA: US Environmental Protection Agency. 331 p. Ecol Res Series.\nLaSalle MW, Clarke DG, Homziak J, Lunz,JD, Fredette TJ. 1991. A framework for assessing the\nneed for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations. Vicksburg, MS: US Army\nEngineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical report D-91-1. NTIS nr AD A240 567.\nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in marine environments.\nWashington: US Government Printing Office. OTA-O-334.\nDredge Material Disposal and Fill\nPeddicord RK, Herbich JB, editors. 1979. Impacts of open-water dredged material discharge.\nProceedings of the Eleventh Dredging Seminar. College Station, TX: Tex A&M Univ Sea Grant\nProg. p 24-40.\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991. National Status and Trends Program\nfor marine environmental quality. Progress report on secondary summary of data on chemical\ncontaminants in sediments from the National Status and Trends Program. Silver Spring, MD:\nNOAA, NOS. 29 p. Tech mem NOS OMA 59.\nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in marine environments.\nWashington: US Government Printing Office. OTA-O-334.\nMarine Mining\nUS Department of Commerce. 1997. Technical guidance manual for implementation of essential\nfish habitat. Washington: GPO. Report nr ????\nA5-19","Water Intake Structures\nHelvey M. 1985. Behavioral factors influencing fish entrapment at offshore cooling-water intake\nstructures in southern California. Mar Fish Rev 47(1)18-26.\nAquaculture\nBritish Columbia Ministry of Environment, Water Management Branch. 1990. Environmental\nmanagement of marine fish farms. Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Environment.\n28 p. NTIS order nr MIC-91-00496/GAR\nFitzgerald WJ Jr. 1977. Aquaculture and its potential environmental impact on Guam's coastal\nwaters, Volume 1. Guam: Bureau of Planning, Coastal Zone Management, Government of\nGuam. 57 p.\nKohler CC, Courtenay WR Jr. 1986. Introduction of aquatic species. Fisheries 11(2):39-42.\nRobinette HR, Hynes J, Parker NC, Putz R, Stevens RE, Stickney R. 1991. Commercial\naquaculture. Fisheries 16(1):18-22.\nSindermann CJ. 1992. Disease risks associated with importation of nonindigenous marine\nanimals. Mar Fish Rev 54(3):1-9.\nWastewater Discharge\nCairns J. 1992 Coping with point source discharges. Fisheries 5(6):3.\nCarpenter RA, Maragoes JE, editors. 1989. How to assess environmental impacts on tropical\nislands and coastal areas: South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) training\nmanual. Honolulu: Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. p. 343.\nEnvironmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration. 1995. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. 100 p. EPA nr\n950298D.\nFerraro SP, Swartz RC, Cole FA, Schults DW. 1991. Temporal changes in the benthos along a\npollution gradient: discriminating the effects of natural phenomena from sewage-industrial\nwastewater effects. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 33:383-407.\nLeonard JN. 1994. Ocean outfalls for wastewater discharges-meeting Clean Water Act 403C\nrequirements. Proceedings of Marine Technology Society Conference Challenges and\nA5-20","Opportunities in the Marine Environment; 1994 Sept 7-9; Washington, DC. p 115-20.\nLongwell AC, Chang S, Hebert A, Hughes JB, Perry D. 1992. Pollution and developmental\nabnormalities of Atlantic fishes. Environ Biol Fish 35(1):1-21.\nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in marine environments.\nWashington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Report nr OTA-O-334.\nUS EPA. 1993. Guidance for specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution\nin coastal waters. Washington, DC: Office of Water. 500 p. Report nr 840-B-92-002.\nDischarge of Oil or Release of Hazardous Substances\nCarpenter RA, Maragoes JE, editors. 1989. How to assess environmental impacts on tropical\nislands and coastal areas: South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) training\nmanual. Honolulu: Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. p. 343.\nLongwell AC, Chang S, Hebert A, Hughes JB, Perry D. 1992. Pollution and developmental\nabnormalities of Atlantic fishes. Environ Biol Fish 35(1):1-21.\nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in marine environments.\nWashington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Report nr OTA-O-334.\nWells JNB, Hughes J S, editors. 1995. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.\nFish Enhancement Structures\nBuckley RM. 1989. Habitat alterations as a basis for enhancing marine fisheries. p 40-5.\nCalifornia Cooperative Oceanic Fishery. Investigative report nr 30.\nLivingston RJ. 1994. Environmental implications of establishment of a coal-ash reef near Cedar\nKey, Florida, United States. Bull Mar Sci 55(2-3):1344.\nMcGurrin JM, Stone RB, Sousa R J. 1989. Profiling United States artificial reef development.\nBull Mar Sci 44(2):1004-13.\nMoffitt RB, Parrish FA, Polovina JJ. 1989. Community structure, biomass and productivity of\ndeepwater artificial reefs in Hawaii. Bull Mar Sci 44(2):616-30.\nNelson WG, Neff T, Navratil P, Rodda J. 1994. Disturbance effects on marine infaunal benthos\nnear stabilized oil-ash reefs: spatial and temporal alteration of impacts. Bull Mar Sci\nA5-21","55(2-3):1348.\nParrish F. 1989. Identification of habitat of juvenile snappers in Hawaii. Fish Bull 87(4):1001-5.\nPolovina JJ. 1989. Artificial reefs: nothing more than benthic fish aggregators. p 37-39.\nCalifornia Cooperative Oceanic Fishery. Investigative report nr 30:.\nPolovina JJ. 1993. Fisheries applications and biological impacts of artificial habitats. In:\nArtificial habitats for marine and freshwater fisheries. Acedemic Press. p 153-76.\nCoastal Development Impacts\nBaird RC. 1996. Toward new paradigms in coastal resource management: linkages and\ninstitutional effectiveness. Estuaries 19(2A):320-35.\nDrinkwater KF, Frank KT. 1994. Effects of river regulation and diversion on marine fish and\ninvertebrates. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 4(2):135-51.\nMcLusky DS, Bryant DM, Elliot M. 1992. The impact of land-claim on macrobenthos, fish and\nshorebirds on the Forth Estuary, eastern Scotland. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 2\n(3):211-22.\nPaul JF, Scott KJ, Holland AF, Weisberg SB, Summers JK, Robertson A. 1992. The estuarine\ncomponent of the US EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. Papers from\nthe First International Ocean Pollution Symposium; 1991Apr 28-May 2; Puerto Rico. Puerto\nRico: Univ Puerto Rico. Part 2. Chem Ecol 7(1-4):93-116.\nRozengurt MA, Haydock I, Anderson BP, 1994. Running on entropy: the effect of water\ndiversion on the coastal zone. 37th Conference of the International Association for Great Lakes\nResearch and Estuarine Research Federation: Program and Abstracts: Buffalo, NY. 166 p.\nTurek JG, Bigford TE, Nichols JS. 1987. Influence of freshwater inflows on estuarine\nproductivity. Washington: NOAA. 26 p. Technical memo nr NMFS-F/NEC-46.\nUS Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance for specifying management measures for\nsources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Washington: Office of Water. 500 p. Report nr\n840-B-92-002.\nIntroduction of Exotic Species\nKohler CC, Courtenay WR Jr. 1986. Introduction of aquatic species. Fisheries 11(2):39-42.\nA5-22","Anon. 1997. Proceedings of the Seventh International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance\nSpecies Conference.\nAgricultural Practices\nUS Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance for specifying management measures for\nsources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Washington: Office of Water. 500 p. Report nr\n840-B-92-002.\nA5-23","Appendix 6\nEFH Scientific Data Needs\nNMFS guidelines state that the quality of available data should be rated using the\nfollowing four level system:\nLevel 1: All that is known is where a species occurs based on distribution data for\nall or part of the geographic range of the species.\nLevel 2: Data on habitat-related densities or relative abundance of the species are\navailable.\nLevel 3: Data on growth, reproduction, or survival rates within habitats are\navailable.\nLevel 4: Production rates by habitat are available.\nThe Council adopted a fifth level, denoted Level 0, for situations in which there is no\ninformation available about the geographic extent of a particular managed species' life stage.\nThe Council conducted an initial inventory of available environmental and fisheries data\nsources relevant to the EFH of each managed fishery. Based on this inventory a series of tables\nwere created which indicated the existing level of data for individual MUS in each fishery. These\ntables are presented on p.A6-2 to A6-5.","Habitat Matrix Table for Bottomfish Management Unit Species\nJuvenile\nAdult\nLarvae\nEggs\nLife History Stage\nBottomfish: (scientific/english common)\n0\n0\n2\n0\nAphareus rutilans (red snapper/silvermouth)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nAprion virescens (gray snapper/jobfish)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nCaranx ignoblis (giant trevally/jack)\n2\n0\n0\n0\nC lugubris (black trevally/jack)\n1\n0\n0\n0\nEpinephelus faciatus (blacktip grouper)\n2\n1\n0\n0\nE quernus (sea bass)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nEtelis carbunculus (red snapper)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nE coruscans (red snapper)\n1\n0\n0\n0\nLethrinus amboinensis (ambon emperor)\n1\n0\n0\n0\nL rubrioperculatus (redgill emperor)\n1\n1\n0\n0\nLutjanus kasmira (blueline snapper)\n0\n2\n0\n0\nPristipomoides auricilla (yellowtail snapper)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nP filamentosus (pink snapper)\n0\n2\n0\n0\nP flavipinnis (yelloweye snapper)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nP seiboldi (pink snapper)\n0\n2\n0\n0\nP zonatus (snapper)\n1\n2\n0\n0\nPseudocaranx dentex (thicklip trevally)\n0\n2\n0\n0\nSeriola dumerili (amberjack)\n2\n0\n0\n0\nVariola louti (lunartail grouper)\nSeamount Groundfish:\n2\n2\n1\n0\nBeryx splendens (alfonsin)\n1\n0\n0\n0\nHyperoglyphe japonica (ratfish/butterfish)\n3\n1\n1\nPseudopentaceros richardsoni (armorhead)\n0","Habitat Matrix for Pelagic Management Unit Species\nJuvenile\nAdult\nEgg\nLarvae\nLife History Stage\nPelagics Management Unit Species:(english common/scientific name)\n1\n2\n1\n2\nMahimahi (dolphinfish) - Coryphaena spp\n0-1\n2-3\n1\n2\nIndo-Pacific blue marlin - Makaira mazara\n0-1\n2-3\n1\n2\nBlack marlin - Makaira indica\n0-1\n2-3\n1\n2\nStriped marlin - Tetrapterus audax\n2\n0\n0\n2\nShortbill spearfish - Tetrapterus angustirostris\n2\n0\n0\n2\nSailfish - Istiophorus platypterus\n1-2\n0\n1\n2\nWahoo - Acanthocybium solandri\n2-3\n0\n1\n2\nSwordfish - Xiphias gladius\n2\n1\n0-1\n0\nMoonfish - Lampris spp\n1\n0\n0\n2\nOilfishes - Ruvettus pretiosus; Lepidocybium flavobrunneum\n1-2\n0\n0-1\n2\nPomfret - Bromidae\n1-2\nN/A\n0-1\nOceanic sharks - Alopiidae; Carcharinidae; Lamnidae; Sphyrnidae\nN/A\n0-1\n2-3\n2\n1\nAlbacore - Thunnus alalunga\n2\n2-3\n2\n1\nBigeye tuna - T obesus\n2-3\n1-2\n1\n2\nYellowfin tuna - T albacares\n2-3\n1-2\n1\n2\nNorthern bluefin tuna - T thynnus\n2-3\n2\n1\n2\nSkipjack tuna - Katsuwonus pelamis\n2\n0-1\n0\n2\nKawakawa - Euthynnus affinis\n1\n0\n0\n2\nDogtooth tuna - Gymnosarda unicolor\n1-2\n1-2\n0-1\n2\nOther tuna relatives - Auxis spp; Scomber spp; Allothunnus spp","Habitat Matrix Table for Crustacean Management Unit Species\nJuvenile\nAdult\nLarvae\nEggs\nLife History Stage\nCrustaceans: (english common\\scientific)\n1-2\n2-3\n2\n1\nSpiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus)\n1\n2\n1\n1\nSpiny lobster (Panulirus pencillatus)\n2-3\n1\nCommon slipper lobster (Scyllarides squammosus)\n2\n1\n2-3\n1\n2\n0\nRidgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haanii)\n1\n2-3\n0\nChinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarcticus)\n2\n1\n1-2\n1\n0\nKona crab (Ranina ranina)","Habitat Matrix Table for Precious Corals Management Unit Species\nBenthic phase\nPelagic phase (larval stage)\nSpecies\nPink Coral\n4\nCorallium secundum\n0\n2\n0\nC. regale\n2\n0\nC. laauense\nGold Coral\n2\n0\nGerardia spp\n2\nCallogorgia gilberti\n0\n2\n0\nNarella spp.\nBamboo Coral\n2\n0\nLepidisis olapa\n2\n0\nAcanella spp.\nBlack Coral\n4\n0\nAntipathes dichotoma\n4\n0\nA. grandis\n2\n0\nA. ulex","Based, in part, on the information provided in the tables above the Council identified the\nfollowing scientific data which are needed to more effectively address the EFH provision:\nAll FMP Fisheries\nDistribution of early life history stages (eggs and larvae) of management unit species by\nhabitat\nJuvenile habitat (including physical, chemical, and biological features that determine\nsuitable juvenile habitat)\nFood habits (feeding depth, major prey species etc)\nHabitat-related densities for all MUS life history stages\nHabitat utilization patterns for different life history stages and species for BMUS\nGrowth, reproduction and survival rates for MUS within habitats\nBottomfish Fishery\nInventory of marine habitats in the EEZ of the Western Pacific region\nData to obtain a better SPR estimate for American Samoa's bottomfish complex\nBaseline (virgin stock) parameters (CPUE, percent immature) for the Guam/NMI deep-\nwater and shallow-water bottomfish complexes\nHigh resolution maps of bottom topography/currents/water masses/primary productivity\nPelagics Fishery\nDistribution of juvenile tuna and billfish\nRelationships between chemical, physical, and biological factors and habitat suitability for\nall life history stages of PMUS throughout the Western Pacific Region throughout the\nspecies range (ie, salinity gradients, temperature gradients, currents, spawning sites,\nupwellings, seamounts etc) Areas of particular interest would include convergence zones\nsuch as the North Pacific Transition Zone\nImportant spawning sites\nRole of currents in larval distribution patterns\nCrustaceans Fishery","Identification of post-larval settlement habitat of all CMUS\nIdentification of \"source/sink\" relationships in the NWHI and other regions (ie,\nrelationships between spawning sites settlement using circulation models, genetic\ntechniques, etc)\nEstablish baseline parameters (CPUE) for the Guam/Northern Marinas crustacean\npopulations\nResearch to determine habitat related densities for all CMUS life history stages in\nAmerican Samoa, Guam, Hawaii and NMI\nHigh resolution mapping of bottom topography, bathymetry, currents, substrate types,\nalgal beds, habitat relief\nPrecious Corals Fishery\nDistribution, abundance and status of precious corals in the Western Pacific region"]}