In the last analysis, the state of Hawai`i didn’t have much of a chance. Its bottomfish management plan had been designed to achieve at least a 15 percent reduction in the overall annual catch of these prized fish whose populations in the waters around the Main Hawaiian Islands have crashed.
When federal fisheries managers reviewed the state plan, though, they held it against a relocated goalpost of a 24 percent reduction in the catch. However carefully crafted the state plan was (and, to the credit of the state’s chief fisheries administrator, Dan Polhemus, it was carefully crafted), it was toast when the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council voted last month to move forward with changes to its own bottomfish fishery management plan.
At the heart of the plan that the council endorsed and forwarded on to the National Marine Fisheries Service for rule-making is a combination of seasonal closures with a total allowable catch (TAC) limit. In 2007, the closed season is to begin May 1 and will last through September 30. It will apply to waters in both federal and state jurisdictions (state waters extend three miles out from the shore; federal waters begin at three miles). When the bottomfish season reopens in October, it will be subject to a total allowable catch limit; once that limit is reached, no more bottomfishing will be allowed for either commercial or recreational purposes until after the next seasonal closure.
In 2008, the closure would be reduced to four months (May through August). Also, recreational anglers wanting to catch any of the seven regulated bottomfish species in the Main Hawaiian Islands would need to begin submitting catch reports under a federal reporting program. The TAC would be revised annually, based on updated stock assessments.
Time vs. Space
No one challenges the notion that the bottomfish are in trouble. But practically everyone involved in the debate has a different idea as to how the problem can be fixed.
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources had developed an approach that redrew boundaries of closed areas first established in 1998. Using sophisticated bathymetry and other submarine survey techniques, the division had remapped 12 bottomfish restricted fishing areas (BRFAs) that now accounted for 17 percent of the most important bottomfish habitat around the Main Hawaiian Islands. Most restricted areas were in state water, but around 20 percent was in federal water (mainly Penguin Bank, southwest of Moloka`i). According to a report done by NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, about 78 percent of the best bottomfish habitat lies within the state three-mile limit. Approved by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources in December and given, at the time, a strong endorsement by the NMFS regional office, the new restricted area maps are set to “go live” July 1, 2007.
Defending his department’s work, DAR administrator Polhemus told his colleagues on the council that the state plan would exceed its goal of a 15 percent reduction in bottomfish mortality. “Even though we were shooting for 15 percent (reduction of catch), the BFRAs still work for 24 percent with a modest redistribution of effort” (that is, if people who would have been fishing in the restricted areas redirect their fishing to other bottomfish grounds). “And,” he added, statistical models of the way the plan would play out show “we come close [to 24 percent] even with modest non-compliance.”
Among the advantages of the state program is the fact that the bottomfish fishers have had nearly 10 years to work with it and are accustomed to the idea of area closures. Although recreational fishers currently don’t have to report their catch, they must abide by a bag limit of five onaga or opakapaka per day. (Under the provisions of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, passed by Congress in December and signed by President Bush in January, the days of unreported recreational fish catches are numbered.)
But the approach has a downside as well. It does little to get a handle on the mystery surrounding the portion of the catch that is taken by recreational fishers. Also, the regulations allow vessels – even bottomfishing vessels – to be in the restricted areas so long as they do not target any of the seven overfished species. To the U.S. Coast Guard, whose participation is key to any successful enforcement effort, this is a problem. In commenting on a range of federal options to bottomfish management, the Coast Guard representative noted that the state’s approach “requires the Coast Guard to conduct boardings of vessels found within the closed areas to determine not only if one of the seven species of bottomfish has been retained, but also determine the intent of the fisherman to target one of these species. This requirement makes at-sea enforcement of this option extremely problematic… If the regulations were reworded to make it illegal for any vessel permitted for bottomfishing … to bottomfish in the closed areas, this option could reasonably be enforced through aerial patrols and at-sea boardings.”
A Brush-Off
In the early 1990s, overfishing of bottomfish around the Main Hawaiian Islands led the council to dump the problem into the lap of the state. While the richest bottomfishing grounds were in federal waters, enforcing any federal management regime on this relatively small area (Penguin Bank and Middle Bank, northwest of Kaua`i) was more than the council wanted to do at that time.
Now, however, under the federal gun to rebuild overfished stocks, the council did not want to let the state go its own way. After the state adopted the revised BRFAs last December, the council developed seven of its own options for reducing the bottomfish catch by 24 percent. Only one involved an area closure (Penguin and Middle banks). The rest involved seasonal closures, TACs, or some combination of them.
At the end of a long day, the council crafted a hybrid approach: the seasonal closure would be in effect (coinciding with the months in which bottomfish fishing is traditionally low), and a TAC would be imposed of around 178,000 pounds, or roughly three-fourths of the commercial catch reported in 2004.
As part of the plan to reduce overfishing, the state must change its commercial catch report forms so fishers have to give more precise information on where catches are made. Also, the reports are to be submitted at the end of each trip, rather than monthly.
Polhemus attempted to include in the council’s action language recognizing the state’s revised BRFAs. There was little support. Ed Ebisui, one of the council members from Hawai`i, said, “Whatever DAR does with respect to state closed areas, it’s solely within the discretion of DAR. It’s clear that this motion does not in any way affect the state’s ability to move forward with its plans. On that basis, I’m not in favor of changing the motion.”
Polhemus said he wanted the language inserted since the “state areas are a combination of federal and state waters. It should be acknowledged in this scheme. If they were purely in state waters, I’d agree with you, but they’re not.”
Ebisui, vice-chairman of the council’s Hawai`i Archipelago Committee, waved off Polhemus: “This doesn’t add anything to the motion.”
Fred Duerr, another Hawai`i council member, said, “I would question us – this council – directing the DAR to implement something” – even though the final motion did just that. Not only did it press the state to change its catch report forms, it also wants to see changes in the dealer reporting and licensing system and the recreational bag limits expanded to include the whole suite of managed bottomfish.
What happens if the council-approved changes to the federal Bottomfish Management Plan go forward with no change to the state’s? “It will be an enforcement nightmare,” says Bill Robinson, administrator of NMFS’ Pacific Island Regional Office. While Polhemus pledged the state’s cooperation, revising state rules will require reinitiating the long rule-making process, with little hope a new system could be in place by the time the federal plan takes effect.
(In the meantime, the secretary of Commerce may end up simply overruling any state plan that he deems inconsistent with the federal bottomfish management plan. For details, see the article in this issue on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.)
Council Amends Framework to Allow
Quick Changes to Tuna Catch Limits
It’s been well known for the past couple of years that overfishing is occurring on bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Pacific. But while two international organizations – the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission – are taking steps to reduce pressure on the fish, the WCPFC is not doing enough, according to members of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council who attended the most recent WCPFC meeting, held in Samoa last December.
Despite recommendations from its own scientists that more needed to be done to reduce bigeye and yellowfin tuna catches, the WCPFC rejected a recommendation to limit bigeye catches by countries whose longline fleet caught more than 2,000 metric tons in 2004 to 75 percent of 2005 levels.
Bill Robinson, administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Pacific Island Regional Office, told the council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee in February that the entire U.S. delegation to the WCPFC meeting was disappointed with its resolutions regarding conservation of the two tuna species. Robinson added that the United States is particularly concerned by high catches from Asian countries, which are responsible for most of the Pacific bigeye, even though their hauls have been declining, in part due to high fuel prices.
Still, on March 16, the council went along with the SSC’s recommendation that it amend its Pelagic Fishery Management Plan to speed up its ability to revise tuna catch limits in accordance with the guidelines or quotas imposed by the two international agencies. Before, such limits required going through a time-consuming rule-making process. With the new amendment, the council will be able to impose catch limits on the Hawai`i-based longline fleet after making a decision at one meeting.
Responsible Fishing
At last month’s meeting, council members heard a presentation by contractors Paul Bartram, John Kaneko, and George Krasnik on Hawai`i’s pelagic longline fishery and how it stands up against the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s code of conduct for responsible fisheries.
In four categories – fishery management, fishing operations, post-harvest practice and trade, and fisheries research – Hawai`i’s longline fishery scored a 91 percent or better, they said. In the category of integration of the fishery with coastal zone management, the fishery scored 71 percent.
While the group’s report, prepared last December for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Hawai`i Seafood Project, suggests that Hawai`i’s longline fishery is responsibly managed, members of the council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee were not prepared to endorse a recent request by the Hawai`i Longline Association to roll back some of the current restrictions on the fishery.
Earlier this year, HLA proposed continuing the use of circle hooks and mackerel bait, but requested that NMFS remove the annual limit of 2,120 swordfish sets and raise the caps on turtle takes. Under current rules, the Hawai`i-based shallow-set (swordfish) fishery must shut down once it reaches its annual limit of 17 loggerhead or 16 leatherback turtles.
“Removal of the effort cap was expected to result in an annual fishing effort of about 3.5 million hooks. Such a level of effort would likely capture over twice as many loggerhead turtles but result in only one additional mortality,” the SSC report states.
At the meeting of the full council, senior council staff scientist Paul Dalzell noted that the level of effort HLA envisioned would result in 46 loggerhead interactions (including four deaths), and 18 leatherback interactions (with two deaths). Under current take levels, three loggerheads and two leatherbacks died last year as a result of interaction with the swordfish fishery.
Instituting HLA’s proposal would require the National Marine Fisheries Service to produce a new biological opinion that established new incidental take limits. Dalzell noted that HLA was also asking for three-year take limits, rather than annual ones.
In the end, the SSC and council agreed it was premature to endorse the proposal. Instead, council members voted to wait until the third full season of the model swordfish fishery was complete before considering any changes. The council also directed its staff and the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center to conduct an analysis of the impact of the removal of the set limit on turtle takes.
The SSC also noted in its report that it wanted to “examine all of the relevant documentation of market transfer effects and recommends that these studies cited by the HLA be submitted for peer review or published in primary literature.”
From the Archives: Since 1994, Environment Hawai`i has reported extensively on the conflicts over managing bottomfish in the Main Hawaiian Islands and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. If you have an online account, you can read the full articles on our website: [url=http://www.environment-hawaii.org]www.environment-hawaii.org[/url] You may obtain an online account with payment of a subscription, or you may purchase, for $10, a two-day pass that allows unfettered access to our archives.
Patricia Tummons on bottomfish; Teresa Dawson on pelagic species
April 2007 — Volume 17, Number 10