An Ecological Perspective on Inshore Fisheries in the Main

M. KIMBERLY SMITH

Introduction Accessibility and rates of exploita- is part of the Hawaiian Islands Na- tion of Hawaiian inshore fisheries are tional Wildlife Refuge (designated in Regional Geography and determined largely by regional geog- 1909 by President Theodore Roosevelt Fishing raphy. Emergent portions of the NWHI as a bird refuge), managed by the U.S. are minimal, are exposed to treacher- Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The volcanic peaks and platforms ous northerly storms, and offer only To maintain a less disturbed environ- that make up the Hawaiian Islands rise limited freshwater and vegetation. ment for threatened and endangered from the ocean floor between roughly These are some of the reasons the species, recreational and commercial lat. 19-28” N and long. 155-178” W, NWHI are largely uninhabited by hu- activities (including fishing) are not giving the archipelago a length of close mans. Travel from populated islands allowed within the 10-20 fathom to 1,500 miles. However, almost all of can take from days to weeks, depend- isobath of most islands northwest of ’s population and land mass ing on the size and condition of the (varying with location). Because (above sea level) is concentrated on vessel. Because of the distances in- of this, inshore fisheries in the NWHI eight islands, located within 300 miles volved, commercial fishermen with are largely unexploited. of the southeastern tip of the island chain large vessels are essentially the only Inshore fish and invertebrate re- (Fig. 1). These are the main Hawaiian participants in NWHI fisheries. sources in the NWHI include many Islands (MHI), which include Hawaii, The NWHI are an important breed- popular MHI species, such as a’ , , Kaho’olawe, , ing and resting ground for monk seals, crab, Grapsus grapsus; ahdehde, , Kauai and Ni’ihau. They are dis- green sea turtles, and various migra- Kuhlia sandvicensis; striped mullet, tinguished geologically and for manage- tory seabirds whose natural habitat has Mugil cephalus; and moi, Polydactylus ment purposes from the submerged been disturbed because of human ac- islands and atolls northwest of Kauai (be- tivity in the MHI (Balazs, 1980; M. Kimberly Smith is with the Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and ginning with ), known as the North- Gilmartin et al., 1980; Harrison and Natural Resources, 115 1 Punchbowl Street, western Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). Hida, 1980). Most of the inshore area Room 330, , HI. 96813.

ABSTRACT-A description of fisheries currents, the breadth and steepness of the and 125 t for akule and opelu, respec- within a depth of 100 fathoms is provided coastal platform, and differences in wind- tively. Akule landings are distributedfairly for the eight southeastem-most islands of ward and leeward climate. Expansive evenly throughout the MHI, while more the Hawaiian Archipelago, known as the coastal development, increased erosion, than 72% of the state’s inshore opelu land- main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). These are and sedimentation are among negative ings take place on the Big Island. Besides the inhabited islands of the State of Ha- human impacts on inshore ecosystems akule and opelu, other important commer- waii and are those most subject to inshore on most islands. Commercial fisheries for cialfisheries on all the MHI include those fishing pressure, because of their accessi- large pelagics (tunas and billfishes) are for surgeon, soldier, parrot, and goat- bility. Between 1980 and 1990, an aver- important in inshore areas around Ni’ihau, fishes; snappers; octopus, and various age of 1,300 short tons offishes and inver- Ka’ula Rock, Kauai, and the Island of Ha- trevallies. Trends in reported landings, tebrates were reported annually within 100 waii (the Big Island), as are bottom trips, and catch per unit effort over the .fm by commercial fishermen. Total land- “handline” fisheries for snappers and last decade are outlined for these fisher- ings may be significantly greater, since groupers around Kauai and Molokai. How- ies. In heavily populated areas, fishing fishing is a popular pastime of residents ever, many more inshore fishermen target pressure appears to exceed the capacity of and noncommercial landings are not re- reef and estuarine species. inshore resources to renew themselves. poned. Although limited data are avail- Two pelagic carangids, “akule,” Selar Management measures are beginning to able on noncommercial fisheries, the ma- crumenopthalmus, and ”opelu,” Decap- focus on methods of limiting inshorefish- jority of this review is based on reported terus macarellus, support the largest in- ing effort, while trying to maintain resi- commercial landings. shore fisheries in the MHI. During dents’ access to fishing. The principal ecological factors influ- 1980-90, reported commercial landings encingfisheries in the MHI include coastal within three miles of shore averaged 203

34 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 1.-Hawaiian Archipelago showing main Hawaiian islands. sexfilis (Okamoto and Kanenaka, many inshore species migrate freely phy may be accentuated by Hawaii’s 1984). Spiny lobster, Panulirus across the three-mile boundary. Nor- relative isolation in the northern tropi- marginatus, various eteline and lutjanid mally the continental shelf is used as a cal Pacific. The attraction of some pe- snappers, jacks, groupers, and large guideline for the limit of inshore fish- lagic species toward land formations pelagic fishes are found slightly far- eries; however, these volcanic islands (Murphy and Shomura, 1972) may also ther from shore (Uchida and Uchiyama, have no continental shelf. Gosline and enhance inshore fishing opportunities. 1986), just as is seen in the MHI. These Brock (1976) also selected the lO&fm The climatic pattern, which affects and other inshore fisheries in the MHI, isobath as an outer boundary, justify- the distribution of terrestrial and where they are harvested, are the sub- ing this in part because it was the maxi- aquatic communities throughout the ject of this review. mum depth fished by traps and hand- MHI and most of the northern tropical lines at that time. Modem hydraulic Pacific is determined by prevailing Climate, Coastal Topography, gurdies have extended the depth limit for trade winds. Wind-born weather fronts and Inshore Fishery Habitats fishing somewhat, but 100 fm is still a lose some of their moisture in passing Inshore fisheries will be defined for reasonable limit for small boat inshore over the mountainous portions of is- this review as those within the 100-fm fisheries (Squire and Smith, 1977). lands in this region. Thus, windward contour. This arbitrary boundary is Depth profiles, climate, and terres- (northeastern) slopes have higher rain- found within three miles of shore trial influences are important determi- fall than leeward (southwest-facing) throughout most of the MHI. Its corre- nants of the distribution of inshore slopes. Because of this, windward em- spondence with the offshore limit of fisheries in the MHI. The importance bayments tend to support more estua- state waters is convenient, although of coastal topography and hydrogra- rine fisheries than leeward areas.

55(2), 1993 3.5 Although high rainfall, erosion, and small carangids, and the introduced Smith, 1977; PAC3). County designa- sedimentation are antagonistic to the blueline snapper or ta’ape, Lutjanus tions throughout the state also reflect survival of healthy corals, the coastal kasmira, are common closer to shore these associations. Kauai and Ni’ihau shelf also sustains fringing and patch in open and embayed habitats. are in Kauai County; Oahu is in Hono- reefs in windward regions. These habi- Hawaiian reefs support diverse and lulu County: Lanai, Molokai, Maui, tats support rock- and crevice-dwell- colorful communities of tropical fishes, and Kaho’olawe are in Maui County: ing organisms, such as octopus, crabs, invertebrates, and marine algae, which and the Island of Hawaii makes up its and lobsters. The balance between the vary as a function of the depth, expo- own county. degree of protection from wind and sure, and three dimensional relief of The Kauai Complex waves, the amount of rainfall and sedi- their habitat (Fielding and Robinson, mentation, and the availability of shal- 1987; Oishi?). Reef fishes and inverte- Kauai, Ni’ihau, and Ka’ula Rock (a low shelf influences the extent of reef brates include lobsters, crabs, octopus, small peak southwest of Ni’ihau) are development in windward and leeward surgeonfishes, parrotfishes, and cryp- located at the northwestern comer of areas. tic nocturnal species such as glasseyes the MHI, separated from the other is- There are few stream-fed estuaries (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus and lands by the 72-mile-wide Kauai Chan- in Hawaii. The most important fresh- other priacanthids), soldierfishes, nel between Kauai and Oahu. Kauai is water input to inshore areas may well Myriprisris spp., and squirrelfishes, dominated by a single mountainous be through groundwater (Carlquist, Sargocentron spp. Many of these are tar- mass, cut by steep slopes and ridges, 1980). Wherever sources of freshwa- geted by pole-and-line fishing, trapping, which occupies most of its central and ter meet the ocean (particularly in or spearing: nets are also employed along western sectors. Most of Kauai’s coast- embayments), fish such as the Hawai- the reef flats and edges, yielding much line has lush vegetation, high rainfall ian anchovy or “nehu,” Encrasicholina larger catches per gear-unit. (600-700 inches annually on some purpurea; round herring, Etrumeus parts of the island), strong currents, micropus: and gold spot herring, The Main Hawaiian Islands and precipitous drop-offs to oceanic Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus: re- The MHI, or “high islands” (islands depths. The windward coasts are tum seasonally to spawn (Williams and above sea level), represent the younger shaped by seasonal flooding and stream Clarke, 1983; Clarke, 1989). More portion of the Hawaiian Archipelago. input, providing avenues along which commonly, Hawaiian fishes use estu- Because they have emerged in rela- endemic gobies enter and leave their aries as feeding and nursery areas, and tively recent geologic time, these is- oceanic larval phase (Radtke et al., may spawn offshore (Clarke, 1991). lands have less well-developed fringing 1988; Kinzie, 1990). Intensive spawn- Fishes which feed in Hawaiian estuar- reefs and have not subsided as far be- ing and migration events stimulate in- ies include mullet, Mugil cephalus; low sea level as the NWHI. The MHI shore fisheries. During the breeding Hawaiian flagtail, KuhEia sandvicensis; form natural geographic groups, uni- season, Kauai’s northeastern to south- bigeye scad, Selar crumenopthalmus; fied by shared channels and portions ern shores are a popular area for recre- and various species of snappers and of interisland shelf (Fig. l), which in- ational fishermen targeting the gobiid trevally. Schools of adults and juve- clude: 1) Ni’ihau, Ka’ula Rock, and Awaous stamineus (known as ‘o’opu niles are targeted by fishermen as they Kauai (the Kauai Complex), 2) Oahu, nakea). Although reef fishes are seen enter and leave embayments. 3) Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and all around the island, the southwestern Substrate, , shelter, and food Kaho’olawe, (the Maui Complex), and coast shows a stronger oceanic influ- preferences of Hawaiian fishes are 4) Hawaii (the Big Island). These is- ence and supports more reef and coastal among other factors that separate spe- land platform groups are meaningful pelagic fisheries, including those for cies guilds and fisheries in relation to for the discussion of inshore fisheries bigeye and mackerel scads, goatfishes, habitat (Gosline and Brock, 1976; because of the dispersal characteristics surgeons, and squirrelfishes. Throw- Squire and Smith, 1977). Despite its of Hawaiian fishes (Jordan and netting and are also preva- narrow shelf, a wide variety of sub- Evermann, 1905; Gosline and Brock, lent on Kauai’s leeward coast. merged habitats can be found around 1976). Fishing activity, navigable sea Ka’ula Rock and Ni’ihau, with steep the MHI. The lagoons, bays, and conditions, and movements of fisher- nearshore slopes are drier than Kauai. beaches that surround these islands men are closely tied to shallow coastal All three islands provide habitat for vary in composition from sand and mud waters and thus are based within shared snappers and groupers, captured by to rock and coral. Sandy corridors, portions of coastal shelf (Squire and bottom hook-and-line fishing (referred rocky slopes, and outcroppings are in- to as “handlining,” although hydraulic habited by large carangids, snappers, ‘E. W. Onizuka. 1972. Management and devel- gurdies are used). Ni’ihau also sup- opment investigations of the Kona crab, Ranina and groupers which are harvested with runinu (Linnaeus). Final Report to Div. Aquatic ports a significant fishery for Kona crab bottom “handlines” (Ralston and Resources, Dep. Land and Natl. Resources, State Polovina, 1982). Kona crabs, Ranina of Hawaii, 28 p. )Pacific Analysis Corporation. 1984. Status of ’F. Oishi. 1992. Hawaii’s marine life conserva- commerical fishing in the State of Hawaii. US ranina, are also caught in these areas tion districts. Div. Aquatic Res., Dep. Land and Army Eng. Div.. Pac. Ocean Corps. Ft. Shafter. (Onizuka’). Schools of goatfishes, Natl. Resources, State of Hawaii, 18 p. Prepared by PAC. 68 p.

36 Marine Fisheries Revieu (Onizuka’). Depths of 100 fm are Oahu’s pattern of leeward and wind- platform groups. In some places (nota- reached within two miles of the shore ward climate. Its northern and north- bly Penguin Bank), the 100-fm isobath of all three islands that make up the eastern shores are strongly influenced is found over 30 miles from shore. The Kauai Complex, broadening to within by stream, surface, and groundwater shallow, protected channels and 3-5 miles on the north shore of Kauai. input, seasonal storms, flooding, and beaches between islands provide a nest- high waves. Windward fisheries in- ing and feeding ground for marine Oahu clude several for estuarine species, such turtles, and a breeding and nursery Seventy-two miles southeast of as mullet, crabs, carangids, octopus, ground for humpback whales. The Kauai and twenty-six miles north of sardines, and anchovies. The climate channels and broad shelf are also a Molokai (across the Kaiwi Channel), is generally drier on the southwestern favorite fishing ground for full-time Oahu is home to about 75% of the side of the island, supporting more typi- and experienced part-time fishermen, state’s 1.3 million inhabitants (DBEDT, cally marine fisheries. However, Pearl the latter known locally as the “week- 1990). Having sustained the largest Harbor in the middle of Oahu’s leeward end warriors.” population for more than a century, it shore is the state’s largest estuary. Maui’s dominant geological features has experienced the highest levels of Together, Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe are two volcanic peaks, Pu’u Ula’ula fishing pressure and other human im- Bay represent over 80% of true estua- (Red Hill, on eastern Maui) and Pu’u pacts of all the Hawaiian Islands. The rine habitat in Hawaii. Kaneohe is a Kukui (Candlenut Hill or the West impacts of human development on fish windward embayment containing a Maui Mountains), united by a narrow populations along Oahu’s heavily sandbar and many patch and fringing land bridge. The double-mountain for- populated coast have been noted since reefs. A unique mixture of corals and mation creates two natural embay- the turn of the century (Jordan and sediments, it has received decreasing ments, windward Kahului and leeward Evermann, 1905). Artificial islands and amounts of fresh water and increased Ma’alaea Bay. Maui’s windward side airstrips have been built over reefs, sediments over the years, owing to de- is a lush, green agricultural area. Its bays, and sandbars on Oahu’s leeward forestation, erosion, and diversion of leeward slopes are dry (but fertile) vol- side; commercial and private piers, streams and groundwater to the lee- canic soil. Coastal soils have been loading docks, high-rise hotels, and ward (more populated) side of the is- heavily eroded by farming and devel- heavily populated beaches have over- land. Despite decreased freshwater opment, as is common throughout the run the natural shoreline. Dynamite was input, Kaneohe Bay is affected by sea- MHI. Spearfishing, surround and gill used to carve shipping channels into sonal floods which damage its coral netting are the principal inshore meth- the reefs of Kaneohe Bay, on the wind- reefs. Freshwater and sediment load- ods used on the windward coast; while ward coast, and the resulting coral ing during floods has been intensified throw netting and handlining are popu- rubble was placed into various land- by channelization of streams and lar on Maui’s leeward shore. Due west fills along its shoreline (Devaney et steeply graded urban development of Ma’alaea Bay is Molokini Shoal, a al., 1982). Coastal sites invaded by ur- (Devaney et al., 1982; Gordon and unique and abundant area which is pro- ban development include many ancient Helfrich, 1970; OSP). Freshwater in- tected as a (State) Marine Life Conser- Hawaiian fishponds. In spite of con- put to Pearl Harbor has also decreased vation District (MLCD). gestion, residents can be found fishing over the years. Together with marine Molokai, the northernmost member from shore at all times of the day and pollution, this may have diminished its of the Maui group, is also a double night, especially along the less devel- populations of estuarine fishes, such island. Its peaks, (western) Pu’u Nana oped windward coast. Fishermen us- as mullet and certain carangids (Smith and (eastern) Kamakou, are less than ing light tackle line the windward shore et al., 1973; Kimmerer and Durbin. half the height of the mountains on dAnisummerruns ofoamaand hahalalu 1975). Regardless of human impacts, Maui, giving-the island a relatively dry (juvenile goatfish and bigeye scad). both Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe Bay climate and providing a less heteroge- - The coastal shelf around Oahu is still support two of oahu’s largest and neous coastal habitai. Penguin Bank, broader than that of the Kauai Com- most diverse fisheries. on the western end of Molokai, is the plex, particularly at its prominent The Maui Complex most extensive shallow shelf area in points. However, the 100-fm contour the Hawaiian Islands. This bank sup- is still within three miles of shore in On the southeast side of the Kaiwi ports a productive bottom “handline” most areas. Bottom handlining, spear- Channel, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and fishery for snappers and groupers ing, and trapping are among fisheries Kaho’olawe form parts of a unified (Ralston and Polovina, 1982) and ex- which depend on Oahu’s relatively platform with a maximum depth of tensive net harvests of Kona crab wide coastal shelf. Surround net and

55(2). 1993 37 more populated islands, Molokai has mic waves (or “tsunamis”). Windward fisheries are those for smaller coastal fewer problems from overfishing of Hilo Harbor supports extensive recre- pelagics, such as mackerel scad, inshore habitats. ational and commercial fisheries for Decapterus macarellus; and bigeye Kaho’olawe, now uninhabited, was sardines, ‘ama’ama (mullet), ah61eh61e scad, Selar crumenopthalmus. Reef fish taken over by the U.S. Navy in 1941 (Hawaiian flagtail), hahalalu (young harvests of surgeon and soldierfishes and used as a training area for more bigeye scad), kuahonu crab, Portunus are also significant in this area. than 50 years (Clark, 1985). In 1968, sanguinolentus; and Samoan crab, Available Data the Navy began to reopen nearshore Scylla errata^. Reef fishes are also areas to fishermen and boaters. The caught on the open coast in this region. Commercial Fisheries island is gradually being reclaimed and The repercussions of land-based hu- debris (including monofilament line, man activities in the Big Island’s wind- Although anecdotal information is plastic garbage, and unexploded ord- ward fisheries have been noted since available, the only consistent long-term nance), which accumulated during the the effluents of the sugar industry made source of data on Hawaii’s fisheries is military occupation, is being removed streams and inshore areas uninhabit- the commercial landings database to eliminate the to humans and able to some fishes (Welsh6). These maintained by the State Division of marine life in the area. impacts have been mitigated to a cer- Aquatic Resources (DAR, formerly the Lanai, a small island west of Maui, tain extent over the years (Grigg, 1972, Division of Fish and Game). Anyone is dedicated to agriculture. With the 1985), but have by no means been who catches and sells even one fish is exception of the state harbor at Manele eliminated. Erosion and freshwater in- considered a commercial fisherman and Bay, its entire coastline above the veg- put via streams and groundwater influ- is required to report his or her landings etation zone is private property. Ac- ence nearshore ecology dramatically. and fishing effort on a monthly basis. cess is mainly limited to resident The brown halo seen along the wind- The location of fishing activity is ref- workers and their guests. A few par- ward coast during rainy periods is an erenced to numbered geographic areas tially submerged Hawaiian fishponds index of the magnitude of coastal ero- from the Commercial Fisheries Statis- are found on Lanai’s eastern coast, sion. Natural erosion has been intensi- tical Charts (DAR’), which are given where the fringing reef is farthest from fied by the loss of forested areas to to fishermen with catch report forms. shore. Quiet beaches on the western cattle ranching and agriculture. Addi- Despite legal reporting requirements, side of the island provide a nesting tional environmental concerns for the in practice there is considerable ground for green sea turtles. The south- Big Island’s windward coast include nonreporting. In the past, actual com- western shore supports another type of those from toxics (DOH, 1981; Hall- mercial landings may have been as marine life refuge, the Manele- acher et al., 1985), sewage (Ambrose much as double the amount reported Hulopo’e MLCD. and Johnson, 1987), privately owned for some species. Improved follow-up septic systems (Dudley et al., 1991), measures to track down licensed fish- Hawaii, the “Big Island” and petroleum derivatives from small ermen who fail to report have signifi- The Island of Hawaii, at the south- and large vessels. cantly increased the proportion of eastern end of the Hawaiian Archi- In contrast to the lush green valleys licensed commercial landings regis- pelago (across the Alenuihaha and raging rivers of the windward side, tered since 1989; however, other com- Channel), is known to residents as the the Big Island’s leeward (Kona) coast mercial fishermen remain unlicensed “Big Island.” Still volcanically active, is flatter and drier and has more devel- and commercial landings are still un- the Big Island is dominated by two oped coral reefs. The inshore dropoff derestimated. Methods of improving large dome volcanoes (Mauna Loa and is particularly steep on the Kona Coast. the accuracy and completeness of com- Mauna Kea), and a few smaller ranges Deep inshore waters and currents fa- mercial landings data are constantly and craters. New beaches can be cre- vorable to large pelagic fishes make it under review (DAR’; Kasaoka9). Re- ated in days or weeks on the southeast- a preferred site for trollers and deep gional, seasonal, and short-term annual em coast, as a consequence of volcanic pelagic handline fishermen, who catch trends in these data are considered re- activity. The 100-fm isobath is found tunas, mahimahi, Coryphaena hip- liable and provide a plausible index of well within a mile of shore, from purus; and billfishes in this region. differences in commercial landings and Kealakekua Bay on the western side However, the most prominent inshore ’Div. Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. 1990. and around the southern tip of the is- Commercial fisheries statistical charts. Div. land to Cape Kumukahi. The coastal 5J. Kahiapo and M. K. Smith. In review. Recre- Aquatic Resources, Dep. Land and Natl. Re- shelf widens to within 2-5 miles along ational fishing survey of HiloBay: 1985-1990. sources. Cham A-H. the northern coast, from Cape Div. Aquatic Resources, 75 Aupuni SI.,Rm. *Div. Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. 1984. 220. Hilo, Hawaii 96720, 41 p. Hawaii fisheries statistics design study. Div. Kumukahi to Kealakekua. 6J. P. Welsh. 1949. A preliminary report to the Aquatic Res., Dep. Land and Natl. Resources, Wind and weather are particularly Division of Fish and Game Bait Program. Sec- 187 p. important along Hawaii’s northeast tion 1. Summary of field work with special 9L. D. Kasaoka. 1991. Revising the State of reference to Hilo Harbor nehu scarcity. Fish. Hawaii’s commercial fish catch reporting sys- shore, which receives year-round high Progr. Rep., Div. Fish Game, Bd. Comm. Agr. tem. Final Report to Div. Aquatic Resources, rainfall, and periodic storm and seis- Forest, Hawaii 1(1), 25 p. Dep. Land and Natl. Resources, 466 p.

38 Marine Fisheries Review fishing activity. However, recorded Resources, Inc.13). Shoreline fishing methods which are widely dispersed data would not represent total landings with pole and line, trolling, spear- along the shoreline, such as spearing even if 100% reporting could be fishing, throw netting, and crab net- (for octopus and reef fishes), trapping achieved, because there is no law to re- ting are ail popular activities of non- (for small fishes), and handpicking (for quire recreational catches to be reported. commercial fishermen. Surveys at Hilo, marine algae) are particularly difficult on the Big Island, show that 40-70% to sample and may not show up at all Noncommercial (Recreational of shoreline fishing is conducted ei- in either commercial catch reports or and Subsistence) Fishing ther with rod and reel or handpole (a port-of-landing surveys (Ever~on’~). Hawaii is a state of fishermen and bamboo pole without a reel) (Kahiapo Shoreline creel surveys are now being both recreational and “subsistence” and Smith, unpubl. data). This can be conducted in several locations, includ- landings are an important consider- contrasted with an estimated 0.5% of ing Kaneohe Bay (Everson’*) and ation. Actual “subsistence” fishing is commercial fishermen using light Waikiki (Yamamoto16; DLNR, 1992). rare. Most noncommercial fishermen tackle in this area. Skillful fishermen, Oahu; Hilo Bay, Hawaii (Kahiapo and fish either for enjoyment or to put food averaging 4MO years of age, spend Smith, unpublished data); and Hanalei on the table, but do not rely on fishing hours fishing patiently for ‘ama’ama, and Nawiliwili Bays, Kauai. Fishery as a source of food. Many are either hahalalu, crabs, and ah6lehole at Hilo scientists may rely increasingly on in- retired or have a full-time job. Hawaii and other areas throughoutthe state (Table formation obtained through creel sur- is one of the few U.S. coastal states 1 provides local and common fish names). veys to assist in interpreting reported which does not require a saltwater rec- Differences in fishing areas, access data for estimates of overall landings reational fishing license. Because there methods, and target species of recre- for the state. Where data are available, are no recreational permitting or re- ational fishermen mean their contribu- recreational fisheries are included in porting requirements, it is difficult to tion to the total and species the present discussion. However, it is estimate the number of recreational composition of landings must also be important to keep in mind that the fol- fishermen in Hawaii or their landings. different. These differences make it lowing summaries are based primarily Surveys indicate that 19-35% of resi- impossible at present to interpret over- on reported commercial landings. dents fish (Hoffman and Yamauchi, all trends in landings and catch rates Sport Fishing 1972; USFWS, 1988). Estimates of rec- for species taken jointly by the recre- reational anglers alone were above ational and commercial sectors. An in- Besides residents, Hawaii supports an 187,000 in the early 1980’s (DAR’O), dependent estimate of recreational extensive gamefish charter boat industry as opposed to about 4,000 licensed landings is needed. Only fragmentary catering to visitors. Samples et al.’? esti- commercial fishermen. La1 and Clark information is presently available, but mated that 73,780passenger-tripsper year (1991) cited the State Department of an effort is in progress to improve the were completed during 1982, capturing Transportation and the U.S. Army data. about 2.2 million pounds of fish and $8.1 Corps of Engineers as a source for an In the last 5-8 years, the DAR and million in total revenue. It is common for estimated 12,690 “personal boats,” of the National Marine Fisheries Service the sport catch to become the property of which approXimatey 14% were engaged (NMFS) have begun developing meth- the vessel and be sold by the captain. in fishg as their primary activity. ods of estimating total landings through Charter boat operators are considered to Recreational fishermen may outnum- port and shoreline fishing (or “creel”) be commercial fishermen (Hawaii Re- ber commercial fishermen signifi- surveys. Creel surveys involve field vised Statutes $189-2) and thus are re- cantly, but per-trip landings are con- observation and interviews of recre- quired by law to submit catch reports siderably lower. The difficulty in ational and commercial fishermen. Re- interpreting trends in total landings is sults of a pilot port-of-landing survey survey. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Hono- compounded by differences in fishing for greater Oahu show that some gears lulu Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. gears and species targeted recrea- and species which are insignificant in Rep. H-92438.35 p. tionally vs. commercially (SMS Re- commercial landings become impor- ‘*A. Everson. 1991. Fishery datacollection sys- search”; Samples and Schug12; Meyer tant when total landings are consid- tem for fishery utilization study of Kaneohe Bay: One year summary report. Hawaii Inst. ered (Hamm and LIJ~’~).Inshore Mar. Biol. NMFS job report to Div. Aquatic ‘ODiv. Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. Res., Dep. Land and Natl. Res.. 14 p. 1981. Management of Hawaii’s coastal zone: demographics. motivations. expenditures and Living marine resources. Div. Aquatic Re- fishing values. US. Dep. Commer., NOAA, I6M. Yamamoto. 1990. Annual job progress sources, Dep. Land and Natl. Resources, 95 p. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv.. Southwest Fish. Sci. report. Federal aid in sportfish restoration ac- Cent. Admin. Rep. H-85-8C. 9.5 p. tivities. Statewide Marine Research and Sur- “SMS Research. 1983. Experimental valuation veys Project F-16-R-15. Monitoring of of recreational fishing in Hawaii: Final Report. ”Meyer Resources, Inc. 1987. A report on resi- Waikiki-Diamondhead FMA. US. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. dent fishing in the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Dep. Serv., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Honolulu Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., South- ”K. C. Samples. J. N. Kusakabe, and J. T. Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. west Fish. Sci. Cent., Honolulu Lab., Southwest Sproul. 1984. A description and economic ap- H-83-1 lC, 43 p. Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-87-8C. p. praisal of charter boat fishing in Hawaii. U.S. 74 Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., ”K. C. Samples and D. M. Schug. 1985. Char- I‘D. C. Hamm and H. K. Lum. 1992. Prelimi- Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Honolulu Lab., ter fishing patrons in Hawaii: A study of their nary results of the Hawaii small-boat fisheries Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-84- Continued Continued 6C, 130 p.

55(2), I993 39 Table l.-lnshors commercial species by habitat, gear, and fishing method.

Habitat Fishing gear or method Scientific name Local name Common name Percent weight'

Shelf, slope and channel: Bottom handline Erel,s coruscans Onaga Red snapper 0.79 Rocky to sandy bottoms Etebs carbunculus Ehu Red snapper 0.23 Pnstipomoides lrlamentosus Opakapaka Pink snapper 1.54 Pnst!porno,des sreboldu Kalekale yon Siebold s snapper 0.14 Apnon wrescens Uku2 Grey snapper 1.33 Seriola nvoliana Kahala2 Amberjack 0.53 Epinephelus quernus Hapu upu'u Seale s grouper 0.13 Luqanus kasmira Ta ape2 Blue-he snapper 2.80 Hererocarpus laewgarus Ono Shrimp Deepwater shrimp 1.39

Coastal pelagic: Surround net Selar crumenoprhalmus AkuielHahalalu3 Bigeye scad 28.92 interisland channels and Purse seine Decapterus macarellus Opelu Mackerel scad 17.82 inshore areas right outstde Pelagic handline Makaira mazara AU Blue marlin 0.94 the reef Trolling Terrapturus audax AU Striped marlin 0.17 Pole and line Xtphphras gladius Shutome Broadbill swordfish 0.18 Palu'ahi (using fish chum) Thunnus albacares 'Aha Yellowtin tuna 9.37 lkashibi (using squid as bait) Thunnus alalunga Tombo AI bacore 0 11 Katsuwonus pelamrs Aku Skipjack tuna 1.65 Acanrhocybium solandr! Ono Wahoo 2.29 Coryphaena htppurus Mahimahi Dolphinfish 1.05 Eurhynnus aflmrs Kawakawa Bonito 0.22 Sphyraena barracuda Kaku Barracuda 0.10 Sphyraena helleri Kawelea Heller's barracuda 0.27 Elagatis bipinnularus Kamanu Rainbow runner 0 12 Reef6and rocky Handline Mullo!des flavolrneatus WhiteIGreen Weke Yellowstripe goanlsh 2.39 Open coast predominantly Spear Mull0,des plluger! Weke-ula Pfluger s goatfish 0.71 marine areas Traps Parumneus oorDhvreuS Kumu Whitesaddle goatftsh 0.57 Juveniles In embayments Various nets Moano Manybar goansh 0.39 Pseidupeneus cyc/osfornus Moano Kea Blue goatfish 0.15 Acanrhums dussumen Palani Eyestripe surgeonfish 1.15 Acanrhurus tnostegus Manini Convict tang 0.60 Acanrhorus xanrhopterus Pualu Yellowfinned surgeon 0.30 Naso un#cornts Kala Unicornfish 0.69 Other surgeonftshes 0.39 Myripristfs berndti 8 others Vu (Menpachi) Soldierhshes 2.07 Scarus spp a Uhu Parrotfishes 1 96 Atule mate Omaka Yellow-tailed scad 2.97 Caranx ronob,l,s White IUluaiDaoiol While trevallv5 Caranx melarnpygus Omllu iuluaibapid, Bluefin trevai1y5 Caranx sexlasciarus Ulua Menpachi Bigeye trevally5 Carangotdes orrhogrammus Papa (Uluaipapio) Yellowspot trevally5 Gnathodon speciosus Pa' o p a 'o Striped trevally5 Prjacanrhus rneekr and Aweoweo Red bigeye 0 40 Heteropnacanrhus cruentarus Bodianus bilunolatus Aawa Blackspot wrasse 0.17 ocropus cyanea He'e (Tako) octopus 146

Embayments6and estuaries Gill net Mugrl cephalus 'Ama'ama Striped mullet 0.42 Including sand. mud, and Surround net Polydactylus sexfills Mot Threadfin 0.16 patch reef habitats Palpal net Chanos chanos Awa Milkfish 0.09 Speanng flops hawarensrs Awaawa Ladyftshnen pounder 0.05 Handplcked Kuhlia sandvtcenss Ah61eh61e Hawaiian flagtail 0.33 Handline Albula vulpes 'O'iO Bonefish 0.58 Pole and Itne Ranrna ranina Kona Crab Spanner ciab 0.56 Castina and SDmnlna Porrunus sanou!nolentUs Kuahonu Crab White crab 0.29

' Percent weight = mean annual percent (by weight) 01 commercial landings reponed between 1980-90 to the OAR m required Commercial Fish Catch Repons. Uku. kahala. and ta'ape come in quite close to shore as juveniles and adults. Adult and juvenile bigeye scad are referred 10 as "akule" and -hahalalu'. respectively. Residents think of the two as distinct and report catches of each separately. as 11they were different species. ' Parrotfishes captured are mainly Scarus persprcillatus and Scams sordldus. The hve species of trewallls listed make up more than 90% of "uluaipapio" landngg. Omaka landings were also grouped as "bas Since their Juven!les may not always be distinguished in catch reports. Adult trevally and other jacks are relerred to generally as 'ulua"; luveniles as "paplo' Kahala landings may also be placed into thls group as juveniles tecause of their similar appearance. butthey are separated in lhis table because of differences In adult habitat. It should be noted that the Size at whch fmh become designated 'ulua". rather than "papio" varies lrom island lo island. There 1s some overlap in distribution between species listed under 'reet' and "estuarinelembayment' habitats. Reefs and their fauna may also be found within embayments and estuaries in Hawaii.

(HRS 5189-3). Thus, charter boat land- (by weight) of the state's inshore com- ganisms and many more hours of fish- ings should be included in reported com- mercial landings. Individual reef spe- ing effort. Unfortunately, available data mercial data. cies weigh a fraction of the average for do not allow an in-depth evaluation of coastal pelagics. Therefore, the weight mean size or numeric abundance, since Inshore Species of landings increases significantly in fishermen often report only the num- Table 1 summarizes local and com- areas where large pelagic species are ber of pounds caught (most species are mon names of the principal inshore caught close to shore (such as on the sold by weight). fishes as a function of depth and habi- Kona Coast). Landings in other areas Reef species make up a relatively tat. These 47 species represent 91% represent a much larger number of or- small fraction of the total weight of

40 Marine Fisheries Review landings, but market preferences in- significant numbers farther from shore. ported commercial landings within crease the economic value of the reef Because of their high mobility, the as- three miles of shore averaged 203 and catch. Goatfishes, such as kumu, sessment and management of these 125 tons for akule and opelu, respec- Parupeneus porphyreus, and moano stocks rely on collaboration between tively. Akule (bigeye scad) are the most kali (or moano kea, Parupeneus State and Federal agencies. Areas in productive inshore fishery throughout cyclostomus), are targeted with traps the mid-MHI (Oahu and the Maui Com- the MHI, except on the Big Island and spears by inshore fishermen and plex), with more developed inshore where more opelu (mackerel scad) are sell for 2-6 times the price of other shelf, fringing and patch reefs, sustain caught. Akule are captured with sur- goatfishes, depending on the season. a larger proportion of landings of reef, round nets, made of either nylon or Prices for moano kali are the highest shelf, and crevice-dwelling species, monofilament line (DLNR, 1992). because these fish inhabit deeper water, such as kumu, weke, u'u, ta'ape, palani, Hoop nets are effective for catching making them more difficult to target. uhu, and he'e. The steep coastal slopes opelu, which dive deeper when startled. Reported inshore landings by island and swift currents of the Kauai Com- Both species are also captured with platform groups (Table 2) illustrate the plex and the Big Island are a more suit- hook and line. Night jigging with flies most important regional trends in able habitat for inshore pelagic species. for akule and opelu on dark nights or weight and relative abundance of the Akule, Selar crumenoprhalmus; and during the new moon, using a small top ten species in each area. Many spe- opelu, Decaprerus macarellus, land- light to attract the fish (Kawamoto'*), cies that are major constituents of in- ings rank within the top ten fisheries is extremely popular on all islands and shore landings are also captured in on all islands. From 1980 to 1990. re- among residents of all ages. Either a rod and reel or a simple bamboo "handpole" can be used. Table P.-Mesn annual landings (short tons) reported for 1980-90 by geographic region for Hawaii's Figures 2 and 3 show regional trends principal inshore commercial species. in landings of opelu and akule, respec- tively, from 1980 to 1990. More than Island (descending order b;weight of inshore landings) Mean Spp; platform annual freq. 72% of the state's inshore opelu land- group Local name Scientific name tons2 (%) ings takes place on the Kailua-Kona Kauai complex Akulelhahalalu Selar crumenoplhalm~s 48 98 13.8 Coast of the Big Island (Fig. 2). There- 'Ah, (yellowfin) Thunnus albacares 15.71 7.4 Opelu Decaplerus macarellus 10.89 2.8 fore, trends in opelu landings are domi- On0 shnmp Heferocarpuslaevrgalus 7 45 01 nated by the success of the Big Island Ta'ape Lullanus kasmira 5 69 3.5 Whitelgreen weke Mulloides flavolrnealus 3.99 3.2 fishery. Akule landings (Fig. 3) are UU Mynpnsbs spp 3.58 5.2 distributed fairly evenly throughout the Ulualpapio Primarily Caranx spp 3.55 7.8 Ono Acanfhocybrum solandrr 3 18 4.2 MHI but are greatest on the Kailua- Uku Apnon wescens 2.36 3.3 Kona Coast, at Ma'alaea Bay (on Maui) Oahu Akulelhahalalu Selar crumenopfhalmus 67.40 11 9 and Waianae (Oahu). Both fisheries Opelu Decaplerus macarellus 18.97 6.8 Whitelgreen weke Mullordes flavolrnealus 7.98 3.8 have shown cyclical changes in abun- Ta'ape Lullanus kasmira 6.77 4.0 dance over the past 1 1 years, with peaks He'eltako Ocfopus cyanea 6.39 46 'Ah, (yellowfin) Thunnus albacares 5.95 1.1 in 1983 and 1989. Changes in catch Palani Acanlhuius dussumlen 5.29 3.3 Ulualpapio Caranx spp 5.17 7.0 rates (CPUE, poundship) are prim-a- Aku Kals~wonuspelarnrs 4.78 0.5 rily responsible for the observed an- Uhu Scarus spp 3.85 2.4 nual differences in catch, presumably Maul complex Akulelhahalalu Selar cfumenopfhalmus 52.36 4.2 because of actual changes in abundance Ulualpapio Caranx spp 5.72 10 4 Shutome Xiphias gladws 5.01 co.1 of these highly mobile species in in- Uhu Scarus spp 4.74 3.5 shore areas. This trend is much stron- Opakapaka Pr,sl!pomordes blarnenlos~~ 4.43 2.8 Whitelgreen weke Mullo,des flavolrnealus 4.07 3.7 ger for the akule fishery. Regional Uku Apnon wrexens 4.02 3.5 Opelu Decaplerus macarellus 3.95 2.1 trends in landings also vary somewhat He'e Oclopus cyanea 3 03 4.9 from year to year (Fig. 2, 3). This is 'Ah, (yellowfin) Thunnus albacares 2.82 1.1 partly due to differences in seasonal Hawaii Opelu Decaplerus macarellus 91.18 14.4 migration patterns of the fishes around 'Ah#(yellowfin) Thunnus albacares 41.42 57 Akulelhahalalu Selar crunenoplhalm~s 34 07 8.8 each island platform group and partly Ono shnmp Helerocarpus laevrgalus 10.71 0.1 because of movements of a few large On0 (wahoo) Acanlhocybrumsolandrr 9.44 41 U'U Myripnslisspp 6 82 5.1 purse seiners. Ta'ape Lu7,anus kasmrra 5.61 5.0 Uluaipapio Caranx spp 5.04 5.2 Opakapaka Pnslrpomordes blamentosus 4.29 3.9 Uhu Scarus spp 4 07 2.0 '*P. Y. Kawamoto. 1973. Management investi- gation of the akule, or bigeye scad, Trnchurops crumenoprhalrnus (Bloch). Completion rep. for ' There are three multispeciescategories (u'u. trevallies. and uhu) The species makmg up each of these categories are defined m Table 1 NMFS under Comm. Fish. Res. Devel. Acl. Mean annual Ions = average annual wetght of reponed landmgs from 1980-90 P.L. 88-309. Proj. H-4-R, Div. Fish and Game, Spp freq (%) I mean annual percentage of trips for 1980-90 whtch reponed catching the specles Dep. Land and Natl. Res., Hawaii, 28 p.

58(2),I993 41 BigKOUO~ IslondComplex

Moui Complex

All MHI

YEAR YEA?

Figure ’.-Regional commercial landings of opelu Figure 3.-Regional commercial landings of akule in the main Hawaiian islands by island platform in the main Hawaiian islands by island platform group. group.

Fishing Gears and Methods except on the Big Island, where sur- abundant gears often show the highest Fishing gears employed in Hawaii round netting (for opelu) is more im- catch rates. Table 4 illustrates this, showing mean catch per unit effort include various pole-and-line methods portant. Throw netting is more prevalent around the Maui Complex (CPUE) and of trips by gear (spin casting, handlining, or trolling) number type. from shore, pier or platform, using than in other areas. There is not neces- The relatively low proportion of motorized or unmotorized boats, ca- sarily a direct relationship between gear trolling trips and high proportion of noes, kayaks, or surfboards. He’e (oc- frequencies and the proportion of land- trapping around Oahu are both unique to this area. Oahu is also the only is- topus), limu (algae), and cryptic fishes ings by gear type. In fact, the least such as aweoweo (glasseyes) and u’u (soldierfishes) are speared or hand-col- Table 3.--Mean proportion of inshore commercial fishing trips by gear type and geographic region. lected by diving or swimming (with or Relative gear abundance (%of annual tnps‘) without scuba). Trolling from Kauai Maul windsurfers, canoes, and kayaks is used Fishma wadmethod comDlex Oahu complex Hawaii to capture ulua and papio near the reef ~~ ~ ~~ Aku boat (pole and line) 0.2 42

42 Marine Fisheries Review land supporting a major bait fishery at herded into nets, either by divers or experienced fishermen in Hawaii, who this time. Baitfishes (primarily nehu, from a boat. The advent of mono- pass on their special fishing secrets or Hawaiian anchovy) were formerly filament line makes this method ex- from one generation to another. Cul- harvested from Ma’alaea Bay, Maui tremely effective, since the nets are tural heritage and family traditions, in- (Nakamura, 1967) and other locations. essentially invisible in the water. cluding preferences for certain species, These fisheries declined for marketing There are no trawl fisheries in Ha- are among the underlying factors that reasons during the mid-1980’s waii, since sharply sloping, coralline, determine the composition of fisheries (Kushima et al., 1992). Baitfishes har- or rocky coasts do not provide suitable landings in Hawaii. vested in Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe substrate for trawl operations. Attempts Bay are used to catch aku slightly off- at bottom and midwater trawling in the Geographic Trends in Catch Rates and Fisheries Exploitation shore (Comitini, 1977), making Oahu 1970’s and 1980’s were therefore aban- the most important island for aku fish- doned. Bullpen nets are set in areas Table 5 summarizes total reported ing. All aku boats presently have their that are open and flat, facilitating the landings and provides an index of com- home ports on Oahu. capture of large and highly mobile mercial harvest rates within each is- Advances in the technology for fish- fishes. Sea turtles captured in bullpen land platform. The index, mean annual ing and locating fish are constantly in- nets, are easily released alive. Fish pounds per square nautical mile of creasing the efficiency of Hawaii‘s caught by surround methods can also shelf, was obtained by dividing re- fishermen. Differences in the construc- be kept alive for long periods of time ported landings by an estimated area tion of fishing gears over the years and released or harvested selectively. for each coastal shelf, based on the have resulted in higher catch rates While many fish or turtles caught acci- difference between the area of land which, together with the rapidly in- dentally are released by conscientious above sea level (DBEDT, 1990) and creasing population, contribute to the fishermen, some die because people that of a circle enclosed by the 100-fm potential for overfishing. For example, leave nets unattended or hold fish for isobath. The length of the isobath for cotton or “linen” nets used by early long periods of time. This practice is each platform group was taken from Hawaiians have been replaced by particularly wasteful in Hawaii where Ralston and Polovina (1982). Land- monofilament nets which require less the standard of quality for local fish ings within three miles of shore were maintenance, bring in larger catches, consumption is high and where injured used for the Kauai Complex, Oahu, and are less easily perceived by fish in fish may not be marketable. and Hawaii. For the Maui Complex, clear water. Monofilament nets are Other variations in fishing methods landings and estimated shelf area employed along the reef faces, on the that influence catch composition in- within 20 miles of shore were used open coast and in embayments. both clude daytime vs. night fishing (and owing to the extensive shallows of Pen- fixed (as a gill net) and to surround diving); diving with scuba; fishing with guin Bank. and bag fish schools (as a purse net) or without the moon; and carefully se- The index indicates a higher rate of (DLNR, 1992). Paipai is another popu- lecting seasons, tidal phases, and loca- exploitation around Oahu. as would be lar method of net fishing, whereby cer- tions (Titcomb, 1952; Hosaka, 1973). expected because of its large popula- tain species (particularly weke) are All these tools are at the command of tion. Oahu’s landings are accomplished

Table 5.-Annual reported inshore and nearshore commercial landings and coastal haNest rates by geographic region.

Length of Estimated Mean Inshore Nearshore 100 fm Shelf areaS annual iandtngs‘. landings’ Total sobatha (n.mi.2) Ib.ln.mi Island platform group 1.~3n.mi ) (Szo n mi ) (0-20 n mi ) (n mi within 100 fm of she16

Kaual complex 260.313 Ib. 769.557 Ib 1.029.870 Ib. 195 2.484 104.8 18.56 % 10.81 % 12.08 %

Oahu 372,042 Ib. 2,737,943 Ib. 3.109.985 Ib. 150 1,274 292.0 26.53 % 38 45 % 38.49 %

Maul complex 258,738 Ib. 1.197.168Ib 1,455,906 Ib. 390 11,080 131 4 18.45 % 16.81 % 17.08 %

Hawaii 511,506 Ib. 2,416,141 Ib. 2.927.647 Ib. 290 3.187 160 5 36.47 % 33.93 7- 34.35%

Tolal all island groups 1,402.599 7.120.809 8.523.408 1.205 18 205 144 77 ’ Lb =mean annual pounds reponed between 1980 and 1990 (all specnes) Zln~h~re% = percent of total MHI landmgs reported wlthln three nautlcal mdes of shore ’Nearshore % = percent of total MHI landmgs reported from 3-20 mlles of shore ‘Length of 100-fm isobath = approximate nautical mlles (from Ralston and Polnna. 1982). Estlmaled shelf area (ESA) = estlrnated square nautical mdes of coastal shelf shallower than 100 fm. Mean annual Ib.in.mi.2 shelf = Ib./ESA (landtngs wllhm 20 n.mr. of the Maul complex included; only landings within 3 nm. for other areas). ’The all-islands total lor “Mean annual Ibhm!.“ IS based on a total of 2.599.767 Ib. Landings greater than three miles from shore (nearshore) are not mcluded for the Kau, complex. Oahu. and the Big Island.

55/2). 1993 43 by a large number of fishermen and Table ?.-Trends in catch per unit effort (IbJtrip) ings of large pelagic species in this from 1980 lo 1990 for selected species by island- catch rates per fishermen for compa- quadrant. However, there were also platform group. rable fishing effort are lower than on more trips recorded in most leeward Big Kauai Maul Mean other islands. To compensate for this. areas. Increased pelagic productivity Species Island complex complex Oahu All MHI Oahu’s fishermen tend to use more fish- in leeward areas may be a function of U’U 36.39 52.5 27.87 13.07 29.95 ing gear (considerably longer nets, localized and larval entrain- Ta’ape 24.41 139.41 24 18 37.45 37.22 Weke 15 70 97.75 59 19 48.88 52.14 more hooks, traps, etc.) and to fish for ment, driven by persistent (northeast- Uhu 4204 32.90 6366 27.34 40.03 longer periods of time. Neighboring He’e 13.71 26.95 28.42 26.94 26.74 erly) trade winds (McGary, 1955). Paiani 20.38 39.05 20.53 35.15 29.37 island residents are often astonished at Increased fishing activity in these ar- Ulua 29.74 38.28 31 62 21.02 28.18 the amount of effort invested by fish- eas probably results from improved sea Mean’ 2605 61 04 3650 2998 3839 ermen on Oahu. Reduced CPUE on conditions in the wind shadow of the ’ All species Oahu may be an indication of adverse islands, making leeward regions gen- environmental impacts as well as over- erally an easier place for small boats to fishing. The Kauai and Maui groups troll and set nets. Other factors include Acanthurus dussumieri’g;uhu, Scarus show nearly equivalent annual land- accessibility from the shoreline and spp.; u’u, Myripristis spp.; he’e, Octo- ings within three miles of shore, but availability of launch ramps (PAC3). pus cyanea; ta’ape, Lurjanus kasmira; Maui’s shallow depths extend to 3-20 Because of their relative protection and uludpapio (jacks and trevallies, miles from shore (and beyond). Once from winter storms, leeward areas are see Table 1). Statewide summaries only scaled to the total shallow shelf area, a more likely location for small boat are provided here (Fig. 4 and 5). to estimated annual catch rates (mean lbl harbors with associated launch facili- show general trends in these fisheries. n.mi2) around Maui are similar to those ties. The southwestern sector of most Regional mean CPUE by species estimated for the Kauai Complex. islands, which is also a somewhat shel- groups are shown in Table 7. Catch To evaluate catch rates around the tered quadrant, had the second highest rates were generally higher on Kauai islands, landings and CPUE (Ibltrip) number of trips. and in the Maui Complex for all species. were summarized for the five most Trends in inshore landings and Reef fishes are most important on populated islands. Inshore catches and CPUE from 1980 to 1990 were sum- the islands of the Maui Complex and CPUE within 90’ quadrants around marized for seven other important in- on Oahu. The highest volume of uhu each island are presented in Table 6. shore species or groups (in addition to were seen on all sides of Oahu, as well Trends for Kauai, Oahu, Maui, akule and opelu), which ranked in the as at Kahului, Maui; and Kailua-Kona, Molokai, and the Big Island indicate top 10-20 consistently for three or more Hawaii. Weke, palani, u’u, and uhu higher total landings and CPUE on the island platform groups. The groups se- are abundant in both leeward and wind- leeward (southwesterly) sides of all is- lected were the white or green weke ward landings because of the presence lands, in part because of increased land- Mulloides flavolineatus; palani, of well-developed reef habitats in both types of areas. Most weke were caught on Oahu’s northeastern and southeast- Table &-Catch Der Unit effort llbitriDI within 90’ auadrantr em sides, on Kauai’s eastern coast, and Island Group Mean annual Mean annual Average CPUE on western Maui. Landings of green Quadrant Ib. landed trips (Ib Itnp) weke (Fig. 4A) have shown a gradual Kaui decline since about 1983. This is pri- I (Northeast quadrant) 22,156 269 82.3 II (Northwest quadrant) 30.312 231 131.3 marily attributable to decreasing 111 (Southwest quadrant) 77.149 571 135.1 CPUE, because the number of trips IV (Southeast quadrant) 33,854 336 100.8 has remained fairly stable. The num- Oahu ber of trips has also remained constant i (Northeast quadrant) 59,568 539 110 5 II (Northwest quadrant) 51.866 500 103.6 for uhu (Fig. 4B), whereas reported 111 (Southwest quadrant) 107,933 1.442 74.8 landings have varied as a function of iV (Southeast quadrant) 77,263 1,073 72.0 variation in CPUE. Palani landings Maul I (Northeast quadrant) 17.167 219 78.2 (Fig. 4C) have shown a decline since II (Northwest quadrant) 64.223 491 130.3 1986, but this has been due to decreased 111 (Southwest quadrant) 106.188 399 266.3 IV (Southeast quadrant) 35,020 190 184.1 fishing effort (fewer trips), while CPUE has increased or remained the same. Molokai I (Nonheast quadrant) 6,297 49 127.5 II (Northwest quadrant) 4,754 55 87 1 I9It should be noted that two other Ill (Southwest quadrant) 42.912 244 175.7 IV (Southeast quadrant) 8.256 125 66 1 surgeonfishes, known locally as “pualu” (Acanthurus nanrhoprerus and A. mata) are dif- Hawaii (Big Island) ficult to distinguish from the palani. Although I (Northeast quadrant) 33.132 573 57 8 separate records are kept when these species II (Northwest quadrant) 71.775 814 88.2 are reported separately, some pualu may be 111 (Southwest quadrant) 284,449 2.025 140 5 included in palani landings if they are not dis- IV (Southeast quadrant) 77.878 965 80 7 tinguished by fishermen.

44 Marine Fisheries Review 31 eo 6 82 83 81 85 86 8' 88 85 9C

Figure 4 -Reported inshore commercial landings of selected species in the main Hawaiian islands.

BE 8. 62 83 BL 65 85 87 88 89 9C

"EA?

Figure 5.-Reported inshore commercial landings of selected species in the main Hawai- ian islands.

The entire leeward coast of Oahu, He'e (octopus) is another reef spe- However, this species is caught in large windward and leeward Maui, and the cies for which landings have fluctu- numbers by noncommercial fishermen Kailua-Kona Coast, have shown the ated as a function of cyclical changes (EversonI5; Hamm and LumI4), and highest landings of palani. U'u land- in the number of trips and the magni- commercial trends do not tell the whole ings (Fig. 4D)have fluctuated over the tude of CPUE. Figure 5A shows that story. Kahului (Maui) registered the years because of varying effort and the decline in reported landings since highest he'e landings in the state, fol- CPUE. 1986 is due to fewer reported trips. lowed by Kaneohe Bay (Oahu). Both

55(2), 1993 45 are windward locations with a fairly more accurate assessment of changes this topic merits a separate review. wide shelf and reef area. in CPUE. Markets The introduced ta’ape are abundant everywhere, much to the dismay of Additional Considerations Local marketing opportunities for residents who prefer native fishes Hawaiian fishermen are limited, as Aquarium Landings (KushimaZ0). Reported landings (Fig. might be expected in this isolated re- 5B) have been largely determined by Although the foregoing summaries gion. Each island has its own small fluctuations in CPUE. Ta’ape are provide a brief insight into the makeup markets, including spontaneous road- caught in large numbers by surroundnet of Hawaii’s nearshore commercial fish- side ventures which spring up and dis- fishermen, who normally target akule. eries, there is much room for further appear overnight. There are two Their landings are limited primarily consideration. No attempt was made principal auction houses, one on the by the local market, which becomes here to summarize catches by aquarium island of Oahu and one on the Big flooded when too many fish are caught. collectors. Van Poollen and Obara Island. It is estimated that these two Uluas were also important on all is- (1984) profiled early economic char- auctions are responsible for from 50 to lands; however, noncommercial land- acteristics of the marine aquarium in- 60% of fish sold commercially in the ings are an important component of dustry in Hawaii. Aquarium landings state. However, these markets cater to this multi-species fishery. Ulua land- are reported to the DAR and have been offshore fisheries and primarily ser- ings at Penguin Bank are roughly three summarized by Miyasaka2’. There vice longline and bottom handline fish- times the volume recorded elsewhere, were 23 1 aquarium collectors with per- ermen. Reef fishes are increasingly but the shelf area is also considerably mits in the State in 1988 (DLNR, 1988), being sold directly to individual ven- larger. Figure 5C shows trends in ulua of which 42% were commercial col- dors. landings for all islands. The regional lectors. These fishermen reported A recent increase in the number of makeup of the catch by species indi- catching 249,625 small fishes and in- ciguatera poisoning incidents reported cates that the most diverse fisheries vertebrates comprising about 215 spe- to the State Department of Health has are found at Oahu and in the Maui cies during 1988, of which 53% were resulted in alarm regarding the con- Complex, followed by the Big Island, collected from inshore areas on the Big sumption of reef fish captured locally, and finally Kauai. However, an in-depth Island’s Kona Coast. The commercial dramatically reducing the marketabil- evaluation of this group by species is value of these landings was estimated at ity of some inshore species and shift- limited by the tendency of fishermen to $41 1,425 (all islands). ing fishing effort to areas where there lump the fish together in their catch re- This is a rapidly expanding indus- have been no reported incidents. Al- ports as simply “ulua” or “papio.” try, responsible for an increasing pro- though the danger of ciguatera may be Total reported landings, trips, and portion of the market value of largely exaggerated, vendors prefer to CPUE for all seven species above are commercial landings. A recent analy- err on the side of caution. Fish are also shown in Figure 5D, where an overall sis provided by the DAR to the exported without passing through the decline since 1986 is seen. While Kaneohe Bay Master Planning Task local markets. The subject of markets CPUE fluctuates or remains equiva- Force (OSP“) showed that while the and landings value will be treated in lent over the same period, the number total weight of commercial landings in depth by another contributor to this of trips reported is steadily decreasing. Kaneohe Bay has declined over the volume and is also beyond the scope The reason for this is unclear, but would last 12 years, aquarium collectors have of the present review. increased the value of these landings, seem not to indicate any cause for con- Nonconsumptive Uses of Marine primarily through the sale of reef in- cern, since fishermen would appear to Fisheries Resources be voluntarily reducing their effort or vertebrates. The desire to increase merely switching to more lucrative off- profits, however, cannot overshadow Other important considerations in shore fisheries. However, it must be the need for resource conservation. Ju- Hawaii include a variety of commer- kept in mind at all times that reported venile fishes are collected from inshore cial nonconsumptive uses of inshore commercial landings do not represent reefs, particularly along the leeward fisheries resources. Tourists enjoy ac- all inshore catch and effort. Another coast of the Big Island. Recent regula- tivities designed to allow observation point worth noting is that the DAR tory measures (DARZ2) are aimed at of reef fishes in their natural environ- began entering information on “no- moderating the impacts of these fish- ment. This may be done from a boat or catch’ trips in the database in 1989. eries by controlling them in certain lo- submersible, or by actually entering This information has not been included cations. Although the importance of the water using a mask and . in the present summaries, but in the aquarium fisheriescannot be overlooked, The lucrative industry associated with next decade its existence may allow a the latter type of viewing activity may ”A. Miyasaka. 1991. Hawaii’s aquarium fish involve bringing large-” grouDS of rela- industry A business profile. Div. Aquatic Res., -.. Dep. Land and Natl. Res., Hawaii. 15 p. tively inexperienced swimmers into ?OJ. N. Kushima. 1989. T~’~~~market develop. with inshore ment.~~.~~~ Droiect.r~ Div. Aouatic~ ~~~~ Res.. ~ ~ .~ Den. c Land and ”Div. Aouatic Resources. State of Hawaii. 1992. Natl. Res., Hawaii, 29 p. Regulatidns for the new liona FMA. In press. causing extensive trampling of fragile

46 Marine Fisheries Review corals and destruction of the reef habi- The status of fishery resources was, depth examination. As such, this re- tat. Both types of fish-viewing com- and continues to be, viewed as a “ba- view is considered to be a contribution mercial tours generally involve some rometer for the condition of our aquatic to the understanding of trends in Ha- means of feeding the fish in order to ecosystem.” An examination of avail- waiian fisheries, indicating that assess- concentrate them in an area where they able (commercial) data at that time ment and management should be can be seen. The result can be local- showed that fluctuating inshore fisher- examined on a regional basis. While ized increases in abundance of the more ies landings were neither increasing total landings for the state may have aggressive and omnivorous species. nor declining significantly despite in- decreased since the early 1900’s, re- One of the present challenges to fish- creased fishing effort. While CPUE was gional evaluations show a wide range eries management in Hawaii is to pre- declining, it appeared that an equiva- of variation. Some inshore fisheries serve a healthy and abundant reef lent amount of landings was being show short-term improvements, al- ecosystem that tourists can enjoy and shared among an increasing number of though increased reporting may con- at the same time allow fishing to take fishermen. Various management sce- tribute to this apparent trend. The most place at a reasonable level. The use of narios were envisioned which would disturbing trend is towards steadily in- motorized recreational vehicles, such optimize CPUE for different sectors of creasing fishing effort in inshore eco- as jetskis and water skis, drives fish the fishery and protect habitats critical systems that are already heavily from the immediate area. Fishermen to fish populations from the impacts of exploited. Most fisheries managers are responding to increased daytime coastal development. The need for a agree that fishing pressure should be commercial recreation by switching to careful evaluation of multi-species and reduced or limited in some areas in nighttime fishing activity. Presumably multi-gear fisheries was stressed, as Hawaii: but answers to questions such fish viewing, Ocean recreation, and fish- was the need for more complete and as where, how much, and in what man- ing can coexist peacefully. Modem man- reliable fisheries data. ner are still being sought. agement measures must include setting Shom~ra~~summarized data from Ongoing Research allowable levels for ocean recreation, in the State’s commercial landings data- addition to limits to fishing. base, documenting an apparent decline A project presently in progress, the in nearshore and both neritic and pe- Main Hawaiian Islands Marine Re- Fisheries Management lagic catches since the early 1900’s. sources Investigation (MHI-MRI), is As in the DAR report, the data sum- beginning to consolidate information Status of Biological marized by Shomura was in the form on inshore fisheries and evaluate abun- Knowledge of Stocks of statewide totals for many species dance, CPUE, and life history data for and a wide range of geographic areas. key species and areas. This project of Despite the importance and multi- Furthermore, no index of fishing effort the DAR is being conducted in col- use orientation of inshore resources, was provided, making it difficult to laboration with other fisheries man- surprisingly little is known about the interpret apparent trends. Shomura in- agement and marine research agencies abundance and status of fisheries in dicated that while deep slope and off- statewide. Participants include the Uni- Hawaii. Even generalized summaries shore pelagic landings had increased versity of Hawaii Sea Grant College of trends, such as are reported here, significantly, inshore and coastal land- Program, Marine Option Program, Ha- have rarely been attempted for inshore ings were declining. The increase in waii Institute of , and species. An exhaustive study would offshore landings could be attributed Hawaii Institute of Geophysics; the have to evaluate trends in these fish to the effect of increased market de- NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science communities altogether, as an ecosys- mands on fishing effort. Decreasing Center, Honolulu Lab; the Oceanic In- tem. Changes introduced by humans reef fish landings might conversely be stitute; the Western Pacific Regional in inshore habitat over the years may attributed in part to low relative de- Fisheries Management Council; and the exert extremely important influences mand for certain reef fishes, because USFWS Hawaii Cooperative Fisheries on fish abundance. of their distinctive flavor and odor of Research Unit. The project also coop- A DAR’O report provided one of the marine algae. Although local residents erates with the International Center for most comprehensive summaries to date and native Hawaiians enjoy these dis- Living Aquatic Resources Management of the complex cultural, traditional, tinctive tastes, tourists and foreign mar- (ICLARM) in the context of FISH- ecological, and jurisdictional issues kets do not appreciate them. BASE, a worldwide computerized da- involved in the management of The present summary, like those be- tabase of biological information on Hawaii’s inshore fisheries. In a survey fore it, encompasses a great deal of fishes (Pauly and Froese, 1991), to ob- fishemen described gear conflicts and complexity which merits a more in- tain jointly a complete coverage of the reduced catches. Both fishermen and fishes of the Central Pacific. scientists expressed concern regarding 23R. Shomura. 1987. Hawaii’s marine fishery MHI-MRI will reevaluate the man- whether the decline in nearshore fish resources: Yesterday (1900) and today (1986). agement of inshore fisheries through- U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. populations might be due to increased Serv., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. out the MHI, and produce long-term fishing pressure and habitat alteration. H-87-21, 14 p. recommendations to improve resource

55(2), I993 47 abundance and ensure sustainable fish- fishing are permitted year-round out- times (Titcomb, 1952; Johannes, 1978). eries. Research in progress seeks to side this area. .Measures that regulate The loss of the traditional Hawaiian define the principal causes of the de- fishing pressure, while maintaining fishery management system and the clining abundance of some inshore spe- fishing opportunities for a variety of failure to replace it with something cies and to identify mitigative measures users, are more widely accepted in lo- comparable when Hawaii became part to offset negative impacts as needed. cal communities. The benefits of these of the United States (Jordan and Overfishing, increased erosion and measures are demonstrated by an al- Evermann, 1905; Titcomb, 1952; sedimentation, and both alterations and most immediate increase in resource Johannes, 1978; DAR’O; Smith and Pai, pollution of inshore habitats are among abundance, as indicated by increases 1992) are impacts from which near- factors under investigation. Early indi- in estimated biomass, in average and shore living resources may take a long cations are that limitation of fishing maximum size of fish captured, and in time to recover. A “kapuku” plan pro- pressure, localized stock enhancement, CPUE (Yamamoto16; Kahiapo and posed in the late 1970’s (HMR26) was and protection of inshore nursery ar- Smith5). one of the first attempts to restore a sys- eas from further human impacts could Molokini Crater, southwest of Maui, tem of rotating area closures; however, all contribute to recovery of inshore is a State-regulated MLCD. Only troll- agreement could not be reached on the fish populations in Hawaii. ing is presently allowed in this par- specific areas to be closed. Present regu- Regulatory Measures tially submerged crater, which is a lations, with rotating FMA’s and popular tour site for divers; but mea- MLCD’s parallel this type of system on a Existing regulatory measures for sures are being considered to restrict small scale, but it is apparent that more Hawaiian inshore fisheries include bag trolling as well. Other MLCD’s and protection of inshore resources is needed. limits, seasonal closures, and minimum FMA’s dot the coasts of the MHI Because the jurisdiction of fisheries size restrictions for capture and sale. (DARZ5;Oishi2). Regulations are site regulatory agencies in Hawaii is deter- Gear restrictions inside harbors allow specific, but generally, where fishing mined by geographic boundaries which pole-and-line fishing using only one is allowed, it is restricted to pole-and- do not coincide with the boundaries of pole with two hooks per fisherman. line, hand methods, and throw netting. migratory organisms that make up its Crab netting in these areas must be As seen under fishing methods, gears fisheries, collaboration and coopera- limited to ten (small circular) nets per such as longlines, gill nets and sur- tion between these agencies is critical fisherman. Fishing regulations are sum- round nets are responsible for a large to successful management. Environ- marized for the public in a brochure, volume of landings in relation to the mental protection is another increas- updated annually by the DAR (DARZ4). number of trips and fishermen. This is ing concern that has demonstrated In addition to these regulations, there fine as long as the resource is not over value to the conservation of inshore are specific gear restrictions in areas harvested. These fleets are small and fisheries resources. Collaboration is designated as Fishery Management in some cases, such as for longline being developed, and economic, sci- Areas (FMA’s) and MLCD’s. fishing, limited entry schemes are be- entific, and enforcement resources FMA’s are established in areas ing developed to conserve resources pooled, in order to manage the re- where fishing or resource use competi- for future generations. Other fisheries, sources more effectively. It is clear tion is a problem and generally involve such as surround netting, are presently from the long hours dedicated by the restriction of fishing gears or uses. Ex- limited by social constraints worked public to meetings designed to guide amples include the Waikiki-Diamond out through “gentlemen’s agreements” management efforts that residents are Head Shoreline FMA (Oahu) and Hilo between fishermen. As fishing pres- concerned about maintaining their rich Harbor FMA (Hawaii), where net fish- sure increases because of immigration and diverse natural heritage. The im- ing is restricted. The Waikiki-Diamond and population growth, the need to for- proved management of inshore fisher- Head FMA rules rotate gear restric- malize these agreements becomes in- ies and fishery habitats is an issue tions annually. Pole-and-line, thrownet creasingly important. which must be resolved before the end or handnet fishing, and daytime spear- Ancient Hawaiians practiced sea- of the present decade, and Hawaii’s ing are allowed during even numbered sonal closure of certain areas to fish- residents and resource managers are years. No fishing is allowed in odd ing. Traditional systems provided for rising to meet the challenge. numbered years. Hilo Harbor FMA is seasonal, species, and area-specific har- Acknowledgments regulated differently, tailored to the vesting. The practices of sharing the needs of local fishermen. In addition catch, leaving certain species to roy- Special thanks are due to a number to bag limits, no gill, surround, or cross alty, and never taking more than was of local fisheries biologists for their netting is allowed at any time within needed contributed to the balance be- the Hilo breakwall, but all types of tween fishing and conservation in early 26Hawaii Marine Research. Inc. 1977. Plan of action for the implementation of the Kapuku 2SDiv. Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. Plan of Management. Prepared for Hawaii Dep. 24Div. Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. 1991. Marine life conservation districts. Div. Land and Natl. Res. by Hawaii Marine Res.. 1991. Hawaii fishing regulations. Div. Aquatic Aquatic Res., Dep. Land and Natl. Res. bro- 41-267 Kokokahi Place, Kaneohe. HI 96144. Res.. Dep. Land and Natl. Res. brochure, 43 p. chure. 30 p. 190 p-

48 Marine Fisheries Review change. Bishop MuseudArmy Corps Eng. Resources. Division of Aquatic Resources, assistance in reviewing and verifying ISBN:0-935848-14-2. The Bess Press. Ho- Technical Report, 74 p. information contained in this docu- nolulu, HI. 271 p. Lal, P.N. and A.M. Clark. 1991. Personal rec- ment. They include Alton Miyasaka, Dudley, W.C.. L.E. Hallacher, T. Hammond. S. reation boating industry in Hawaii: Physical Skipper. I. Kalua, Jr., S. Crane, S. Miller, C. characteristics and economic contribution. Henry Okamoto, Mike Yamamoto, Glendon, A. Sagucio, T. Thomas, Y. Lobato, Univ. Hawaii, Sea Grant Marine Econ. Rep. Joanne Kushima, Skippy Hau, Larry R. Aina and K. Alspach. 1991. Distribution UNIHI-SEAGRANT-ME-91-01,38p. Sato, John Kahiapo, Don Heacock, and and dispersion of sewage pollution in Hilo McGary, J.W. 1955. Mid-Pacific oceanogra- Bay and contiguous warers. Univ. Hawaii, phy, Part IV: Hawaii - an offshore waters, Wade Ishikawa, all of the Division of Hilo. Marine Option Program, 61 p. December 1949-November 1951. USFWS. Aquatic Resources; and Kurt Fielding, A., and E. Robinson. 1987. An under- Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No.152. 138 p. Kawamoto, of the National Marine water guide to Hawaii. Univ. Hawaii Press, Murphy, G.1. and R.S. Shomura. 1972. Pre-ex- Honolulu, 156 p. ploitation abundance of tunas in the equatorial Central Pacific. Fish. Bull. 70(3): 875-910. Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Gilmartin, W.G., R.L. Delong, A.W. Smith, Science Center, Honolulu L.A. Griner. and M.D. Dailey. 1980. An Nakamura, E.L. 1967. Synopsis of biological Laboratory. data on Hawaiian species of Stolephorus. In investigation into unusual mortality in the John C. Man (Editor), The Kuroshio: A Sym- Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus posium on the Japan Current, East-West Cen- Literature Cited schauinslandi. hoc. Symp. Status Resource ter Press, Honolulu, p. 425446. Invest. NW Hawaiian Isl. Univ. Hawaii, Sea Okamoto, H. and B. Kanenaka. 1984. Prelimi- Ambrose, E., and S. Johnson. 1987. Pollution Grant Misc. Rep. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR- nary report on the nearshore fishery resource study of Hilo Bay using the millepore filtra- 80-04:3241. assessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian tion method. Proc. 4th Ann. Marine Option Gordon, J.A., and P. Helfrich. 1970. An anno- Islands, 1977-82. Proc. Res. Inv. NWHI. Prog. Symp., Kahului, Maui, 14 March 1987, tated bibliography of Kaneohe Bay. Univ. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01:123-143. vol. 4, p. 1-10, Hawaii Inst. Marine Biology, Tech. Rep. 20, Pauly, D., and R. Froese. 1991. FISHBASE: Balazs, G.H. 1980. A review of basic biologi- 260 p. Assembling information on fish. Naga, cal data on the ereen turtle in the Northwest- Gosline, W.A., and V.E. Brock. 1976. Hand- ICLARM Quarterly. 14(4): 10-11. em Hawaiian islands. Proc. Symp. Status book of Hawaiian fishes. (4th ed.) Univ. Radtke, R.L., R.A. Kinzie 111, and S.D. Folsom. Resource Invest. NW Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii Press, 372 p. 1988. Age at recruitment of Hawaiian fresh- Univ. Hawaii, Sea Grant Misc. Rep. UNIHI- Grigg, R.W. 1972. Some ecological effects of water gobies. Env. Biol. Fish. 23:205-213. SEAGRANT-MR-80-q4, P. 42-54. discharged sugar mill wastes on marine life Ralston, S., and J.J. Polovina. 1982. A Carlquist, S. 1980. Hawmi a natural history: along the Hamakua Coast, Hawaii. Univ. multispecies analysis of the commercial Geology, climate. native flora and fauna Hawaii Water Res. Seminar Series. 227- deep-sea handline fishery in Hawaii. Fish. above the shoreline, (2nd ed.). SB Printers, 45. Bull. 80(3):435-448. Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, 439 p. . 1985. Hamakua Coast sugar mills Rizzuto, J. 1983. Fishing Hawaii style: a guide Clark, J.R.K. 1985. The beaches of Maui revisited: An environmental impact analysis to saltwater angling. Hawaii Fishing News. County. Univ. Hawaii Press, Honolulu. in 1983. Sea Grant Tech. Rept. UNIHI- Vol. 1, 145 p. 161 p. SEAGRANT-TR-85-02.25 p. . 1987. Fishing Hawaii style: a guide Clarke, T.A. 1989. Species profiles: Life histo- Hallacher, L.E., E.B. Kho, N.D. Bernard, A.M. to saltwater andine. Hawaii Fishing News. -v - ries and environmental requirements of Orcutt, W.C. Dudley, Jr., and T.M. vi.2, 182p. coastal vertebrates and invertebrates Pacific Hammond. 1985. Distribution of arsenic in . 1990. Fishing Hawaii style: a guide Ocean Region. Report 4: The Hawaiian an- the sediments and biota of Hilo Bay, Ha- to saltwater angling. Hawaii Fishing News. chovy or nehu, Encrasicholinapurpurea. US waii. Pac. Sci. 39(3): 266-273. Vol.. 9..,~. 207 D. Army Corps of Engineers. Envmtl. Impact Harrison, C.S. and T.S. Hida. 1980. The status Smith, M.K. and M. Pai. 1992 The Ahupua'a Res. Prog. Tech. Rep. EL-89-10 (4): 20 p: of seabird research in the Northwestern Ha- concept: Relearning coastal resource man- . 1991. Larvae of nearshore fishes in waiian Islands. Roc. Symp. Status Resource agement from ancient Hawaiians. Naga, oceanic waters near Oahu,Hawaii. US.Dep. Invest. NW Hawaiian Islands. Univ. Hawaii, ICLARM Quarterly 15(2): 11-13. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 101, Sea Grant Misc. Rep. UNIHI-SEAGRANT- Smith. S.V.. K.E. Chave and D.T.O. Kam. 1973. 19 p. MR-80-04: 17-31. An. atlas of Kaneohe Bay: A reef ecosystem Comitini, S. 1977. An economic analysts of the Hoffman, R.G. and H. Yamauchi. 1972. Recre- under stress. Univ. Hawaii, Sea Grant Tech. State of Hawaii skipjack tuna fishery. Univ. Rep. 128pp. Hawaii. Sea Grant Tech. Rep. UNIHI- ational fishing: Its impact on state and local UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TR-72-01: economies. Coll. Trop. Agric., Hawaii Exper. Squire, J.L., Jr. and S.E. Smith. 1977. Angler's SEAGRANT-TR-78-01:46 p. Sta., Univ. Hawaii, Dep. Pap. 3, 38 p. Guide to the United States Pacific Coast. US Department of Business, Economic Develop- Hosaka, E.Y. 1973. Shore Fishing in Hawaii. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Stock No. ment and Tourism (DBEDT). 1990. State of 003-020-001 13-1: 139 p. Hawaii data book: A statistical abstract. Petroglyph Press. Hilo, Hawaii. 175pp. DBEDT Res. Eon. Anal. Div., Statistics Johannes, R.E. 1978. Traditional marine con- Titcomb, M. 1952. Native Uses of Fish in Ha- Branch. Public. No. HA4007.H356.I99O3 servation methods in Oceania and their de- waii. Univ. Hawaii Press. Honolulu. ISBN 667 p. mise. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9: 349-364 CL8248-0592-5: 175 p. Department of Health (DOH). 1981. Concen- Jordan, D.S. and B.W. Evermann. 1905. The Uchida, R.N., and J.H. Uchiyama (Editors). trations of chlorinated hydrocarbons in bot- shore fishes of Hawaii, 1986 abridgement 1986. Fishery atlas of the Northwestern Ha- tom sediments from nearshore marine wa- (2nd ed.). (Orig. publ. 1905 by US. Fish. waiian Islands. U.S. Dep. Commer.. NOAA ters in Hawaii. State of Hawaii. DOH, ll p. Comm.. Wash., D.C.) 1905 US Fish Comm., Tech. Rep. NMFS 38. Department of Land and Natural Resources Charles E. Tuttle Co., Tokyo, Japan, 392 p. US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. (DLNR). 1988. Measures to manage and con- Kimmerer, W.J. and W.W. Durbin. Jr. 1975. 1985 National survey of fishing, hunting and serve tropical fish resources. Report on The potential for additional marine conser- wildlife associated recreation. USFWS, Dep. House Concurrent Resolution No. 291, vation distncts on Oahu and Hawaii, Univ. Inter., 167 p. House Draft I. Senate Draft I, Fifteenth Hawaii, Sea Grant Tech. Rep. UNIHI- van Poollen, H.W. and A.M. Obara. 1984. Legislature, State of Hawaii. Regular Ses- SEAGRANT-TR-76-03: 108 p. Hawaii's marine aquanum fish industry pro- sion 1989, 7 p. Kinzie, R.A. 111. 1990. Amphidromous file. Studies Mar. Econ., No. 3. Univ. Ha- . 1992. An assessment of available macrofauna of Hawaiian Island streams. In waii Sea Grant College Prog., Ocean Re- information on the impact of gillnetting in Species profiles: Life histories and environ- sources Office Contrib. #14, UNIHI- State waters and proposed measures to regu- mental requirements of coastal vertebrates SEAGRANT-ME-84-03.21 p. late the use of gillnets. Report on House and invertebrates Pacific Ocean Region. US Williams, V.R. and T.A. Clarke. 1983. Repro- Concurrent Resolution No. 42 I, House Draft Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the duction, growth, and other aspects of the I, Sixteenth Legislature, State of Hawaii, Army., Tech. Rep. EL-89-10. biology of the gold spot herring, Regular Session 1992, 39 p. Kushima, J.N., W.T. Iwaoka and J. Akamine. Herklorsichrhys quadrimacularus (Clupei- Devaney, D.M., M. Kelly, P.J. Lee, and L.S. 1992. Skipjack tuna product development dae), a recent introduction to Hawaii. Fish. Motteler. 1982. Kaneohe: A history of project. Hawaii Dep. of Land and Natural Bull. 81(3): 587-597.

557.2). 1993 49