/ - - ·--· NO\':; 2019 November 12, 2019 Director Office of Environmental Quality Control State of Hawai'i 235 S Beretania Suite # 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 Re: James M. Lynch jim .lynch@klgates .com T +1 206 370 6587 F + 1 206 623 7022 Transmittal of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Director: With this letter, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) hereby transmits the documents package for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the West Hawai'i Regional Fishery Management Area situated in the West Hawai'i Regional Fishery Management Area in the Puna, South Hilo, North Hilo, Kau, Hamakua, South Kona , North Kona, South Kohala, and North Kohala districts on the island of Hawai'i for publication of a notice of availability for public comment for 45-days in the next available edition of the Environmental Notice. The DEIS includes copies of all written comments received during the 30-day public consultation period for the FEA EISPN. Also enclosed is an Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing the DEIS and a distribution list for the verification of OEQC under Section 11-200-20, Hawai'i Administrative Rules. Upon receiving verification from OEQC (along with the bulletin proof of the notice containing the pertinent details for commenters), we will make the DEIS and the bulletin proof available to those so indicated on the distribution list so that they will have the full 45-day statutory period to review and comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions or if you need additional information , please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, James M. Lynch Enclosures K&L GATES LLP 925 FOURTH AVENUE SUITE 2900 SEATTLE WA 98104-1158 T +1 206 623 7580 F +1 206 623 7022 klgates.com 20- 1 3 3 Submittal Form for HRS Chapter 343 Publications in the Periodic Bulletin : Entry # 622 Action Name ssuance of Commercial Aquarium Fishing Permits for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area Type of Document/Determination Draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) HRS §343-5(a) Trigger(s) (1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds (2) Propose any use within any land classified as a conservation district Judicial district Hawaiʻi - multiple districts Tax Map Key(s) (TMK(s)) West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area identified in Figure 1 of DEIS Action type Applicant Other required permits and approvals Numerous Discretionary consent required Commercial Aquarium Fishing Permits Approving agency Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Agency contact name David Sakoda Agency contact email (for info about the action) david.sakoda@hawaii.gov Email address or URL for receiving comments david.sakoda@hawaii.gov Agency contact phone (808) 587-0104 Agency address Submittal Form for HRS Chapter 343 Publications in the Periodic Bulletin : Entry # 622 1151 Punchbowl Street Room 330 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 United States Map It Accepting authority Department of Land and Natural Resources Applicant Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Applicant contact name JAMES LYNCH Applicant contact email jim.lynch@klgates.com Applicant contact phone (206) 370-6587 Applicant address 925 Fourth Ave Suite 2900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 United States Map It Was this submittal prepared by a consultant? Yes Consultant Stantec Consulting Services Inc Consultant contact name Terry VanDeWalle Consultant contact email terry.vandewalle@stantec.com Consultant contact phone (319) 334-3755 Submittal Form for HRS Chapter 343 Publications in the Periodic Bulletin : Entry # 622 Consultant address 2300 Swan Lake Blvd. Suite 202 Independence, Iowa 50644 United States Map It Action summary The purpose of the Applicant’s action is to ensure that commercial aquarium fish collection allows for the lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various fish species from nearshore habitats of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA). The objective of the proposed action is for the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to issue 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA. The need for the Applicant’s action is to continue commercial aquarium fishers’ livelihoods in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the industry. Attached documents (signed agency letter & EA/EIS) Distribution-List-for-DEIS.pdf Hawaii-AQ-Collection-DEIS_11082019.pdf Hawaii-AQ-Collection-DEIS_110820191.pdf Hawaii-AQ-Collection-DEIS_110820192.pdf Hawaii-AQ-Collection-DEIS_110820193.pdf Letter-to-Director-OEQC.pdf Hawaii-AQ-Collection-DEIS.pdf Letter-to-Director-OEQC1.pdf Shapefile The location map for this Draft EIS is the same as the location map for the associated EIS Preparation Notice. Action location map Publication-Form_Chapter-343-Applicant_Hawaii-AQ-Collection_PIJAC.zip Authorized individual JAMES LYNCH Authorization The above named authorized individual hereby certifies that he/she has the authority to make this submission. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area November 8, 2019 Applicant Name: Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) Address: 1615 Duke St., #100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 202.452.1525 Approving Agency Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330 Honolulu, HI 96813-3088 APPLICANT PUBLICATION FORM Project Name: Project Short Name: HRS §343-5 Trigger(s): Island(s): Judicial District(s): TMK(s): Permit(s)/Approval(s): Approving Agency: Contact Name, Email, Telephone, Address Applicant: Contact Name, Email, Telephone, Address Consultant: Contact Name, Email, Telephone, Address Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area DEIS WHRFMA Commercial Aquarium Permits Trigger 1 (use of state lands) and Trigger 2 (use of conservation districts) Hawai’i Puna, South Hilo, North Hilo, Kau, Hamakua, South Kona, North Kona, South Kohala, North Kohala West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area identified in Figure 1 Commercial Aquarium Fishing Permits issued pursuant to HRS §188-31, Commercial Marine License issued pursuant to HRS 189-2,3, West Hawai’i Aquarium Permit issued pursuant to HAR 13-60.4 Department of Land and Natural Resources David Sakoda; david.sakoda@hawaii.gov, 808-587-0104,1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330, Honolulu, HI 96813 Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) Jim Lynch; jim.lynch@klgates.com; 206.370-6587; 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Stantec Consulting Services Inc Terry VanDeWalle; terry.vandewalle@stantec.com; (319) 334-3755; 2300 Swan Lake Blvd., Suite 202 Independence, IA 50644 Status (select one) __ DEA-AFNSI Submittal Requirements Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the DEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the DEA; a 30-day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. __ FEA-FONSI Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the FEA; no comment period follows from publication in the Notice. ____ FEA-EISPN Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the FEA; a 30-day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. ____ Act 172-12 EISPN (“Direct to EIS”) Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination letter on agency letterhead and 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file; no EA is required, and a 30-day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. __XX__ DEIS Submit 1) a transmittal letter to the OEQC and to the approving agency, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the DEIS, 4) a searchable PDF of the DEIS, and 5) a searchable PDF of the distribution list; a 45day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. ____ FEIS Submit 1) a transmittal letter to the OEQC and to the approving agency, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEIS, 4) a searchable PDF of the FEIS, and 5) a searchable PDF of the distribution list; no comment period follows from publication in the Notice. ___ FEIS Acceptance Determination The approving agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC and the applicant a letter of its determination of acceptance or nonacceptance (pursuant to Section 11-200-23, HAR) of the FEIS; no comment period ensues upon publication in the Notice. ____ FEIS Statutory Acceptance The approving agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC and the applicant a notice that it did not make a timely determination on the acceptance or nonacceptance of the applicant's FEIS under Section 343-5(c), HRS, and therefore the applicant’s FEIS is deemed accepted as a matter of law. ____ Supplemental EIS Determination The approving agency simultaneously transmits its notice to both the applicant and the OEQC that it has reviewed (pursuant to Section 11-200-27, HAR) the previously accepted FEIS and determines that a supplemental EIS is or is not required; no EA is required, and no comment period ensues upon publication in the Notice. ____ Withdrawal Identify the specific document(s) to withdraw and explain in the project summary section. ____ Other Contact the OEQC if your action is not one of the above items. Project Summary The purpose of the Applicant’s action is to ensure that commercial aquarium fish collection allows for the lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various fish species from nearshore habitats of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA). The objective of the proposed action is for the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to issue 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA. The need for the Applicant’s action is to continue commercial aquarium fishers’ livelihoods in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the industry. Project Summary Project Name: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area. Proposed Action: Issuance of 14 Commercial Aquarium Permits ensuring lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various aquarium fish species from nearshore habitats of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area pursuant to Aquarium Fishing Permits issued under HRS §188-31. Applicant: Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). Applicant Contact: Jim Lynch, KL Gates LLP, 206-370-6587 Approving Agency: Department of Land and Natural Resources Project Location: Throughout the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (to depths of 100 fathoms), except in those areas already designated as no collection areas such as Fish Replenishment Areas. Land Use Classification: N/A Land Area: N/A NON-MLCDs Tax Map Key: N/A State Land District: N/A Land Owner: State of Hawai’i Permits Required: Commercial Aquarium Fishing Permits issued pursuant to HRS §188-31, Commercial Marine License issued pursuant to HRS 189-2,3, West Hawai’i Aquarium Permit issued pursuant to HAR 13-60.4. HRS §343-5 Trigger: Trigger 1 (use of state lands) and Trigger 2 (use of conservation districts). Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in 2018 determined an EIS was required based on Significance Criteria #1, #2, #3, #4, and #8. Anticipated Determination: Acceptance Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ I ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... IV 1.0 1.1 1.2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Status of Aquarium Permits ............................................................................2 1.1.2 Previous HEPA Documents ...........................................................................3 RELEVANT POLICIES AND CONTROLS ...................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Hawai’i Revised Statute (HRS) 188-31...........................................................5 1.2.2 Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................5 1.2.3 Act 306 SLH – West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area ................. 8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................15 PURPOSE FOR APPLICANT’S ACTION ......................................................................15 NEED FOR APPLICANT’S ACTION..............................................................................15 PURPOSE FOR APPROVING AGENCY’S (DLNR) ACTION ........................................15 NEED FOR APPROVING AGENCY’S (DLNR) ACTION................................................16 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................................16 2.5.1 Resources Evaluated and Dismissed from Further Consideration ................ 16 2.5.2 Resources Retained for Further Analysis .....................................................17 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................................17 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .........................................................................................18 PRE-AQUARIUM COLLECTION BAN ALTERNATIVE..................................................19 WHRFMA-ONLY PROGRAMMATIC ISSUANCE OF PERMITS ALTERNATIVE ..........19 ACHILLES TANG CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVE ....................................................19 LIMITED PERMIT ISSUANCE (PREFERRED) ALTERNATIVE.....................................19 4.0 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................20 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ................................................................................21 Socioeconomic Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery ..................... 23 4.1.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................27 4.2.1 Cultural Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery ................................. 29 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................30 4.3.1 Climate .........................................................................................................30 4.3.2 Physical Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery ................................ 32 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................32 4.4.1 White List Species........................................................................................33 4.4.2 Non-White List Wildlife Species....................................................................65 4.4.3 Hawai’i Species of Greatest Conservation Need .......................................... 66 4.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species ..............................................68 4.4.5 Reef Habitat .................................................................................................69 4.4.6 Invasive Species ..........................................................................................71 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.7 5.0 5.1 5.2 Biological Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery .............................. 72 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................81 HRS §189-3 AND DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................83 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ................................................................................83 5.2.1 Direct Impacts ..............................................................................................83 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................88 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................91 5.2.4 Mitigation......................................................................................................91 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................91 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...........................................................................91 5.3.2 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................92 5.3.3 Mitigation......................................................................................................93 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................94 5.4.1 Direct Impacts ..............................................................................................94 5.4.2 Indirect Effects ...........................................................................................125 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................128 5.4.4 Mitigation....................................................................................................135 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...........................................................................................135 5.5.1 Summary of Impacts on White List Species Populations ............................ 136 EVALUATION OF HEPA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA..................................................138 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED ..........................143 CONSULTED PARTIES ..............................................................................................143 FEDERAL AGENCIES ................................................................................................144 STATE AGENCIES .....................................................................................................144 7.0 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DEIS ....................................................................................144 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...............................................................................................145 9.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................145 5.3 5.4 5.5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Statutory Triggers for Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). ............................. 6 Table 1-2. List of marine species for which all take or possession is prohibited........................12 Table 3-1. Summary of alternatives...........................................................................................18 Table 4-1. Summary of commercial Aquarium Permits and values by year from 20002017 for the State of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). These data include n.d. data and summation of East and West Hawai’i data, as well as the other islands that make up the state of Hawai’i. ......................................................................................24 Table 4-2. Number of Commercial Aquarium Permits and fishery value for the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i since 2000 (DAR 2018a). n.d. indicates data not disclosed due to Hawai’i confidentiality statute (Section 5.1). .....................................26 Table 4-3. White List Species (DAR 2019, Appendix A). ..........................................................33 Table 4-4. Threatened and endangered marine species of Hawai’i. .........................................68 Table 4-5. West Hawai’i Open Area population estimates of all White List Species based on average WHAP data from 2012/2013 and 2017/2018 and percent of that population collected annually by aquarium fishers at the 30’-60’ depth in 2013/2014 (DAR 2014a) and 2017/2018 (DAR 2019a). Data in this table (recreated from DAR 2014a, 2019a) may differ from other publications due to the time of year data were analyzed, number of monthly reports available to the DAR at that time, and Hawai’i’s confidentiality laws. ...................................................74 Table 5-1. Minimum, maximum and average market values of the commercial aquarium fishery from 2000 through 2017 (inflation-adjusted 2019 values). See Table 4-2 for additional data by year...........................................................................................84 Table 5-2. Total fish and invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits from East Hawai’i and total White List Species collected from the WHRFMA annually from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a). Also included for comparison are data from collection of fish within East Hawai’i in 2018. ..............................................................................94 Table 5-3. Projected annual and total collection of fish species collected in East Hawai’i over the 5-year analysis period, based on an average collection of 57,503/year total fish, and impact on the CREP (2018) population estimates. ................................96 Table 5-4. Change in density of the top 10 collected species in the WHRFMA based on WHAP data. ‘Before’ = Mean of 1999-2000; ‘After’ = Mean 2017-2018. Youngof-year (YOY) not included. Bold = statistically significant t-test (DAR 2019a). ..........99 Table 5-5. CREP (2018) estimated population of Yellow Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). ...........................................................................................100 Table 5-6. CREP (2018) estimated population of Kole for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018b). ...........................................................................................102 Table 5-7. CREP (2018) estimated population of Achilles Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). ...........................................................................................105 Table 5-8. Change in density of 26 additional White List Species in the WHRFMA based on WHAP data. ‘Before’ = Mean of 1999-2000; ‘After’ = Mean 2017-2018. Young-of-year (YOY) not included. Bold = statistically significant t-test (DAR 2019a). .....................................................................................................................109 Table 5-9. CREP (2018) estimated populations of Yellow Tang, Kole, and Achilles Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). ........................................................112 Table 5-10. CREP (2018) estimated populations of Psychedelic Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, and Fisher’s Angelfish for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of populations collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). .....................................................................................................................114 Table 5-11. Summary of CREP (2018) population estimates, disclosed catch data from East and West Hawai’i since 2000 (DAR 2018a), and the impact of average and maximum annual collection by species for the 40 White List Species. n.d. = Not Disclosed (Section 5.1); NA = Insufficient data available .................................118 Table 5-12. Available data on White List Species collected by commercial non-aquarium fishers in the State and on the island of Hawai’i from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a). n.d. = Not Disclosed (see Section 5.1). .....................................................................131 Table 5-13. Summary of direct and indirect impacts by alternative over the 5-year analysis period..........................................................................................................135 Table 5-14. Summary of the annual impact (percent collected by commercial aquarium collectors) on populations of the White List Species based on CREP (2018) population estimates and the projected annual collection under each alternative (see Table 5-1 and 5-11 for additional details). NA indicates the species does not have a population estimate. ................................................................................136 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Division of Aquatic Resources Managed Areas - Island of Hawai’i. ...........................10 Figure 2. Summary of all public testimonies on the WHRFMA rule (DAR 2014a). .....................12 Figure 3. Total visitor spending: nominal and real 2005-2017 (HTA 2018). ..............................22 Figure 4. WHAP and CREP survey locations – Island of Hawai’i. ............................................79 Figure 5. Overall changes in Yellow Tang density (Mean ± SE) in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. Yellow vertical bars indicate mean density (MAYNOV) of Yellow Tang YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). .....................................................................................................................101 Figure 6. Overall changes in Kole density (Mean ± SE) in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. Vertical bars indicate mean density (JUN-NOV) of Kole YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a)......................................103 Figure 7. Overall changes in density (Mean ± SE) for the top 3-10 collected aquarium species combined in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). ..................................................................104 Figure 8. Overall changes in Achilles Tang density in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1990-2018. Vertical bars indicate mean density (JUN-NOV) of Achilles Tang YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a)......................................108 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Cultural Impact Assessment Comments and Applicant Responses Distribution List for the DEIS Executive Summary In October 2017, the circuit court ruled that, based upon the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s opinion, existing Commercial Aquarium Permits (Aquarium Permits) for use of fine mesh nets to catch aquatic life for aquarium purposes are illegal and invalid. The circuit court ordered the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) not to issue any new Aquarium Permits pending environmental review. The DLNR has not issued new or additional Aquarium Permits under HRS §188-31 since September of 2017. The Applicant initially prepared and submitted an Environmental Assessment on April 8, 2018, evaluating the impacts of issuance of Aquarium Permits on the island of Hawai’i programmatically to any applicant over a 12-month analysis period. The DLNR determined on July 26, 2018, that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required, based on five significance criteria outlined in Title II, Chapter 200, Hawai’i Administrative Rules. An evaluation of the significance criteria, including the five identified by the DLNR, is provided in Section 5.6 of this document. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) evaluates the impacts of issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA). The Applicant has prepared this DEIS to inform the public of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits) and the impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives, and to incorporate information gained through public involvement. The Preferred Alternative includes issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA, and implementation of a reduced bag limit for Achilles Tang of 5 per day. No Aquarium Permits would be issued for other areas of the state, including East Hawai’i. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would ensure the lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various fish species from the WHRFMA. Aside from the additional conservation measure included in the Preferred Alternative, the issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits under the Preferred Alternative does not include any activities different from, or in addition to, those that have occurred in the past. There would be no construction of permanent or semipermanent infrastructure, no discharges into coastal, surface or ground waters, no dredging, and no significant use of hazardous materials that could be released into the environment. The DLNR’s issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits is not anticipated to result in significant beneficial or adverse impacts to water and air quality, geology and soil resources, aesthetics, noise, vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, and avian species, threatened and endangered species, land use, public health and safety, communications, transportation, utilities, or population and demographics from their current condition. The Preferred Alternative does not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource. Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coral Reef Ecosystems Program (CREP; now known as the Ecosystem Sciences Division) and Hawai’i's DLNR, Division of Aquatic Resources’ (DAR) West Hawai’i Aquarium Project (WHAP) collect data on fish populations in nearshore waters of the island of Hawai’i that are available and appropriate for estimating population size, within the limitations of each survey, and for analysis of the impact of fish collection under Aquarium Permits. The WHAP data are collected from 25 transect survey sites located solely within the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area between depths of 30-60 feet. The CREP data are collected from 257 stationary point count locations located around the island of Hawai’i (except for collection i zone 107; Figure 4), from depths of 0-98 feet. Both data sets are presented and analyzed in this DEIS. However, due to the larger spatial coverage and greater range of depths surveyed by the CREP, these data are considered to be a better estimator of island-wide fish population size, and therefore serve as the primary basis for the impact analysis in this DEIS. Analysis of the CREP data indicates that if the average catch from 2000-2017 for the 14 fishers requesting Aquarium Permits under the Preferred Alternative were to occur over the 5-year analysis period considered in this DEIS, the annual collection of 38 of the 40 White List Species would be less than 1% of their respective overall island of Hawai’i populations. Collection of the remaining two species would be less than 2% of their overall population. Even if the collection rates of the 40 White List Species were closer to the maximum collection by the 14 fishers from 2000-2017, the annual collection of all species would be less than 3.5% of the island-wide population. Research suggests collection of between 5%-25% is sustainable for various reef species similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, triggerfish). Based on the low percentage of the overall populations collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection likely has minimal impacts on populations in general. Based on WHAP data, the DAR has suggested decreasing population trends for the Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA, and in 2014 a bag limit of 10 Achilles Tang per day was imposed on commercial aquarium collection (recreational and non-aquarium commercial harvest are not subject to the bag limit). Under the Preferred Alternative, the daily bag limit for Achilles Tang would be reduced from 10 per day to 5 per day, and only 14 Aquarium Permits would be issued. Under the Preferred Alternative, catch of Achilles Tang is estimated to be reduced by over 50% from rates seen prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection, resulting in an estimated 0.88% to 1.09% of the island-wide population collected annually over the 5-year analysis period. This level of collection is below the lower end of what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Two studies have concluded that the aquarium fishery has no significant impact on coral or the reef ecosystem. In addition, herbivores collected by the aquarium fishery typically consist of the smaller size classes which are the least effective sizes for cropping algae. One study found there were no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. As concluded in the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA; Appendix A), cultural impacts would occur if issuance of Aquarium Permits would cause a significant decline in the population of a White List Species considered to be a cultural resource, either directly through the collection of fish or indirectly through habitat impacts. While not all species have a known Hawaiian cultural significance, for this analysis, it was assumed that the 33 species on the White List identified as having a cultural use for food, medicinal, religious or ceremonial purposes could have a cultural impact if populations of those species were impacted. Populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on cultural resources would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. ii The Preferred Alternative does not substantially affect the economy but plays an important role as a nearshore fishery in the state. The Preferred Alternative would add an estimated $4.4 to $6.5 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $883,081 to $1,294,497 per year), and another five times this value in indirect economic benefits. Loss of the fishery would result in the loss of income, tax revenue, and jobs. iii Abbreviations BIAAF Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishermen BLNR Board of Land and Natural Resources CML Commercial Marine License CREP Coral Reef Ecosystems Program DAR Division of Aquatic Resources DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DOCARE Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement DOH Department of Health EA Environmental Assessment EC Environmental Council EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation EQC Environmental Quality Commission ESA Endangered Species Act FEA Final Environmental Assessment iv FMA Fisheries Management Area FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRA Fish Replenishment Area HDBEDT Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism HEPA Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act HAR Hawai’i Administrative Rule HRS Hawai’i Revised Statute IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KMLAC Ka'ūpūlehu Marine Life Advisory Committee MLCD Marine Life Conservation District MHI Main Hawaiian Islands MPA Marine Protected Areas NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands OEQC Office of Environmental Quality Control OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs v PIJAC Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council QUEST Quantitative Underwater Ecological Survey Techniques SAWCS Statewide Aquatic Wildlife Conservation Strategy SCUBA Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan TL Total Length UH University of Hawai’i USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WHAP West Hawai’i Aquarium Project WHFC West Hawai′i Fishery Council WHRFMA West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area WHRFWG West Hawai'i Reef Fish Working Group vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC; the Applicant) pursuant to the Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA).This DEIS evaluates the impacts of issuance of 14 Commercial Aquarium Permits (Aquarium Permit) for the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA; Section 1.2.2), pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statute (HRS) 188-31 (2013; Title 12 – Conservation and Resources; 188 – Fishing Rights and Regulations; 188-31 – Permits to take aquatic life for aquarium purposes). The Applicant has prepared this DEIS to inform the public of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits) and the impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives, and to incorporate information gained through public involvement in order to aid decision makers in making an informed decision regarding the proposed action. Hawai’i Revised Statute 188-31 states that, “Except as prohibited by law, the department (Department of Land and Natural Resources; DLNR), upon receipt of a written application, may issue an Aquarium Permit, not longer than one year in duration, to use fine meshed traps, or fine meshed nets other than throw nets, for the taking of marine or freshwater nongame fish and other aquatic life for aquarium purposes.” As set down by the Supreme Court of Hawai’i (SCWC-13-0002125), issuance of an Aquarium Permit constitutes a discretionary State action by the DLNR and is thus subject to the HEPA, which requires that State agencies consider the impact of governmental actions on the environment by preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to document the potential impacts of the State action. A Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) evaluating the impacts of the proposed action of issuing Aquarium Permits to fishermen on the island of Hawai’i and its alternatives was made available for public comment on April 8, 2018. After review of the EA, the DLNR determined on July 26, 2018, that preparation of an EIS is required, based on the significance criteria outlined in Title II, Chapter 200, Hawai’i Administrative Rules. Accordingly, the Applicant has prepared this DEIS to evaluate the potential impacts of alternatives associated with issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA, and a No Action Alternative. The consequences of these alternatives on various resources are discussed in this DEIS. 1.1 BACKGROUND In 2017, the Hawai′i commercial aquarium fishery was the most economically valuable commercial inshore fishery in the State with fiscal year reported landings greater than $2.2 million (DAR 2019a). In 2017, the commercial aquarium fishery on the island of Hawai’i (excluding the other islands) reported landings near $1.4 million, with more than $1.29 million in the WHRFMA alone (DAR 2018a). The fishery developed initially on O’ahu in the late 1940’s, went through a period of expansion in the 1970’s and has subsequently declined on O’ahu both in terms of catch and overall value (DAR 2014a). The West Hawai′i aquarium fishery has undergone substantial and sustained expansion over the past 40 years. As of 2017, approximately 45% of the aquarium fish caught in the State and nearly 67% of value came from the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). Commercial aquarium fish collection in Hawai'i, and especially in West Hawai'i has long been a subject of controversy (DAR 2019a). As early as 1973, public concern over collecting activities prompted Hawai’i’s DLNR, then Division of Fish and Game, to suspend the issuance of Aquarium Permits for a week while 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction issues were considered and addressed (DAR 2014a). As a result, Aquarium Permit holders were required to submit monthly catch reports. However, no studies were conducted, and no ‘sanctuary’ areas were created at that time. The first sanctuary areas were created through a gentleperson’s agreement primarily between dive/snorkel operators and commercial aquarium fishers in 1987, and four of these sanctuaries were incorporated into the Kona Coast Fisheries Management Area (FMA) in 1991 (DAR 2004). This interindustry collaboration and cooperation laid the groundwork for a more inclusive management approach to the fishery. The WHRFMA was created by Legislative Act 306 (1998) largely in response to longstanding and widespread conflict surrounding commercial aquarium fish collection (Section 1.2.3). The Act required substantive community input in management decisions (DAR 2019a). In order to accomplish the mandates of Act 306, a community advisory group, the West Hawai′i Fishery Council (WHFC), was convened by the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) in 1998 (Section 1.2.3.1). Consisting of 24 voting members and 6 ex-officio agency representatives from DLNR, Sea Grant, and the Governor’s Office, the WHFC’s members represented diverse geographic areas and various stakeholder, community, and user groups in West Hawai'i. Four aquarium representatives (three collectors and one aquarium shop owner) were members of the WHFC, 40% of the WHFC were maka′āinana (i.e., native fishers) and most of the members were previously on the West Hawai'i Reef Fish Working Group (WHRFWG). The first action of the WHFC was the designation of a network of nine Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs), in which no aquarium fish collection is allowed. The FRA’s, along with existing Marine Protected Areas (MPA), comprise 35.2% of the West Hawai’i coastline (DAR 2019a). Although closed to commercial and recreational aquarium fishing, FRAs are still open to other forms of permitted fishing. Concerns over continued expansion of the commercial aquarium fishery and collecting effects in the Open Areas (i.e., areas where aquarium fish collection is allowed) prompted the DLNR in 2013 to establish a ‘White List’ of 40 species that can be collected by commercial aquarium fishers within the WHRFMA (Section 4.4.1). All other species are off limits within the WHRFMA (DAR 2019a) but can be collected in East Hawai’i. 1.1.1 Status of Aquarium Permits In October 2012, Earthjustice filed a complaint under the HEPA in the First Circuit Court on behalf of four individuals and three non-governmental organizations. The complaint sought a court order to force the State to comply with the HEPA’s requirement to examine commercial aquarium fish collection’s effects on the environment before issuing collection permits. The complaint also asked the court to halt collection under existing Aquarium Permits and to stop DLNR from issuing new permits until the environmental review is complete (Earthjustice 2012). On June 24, 2013, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit announced their findings on the case through an ‘Order Granting Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai’i's, Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 4, 2013, and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 5, 2013 (Summary Judgment Order), and the Final Judgment in Favor of Defendant and Against Plaintiffs (Judgment), also filed on June 24, 2013. The Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld this decision in August 2016. Permit issuance by DLNR’s DAR continued. Through the appeals process, Earthjustice brought the case before the Supreme Court of Hawai’i. On September 6, 2017, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i ruled that aquarium collection using fine meshed traps or nets is subject to the environmental review procedures provided in the HEPA (SCWC-13-0002125). The 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction issue was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. In light of the ruling, DLNR discontinued issuance of new Aquarium Permits and renewal of existing Aquarium Permits (DAR 2017). On October 27, 2017, the circuit court ruled that, based upon the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s opinion, existing permits for use of fine mesh nets to catch aquatic life for aquarium purposes are illegal and invalid. The circuit court ordered the DLNR not to issue any new permits pending environmental review. The DLNR has not issued new or additional permits under HRS §188-31 since the Supreme Court's opinion was issued in September of 2017 (DAR 2017). On January 5, 2018 the DNLR issued a press release clarifying that no aquatic life may be taken for commercial aquarium purposes in West Hawai’i until an environmental review is complete 1.1.2 Previous HEPA Documents PIJAC initially prepared and submitted an EA on April 8, 2018, evaluating the impacts of issuance of Aquarium Permits on the island of Hawai’i programmatically to any applicant over a 12-month analysis period. In accordance with HEPA, the Draft EA was circulated for public review and comment through publication in The Environmental Notice and was also distributed via copies or email to a variety of elected officials, federal agencies, state, county and local offices, and individuals and organizations. Public comments were accepted during a 30-day period following publication. A total of 836 responses were received: 435 supported the conclusions of the DEA and issuance of Aquarium Permits; 398 did not support the conclusions of the DEA and opposed issuance of Aquarium Permits; and 3 did not express support or opposition. Comments received during the comment period were taken into account in assessing impacts of the proposed action and resulted in some modifications in the Final EA, which are also reflected in this EIS. Responses to comments on the DEA can be found in Appendix B of the Final EA 1. In the cover letter for the publication of the DEA, the DLNR requested comment on four specific issues: 1. The effects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery on Achilles Tang (Acanthurus achilles), and its sustainability given its life history characteristics, current population trends, and harvest by other fisheries. 2. The adequacy of the analysis presented in this DEA, including but not limited to removal and replenishment rates for vulnerable species; specifically, how is the estimated sustainable range of 5% to 25% annual take of the estimated total population arrived at, and should the threshold be 5% or 25%. 3. The interpretation of data presented in this DEA, including the analysis of NOAA NMFS Coral Reef Ecosystem Project (CREP) data versus DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources West Hawai'i Aquarium Project (WHAP) data. 4. Conservation measures to minimize or avoid impacts to target species, and specifically, whether other alternatives might be proposed to minimize or avoid impacts other than the two presented of http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08-HA-FEA-EISPN-Hawaii-Island-Commercial-AquariumPermits.pdf 1 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction no action, with no Aquarium Permits issued, and the preferred alternative of programmatic issuance of Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai'i - such as consideration of specific management measures for Achilles tang and other species. The Applicant’s responses to the request for comment along with an independent scientific reviewer’s comments on the responses are found in Appendix D of the Final EA. After review of the Final EA, the DLNR determined on July 26, 2018, that preparation of an EIS is required, based on the significance criteria outlined in Title II, Chapter 200, Hawai’i Administrative Rules 2. Specifically, the DLNR requested further analysis related to five specific significance criteria: • Significance Criteria #1 - Is the annual take of cumulative numbers of fish as a percentage of the estimated population an irrevocable loss or destruction of said populations? • Significance Criteria #2 - To what extent does the take of aquarium fish curtail the use of the environment, including: o Aquatic invasive algae control o Tourism industry o Integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems • Significance Criteria #3 - Does the take of aquarium fish conflict with the state’s long-term environmental goals? • Significance Criteria #4 - To what extent does the take of aquarium fish impact cultural practices in the state? • Significance Criteria #8 - What is the cumulative impact of the take of aquarium fish when combined with: o Commercial take of aquarium fish using other legal methods o Recreational take of aquarium fish o Commercial and non-commercial take of aquarium fish for consumption (particularly the Achilles Tang and Kole) https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Final-EA-NOD-Aquarium-Permits-Hawaii-Island-7-2618.pdf 2 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 1.2 RELEVANT POLICIES AND CONTROLS 1.2.1 Hawai’i Revised Statute (HRS) 188-31 Hawai’i Revised Statute 188-31 (2013; Title 12 – Conservation and Resources; 188 – Fishing Rights and Regulations; 188-31 – Permits to take aquatic life for aquarium purposes) states that: 1. Except as prohibited by law, the department, upon receipt of a written application, may issue an aquarium fish permit, not longer than one year in duration, to use fine meshed traps, or fine meshed nets other than throw nets, for the taking of marine or freshwater nongame fish and other aquatic life for aquarium purposes. 2. Except as prohibited by law, the permits shall be issued only to persons who can satisfy the department that they possess facilities to and can maintain fish and other aquatic life alive and in reasonable health. 3. It shall be illegal to sell or offer for sale any fish and other aquatic life taken under an aquarium fish permit unless those fish and other aquatic life are sold alive for aquarium purposes. The department may adopt rules pursuant to HRS chapter 91 for the purpose of this section. 1.2.2 Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act 3 The HEPA requires that State agencies consider the impact of governmental actions on the environment because humanity’s activities have broad and profound effects upon the interrelations of all components of the environment, and an environmental review process would integrate the review of environmental concerns with existing planning processes of both the State and county governments. The HEPA includes the following statutes and administrative rules: a) HRS Chapter 343, Environmental Impact Statements; b) Hawai’i Administrative Rule (HAR) 11‐200, Environmental Impact Statement Rules; c) HAR 11‐201, Environmental Council Rules of Practice and Procedure (OEQC 2012). The authorities governing the HEPA process include: 1. The text of the statute (Chapter 343, HRS) and its implementing administrative rules (Chapters 11‐ 200, and 11‐201, HAR, Department of Health; 2. The State Environmental Policy (Chapter 344, HRS); 3. The enumerated and written advisory opinions of the Attorney General of the State of Hawai’i; 4. The declaratory rulings of the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and the Environmental Council (EC); and, The HEPA was updated in August 2019, however, the EISPN for this DEIS was published on August 8, 2018, prior to the adoption of the new rules. Therefore, as per the new rules, the previous HEPA regulations apply to this DEIS. 3 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 5. The appellate rulings of the Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai’i. The HEPA process also alerts decision makers to significant environmental effects that may result from the implementation of certain actions (HRS 343-1). The specific instances when a proposing agency or an approving agency must prepare an EA (for an action not declared exempt under Section 11‐200‐8, HAR) derive from Section 343‐5(a) HRS and are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Statutory Triggers for Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). 1. 2. 3. 4. Instances Use of State or County lands or use of State or County funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an EA for proposed uses under Section 205‐2(d)(11) or 205‐ 4.5(a)(13) shall only be required pursuant to Section 205‐5(b). Use of any land classified as conservation district by the state land use commission under Chapter 205. Use within a shoreline area as defined in Section 205A‐41. The shoreline area in question is defined by county ordinance and consists of a predetermined distance going inland from the certified shoreline. In the City and County of Honolulu, this is forty‐feet. Use within any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawai’i Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89‐ 665, or Chapter 6E. 5. Use within the Waikiki area of O’ahu, the boundaries of which are delineated in the land use ordinance as amended, establishing the "Waikiki Special District". 6. Any amendments to existing county general plans where the amendment would result in designations other than agriculture, conservation, or preservation, except actions proposing any new county general plan or amendments to any existing county general plan initiated by a county. 7. 8. 9. Any reclassification of any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under Chapter 205. Any construction of new or the expansion or modification of existing helicopter facilities within the State, that may affect: A. Any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission B. A shoreline area c. Any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawai’i Register Propose any: A. Wastewater treatment unit, except an individual wastewater system or a wastewater treatment unit serving fewer than fifty single family dwellings or the equivalent B. Waste‐to‐energy facility C. Landfill D. Oil refinery E. Power‐generating facility Responsible Agency The agency with title to the land or is using funds. Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands of the DLNR. The respective county planning department. The respective county planning department. The Department of Planning and Permitting of the City and County of Honolulu. The respective county planning department. The Land Use Commission, except in cases involving less than fifteen‐acres (which cases are processed by the respective county planning department). The respective county planning department where the project is located processes the clearance of this trigger. The agencies of the State or County government that issue discretionary approvals for the listed items. 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction The Supreme Court of Hawai’i ruled (SCWC-13-0002125) that an environmental review of the Aquarium Permit process is warranted based on the first (use of state lands) and second (use of conservation districts) statutory triggers identified in Table 1-1, above. Actions that do not fall under one of the triggers are excluded by statute from the HEPA process. Any action that is not excluded by statute must undergo the HEPA environmental review process (OEQC 2012). The analysis within an EA is used to determine whether the impact on the environment would be significant enough to warrant the preparation of a full EIS or would be used to declare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) thus clearing the HEPA process. In most cases, an agency determines that an action may have a significant impact on the environment and require an EIS if it meets any of the following 13 criteria: 1. Involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource; 2. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; 3. Conflicts with the state’s long-term environmental policies or goals and guidelines as expressed in Chapter 344, HRS, and any revisions thereof and amendments thereto, court decisions, or executive orders; 4. Substantially affects the economic or social welfare of the community or State; 5. Substantially affects public health; 6. Involves substantial secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities; 7. Involves a substantial degradation of environmental quality; 8. Is individually limited but cumulatively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; 9. Substantially affects a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat; 10. Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise levels; 11. Affects or is likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, beach, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters; 12. Substantially affects scenic vistas and view planes identified in county or state plans or studies; or 13. Requires substantial energy consumption. Since its inception, the HEPA process has bifurcated into two separate procedural tracks (OEQC 2012): 1. Agency actions (set forth in Section 343‐5(b), HRS); refers to those proposed by a government agency; and 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 2. Applicant actions (set forth in Section 343‐5(c), HRS); refers to those that are initiated by a private party and “triggers” an environmental review. The need for this DEIS is based on the proposed action (i.e., DLNR issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits) and the agency determination that an EIS is required due to possible significant impacts on the environment. The environmental review process described in the findings and purpose section of Chapter 343, HRS, necessitates integrating citizen concerns into the planning process and forewarning decision makers of potential significant environmental effects should implementation take place. The Hawai’i Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole (OEQC 2012). 1.2.3 Act 306 SLH – West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area Act 306 Session Laws of Hawai’i (SLH 1998) directed DLNR to establish the WHRFMA along the entire west coast of the Island of Hawai'i; ‘bounded by the west coast of Hawai‘i Island, from Ka Lae, Ka‘ū (South Point) to ‘Upolu Point, North Kohala, and extending from the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on shore, seaward to the limit of the State’s police power and management authority. From Act 306: The purpose of the WHRFMA shall be to: 1. Ensure the sustainability of the state's nearshore ocean resources; 2. Identify areas with resource and use conflicts; 3. Provide management plans as well as implementing regulations for minimizing user conflicts and resource depletion through the designation of sections of coastal waters in the WHRFMA as FRAs where certain specified fish collecting activities are prohibited and other areas where anchoring and ocean recreation activities are restricted; 4. Establish a system of day-use mooring buoys in high-use coral reef areas and limit anchoring in some of these areas to prevent anchor damage to corals; 5. Identify areas and resources of statewide significance for protection; 6. Carry out scientific research and monitoring of the nearshore resources and environment; and 7. Provide for substantive involvement of the community in resource management decisions for this area through facilitated dialogues with community residents and resource users. The DLNR shall identify the specific areas and restrictions after close consultation and facilitated dialogue with working groups of community members and resource users. 8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction The department shall develop a WHRFMA plan that identifies and designates appropriate areas of the management area in accordance with HRS Chapter 91 as follows: 1. Designate a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of coastal waters in the WHRFMA as FRAs in which aquarium fish collection is prohibited (other fishing still permitted); 2. Establish a day-use mooring buoy system along the coastline of the WHRFMA and designate some high-use areas where no anchoring is allowed; 3. Establish a portion of the FRAs as fish reserves where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is allowed; and, 4. Designate areas where the use of gill nets as set nets shall be prohibited. A review of the effectiveness of the WHRFMA plan shall be conducted every five years by the DLNR in cooperation with the University of Hawai’i (UH). The DLNR shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations based on the review to the legislature no later than 20 days before the convening of the regular session following the review. The most recent review was completed in 2014 (DAR 2014a), though data from that report has been updated as of 2019 (DAR 2019a). 1.2.3.1 West Hawai'i Fishery Council The DAR (DAR 2014a) stated: In order to accomplish the mandates of Act 306 with substantive community input, The West Hawai′i Fishery Council (WHFC) was convened on June 16, 1998 under the aegis of the DLNR and the University of Hawai′i Sea Grant. Consisting of 24 voting members and 6 ex-officio agency representatives from the DLNR, University of Hawai’i Sea Grant, and the Governor’s Office, the WHFC’s members represented diverse geographic areas and various stakeholder, community, and user groups in West Hawai'i. Four aquarium representatives (three collectors and one aquarium shop owner) were members of the WHFC, 40% of the WHFC were maka′āinana (i.e., native fishers) and most of the members were previously on the West Hawai'i Reef Fish Working Group (WHRFWG). The WHRFWG included over 70 members of the West Hawai'i community including aquarium collectors and charter operators and other stakeholders. The group held 9 meetings over a 15-month period. The WHRFWG opened a dialog between user groups and community members and provided a forum for the education of its members on social and biological issues involved in resource management. The WHFC developed a FRA plan consisting of nine separate areas along the west coast of the Island of Hawai’i (Figure 1) encompassing a total of 35.2% of the West Hawai′i coastline (including already protected areas). The WHFC’s FRA plan was subsequently incorporated by the DLNR into administrative rule. The FRA administrative rule became effective on December 31, 1999. 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction Figure 1. Division of Aquatic Resources Managed Areas - Island of Hawai’i. 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction The FRAs prohibit all collecting of aquarium animals within their boundaries as well as non-fishing related fish feeding. The seaward boundaries of the FRAs extend to a depth of 600 feet (100 fathoms) and distinctive signs mark the boundaries on shore; although some have fallen into disrepair and are not easily observed (Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishers [BIAAF] pers. comm.). In addition to the development of the FRA network, the WHFC, in conjunction with the DAR and University of Hawai’i Sea Grant, also implemented the following initiatives: 1. Sea Urchin Limited Harvest: The WHFC developed a management plan permitting the sustainable harvest of Wana (long-spine/black sea urchin) at Makae'o, the Old Kona Airport Marine Life Conservation District (MLCD). This recommendation was adopted by the DLNR as an administrative rule amendment in 2005. 2. Gill Net Rules: The WHFC developed a set of gill net rule recommendations focused on limiting impacts of large-scale commercial netting while providing for subsistence netting. This recommendation was adopted as an administrative rule amendment in 2005 and served as a model for the statewide gill net rule (HAR §13-75-12.4) which was adopted in 2007. 3. Day-Use Mooring Buoys: In collaboration with the Malama Kai Foundation, the WHFC is a working partner in the site selection process and educates communities on the value of day use moorings to preserve our coral reefs. 4. Ka′ūpūlehu Marine Reserve: DAR worked with the WHFC and the Ka'ūpūlehu Marine Life Advisory Committee (KMLAC) to develop draft rules to re-designate the Ka'ūpūlehu Fish Replenishment Area as a Marine Reserve where the take of nearshore marine life will be prohibited for 10 years, with exceptions to allow for the continued collection of pelagic and deep benthic species using specific fishing gear. The proposal is the initial first step in complying with the statutory mandate of HRS §188F-4(3) to establish a portion of the FRAs where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is allowed. In October 2014, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved holding a Public Hearing on this rule amendment. The rule subsequently took effect on July 29, 2016. Several other local communities are actively engaged in developing management recommendations which include some form of a highly protected nearshore area. 5. Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) Spear Fishing Prohibition: The WHFC proposed banning SCUBA (and rebreather) spear fishing in West Hawai'i as is the case in most other Pacific island jurisdictions. 6. Pebble Beach User Conflict: The WHFC drafted recommendations addressing a conflict between aquarium collectors and this South Kona community. It recommended creating a new FRA in the Pebble Beach area and opening up to collecting a similarly sized section of another FRA (by a nonresidential area). The latter part of the ‘swap’ was subsequently rejected by aquarium collectors. The Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishermen (BIAAF) agreed to the creation of the Pebble Beach FRA, with nothing in return, as an act of good faith to further mitigate user conflict (BIAAF, pers. comm.). The BIAAF conceded directly with the representatives of the “Friends of Pebble Beach.” The meeting was orchestrated DAR. 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 7. Aquarium ‘White List’ (Section 4.4.1): Working with commercial aquarium collectors the WHFC established a list of 40 fish species permitted for aquarium take. Only those fish found on the White List can be collected live for aquarium use. All other fishes and all invertebrates are off-limits to collecting. Size and bag limits are also established for three of the species on the White List, Yellow Tang, Kole, and Achilles Tang. 8. Species of Special Concern: Prohibition on the take or possession of nine species of inshore sharks and rays and two invertebrate crown-of-thorns predators (Table 1-2). Table 1-2. List of marine species for which all take or possession is prohibited. Common Name Spotted Eagleray Broad Stingray Scientific Name Aetobatus narinari Dasyatis lata Hawaiian Name Hīhīmanu Hīhīmanu Pelagic Stingray Hawaiian Stingray Tiger Shark Whale Shark Whitetip Reef Shark Blacktip Reef Shark Pteroplatytrygon violacea Dasyatis hawaiiensis Galeocerdo cuvier Rhincodon typus Triaenodon obesus Carcharhinus melanopterus Hīhīmanu Hīhīmanu Manō/niuhi Lele wa'a Manō lālākea Manō pā'ele Gray Reef Shark Triton’s Trumpet Horned Helmet Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Charonia tritonis Cassis cornuta Manō 'Ōlē Pū puhi Initiatives identified above and shown in Figure 2 received overwhelming support during the Hawai’i Administrative Rule public hearing process and were adopted as a new administrative rule (HAR 13-60.4) which became effective December 26, 2013. N= 1206 Total Testimonies 900 76% In Support 800 In Opposition Number of Testimonies 700 90% 600 97% 97% 500 400 300 24% 200 100 10% 0 AQ SCUBA/Spear 3% Sharks/Rays 3% Ka'ohe AQ – Aquarium White List; Ka’ohe – Pebble Beach Figure 2. Summary of all public testimonies on the WHRFMA rule (DAR 2014a). 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction 1.2.3.2 HAR 13-60.4 In addition to incorporating Act 306 into the Hawai’i Administrative Rules, HAR 13-60.4 identified West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit Terms and Conditions by implementing the following provisions: • No person shall engage in aquarium collecting activities within the WHRFMA without first having been issued and possessing a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit in addition to a valid State of Hawai′i aquarium fish permit. • Collectors must carry either their Commercial Marine License (CML) card with both State of Hawai′i and West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit endorsements or their recreational aquarium fish permit card while collecting fish within the WHRFMA. • In addition to applying any other penalties provided by law, the DLNR may revoke any West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit for any infraction of these rules or the terms and conditions of the permit, and any person whose permit has been revoked shall not be eligible to apply for another West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit (commercial or recreational) until one year from the date of revocation. • Aquarium collectors (commercial and noncommercial) may take or possess only the 40 “White List” fish species. • It is prohibited for anyone to take more than 5 Yellow Tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) larger than 4.5 inches in total length (TL) or more than 5 Yellow Tang smaller than 2 inches TL per day or possess more than this amount at any time while within the WHRFMA. (Note: This is called a slot limit and is meant to protect the breeding population. Yellow Tang become sexually mature at 4.5 inches TL and begin reproducing [Bushnell 2007]). • It is prohibited for aquarium collectors to take or possess more than 5 Kole (= Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) (Ctenochaetus strigosus) larger than 4 inches TL per day. Again, this measure is meant to protect the breeding population. • It is prohibited for aquarium collectors to take or possess more than 10 Achilles Tang (Acanthurus achilles) of any size per day. • It is prohibited to possess aquarium collecting gear or possess fish taken for aquarium purposes on a vessel after sunset or before sunrise without prior phone notification to the DAR Kona office. Such notification will allow the possession of more than one day’s bag limit for Yellow Tang, Kole and Achilles Tang on multiple day trips. • Aquarium collection is prohibited within FRAs, FMAs, and MLCDs. Note that a new FRA has been established in South Kona at Ka′ohe Bay (Pebble Beach) where no aquarium collecting, or recreational fish feeding is allowed. • It is prohibited to take or possess aquarium collecting gear or fish taken for aquarium purposes on a vessel that is adrift, anchored, or moored within any of the areas prohibiting aquarium collecting. 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction • All aquarium collecting vessels shall be registered every year with the DAR Kona office. The current vessel identification number issued by either the DLNR or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) shall serve as the registration number for each vessel. After the initial vessel registration renewal can be done via mail or online. • All aquarium collecting vessels shall permanently affix the capital letters “AQ” to both sides of the vessel. The "AQ" letters shall be no less than 6 inches high and 3 inches wide in either black or a color that contrasts with the background color of the vessel. • Aquarium vessels must fly a "stiffened" flag or pennant from the vessel with the letter "A" as specified by the DLNR. The flag or pennant shall be displayed and clearly visible from both sides of the vessel at all times while aquarium collecting gear or collected aquarium fish, or both are onboard. The flag or pennant shall be provided at cost to West Hawai’i Aquarium Permittees. • Aquarium vessels must display a dive flag at all times when divers are in the water. • In the event an aquarium collecting vessel becomes inoperable while at sea, the operator of the vessel shall immediately notify the DLNR’s Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) or USCG or both by VHF radio or by cellular phone. • It is prohibited to possess or use any net or container employed underwater to capture or hold fish taken for aquarium purposes that is not labeled with the CML number (or numbers) of the person (or persons) owning, possessing, or using the equipment. Clearly mark each piece of the above gear with your CML number. There is no specific marking requirement as to size or color of lettering other than the CML number must be clearly visible and legible. • Aquarium collectors must submit each month’s daily aquarium fishing trip reports before every 10th day of the following month. • Recreational aquarium collectors, without a valid CML, may not take more than a total of five of the White list fish specimens per person per day. Recreational aquarium collectors may not sell collected fish. • A control date was established on August 1, 2005, to possibly limit participation in the WHRFMA commercial aquarium fishery. Persons who begin fishing in the WHRFMA commercial aquarium fishery on or after the control date will not be assured continued participation in the fishery if the DLNR establishes an aquarium limited entry program in the future. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the DLNR from establishing another control date. • It is prohibited to engage in or attempt to engage in SCUBA spearfishing and/or possess both SCUBA gear and a spear or speared aquatic life. As indicated above, HAR 13-60.4 had overwhelming public support, with 76% of all testimony in favor of the rules, and 85% of testimony from West Hawai’i being supportive, the area most closely associated with the rule (Walsh 2013). 14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need Coral/Live Rock Damage State law prohibits the breaking or damaging, with any implement, any stony coral from the waters of Hawai’i, including any reef or mushroom coral (HAR 13-95-70). It is unlawful to take, break or damage, any implement, any rock or coral to which marine life of any type is visibly attached or affixed (HAR 13-95-71). The taking of sand, coral rubble or other marine deposits is permitted in certain circumstances. The material may not exceed one gallon per person per day, and may be taken only for personal, noncommercial purposes (HRS § 171-58.5, § 205A-44). Fines per specimen may be imposed for each damaged coral head or colony less than one square meter in surface area or for a colony greater than one square meter in surface area, each square meter of colony surface area and any fraction remaining constitutes an additional specimen. Penalties for damage to live rock are based on each individual rock or if the violation involves greater than one square meter of bottom area, then the penalty is based on each square meter of bottom area. No liability shall be imposed for inadvertent breakage, damage, or displacement of an aggregate area of less than one half square meter of coral if caused by a vessel with a single anchor damage incident, in an area where anchoring is not otherwise prohibited, and not more frequently than once per year; or by accidental physical contact by an individual person. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 PURPOSE FOR APPLICANT’S ACTION The purpose of the Applicant’s action is to ensure that commercial aquarium fish collection allows for the lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various fish species from nearshore habitats. The objective of the proposed action is to allow for the issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits to 14 fishers for the WHRFMA. 2.2 NEED FOR APPLICANT’S ACTION The need for the Applicant’s action is to continue commercial aquarium fishers’ livelihoods in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the industry. 2.3 PURPOSE FOR APPROVING AGENCY’S (DLNR) ACTION The purpose of an environmental review process under the HEPA is to provide the Approving Agency (DLNR) with the framework necessary for reviewing the Applicant’s action and the environmental effects of issuing Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA. The HEPA review also provides an opportunity for the public to be involved in the DLNR’s decision-making process. The DLNR can also use a properly conducted HEPA analysis to review and improve plans, functions, programs, and resources under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, this DEIS is the mechanism for recording the results of a comprehensive planning and decision-making process surrounding the Applicant’s action. 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need The underlying purpose of the DLNR’s action is to determine the level of significance that issuing 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA, may have on the environment, based on the 13 criteria listed in Section 1.2.2, with emphasis on the 5 criteria the DLNR determined to need further evaluation (Section 1.1.2). The final determination will be either acceptance or non-acceptance. 2.4 NEED FOR APPROVING AGENCY’S (DLNR) ACTION The need for DLNR’s action is the Applicant’s submittal of this DEIS, to which the DLNR must respond. 2.5 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The scope of this DEIS’s analysis incorporates accepted methods, regulations, and historical data to determine past influences the commercial aquarium fishery and its management have had on resources, including socioeconomic, cultural, and biological resources, in order to evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that the five alternatives presented in Section 3.0 would have annually over a 5year period for the island of Hawai’i, including the WHRFMA. Regarding biological resources, this DEIS focuses primarily on the effects of aquarium fishing on wild populations of White List Species, as it is at the population level that DAR measures changes in White List Species and makes management decisions (e.g., issuance of harvest permits, implementation of bag limits). Therefore, because population effects have already occurred once an individual fish has been removed from the ocean, it is beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate effects on individual fish once they are removed from the population. Commercial Aquarium Permits issued by DLNR under HRS §188-31 are valid for no longer than one year and, therefore, must be renewed annually. Accordingly, every year, DLNR must take an action to issue Aquarium Permits. As Aquarium Permits for the 14 fishers requesting permits come up for renewal each year, DLNR will evaluate whether there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the commercial aquarium fishery or its impacts requiring a supplemental HEPA review. Under this approach, any changes in resource data (e.g., increase or decrease in population estimates, unforeseen circumstances, etc.) would be addressed, as necessary, by supplemental HEPA documents, allowing for the HEPA process to quickly recognize and address any potential issues. Section 5.0 addresses the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future commercial aquarium collection. 2.5.1 Resources Evaluated and Dismissed from Further Consideration This DEIS evaluates the impacts of five commercial aquarium fish collection alternatives on the nearshore habitat (0-600 feet; 0-100 fathoms) in which commercial aquarium fishing (or lack thereof) would take place over a 5-year period. During the evaluation process, it was determined that some resources typically evaluated in an EIS would not be impacted by any of the alternatives under consideration. The evaluation includes past use and potential impacts by the commercial aquarium fishery because it has been a part of the baseline condition of these resources since the late 1940s. Because a significant increase in commercial aquarium fishing is not anticipated during the 5-year assessment period evaluated in this DEIS, and in fact a decrease when compared to historic conditions is anticipated due to the issuance of only 14 16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Aquarium Permits, this DEIS does not anticipate a significant change in the current baseline condition of these resources. The proposed action and resulting commercial aquarium collection does not include any activities different from or in addition to those that have occurred in the past. There would be no construction of permanent or semi-permanent infrastructure, no discharges into coastal, surface or ground waters, and no dredging, and no significant use of hazardous materials that could be released into the environment. The DLNR’s issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits is not anticipated to result in significant beneficial or adverse impacts to water and air quality, geology and soil resources, aesthetics, noise, vegetation, terrestrial wildlife and avian species, threatened and endangered species, land use, public health and safety, communications, transportation, utilities, or population and demographics from the current baseline condition, therefore, these resources will not be evaluated further. 2.5.2 Resources Retained for Further Analysis The following resources could be impacted by the alternatives under consideration. Current baseline conditions of these resources are presented in Section 4.0 and impacts to these resources are evaluated in Section 5.0 of this DEIS: • • • • 3.0 Socioeconomic Resources Cultural Resources Physical Resources o Climate Biological Resources o White List Species o Non-White List Species o Hawai’i Species of Greatest Conservation Need o Reef Habitat ALTERNATIVES Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from cultural, scientific, technical, and economic perspectives. The HEPA recommends that applicants consider and objectively evaluate reasonable alternatives to the preferred alternative and briefly explain the basis for eliminating any alternatives that were not retained for detailed analysis. The DLNR has been working with stakeholders (e.g., public, various fishing and tourism industries, local governments) since the 1970’s, and continues to work with them to ensure the commercial aquarium fishery is environmentally sustainable and prevents degradation of fish populations and the habitats in which they occur. As a result, many aspects of the fishery have changed over the past 40+ years due to the various alternatives recommended by stakeholders and implemented by the DLNR. The Applicant has no legislative or regulatory authority and cannot create, eliminate, or alter conservation areas (e.g., MPAs, FRAs, MLCDs); create, eliminate, or alter current regulations (e.g., bag and size limits, season length, permit term); or change reporting requirements. Despite this, during the public comment period on the Draft EA 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives that was published on April 8, 2018, in response to DLNR concerns and in coordination with the DLNR, the Applicant developed an alternative that required regulation creation by DLNR (i.e., implementation of bag limits). After review of the EA, the DLNR determined on July 26, 2018 that preparation of an EIS is required based on five specific significance criteria outlined in Title II, Chapter 200, Hawai’i Administrative Rules (Criteria 1,2,3,4, and 8, see Section 1.1.2). Based on public and DNLR comments on the Draft and Final EAs, the Applicant has analyzed five alternatives in the EIS, including a new Preferred Alternative based on issuance of a limited number of Aquarium Permits. These alternatives were evaluated based on their capacity to meet the purpose and need of the Approving Agency’s action (Sections 2.3 and 2.4). The potential effects on the environment for each alternative are described and analyzed in Section 5.0; Environmental Consequences. The alternatives are summarized in Table 3-1 and discussed in detail in Sections 3.1 through 3.5. Table 3-1. Summary of alternatives. Alternative WHRFMA No Action No Aquarium Permits issued; no commercial aquarium collection allowed Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Unlimited # of Aquarium Permits issued WHRFMA-Only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Unlimited # of Aquarium Permits issued Achilles Tang Conservation Unlimited # of Aquarium Permits issued; bag limit reduced for Achilles Tang Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) 14 Aquarium Permits issued; bag limit reduced for Achilles Tang 3.1 East Hawai’i No Aquarium Permits issued; commercial collection allowed without the use of fine mesh nets Unlimited # of Aquarium Permits issued No Aquarium Permits issued; commercial collection allowed without the use of fine mesh nets Unlimited # of Aquarium Permits issued No Aquarium Permits issued; commercial collection allowed without the use of fine mesh nets NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the court order would remain in place, and no Aquarium Permits would be issued for the entire island of Hawai’i and the taking of aquarium fish or other aquatic life in the WHRFMA for commercial aquarium purposes would be prohibited. The No Action Alternative meets the DLNR’s objectives to ensure an applicant’s actions do not lead to degradation of fish populations and the habitats in which they occur in the context of commercial aquarium collection alone (i.e., does not address impacts from other Hawaiian fisheries and influences discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0). Under the No Action Alternative, Aquarium Permits would not be issued for the island of Hawai’i, including the WHRFMA, and commercial collection of aquarium fish and other aquatic life in the WHRFMA would be prohibited. In East Hawai’i, aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets would continue. However, the No Action Alternative does not meet the Applicant’s purpose and need to continue fishers’ livelihoods participating in lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of approved fish species from nearshore habitats (0-600 feet; 0-100 fathoms). 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives 3.2 PRE-AQUARIUM COLLECTION BAN ALTERNATIVE Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, the DLNR would issue an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits as was done prior to the September 6, 2017 Supreme Court ruling, thereby allowing commercial aquarium fish collection on the island of Hawai’i, including the WHRFMA, to resume. Permittees would abide by all existing rules and regulations set forth in HRS 189-2,3 (Commercial Marine Permit), HRS-188-31 (Section 1.2.1), governing Aquarium Permit use, and would obtain a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit as required under HAR 13-60.4 (Section 1.2.3.2). These rules and regulations include restrictions on equipment, restrictions on access to various areas, bag limits on various collected fish species, collection in the WHRFMA restricted to 40 White List Species only, and reporting requirements. 3.3 WHRFMA-ONLY PROGRAMMATIC ISSUANCE OF PERMITS ALTERNATIVE Under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, the DLNR would issue an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA, thereby allowing commercial aquarium fishing collection within the WHRFMA. No Aquarium Permits would be issued for areas outside of the WHRFMA (in East Hawai’i aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets could continue but use of fine mesh nets would not be allowed). Permittees would abide by all rules and regulations set forth in HRS 189-2,3 (Commercial Marine Permit), HRS-188-31 (Section 1.2.1), governing Aquarium Permit use, and would obtain a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit as required under HAR 13-60.4 (Section 1.2.3.2). These rules and regulations include restrictions on equipment, restrictions on access to various areas, bag limits on various collected fish species, collection in the WHRFMA restricted to 40 White List Species only, and reporting requirements. 3.4 ACHILLES TANG CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVE Under the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative, which was the preferred alternative in the Final EA, the DLNR would issue an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits, thereby allowing commercial aquarium fish collection on the island of Hawai’i, including the WHRFMA. Permittees would abide by all rules and regulations set forth in HRS 189-2,3 (Commercial Marine Permit), HRS-188-31 (Section 1.2.1), governing Aquarium Permit use, and would obtain a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit as required under HAR 13-60.4 (Section 1.2.3.2). These rules and regulations include restrictions on equipment, restrictions on access to various areas, bag limits on various collected fish species, collection in the WHRFMA restricted to 40 White List Species only, and reporting requirements. In addition, under this alternative, the daily bag limit for commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang within the WHRFMA would be reduced from 10 per day to 5 per day. 3.5 LIMITED PERMIT ISSUANCE (PREFERRED) ALTERNATIVE Under the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative, the DLNR would issue Aquarium Permits to 14 aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA, thereby allowing these 14 individuals to resume commercial aquarium fish collection in the WHRFMA. No Aquarium Permits would be issued for areas outside of the WHRMA (in East Hawai’i aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets could continue but use 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment of fine mesh nets would not be allowed). Permittees would abide by all rules and regulations set forth in HRS 189-2,3 (Commercial Marine Permit), HRS-188-31 (Section 1.2.1), governing Aquarium Permit use, and would obtain a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit as required under HAR 13-60.4 (Section 1.2.3.2). These rules and regulations include restrictions on equipment, restrictions on access to various areas, bag limits on various collected fish species, collection in the WHRFMA restricted to 40 White List Species only, and reporting requirements. In addition, under this alternative, the daily bag limit for commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang within the WHRFMA would be reduced from 10 per day to 5 per day. This Alternative is based on the best available science, supports the DLNR’s purpose to ensure Applicant’s Actions do not lead to degradation of fish populations and the habitats in which they occur in the context of commercial aquarium collection, specifically addresses concerns related to Achilles Tang conservation, and supports the Applicant’s purpose and need to continue fishers’ livelihoods participating in the lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various fish species from nearshore habitats. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment is the area and its resources (i.e., socioeconomic, cultural, physical, biological) potentially impacted by the proposed action and the alternatives under consideration. The purpose of describing the affected environment is to define the current baseline of conditions in which the impacts would occur. To make an informed decision about which alternative to select, it is necessary to first understand which resources would be affected and to what extent each alternative would result in changes from the baseline. This section attempts to provide the baseline for this understanding. Relative to the proposed action, the affected environment includes nearshore habitats within the WHRFMA from a depth of 0-600 feet (0-100 fathoms) along the west coast of the island of Hawai’i, although most fishers collect the majority of fish at depths between 30-70 feet (5-11.7 fathoms), with minimal collecting beyond this range. Commercial aquarium fish collection has been taking place in Hawaiian waters since the late 1940s. In 1953, the territorial government of Hawai’i enacted Act 154, which authorized the Board of Agriculture and Forestry to establish a permit system for the use of fine-mesh nets and traps for the taking of aquarium fish (DAR 2014a). Beginning in 1973, collectors were required to report their monthly catch on a detailed aquarium fish catch report. As of 2014, Aquarium Permit holders are required to keep daily trip reports and submit on a monthly basis. Since 1999 when FRA’s were established, the number of commercial aquarium fishers working in West Hawai’i has ranged from 24-63, and in East Hawai’i from <3-18 (DAR 2018a). The 14 commercial fishers who are part of this proposed action made up 3 to 11 of the WHRFMA fishers in any given year from 2000 – 2017. Permitted commercial aquarium fishing has been a part of the socioeconomic, cultural, physical, and biological resources for decades and is considered a part of the baseline condition of the affected environment. The DLNR’s mission statement is to ‘Enhance, protect, conserve and manage Hawai’i’s unique and limited natural, cultural, and historic resources held in public trust for current and future generations of the people of Hawai’i nei, and its visitors, in partnership with others from the public and private sectors.’ In pursuit of this mission, the DLNR has compiled, analyzed, and reported on the many facets of Hawai’i’s 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment socioeconomic, cultural, physical, and biological resources that make up the affected environment. The following sections rely heavily on the DLNR’s Hawai’i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS; Mitchell et al. 2005) and the DLNR’s Hawai’i’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP; DLNR 2015), with numerous other sources cited as appropriate. 4.1 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES The state of Hawai‘i has four local governments: The City and County of Honolulu (island of O‘ahu and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands), the County of Kaua‘i (islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau), the County of Maui (islands of Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i and Kaho‘olawe), and the County of Hawai‘i (island of Hawai‘i). Hawai‘i also has a fifth county, Kalawao County, which does not have a separate government unit (Mitchell et al. 2005). Kalawao County covers the former Hansen’s disease settlement at Kalaupapa (Moloka‘i) and is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) under a cooperative agreement with the State Department of Health (Mitchell et al. 2005). The population of the island of Hawai‘i was estimated at 185,079 in 2010. By 2018, the population is estimated to have grown by 8.4% to 200,983 (HDBEDT 2019). The number of people on the island of Hawai’i at any given time, however, is heavily influenced by tourists. Of the approximately 9.3 million visitors who arrived by air to the state in 2017 4, 19.0% (1.76 million people) spent time on the island of Hawai’i and 9.1% stayed entirely on the island of Hawai’i. Approximately 16.3% of visitors spent time in West Hawai’i while 7.1% spent time on the east side (HTA 2018). In 2016, Hawai‘i employed 647,544 people and generated $31.2 billion in wages and $84.9 billion in gross domestic product. Hawai’i’s ocean economy in 2016 employed 118,083 people and generated $4.5 billion in wages and $8.6 billion in gross domestic product. The ocean economy accounted for 18.2% of Hawaii’s employment, 14.3% of its wages, and 10.2% of its gross domestic product (NOAA 2019). Much of the state’s economy is based on the island’s coastal and marine resources. Tourism accounts for the majority of the state’s economy, with a significant portion of the tourist activities associated with beaches and marine wildlife (DLNR 2015). Coastal development and land values have both increased with the growth in tourism. In 2002, the Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative funded a study regarding the economic valuation of the coral reefs of Hawai‘i, where the value of coral reefs to the Hawai‘i economy was estimated to be about $380 million dollars per year (DLNR 2015). In 2001, Cesar et al. documented the annual recreational value of the coral reefs of the Hawaiian reefs for snorkelers and divers was estimated to be $281 million and $44 million, respectively. Although the direct expenditure per diver is much larger than the direct expenditures of snorkelers, the overall value related to the latter group is much larger due to their large numbers. According to the 2019 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Report on the Ocean and Great Lakes Economy of the United States, in 2016 (most recent data), Hawai‘i employed 647,544 people and generated $31.2 billion in wages and $84.9 billion in gross domestic product. Hawai’i’s ocean economy then employed 118,083 people and generated $4.5 billion in wages and $8.6 billion in gross domestic product. The ocean economy accounted for 18.2% of Hawaii’s employment, 14.3% of its An additional 126,733 visitors arrived via cruise ship (HTA 2018) and are not included in further analysis due to the small proportion of total tourism. 4 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment wages, and 10.2% of its gross domestic product (NOAA 2019). Commercial fish landings in Hawai‘i have increased annually since 2006, and NOAA reported total landings in 2013 were valued near $108 million dollars (DLNR 2015). Hawai‘i’s tourism industry achieved new records in total visitor spending and visitor arrivals in 2017, marking the sixth consecutive year of record growth in both categories. Total spending by visitors to the Hawaiian Islands increased 5.6% to a new high of $16.21 billion (HTA 2018). When adjusted for inflation, total visitor spending was up 3.5% from 2016 (Figure 3). A total of 9,404,346 visitors came by air or by cruise ship to the state, up 5.3% from the previous record of 8,934,277 visitors in 2016. Total visitor days rose 4.8% compared to 2016. The average spending per day by these visitors ($198 per person) was also higher than 2016 ($197 per person; HTA 2018). Arrivals by airlines in 2017 grew 5.2% to 9,277,613 visitors. Additionally, there were 126,733 visitors who came to the islands by cruise ship, which was an increase of 12.7% from 2016 (HTA 2018). Note: Implicit price deflator (2009=100) Source: 2017 State of Hawai‘i Data Book Table 7.35. Figure 3. Total visitor spending: nominal and real 2005-2017 (HTA 2018). Total Spending by Category (HTA 2018): • Lodging was the largest spending category by visitors to Hawai’i, rising 3.4% to $6.96 billion and making up 41.4% of the total visitor spending in 2017. 22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment • Food and beverage was the second largest category, increasing 6.4% to $3.48 billion (20.7%) of total visitor spending in 2017. • Shopping expenses rose 5.0% to $2.36 billion. • Transportation expenditures rose 7.9% to $1.67 billion. • Entertainment and recreation spending rose 10.8% to $1.57 billion. • Supplemental business spending grew 5.9% to $125.1 million. This includes additional business spending spent locally on conventions and corporate meetings by out-of-state visitors that were not included in personal spending (i.e., costs on space and equipment rentals, transportation, etc.). The military has a significant presence in Hawai‘i with large Naval installations located on estuarine and coastal areas such as Pearl Harbor and Kāne‘ohe Bay on O‘ahu, the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the south shore of Kaua‘i, and the Pōhakuloa Training Area on the Hawai’i, the largest United States Department of Defense installation in the state of Hawai’i, or anywhere in the Pacific. The history of Hawai’i has always included agriculture, and it continues to be an important industry, adding $2.9 billion to the state’s annual economy, and providing 42,000 direct and indirect jobs (HDA 2013). The sugar and pineapple industries boomed during the plantation era, covering thousands of acres of prime agricultural lands. As these industries have been declining, these lands are being converted to smaller farms growing diversified agricultural product (HDA 2013). Specialty exotic fruits, coffee, macadamia nuts, flowers and foliage are examples of crops that have become major exports to destinations around the globe, as well as providing fresh produce and flowers to local Hawaiian markets. High-tech aquaculture ventures have evolved from the early fishponds, farming varieties of fish, shrimp, lobster, abalone, and seaweed (HDA 2013). 4.1.1 Socioeconomic Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery Commercial aquarium fishers on the island of Hawai’i often perform day or short overnight trips, operate individually or in small groups of two or three people, and use SCUBA and barrier nets (nets used to exclude, contain, or direct fish) to capture fish (Stevenson et al. 2011). Most aquarium fishers are between the ages of 40 and 60 years, have remained active in the fishery for more than 20 years, and fish approximately 3–4 days per week (Stevenson et al. 2011). Commercial aquarium fishers are required to report their monthly catch on an aquarium fish catch report separate from, and more detailed than, the CML reports. The commercial aquarium fishery has contributed an average of $2,172,028 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) to the State’s economy over the past 18 years (Table 4-1). According to DAR (2019a), the marine aquarium fishery is the most economically valuable commercial inshore fishery in the State of Hawai’i, with 68% of the value coming from the Island of Hawai’i, mainly West Hawai’i. 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Table 4-1. Summary of commercial Aquarium Permits and values by year from 2000-2017 for the State of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). These data include n.d. data and summation of East and West Hawai’i data, as well as the other islands that make up the state of Hawai’i. Fiscal Year1 2000 Number of Commercial Number Aquarium Reporting Permits Total Value Total Value Adjusted for Inflation2 $1,491,077 113 82 $1,000,750 2001 128 75 $936,811 $1,357,958 2002 139 63 $935,009 $1,333,497 2003 123 68 $1,174,168 $1,637,269 2004 145 77 $1,442,946 $1,959,863 2005 142 79 $1,579,370 $2,074,862 2006 186 87 $2,093,857 $2,664,797 2007 195 99 $1,646,167 $2,037,015 2008 2009 2010 178 197 178 94 92 91 $2,065,816 $1,894,015 $2,282,618 $2,461,779 $2,265,107 $2,685,794 2011 172 87 $2,188,227 $2,495,946 2012 166 77 $2,306,179 $2,577,152 2013 153 64 $2,172,561 $2,392,786 2014 165 61 $2,322,564 $2,517,161 2015 163 69 $2,502,178 $2,708,609 2016 166 66 $2,257,021 $2,412,789 2017 226 68 $1,932,747 $2,023,037 Average 163 78 $1,818,500 1 Fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. 2 http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, adjusted for 2019 values in August 2019. $2,172,028 In 2017, the commercial aquarium fishery on the island of Hawai’i reported landings near $1.4 million, with more than $1.29 million coming from the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). For the 14 fishers requesting commercial Aquarium Permits under the Proposed Action, 3 to 11 fishers reported catch in any given year between 2000 and 2017, contributing from 22.3% to 69.1% to the total overall WHRFMA fishery value (Table 4-1). Since 2000, the commercial aquarium fishery within the WHRFMA on the island of Hawai’i has averaged annual landings valued at approximately $1.4 million, with a low of approximately $731,828 (inflationadjusted 2019 dollars) in 2000 and a high of $1,842,016 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) in 2015 (Table 41; DAR 2018a). It should be noted that the dollar value of these fisheries represents only the ex-vessel value, i.e., what the fishers are paid for their catch and does not include the value which would be generated by additional dealer and retail sales. The actual economic value of the catch is thus substantially greater than the exvessel value. A study done in 1994 found that the DAR reported total average value for FY 1993/FY 1994 at only $819,957 (Miyasaka 1994), while analysis in 1993 by an aquarium trade group (Hawai’i Tropical 24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Fish Association) estimated the total sales of Hawaiian aquarium fish (including freight and packaging) to be nearly 6 times this, at $4.9 million (Walsh et al. 2003). Although specific export data do not exist for the aquarium fishery, it is clear that most of the aquarium catch is shipped out of the state to dealers on the mainland United States, Europe, and Asia (Dierking 2002). This is neither surprising nor atypical for commercial fisheries in Hawai′i (DAR 2019). For example, seafood exports of various Hawaiian species exceed 3.7 million pounds annually (Loke et al. 2012). On the island of Hawai’i, the total aquarium catch and its value have continued to increase overall since the FRAs were established in 2000, while the number of reporting fishers has fluctuated (Table 4-1 and Table 4-2; DAR 2018a). Since FRAs were established, overall catch has not declined and recent work (Stevenson et al. 2013) has indicated that the economic status of West Hawai′i aquarium collectors has significantly improved since the FRA network was implemented (DAR 2019a). 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Table 4-2. Number of Commercial Aquarium Permits and fishery value for the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i since 2000 (DAR 2018a). n.d. indicates data not disclosed due to Hawai’i confidentiality statute (Section 5.1). WHRFMA # Permits Reporting Total Value Total Value Adjusted for Inflation2 # Permits Reporting Total Value % Contribution 14 Fishers Requesting Aquarium Permits # Aquarium Permits $491,173 2000 243 25 $731,828 4 $163,389 $243,443 2001 26 23 $506,749 $734,560 3 $113,166 $164,040 $529,182 2002 37 19 $754,712 5 $181,425 $258,746 2003 30 22 $666,153 $928,889 7 $258,395 $360,308 2004 53 30 $866,630 $1,177,089 7 $465,599 $632,394 2005 41 34 $1,168,265 $1,534,782 8 $532,883 $700,063 2006 63 34 $1,459,004 $1,856,836 8 $591,659 $752,989 2007 61 40 $1,065,093 $1,317,977 8 $577,710 $714,875 2008 52 31 $1,308,629 $1,559,459 9 $819,040 $976,029 2009 55 30 $1,159,746 $1,386,974 9 $703,396 $841,212 2010 60 36 $1,582,644 $1,862,185 9 $858,973 $1,010,692 2011 60 42 $1,473,530 $1,680,745 9 $751,146 $856,776 2012 48 28 $1,504,487 $1,681,262 9 $897,493 $1,002,947 2013 45 26 $1,560,517 $1,718,701 8 $847,033 $932,894 2014 43 20 $1,570,057 $1,701,605 8 $983,943 $1,066,383 2015 38 19 $1,701,631 $1,842,016 9 $1,035,500 $1,120,929 2016 37 19 $1,582,011 $1,691,193 10 $1,087,884 $1,162,964 2017 57 21 $1,290,314 $1,350,592 11 $891,106 $932,735 Average 46 28 $1,193,656 $1,417,300 8 $653,319 $793,352 1 Fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 2 http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, adjusted for 2019 values on August 21, 2019 3 Includes permittee that captured individuals in 1999, but reported captures in 2000 All Fishers % Contribution of 14 fishers Total Value Adjusted for Inflation2 Total Value Total Value Adjusted for Inflation2 Total Value # Permits Reporting # Aquarium Permits # Permits Reporting 14 Fishers Requesting Aquarium Permits All Fishers Fiscal Year1 East Hawai’i 33.3% 22.3% 34.3% 38.8% 53.7% 45.6% 40.6% 54.2% 62.6% 60.7% 54.3% 51.0% 59.7% 54.3% 62.7% 60.9% 68.8% 69.1% 51.5% 6 8 n.d. 9 n.d. 11 11 14 17 13 12 13 16 15 18 13 15 18 13 3 0 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3 6 4 9 8 7 6 7 9 7 4 4 4 5 $11,832 $0 n.d. n.d. n.d. $25,263 $74,519 $33,648 $100,304 $84,022 $30,062 $41,238 $79,067 $68,234 $131,086 $104,110 $80,441 $91,790 $63,708 $17,629 $0 n.d. n.d. n.d. $33,189 $94,838 $41,637 $119,530 $100,484 $35,372 $47,037 $88,357 $75,151 $142,069 $112,699 $85,993 $96,078 $72,671 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 $3,255 $0 $0 $18,414 $3,579 $18,574 $5,632 $1,290 $179 $33,737 $5,995 $3,249 $18,785 $22,573 $92,446 $40,532 $39,436 $38,198 $19,035 27.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a 73.5% 7.6% 3.8% 0.2% 40.2% 19.9% 7.9% 23.8% 33.1% 70.5% 38.9% 49.0% 41.6% 31.9% Total for Island of Hawai’i (adjusted for inflation2) $749,457 $734,560 $754,712 $928,889 $1,177,089 $1,567,971 $1,951,674 $1,359,614 $1,678,989 $1,487,458 $1,897,557 $1,727,782 $1,769,619 $1,793,852 $1,843,674 $1,954,715 $1,777,186 $1,446,670 $1,477,859 26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Of the 40 fish species which can now be collected in West Hawai′i (i.e., White List Species), over 90% of the economic value between 2000 and 2017 was derived from four species: the Yellow Tang which made up 75.3% of the total value; the Achilles Tang which made up 7.1% of the total value; the Kole which made up 5.6% of the total value; and, the Black Surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis; = Chevron Tang) which made up 4.9% of the total value. The remaining 36 species made up the remaining 7.2% of value during this time period (DAR 2018a). 4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES The cultural significance of each of the 40 White List Species is discussed in Section 4.4.1. Cultural, historic, and archaeological resources were evaluated within the nearshore habitats (0-600 feet; 0-100 fathoms, where commercial aquarium collection occurs). A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was prepared assessing the potential cultural impacts of issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits, and is included as Appendix A. A brief overview of cultural resources is provided here. The ocean, its ecosystem, and the practice of fishing were and continue to be important in Native Hawaiian culture and tradition. The belief system of Native Hawaiians links people with all living and non-living things (Mitchell et al. 2005). Under this belief system, because all components of ecosystems were descended from Wākea (sky father) and Papahanau-moku (earth mother) and their offspring, kini akua (multitude of gods), both living and non-living elements possess spiritual qualities and mana (spiritual power). As such, Native Hawaiians, as kanaka maoli (native people), are guardians of these ecosystems and their well-being is directly related to the well-being of these ecosystems (Mitchell et al. 2005). For example, areas such as wao akua (upland forests) are sacred places, the realm of the gods (Mitchell et al. 2005). Native Hawaiian land ownership and resource management were often based on a unit called the ahupua‘a, which typically corresponded with what we today call watershed areas. This understanding of the link from uplands to the ocean was ahead of its time (Mitchell et al. 2005). Kapu (taboo) systems that limited certain classes or sexes from eating certain animals or fishing in certain places or at certain times may have aided in the conservation of some species (e.g., only men were allowed to eat honu (green sea turtle) and only royalty could eat certain fishes) (Mitchell et al. 2005). Additionally, native species in Hawai‘i play a significant role in Native Hawaiian culture. Historically, feathers from forest birds were used to make elaborate capes, leis, and helmets for the ali‘i (royalty). Whale ivory, shells, and shark’s teeth were used for necklaces and other adornments (Mitchell et al. 2005). Fish and sea turtle bones were used as kitchen implements, tools, and fishhooks, while sea turtle shells and scutes were used as containers. Koa (Acacia koa) trees were used for the ocean-voyaging canoes (Mitchell et al. 2005). Native wildlife also play an important role in Native Hawaiian culture as many species such as the pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis [Hawaiian short-eared owl]), ‘io (Buteo solitarius [Hawaiian hawk]), ‘elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis [Hawaiian elepaio]), ‘alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis [Hawaiian crow]), sea turtles (e.g., Caretta spp., Chelonia spp., Dermochelys spp., Eretmochelys, and Lepidochelys spp.), and sharks (Hexanchus spp.) are believed to be ‘aumakua (ancestors or guardians) of certain Hawaiian families 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment (Mitchell et al., 2005). Hawaiian names have been given to many of the native wildlife and they have been incorporated into oli (chants) and mo‘olelo (legends). Native Hawaiian culture also contains specific customs, beliefs, and practices related to fisheries and aquatic resources (Maly and Maly 2003). Historical narratives include specific references to cultural sites, such as ko’a (on shore and in ocean fishing shrines and station markers), resources procurement sites (both on land and in the water), and the traditional and customary laws governing the care for, and use of, the wide range of resources from the uplands to the ocean (Maly and Maly 2003). These historical accounts demonstrate that Native Hawaiians worked the land, water, and marine resources and, through a system of religious-based fisheries management protocols, were able to sustain themselves through the natural resources of the islands (Maly and Maly 2003). Native Hawaiian traditions surrounding aquatic resources demonstrate the cultural-historical importance of fisheries and land in the lives of Native Hawaiians and form the basis for Native Hawaiian’s cultural attachment to the ocean and fishing today (Maly and Maly 2003). Historical accounts demonstrate that Native Hawaiians were expert fishermen, and that fishing was a skill passed down generation to generation (Maly and Maly 2003). Native Hawaiians relied on fishing in the ocean for subsistence and consumption and employed traditional fishing methods that included the use of nets, hooks and lines, baskets, and hands (Maly and Maly 2003). In addition to serving as a source of food, aquatic resources and the practice of fishing were also linked to religious practices. Fishing was associated with religious ceremonies and fishermen traditionally worshipped fishing gods and goddesses and performed rituals related to certain species of fish (Maly and Maly 2003). Numerous other examples of the use of native plants and animals in both daily life and ritual exist. In present day Hawai‘i, the link between Native Hawaiian culture and native species has not been lost and continues to be practiced in belief systems, as well as in traditional practices such as gathering of native plants for hula, traditional medicines, carving, weaving, and ceremonies (Mitchell et al. 2005). Today, Native Hawaiian teachings play an increasing role in natural resource management, especially in areas of cultural significance like Kaho‘olawe or Wao Kele o Puna (island of Hawai‘i). The CWCS recognizes that the State and its agencies are obligated to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of Native Hawaiians to the extent feasible, in accordance with Public Access Shoreline Hawai’i versus Hawai’i County Planning Commission and subsequent case law (Mitchell et al. 2005). 28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.2.1 Cultural Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery 4.2.1.1 In the WHRFMA From Jokiel et al. (2011): For the past century Hawai‘i has been dominated by a “Western” model of marine environmental management. Recently, however, there has been a renewed interest in the traditional management practices of ancient Hawaiians. Throughout Hawai‘i, a growing cultural, sociological, and scientific movement is working to investigate and revive some of these traditional management tools and to integrate them with modern scientific methodology. The native islanders had devised and implemented every basic form of what are now considered modern marine fisheries conservation measures centuries ago, long before the need for marine conservation was even recognized in Western nations (Johannes 1982). Traditional restrictions on fishing in Hawai‘i were achieved by the use of closed seasons, closed areas, size restrictions, gear restrictions, and restricted entry. Additional social, cultural, and spiritual controls strengthened the conservation ethic under the old system. Ancient Hawaiians used a holistic approach that we might now recognize and strive for as integrated coastal management. Bridging the gap between traditional management and Western science represents a challenge to researchers, government agencies, resource managers, cultural practitioners and organizations, and to the people of Hawai‘i. Act 306 and formation of the WHFC (Section 1.2.3) played a significant role in bridging that gap by creating a new aquarium fish management plan that is much closer to the traditional Hawaiian system. Commercial aquarium fish collection has been on-going in Hawai’i since the late 1940’s, with most fishers active in the fishery for more than 20 years and many active for 35 – 40 years. Protecting and preserving the reef, the fish, and the cultural heritage of both Hawai’i and the fishery, is in their best personal and business interest. Commercial aquarium fish collection is not a part of Native Hawaiian culture; however, Native Hawaiians do participate in and support the fishery and Hawaiian culture has been a significant aspect of the fishery’s management since the 1970’s. Although the process has been contentious at times, the WHFC has been successful. See Section 1.2.3.1 for a further description of their contributions and accomplishments. Section 4.4.1 summarizes the cultural significance of the White List Species. 4.2.1.2 Public and Private Aquariums More than 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide each year, and these zoos and aquariums spent more than $350 million on wildlife conservation in 2008 (Gusset and Dick 2011). Visits to aquariums may be for entertainment or educational purposes (as cited in Cracknell et al. 2015), but there are psychological benefits as well. Cracknell et al. (2015) looked at the behavioral, physiological and psychological reactions of people viewing a large aquarium exhibit, and found greater reduction in heart rate, greater increases in self-reported mood, higher interest, and longer spontaneous viewing times when species diversity within the aquarium was higher. Aquarium fish are also sold to home aquaria owners, of which 70% report that their fish are calming and stress reducing (Kidd and Kidd 1999, as cited in Cracknell et al. 2015), and for this reason aquariums are often present in health care settings as well, to provide a relaxing and calm environment (Cracknell et al. 2015). 29 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.3 PHYSICAL RESOURCES The Hawaiian Archipelago is composed of 8 main islands and approximately 124 smaller islands, reefs, and shoals spanning over 1,500 miles that vary in size from fractions of acres to thousands of square miles (Mitchell et al. 2005). The Archipelago was formed over the last 70 million years through volcanic eruptions from a relatively stationary hotspot beneath the slowly moving seafloor. The island of Hawai‘i is the youngest island, with island age increasing to the northwest as the Pacific plate carries the older islands away from the hotspot (Mitchell et al. 2005). Millions of years of erosion, subsidence, and reef building resulted in the formation of the atolls which form the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the submersion under the sea surface of the seamounts which used to be islands (Mitchell et al. 2005). Located over 2,000 miles from the nearest continent, Hawai‘i is the most remote island chain in the world (Mitchell et al. 2005). Despite its relatively small area (less than 4.1 million acres), an elevation range from sea level to 13,796 feet results in Hawai‘i containing all the major known ecological zones. With a wide temperature range due to the elevational gradient and with average annual rainfall ranging from less than 15 inches to over 480 inches per year, Hawai‘i displays most of the earth’s variation in climatic conditions. Finally, Hawai‘i possesses many natural wonders: the most active volcano in the world, the wettest place on earth, the tallest seacliffs, and extensive coral reefs (Mitchell et al. 2005). Due to the large number and the varied geology of the islands, Hawai‘i has diverse marine habitats, which range from estuaries, tidepools, sandy beaches, and seagrass beds to nearshore deep waters, extensive fringing and atoll reef systems, and smaller barrier reef systems (DLNR 2015). However, introduced mangroves have altered native coastal habitats in a number of places. The distribution of marine ecosystems in Hawai‘i is a result of island age, reef growth, water depth, exposure to wave action, geography, and latitude. The marine habitats found on each island depend on the type of island: large and young, mature, or drowned islands and seamounts (DLNR 2015). Large and young islands such as the island of Hawai‘i have recent lava flows and few, living structural coral reefs. Beaches are rocky except around bays, and drowned reefs may be found in deep waters or off parts of the east coast of Maui. Mature islands, such as O‘ahu and Kaua‘i in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and Nihoa and Necker in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) are the most diverse, with habitat types ranging from estuaries and sandy beaches to rocky beaches and fringing and barrier reefs to lagoons with patch or pinnacle reefs. Drowned islands, such as atolls in the rest of the NWHI, are the remains of volcanic islands with habitats ranging from coral islets and benches to caves and terraces along the slope of the atoll (DLNR 2015). 4.3.1 Climate Features of Hawai’i's climate include mild temperatures throughout the year, moderate humidity, persistence of northeasterly trade winds, significant differences in rainfall within short distances, and infrequent severe storms (Price 1983). For most of Hawai’i, there are only two seasons: "summer," between May and October, and "winter," between October and April. Hawai’i’s length of day and temperature are relatively uniform throughout the year. Hawai’i's longest and shortest days are about 13.5 hours and 11 hours, respectively, compared with 14.5 and 10 hours for Southern California and 15.5 hours and 8.5 hours for Maine (Price 1983). Uniform day lengths result in small seasonal variations in incoming solar radiation and, therefore, temperature. On a clear winter day, level ground in Hawai’i receives at least 67% as much 30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment solar energy between sunrise and sunset as it does on a clear summer day. By comparison the percentages are only 33 and 20 at latitudes 40 and 50 degrees respectively (Price 1983). Over the ocean near Hawai’i, rainfall averages between 25-30 inches per year. The islands receive as much as 15 times that amount in some places and less than one third of it in others. This is caused mainly by orographic or mountain rains, which form within the moist trade wind air as it moves from the sea over the steep and high terrain of the islands (Price 1983). Over the lower islands, the average rainfall distribution resembles closely the topographic contours. Amounts are greatest over upper slopes and crests and least in the leeward lowlands. On the higher mountains, the belt of maximum rainfall lies between 2,000-3,000 feet and amounts decrease rapidly with further elevation. As a result, the highest slopes are relatively dry (Price 1983). Another source of rainfall is the towering cumulus clouds that build up over the mountains and interiors on sunny calm afternoons. Although such convective showers may be intense, they are usually brief and localized. Hawai’i's heaviest rains are come from winter storms between October and April. While the effects of terrain on storm rainfall are not as great as on trade wind showers, large differences over small distances do occur, because of topography and location of the rain clouds. Differences vary with each storm. Frequently, the heaviest rains do not occur in areas with the greatest average rainfall. Relatively dry areas may receive, within a day or a few hours, totals exceeding half of their average annual rainfall (Price 1983). The leeward and other dry areas receive their rainfall mainly from a few winter storms. Therefore, their rainfall is usually seasonal and, their summers are dry. In the wetter regions, where rainfall comes from both winter storms and trade wind showers, seasonal differences are much smaller (Price 1983). At the opposite extreme, drought is not unknown in Hawai’i, although it rarely affects an entire island at one time. Drought may occur when there are either no winter storms or no trade winds (Price 1983). If there are no winter storms, the normally dry leeward areas are hardest hit. A dry winter, followed by a normally dry summer and another dry winter, can have serious effects. The absence of trade winds affects mostly the windward and upland regions, which receive a smaller proportion of their rain from winter storms (Price 1983). The waters surrounding Hawai‘i are affected by seasonal variations in climate and ocean circulation. The surface temperature of the oceans around Hawai‘i follow a north-south gradient and range from 75˚F in the MHI to 68˚F to 72˚F in the NWHI in winter and spring to 79˚F - 81˚F throughout all the islands in the late summer and fall (DLNR 2015). The depth of the thermocline, where water temperature reaches 50˚F, is 1,500 feet northwest of the islands and 1,000 feet off the island of Hawai‘i. Surface currents generally move east to west and increase in strength moving southward (DLNR 2015). The seas are rougher between islands than in the open ocean, because wind and water are funneled through the channels. Waves generated by north Pacific low-pressure systems are larger in the winter months than in the spring and are generally bigger on the northern shores of the islands than the southern shores. Marine organisms have adapted to these general climatological and oceanographic conditions (DLNR 2015). Climate and oceanographic indicators highlight long-term trends and recent anomalous conditions in West Hawai‘i’s natural environment. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an irregular, large-scale climate phenomenon that drives changes in regional oceanic and atmospheric conditions, has shifted over the last four decades towards increased frequency and severity in El Niño conditions, with the recent 2015 El Niño as one of the strongest on record (Gove et al. 2016). Rainfall, which can influence salinity, temperature, 31 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment sediment load, and nutrient concentrations in the marine environment, has been at or below the long-term average over the past 15 years while the intensity of short-term events has increased over the same time period. Long-term sea level, an important indicator for coastal erosion and flooding, is rising by an estimated 0.15 inch per year and is expected to reach 1.6 feet higher than present day levels by 2100. Sea surface temperature, an indicator of regional and climatic forcing that is highly influential to a myriad of ecological processes, was anomalously warm in recent years and reached a record level of thermal stress in September 2015, resulting in widespread and severe coral reef bleaching in West Hawai‘i (Gove et al. 2016). 4.3.2 Physical Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery Commercial aquarium fishers typically interact with physical resources within recreational dive limits (RDL), generally from 35-70 feet deep (BIAAF, pers. comm.). Deeper waters are fished to a lesser extent, in depths beyond RDL (130 feet). Habitats most often fished are shallow water reefs consisting of rich coral growth over rocky substrate. These reefs can be adjacent to the shoreline or apart and isolated far offshore, with the distance usually dictated by how fast the bathymetric relief occurs. Deep water fish are caught off the edge (ledge) of the reefs where the depth drops off rapidly. Coral cover diminishes and typically the habitat consists of rocks and sand. Aquarium fish collection is generally carried out by divers equipped with some form of underwater breathing apparatus (e.g., SCUBA, surface supplied air, rebreather equipment). Most fishing activity occurs off of a boat, although some shore diving does occur infrequently. Divers use hand nets, usually in combination with the placement of short, bottom-set barrier nets. Nets are typically 30 feet in length and 6 feet in height. Sometimes even smaller fence nets are used. Most often the netting is considered “fine” with a stretched mesh size less than 1 inch. The net is always made of monofilament. Other gear may include “poker sticks” (i.e., lightweight fiberglass poles used to herd fish), catch baskets or keeps (i.e., containers into which catch is transferred). Once the fisher(s) reaches the bottom he/she quickly identify fish of interest. Fish are typically gathered into groups utilizing poker sticks to move fish along the reef until a satisfactory number have accumulated. At this point, the fisher with the barrier net looks for a natural demarcation in the reef (e.g., strip of sand or rubble) to set the net. The net is set in a “V” formation to corral the fish as they are advanced into the net. The net is pulled back, halfway up creating a “pocket” and hooked onto bare substrate with some sort of fastener (e.g., rubber band). At this point the net is set and the fisher circles back on the gathered fish. The fish are then directed to the net and into the pocket. From the pocket, the fish are either scooped with a hand net, or collected by hand and transferred into a catch basket. All incidental catch is released immediately, and the net is gathered up. At the end of the dive the catch baskets are clipped onto a line suspended off the boat for a slow decompression. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Because of Hawai‘i’s geographical isolation, many of its coastal and marine species are endemic (i.e., native or restricted to a certain country or area) to the Hawaiian Archipelago (including Johnston Atoll). Approximately 15 to 25% of the marine species are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago, one of the largest 32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment proportions of marine endemism for any island chain in the world (Randall 2007, DLNR 2015). Of the 612 known nearshore fish species in Hawai’i, 25% are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago (Randall 2007). Yet because of the isolation, Hawai‘i has relatively low marine species richness (i.e., diversity), with approximately 580 shallow reef fish species in contrast to areas of the Pacific further west with thousands of species. In total though, Hawai‘i still has over 6,000 marine species (DLNR 2015). Toonen et al. (2011) conclude that the Hawaiian Archipelago is not a single, well-mixed marine community, but rather there are at least four significant multi-species barriers to dispersal along the length of the island chain, and that species that appear capable of extensive dispersal, such as Yellow Tang and Kole, show significant population differentiation within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In addition, there are significant consensus genetic breaks that restrict gene flow between islands, including a barrier between the island of Hawai’i and the rest of the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). Conversely, there is connectivity around the island of Hawai’i, with fish from protected FRAs being documented to seed unprotected areas, highlighting the effectiveness of protected areas (Christie et al. 2010). 4.4.1 White List Species Concerns over continued expansion of the commercial aquarium fishery and its effects in the Open Areas prompted DLNR in 2013 to establish a ‘White List’ of 40 species which can be taken by aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (Table 4-3). All other species of fish and invertebrates are off limits within the WHRFMA. Although other aquatic life is allowed to be collected from the eastern side of the island of Hawai’i, these 40 species represent the majority of fish that are collected in East Hawai’i. Table 4-3. White List Species (DAR 2019, Appendix A). Hawaiian Status1 Common Name(s) Scientific Name Hawaiian Name(s) Yellow Tang Zebrasoma flavescens Indigenous Achilles Tang Acanthurus achilles lā‘ī pala, lau‘ī pala pākukui, pākuikui, pāku‘iku‘i species of kole Indigenous species of hīnālea Endemic unknown Indigenous lauhau Indigenous na‘ena‘e Indigenous Black Surgeonfish (chevron tang) Shortnose (Geoffroy’s) Wrasse Goldrim Tang Fourspot Butterflyfish Orangeband (Shoulder) Surgeonfish Orangespine Unicornfish (Clown Tang) Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis Macropharyngodon geoffroy Acanthurus nigricans Chaetodon quadrimaculatus Acanthurus olivaceus Indigenous Forcepsfish Forcipiger flavissimus Spotted Boxfish (Boxfish) Yellowtail Coris (Clown Wrasse) Milletseed (Lemon) Butterflyfish Ostracion meleagris umaumalei, kala umaumalei lauwiliwili nukunuku ʻoiʻoi pahu, moa Coris gaimard hīnālea ‘akilolo Indigenous Chaetodon miliaris kīkākapu Endemic Naso lituratus Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous 33 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Scientific Name Hawaiian Name(s) Hawaiian Status1 Ctenochaetus strigosus kole, kole makaonaona Endemic Pseudojuloides cerasinus Gomphosus varius species of hīnālea hīnālea ‘iʻiwi kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili unknown lāʻō humuhumu ‘eleʻele Indigenous Indigenous species of humuhumu Indigenous Sufflamen bursa humuhumu lei, humuhumu umaumalei Indigenous Paracirrhites forsteri hilu, hilu pilikoʻa Indigenous Acanthurus thompsoni Hemitaurichthys polylepis species of kala kapuhili Indigenous Indigenous Chaetodon multicinctus kīkākapu Endemic Dascyllus albisella ‘āloʻiloʻi Endemic Thalassoma duperrey Cirrhitops fasciatus Pseudocheilinus octotaenia Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia hīnālea lauwili pilikoʻa Endemic Endemic species of hīnālea Indigenous Acanthurus nigrofuscus māʻiʻiʻi, māʻiʻi Indigenous Canthigaster jactator unknown Endemic Lutjanus kasmira unknown Invasive Cephalopholis argus unknown Invasive Psychedelic Wrasse Anampses chrysocephalus species of hīnālea Endemic Tinker's Butterflyfish Chaetodon tinkeri Longfin Anthias Flame Wrasse Fisher's Angelfish Eyestripe Surgeonfish (Palani) Pseudanthias hawaiiensis Cirrhilabrus jordani Centropyge fisheri kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili unknown species of hīnālea unknown Acanthurus dussumieri palani Common Name(s) Kole (Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) Pencil Wrasse Bird Wrasse Blacklip Butterflyfish (Coral Butterflyfish) Potter's Angelfish Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface) Black Durgon Gilded Triggerfish (Bluethroat Triggerfish) Lei Triggerfish (Forster’s) Blackside Hawkfish ’Thompson's Surgeonfish Pyramid Butterflyfish Multiband (Pebbled) Butterflyfish Hawaiian Dascyllus (Domino) Saddle Wrasse Redbarred Hawkfish Eightline Wrasse Fourlined Wrasse Brown Surgeonfish (Lavender, Forktail Tang) Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby (Puffer) Bluestripe Snapper (Taape) Peacock Grouper (Roi, bluespot Peacock Grouper) Chaetodon kleinii Centropyge potteri Halichoeres ornatissimus Melichthys niger Xanthichthys auromarginatus species of hīnālea Indigenous Endemic Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Endemic Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous species are species that are native to Hawaii (but may also be found elsewhere). Endemic species are found only within the Hawaiian Islands (including Johnston Atoll). Invasive species were introduced due to humans. 1 34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment The following sections provide a brief overview of the ecology and cultural significance of each White List Species. Further details on the cultural significance can be found in Appendix A. Population estimates presented below are based on the NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP; now known as the NOAA’s Ecosystem Science Division) and the DAR West Hawaii Aquarium Project (WHAP) (see Section 4.4.7 for discussion of CREP and WHAP). Population estimates derived from both data sets have varying degrees of variability (described in Section 4.4.7) and are not a measure of absolute abundance. In addition, the CREP estimates are island-wide in depths of 0-98 feet (0-30 meters). The WHAP population estimates include only the Open (fished) Areas of the WHRFMA in depths of 30-60 feet. The difference in survey methods and area often leads to large differences in population estimates between the two data sets. 4.4.1.1 Yellow Tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) Ecology The Yellow Tang is one of the most popular aquarium species, growing to 8 inches, oval in shape and laterally compressed, with a small mouth and eyes set high on the head. Adults are bright yellow and have modified scales along the base of the tail which can be exposed when the fish flexes its tail. These modified scales or spines are used for defense from predators and competition for feeding areas. At night, the yellow color darkens, and a white band appears along the lateral line (University of Hawai’i 2016). The Yellow Tang is found from shallow surge zones to a depth of 130 feet and occur in the Pacific Ocean: Ryukyu, Mariana, Marshall, Marcus, Wake, and Hawaiian Islands (Froese and Pauly 2019) The Yellow Tang is the only solid yellow fish common throughout Hawai’i. This species is found in subtropical waters and is rare on the western extremes of its range. Flexible comb-like teeth are used to pick algae and seaweed that grow along the reefs. Young Yellow Tangs are associated with finger coral (Porites compressa) which is abundant in the coastal waters of the island of Hawai’i, but less so on O’ahu (Dr. Bruce Carlson, pers. comm.). They spend a large amount of time feeding and aggressively protect prime feeding territories (University of Hawai’i 2016). Yellow Tang are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef-drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Yellow Tang at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitats was approximately 8,262,144 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Yellow Tang at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 1,663,775 individuals and in 2017/2018 was approximately 2,867,048 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). 35 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Cultural Significance The yellow tang, called lāʻī pala or lau‘ī pala in Hawai’i, although small was considered a delicacy and also involved in healing rituals. 4.4.1.2 Achilles Tang (Acanthurus achilles) Ecology A member of the surgeonfish family, the Achilles Tang grows to 10 inches, is laterally compressed, and has a small mouth and eyes set high on the head. Adults are recognized by the bright orange patch at the base of the tail, where modified scales can be exposed when the fish flexes its tail. These modified scales or spines are used for defense from predators and competition for feeding areas (University of Hawai’i 2016). The Achilles Tang is known in the West Pacific, Oceanic Islands of Oceania to the Hawaiian Islands and Pitcairn Islands as well as Wake, Marcus, and Mariana Islands. In the Eastern Central Pacific, they are found around the southern tip of Baja, California, Mexico, and other offshore islands (Froese and Pauly 2018). The Achilles Tang is present throughout Hawai’i and found near exposed coral reefs and rocky shores. Flexible comb-like teeth are used to pick algae and seaweed that grow along the reefs. They spend a large amount of time foraging and aggressively protecting prime feeding territories (University of Hawai’i 2016). Achilles Tang are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef-drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Achilles Tang at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitats was approximately 231,377 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Achilles Tang at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 21,627 individuals and in 2017/2018 was approximately 13,796 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). As discussed and analyzed in Section 5.0, the WHAP estimate is low because it does not assess the primary habitat and location of the Achilles Tang population on the island of Hawai’i. Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in MPAs (though shown a non-significant negative trend) and declined significantly in both FRAs and Open Areas (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Achilles Tang is commonly referred to in Hawai’i as pākuʻikuʻi. The spelling and pronunciation of the Hawaiian names, which include pākukui, pākuikui, and pākuʻikuʻi, vary. They were considered “good eating” (Pukui and Elbert 1986) and were also noted to be associated with Hawai’i Island and correlated with the kukui tree (Aleurites moluccana) that grows on land. 36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.1.3 Black Surgeonfish (Chevron Tang) (Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis) Ecology The Black Surgeonfish is widespread throughout the tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean. Juveniles have blue and purple patterns on an orange to red background, these colors fade as the individual matures. Modified scales are present along the base of the tail which can be exposed when the fish flexes its tail. These modified scales or spines are used for defense from predators and competition for feeding areas (Randall and Clements 2001). The Black Surgeonfish is the 5th most collected aquarium fish in Hawai’i (DAR 2010). Black Surgeonfish inhabits high energy shallow surge zones (IUCN 2017). The genus Ctenochaetus feed on fine detrital material. They whisk the sand or rocky substratum with their teeth and utilize suction to draw in the detrital material that consists of diatoms, small fragments of algae, organic material, and fine inorganic sediment (Randall and Clements 2001). Species of Ctenochaetus share the presence of a thick-walled stomach (Randall and Clements 2001), this character is significant with respect to the nutritional ecology of this genus (Choat et al. 2002. Black Surgeonfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Black Surgeonfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 549,462 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Black Surgeonfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 34,678 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 98,067 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Black Surgeonfish, also called ukole or pākole, is a species in the kole (meaning “raw” or “red”) family. Its cultural significance is tied to another surgeonfish commonly known as Kole (see Section 4.4.1.13). 4.4.1.4 Shortnose (Geoffroy’s) Wrasse (Macropharyngodon geoffroy) Ecology The Shortnose Wrasse is endemic throughout the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003) and is found at depths between 20 and 100 feet. It has dark blue spots on a yellow to orange background. Research suggests that the Shortnose Wrasse is common throughout its range (Craig 2010). This species inhabits mixed sand, rubble patches, and coral reefs where it feeds on mollusks (Lieske and Myers 1994). Distinct pairs are formed during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). 37 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Shortnose Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Shortnose Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 307,032 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Shortnose Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 3,222 individuals, and that estimate remained the same for 2017/2018 (3,222 individuals; DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance Hīnālea, occasionally shortened to ālea, is a name broadly applied to various species known commonly as wrasses and is applied to most of the smaller wrasses that have no known Hawaiian names (Hoover 2007). There are specific traditional fishing methods associated with wrasses. Melomelo involved using a carefully curated stick to attract the fish (Kahāʻulelio 2006). They were also caught in basket traps woven from plantbased fibers, including a diving basket known as hīnaʻi hoʻoluʻuluʻu which was made from the vines of the ‘āwikiwiki (Canvalia galeata). Standing nets known as kūkulu ‘upena and 18-foot long fishing poles called ke kāmākoi made of bamboo or hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) were also used to catch hīnālea (Manu et al. 2006). The ke kāmākoi were used in the nearshore reefs where the fisher could cast from shore. Yet another traditional method of catching hīnālea involved poison, a net called ‘upena holahola was used with certain piscicidal plants (i.e., containing a substance poisonous to fish) that were crushed and placed around a fishing hole, where the toxins from the crushed plants would diffuse into the water and paralyze the trapped fish, causing the hīnālea to float to the surface into the holahola net (Manu et al. 2006). The hīnālea is considered a popular fish of the Hawaiian diet, and they are referenced in many moʻolelo, or stories. They were also considered important for ceremonies, including as offerings for gods responsible for conceiving a child, and were also noted in several accounts of gods and goddesses. 4.4.1.5 Goldrim Tang (Acanthurus nigricans) Ecology The Goldrim Tang has a black to purplish-blue body with a small white mark on the cheek between the mouth and eyes. The fins are dark blue with lighter blue highlights along the edges. The tail is blue with a yellow vertical bar. A yellow stripe runs along the body, against the anal and dorsal fins, forming a wishboneshaped marking. This species can be found throughout the eastern Indian Ocean to the Hawaiian Islands. Adults grow to about 8 inches and have a spine along the base of the tail used for defense against predators (Myers 1991). The Goldrim Tang is found along outer reefs at water depths between 6 and 220 feet and feed almost entirely on algae. Spawning occurs in monogamous pairs during which time they can be alone or in small groups. Initially, larvae develop among plankton and then move to reefs where juveniles develop to adults (Kuiter and Tonozuka 2001). Goldrim Tang are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge 38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Goldrim Tang at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 97,924 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Goldrim Tang at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 7,517 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 5,966 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance While the Goldrim Tang is indigenous to Hawai’i, there are no known Hawaiian names or known cultural significance (Appendix A). 4.4.1.6 Fourspot Butterflyfish (Chaetodon quadrimaculatus) Ecology The upper half of the Fourspot Butterflyfish is black with two white spots. The lower half is yellow with a light blue trim around the dorsal and anal fins. They are sometimes confused with angelfish but lack a cheekspine. This species is found throughout the Indian Ocean. Individuals are frequently found on exposed reefs between 6 and 140 feet where they feed mainly on coral polyps. Fourspot Butterflyfish are often observed alone; however, they form district pairs during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). Fourspot Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Fourspot Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 797,673 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Fourspot Butterflyfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 22,000 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 15,034 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in FRAs, and has decreased significantly in Open Areas and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Fourspot Butterflyfish was named lauhau, which has been translated as “brightly colored butterfly fish”. They are known for a characteristic of creating disturbances in the sea pool, and this can also be used to reference a boisterous person (Pukui 1983). They were traditionally caught using the kūkulu ‘upena method, or a standing net, which was cast from the shore. Conflicting reports exists as to whether or not this species was valued as a food fish. 39 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.1.7 Orangeband (Shoulder) Surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus) Ecology The Orangeband Surgeonfish occurs in tropic waters of the Indo-west Pacific. The head and anterior half of the Orangeband Surgeonfish are distinctly paler than that of the dark grayish brown posterior. Juveniles are bright yellow. Orangeband Surgeonfish are commonly found in small groups near reefs at depths of 30 to 150 feet (Randall and Clements 2001) where they feed on detritus, diatoms, and algae (Myers 1991). Orangeband Surgeonfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Orangeband Surgeonfish at the 098-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,319,924 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Orangeband Surgeonfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 26,101 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 53,694 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas and MPAs and has remained stable in FRAs (and shown a non-significant increasing trend in density; DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Orangeband Surgeonfish is commonly referred to as naʻenaʻe (“quick, alert”) (Pukui and Elbert 1986). The name na‘ena‘e is also applied to a native daisy known for its small yellow, orange, purple, or white flower (Pukui and Elbert 1986). A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any additional cultural information for the Orangeband Surgeonfish. 4.4.1.8 Orangespine Unicornfish (Clown Tang) (Naso lituratus) Ecology The Orangespine Unicornfish has a black dorsal fin, with the black continuing onto the back as a pointed projection, with a pale blue line at base. The anal fin is mainly orange while the caudal fin is yellow. The caudal peduncle bears two forward-directed spines (Randall and Clements 2001). Orangespine Unicornfish are found at depths of 16 to 100 feet along coral, rock, and rubble of seaward reefs. They feed mostly on leafy brown algae and sometimes in groups (Randall and Clements 2001). Distinct pairs are formed during breeding. Orangespine Unicornfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). 40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment The species is found throughout the Indo-Pacific from the Red Sea (except the Gulf of Oman and Persian Gulf) south to Natal and east to Hawai’i and French Polynesia. In the western Pacific from Suruga Bay to the southern Great Barrier Reef (Randall and Clements 2001). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Orangespine Unicornfish at the 098-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 897,085 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Orangespine Unicornfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 150,642 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 180,099 individuals (DAR2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increase significantly in Open Areas and MPAs and has remained stable in FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Orangespine Unicornfish is also known as the umaumalei. This species has been paired with its land counterpart the ‘ūlei (Hawaiian Rose; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia) (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978). While the umaumalei is a specific species within the family Acanthuridae, some traditional accounts classify it under the name kala or kala umaumalei (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1867; Titcomb 1972). Kala in all of its forms was a popular Hawaiian delicacy, containing white meat and usually eaten broiled over coals and rarely eaten raw. The soft parts of the fish are described as good palu (fish bait). Kala is very abundant and easy to catch which is why it is eaten often (Titcomb 1972). The skin of the kala was also used to cover the pūniu, a small drum that was lashed onto the thigh of a hula dancer. During the spawning seasons, certain fish were prohibited from being caught and consumed, which included kala (Titcomb 1972). They were traditionally caught in the ‘ie kala (lit. kala basket), which has been described as the largest type of hīnaʻi (basket fish trap) (Manu et al. 2006). Additional methods for catching kala included the use of a holoholo, a net tied to a 12-foot-long piece of alaheʻe (Canthium odoratum) wood. The net was lowered down in an area with swift-ebbing tides with one person holding the net and the other corralling fish into it (Manu et al. 2006). Hinaʻi pai kala, was a method of using a plaited basket as a net. The basket was filled with limu kala (seaweed), kalo (taro) and pumpkin and then let down for the fish to feed. This process was continued until the fish became plump and accustomed to feeding in the basket, then a “catching net” was lowered down to collect kala. 4.4.1.9 Forcepsfish (Forcipiger flavissimus) Ecology The Forcepsfish has a long black snout, and the head is dark brown to black above and white below. The body is yellow with a black spot on the anal fin. Adults can grow up to 8 inches. This species is widespread throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the tropical waters of the Indo-Pacific area (University of Hawai’i 2016). The Forcepsfish typically lives along exposed outer reefs containing abundant coral growth, caves, and ledges, and occasionally within lagoon reefs. This species usually occurs in pairs but may also be encountered as solitary animals or in small groups. It feeds on a variety of small animals including hydroids, 41 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment fish eggs, and crustaceans, but prefers tube feet of echinoderms, pedicellaria of sea urchins, and polychaete tentacles (Myers 1991). Forcepsfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Forcepsfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 435,954 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Forcepsfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 43,999 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 39,734 (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas and MPAs and has increased significantly in FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Forcepsfish is also known as the lauwiliwili nuku ‘oiʻoi. A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any additional cultural information related to this species. 4.4.1.10 Spotted Boxfish (Boxfish) (Ostracion meleagris) Ecology The Spotted Boxfish is Hawai’i’s most common boxfish. Juvenile and female Spotted Boxfish are brown to green with white spots while the males have orange bands and spots on the side of the body. They are found throughout the Hawaiian Islands and inhabit clear lagoons and seaward reefs from 3 to 100 feet. Juveniles are often observed among rocky boulders (Myers 1991). Spotted Boxfish live in small haremic groups, usually one male to several females. They forage alone within their home ranges for sponges, worms, mollusks, copepods, and algae. Males defend territories against other males (Myers 1991). Spotted Boxfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Spotted Boxfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 94,937 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Spotted Boxfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 9,322 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 12,877 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). 42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Cultural Significance The Spotted Boxfish, commonly known as pahu, meaning “box” or moa (a Proto Polynesian word; Pakui and Elbert 1986) were traditionally kapu (forbidden) for women to eat (Kent 1986). Titcomb (1972) adds that there was little flesh on this fish and that they were not eaten. 4.4.1.11 Yellowtail Coris (Clown Wrasse) (Coris gaimard) Ecology Juvenile Yellowtail Coris are bright red with white spots, as individuals mature into females they fade to orange with blue spots and a bright yellow tail. Like other wrasses (Family Labridae) adults may undergo a sex change from female to male. Males are distinguished by a green bar on the side of the body and a dark band on the upper and lower fins and numerous blue spots (University of Hawai’i 2016). The Yellowtail Coris is a solitary species that is found in mixed coral, sand and rubble of outer reefs, lagoons, and seaward reefs. They feed primarily on mollusks, crabs, and tunicates (Myers 1991). Prominent canine teeth help this fish pick small crustaceans and mollusks from the reef. Active during the day, they take shelter in reef crevices or bury in sand at night (University of Hawai’i 2016). Distribution ranges are from Western Australia, Cocos – Keelings Islands, Christmas Island in the eastern Indian Ocean, Southern Japan to New South Wales, Lord Howe Island and east to Hawaiian Islands (Randall 2007). Phylogeographic analyses show that the Hawaiian population is genetically distinct from elsewhere in the Pacific (Ahti et al. 2016). Yellowtail Coris are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Yellowtail Coris at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 391,507 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2104 WHRFMA Open Area population of Yellowtail Coris at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 19,762 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 18,256 (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Yellowtail Coris is also known as the hinālea ‘akilolo, which were noted for their medicinal value. The word ‘akilolo means “brain biting,” (Pukui and Elbert 1986), and this species was used by kahuna (priests) as a pani, or closing medicine, for someone suffering from a head sickness or disease. This variety was also a highly favored delicacy for eating because of its sweet taste. It was traditionally “eaten with salt, dried, broiled over coals or wrapped in ti leaves and then baked or broiled” (Titcomb 1972). See also Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which include Yellowtail Coris. 43 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.1.12 Milletseed (Lemon) Butterflyfish (Chaetodon miliaris) Ecology The Milletseed Butterfly fish is endemic to Hawai’i and the most common species of butterflyfish in Hawai’i including the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). The species is named for the seed-sized black specks that are distributed in vertical rows on its lemon-yellow body. Other distinctive features are a black mask through the eye and a black spot near the tail. Adults reach lengths of 6.5 inches (University of Hawai’i 2016). Habitat for this species includes coastal fringing reefs, lagoons, and outer reefs, with juveniles found on shallow inner reefs from April to June (IUCN 2017). The Milletseed Butterflyfish feeds primarily on zooplankton above the reef, but sometimes cleans other fishes and is also known to feed on nests of damselfish eggs if left unprotected. Milletseed Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Milletseed Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 122,588 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Milletseed Butterflyfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 7,085 individuals. However, much of the Milletseed Butterflyfish population occurs below the 60-foot depth surveyed by the WHAP and below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP, and therefore the population is underestimated by both surveys. Cultural Significance The name kīkākapu is used to describe a number of butterflyfish species and were considered sacred (Titcomb 1972). Fornander (1916) reported the name is used in many chants. The Milletseed Butterflyfish is called lau wiliwili or lauhau wiliwili, meaning “wiliwili leaf,” because its shape is believed to resemble the endemic wiliwili tree (Erythrina sandwicensis). 4.4.1.13 Kole (Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) (Ctenochaetus strigosus) Ecology The Kole is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands (Randall and Clements 2001) and Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). It is brown with light blue to yellow horizontal stripes over its body which change into spots towards the face. It also has a yellow ring surrounding the eye. Individuals are usually solitary and mainly found in shallow water, although it has been recorded at depths of 370 feet. This species is herbivorous, grazing on diatoms and algae from the sand or reef (Randall and Clements 2001), and has also been commonly observed to clean algal growths from the shells of sea turtles (Work and Aeby 2014). 44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Kole are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Kole at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 11,697,561 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Kole at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 3,616,529 individuals and in 2017/2018 was approximately 5,312,745 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance Kole, meaning “raw” or “red” (Pakui and Elbert 1986), are also known as ukole or pākole. The kole makaonaona (specifically, Ctenochaetus strigosus), is the more popular eating variety of Kole. Pukui (1983) explains that the English word “story” was Hawaiianized to “kole,” and that this proverbial saying uses kole as a metaphor for describing the excitement of getting together to share stories. Although the kole is known as being tough-skinned, it is considered a favorite fish to eat raw. Kole was also important for traditional practices and customs relating to the home, as it was believed to hole, or strip, the house of unwanted spiritual energy (Titcomb 1972). 4.4.1.14 Pencil Wrasse (Pseudojuloides cerasinus) Ecology Body color and pigmentation has been shown to vary geographically in the Pencil Wrasse; however, the most common coloration is a salmon pink body with yellowish fins. A blue to yellow double stripe extends from the head to the tail. Adults can grow up to 5 inches (Myers 1991). This species is found throughout Indian and Pacific oceans from east Africa to the Hawaiian Islands. The Pencil Wrasse is found in clear lagoons, outer reef faces, and coral rubble at depths of 7 to 200 feet. They are also common among live coral and areas with large algae clumps (Myers 1991). When threatened, they will hide among the rubble, bury in the sand, or try to out-swim predators. Pencil Wrasses feed on small, benthic invertebrates, mainly fan worms and small crustaceans that they pluck from the substrate. The Pencil Wrasse is found in areas with abundance of sand and gradual bathymetric relief; typically, north western region of the Big Island (BIAAF pers. comm.). Pencil Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Pencil Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 169,025 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Pencil Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 19,390 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 17,182 (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of 45 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in FRAs and MPAs, and has increased significantly in Open Areas (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which includes the Pencil Wrasse. 4.4.1.15 Bird Wrasse (Gomphosus varius) Ecology The Bird Wrasse has an elongated body and is laterally compressed. Adults can reach 12 inches and are easily recognized by their long snout; juveniles lack the snout and are thus difficult to identify. The first third of the body is lightly colored and the posterior is grayish with a dark border. Males tend to be more uniformly colored (Myers 1999). The Bird Wrasse is commonly found along external slopes, reefs, and lagoons at depths of 6 to 100 feet (Myers 1991). This wrasse feeds mainly on small benthic crustaceans, and sometimes on small fishes, brittle stars, and mollusks. The Bird Wrasse is a sequential hermaphrodite, meaning juveniles develop first into females and then change to males based on external stimuli (Randall et al 1990). Bird Wrasse are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Bird Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 877,224 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Bird Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 43,254 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 66,581 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas and has increased significantly in MPAs and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which includes the Bird Wrasse. 4.4.1.16 Blacklip Butterflyfish (Coral Butterflyfish) (Chaetodon kleinii) Ecology The body of the Blacklip Butterflyfish is yellow/brown with one or two broad lighter vertical bars, one running from the dorsal spine to the belly, and one from the middle of the back to the center of the body. A black bar runs vertically across the eye, the part before this is whitish, with a black snout. The color varies somewhat across its range (Burgess 1978). 46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment The Blacklip Butterflyfish is found along rocky reefs and coral-rich areas of lagoons, channels, and outer reef slopes at depths of 6-200 feet. This species is mostly solitary but has been observed in pairs, and occasionally in large groups of up to about 30 individuals, sometimes high in the water column. It is a facultative corallivore, feeding on hard and soft corals, as well as algae, hydroids, and zooplankton (Myers 1991). Distinct pairing has been observed during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). Its range includes the east coast of Africa to the Hawaiian Islands and South Wales (Randall 2007). Blacklip Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Blacklip Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 131,260 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Blacklip Butterflyfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 5,593 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 39,734 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas and FRAs and has remained stable in MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Blacklip Butterflyfish is a member of the butterflyfish genus, which were sometimes eaten, but more commonly caught and used for certain rituals and ceremonies. The Blacklip Butterflyfish, along with Tinker’s Butterflyfish, were commonly referred to as kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, or lauwiliwili. The term kapuhili translates as “…many taboos inherited from chiefly ancestors or from the gods; person with many taboos” (Elbert and Pukui 1986). The name kīkākapu is used to describe a variety of butterflyfish species which were considered sacred (Titcomb 1972). Fornander (1916) reported the name is used in many chants. 4.4.1.17 Potter's Angelfish (Centropyge potteri) Ecology The bright orange and blue Potter’s Angelfish is an endemic species found along Hawaiian reefs and the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). Like other angelfishes, this species is recognized by a heavy, curved spine on its “cheek” near the edge of the gill cover. However, because it generally only reaches approximately 5 inches, it is considered a ‘pygmy’ angelfish. Its slender, disc-shaped body is well-suited to life on a coral reef. Individuals limit their movements to a well-defined area close to the shelter of finger coral branches, usually at depths of at least 15 feet. Active by day, it feeds on algae and detritus on dead coral surfaces. At night, it remains alert but inactive, protected within the coral. Angelfishes are very dependent upon the protection of coral caves and crevices and are rarely seen over sandy stretches or other areas that offer little cover. They are often territorial and spend most of their time near the bottom in search of food. They have small mouths and many flexible, comb-like teeth used for plucking or scraping food from the rocks (University of Hawai’i 2016). 47 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Peak reproductive activity occurs from mid-December through May. They spawn at dusk during the week before full moon (Allen 1985a). Among angelfishes, a sex reversal from female to male can be part of the life history. Most small individuals are female and larger, more colorful individuals are male. Larger, brighter males are usually accompanied by smaller, drabber females, forming a harem. A dominant female Potter’s Angelfish changes sex to become the harem master if the male is removed (University of Hawai’i 2016). Potter’s Angelfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Potter’s Angelfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,087,709 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Potter’s Angelfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 237,149 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 265,488 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Potter’s Angelfish is named after Frederick A. Potter, who was the first Director of the Honolulu Aquarium. The species is endemic, but a review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any specific Hawaiian names or any specific cultural information related to this species. 4.4.1.18 Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface) (Halichoeres ornatissimus) Ecology This small wrasse has a pinkish head that is marked with horizontal green lines. The throat and belly are blue; scales on the sides are marked by a vertical, crescent-shaped stripe followed by blue. The dorsal fin is dark red with green spots and is traced by green and blue lines. A large dark spot on the dorsal fin and one just behind the eye are common identifiers. Males usually have more intense coloration than females (University of Hawai’i 2016). The Ornate Wrasse range extends from the Philippines to the Great Barrier Reef, New Caledonia, and east to the Hawaiian Islands (Randall 2007). The Ornate Wrasse has an elongate soft body that is tapered and spindle-shaped. The dorsal fin is continuous, rounded, and soft. The pectoral fins are used extensively for swimming with up and down motions. The snout has a pointed mouth, fleshy lips, and canine teeth used in plucking small crustaceans and mollusks from the reef. Special bones in the gill area called pharyngeal bones help the wrasse crush the shells of their prey. The Ornate Wrasse is diurnal, feeding during the day, and sheltering in reef crevices or burying in sand patches at night. The Ornate Wrasse, like others within this family (Labridae) undergo sex changes as they develop (University of Hawai’i 2016). Ornate Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). 48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Ornate Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,630,224 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Ornate Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 192,404 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 196,879 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has significantly declined in Open Areas and FRAs and has increased significantly in MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Ornate Wrasse is also referred to as lāʻō (Titcomb 1972). A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any additional cultural information for the Ornate Wrasse. 4.4.1.19 Black Durgon (Melichthys niger) Ecology The Black Durgon is a triggerfish with bright white lines running along its dorsal and anal fins. The body is mottled dark blue or green with an orange head (Hoover 2008). The habitat preference of the Black Durgon includes open waters and shallow exposed reefs at water depths of 15 to 115 feet. The diet consists primarily of calcareous algae and zooplankton. A study conducted in the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago showed the feces and vomit of Spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) formed part of the diet of Black Durgon. The study showed individuals could discern the postures dolphins assumed prior to voiding and would position themselves for effective feeding (Sazima et al. 2003). The Black Durgon has a circumtropical distribution (Randall 2007). The Black Durgon produce demersal eggs that may or may not be tended by a parent, usually the female. Unlike most other families of reef fishes, the balistids (i.e., triggerfish) exhibit extensive maternal care of eggs. Eggs are typically deposited in shallow pits excavated by the parents as an adhesive egg mass containing bits of sand and rubble. Triggerfish eggs hatch in as little as 12 hours and no more than 24 hours (WPRFMC 2005). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Black Durgon at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,354,454 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Black Durgon at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 38,033 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 92,354 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The humuhumu, meaning “to sew, stitch,” is a general name used to refer to many different varieties of trigger fish, including, but not limited to, the humuhumu ‘eleʻele or the Black Durgeon (Titcomb 1972). The species was historically eaten, using a variety of methods, and with varying reports on its tastiness or 49 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment popularity. If humuhumu were caught in large numbers, then the remains, particularly the head, would be tossed into the fire to help keep the fire burning because of its oils. Titcomb (1972) documents a gathering method for these fish that involved lowering a basket with cooked pumpkins or sweet potatoes as bait onto a school of fish. While the fish attacked the bait in a frenzy the basket would be hoisted up and the fish caught. 4.4.1.20 Gilded Triggerfish (Bluethroat Triggerfish) (Xanthichthys auromarginatus) Ecology The Gilded Triggerfish is found throughout the Indian and Pacific oceans from east Africa to the Hawaiian Islands. The female Gilded Triggerfish lacks the blue patch on the throat and yellow tail of the male. Both sexes have a blue ring around the eye and a lavender/gray blue body with gray to white spots that make a linear pattern. Adults can grow up to 12 inches. This species is found along drop-offs and ledges at water depths of 75 to 480 feet. This species prefers current-swept areas with abundant invertebrate growth. Small groups have been observed at 10-20 feet above the bottom feeding on zooplankton, specifically copepods (Breder and Rosen 1966). The Gilded Triggerfish produce demersal eggs that may or may not be tended by a parent, usually the female. Unlike most other families of reef fishes, the balistids (i.e., triggerfish) exhibit extensive maternal care of eggs. Eggs are typically deposited in shallow pits excavated by the parents as an adhesive egg mass containing bits of sand and rubble. Triggerfish eggs hatch in as little as 12 hours and no more than 24 hours (WPRFMC 2005). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Gilded Triggerfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 129,089 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Gilded Triggerfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 11,186 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 3,222 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has decreased significantly in Open Areas, MPAs, and FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Gilded Triggerfish is a species of humuhumu. See Section 4.4.1.19 for a discussion of the cultural significance. 4.4.1.21 Lei Triggerfish (Sufflamen bursa) Ecology The Lei Triggerfish is found throughout the Indian and Pacific oceans from east Africa to the Hawaiian Islands. This species is also known as the boomerang triggerfish for the characteristic V-shaped mark behind the eye which is yellow-orange or brown-green. Adults can grow up to 9.5 inches. 50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment This species is common on clear inner and outer reefs and drop-offs from 10 to 300 feet, where they feed on crabs, bivalves, gastropods, algae, echinoids, tunicates, worms, eggs, and detritus. Lei Triggerfish have been shown to form distinct pairing during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). The Lei Triggerfish produce demersal eggs that may or may not be tended by a parent, usually the female. Unlike most other families of reef fishes, the balistids (i.e., triggerfish) exhibit extensive maternal care of eggs. Eggs are typically deposited in shallow pits excavated by the parents as an adhesive egg mass containing bits of sand and rubble. Triggerfish eggs hatch in as little as 12 hours and no more than 24 hours (WPRFMC 2005). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Lei Triggerfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,299,027 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Lei Triggerfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 76,440 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 92,354 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas and FRAs and has increased significantly in MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The humuhumu lei or humuhumu umaumalei, or the Lei Triggerfish (Titcomb 1972) is a species of humuhumu. See Section 4.4.1.19 for a discussion of the cultural significance. 4.4.1.22 (Forster’s) Blackside Hawkfish (Paracirrhites forsteri) Ecology The Blackside Hawkfish is yellow with a broad black or dark brown lateral band on the rear half of the body. The sides of the head and the front of the body are whitish or grey, with red speckles but there is considerable color variation among adults (Randall 1986). Geographical differences in color have also been recorded in juveniles (Myers 1999). This species ranges throughout the Indian and Pacific oceans. Adults can grow up to 8 inches. The Blackside Hawkfish is commonly found in clear lagoons or seaward reefs at a depth of 15 to 115 feet (Lieske and Myers 1994). To hunt, the hawkfish perches on branches of coral and ambushes small fish, crustaceans, and shrimp. This species is a sequential hermaphrodite, meaning juveniles develop into females and then change to males based on external stimuli (Myers 1999). Blackside Hawkfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Blackside Hawkfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 246,727 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Blackside Hawkfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 20,508 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 23,625 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the 51 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in MPAs and FRAs, and has decreased significantly in Open Areas (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Blackside Hawkfish is known by many names, including hilu, ‘eleʻele, lauwili, melemele, moelola, pano, pāniʻo, pilikoʻa, ʻula and uli, but is most commonly referred to as hilu (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Considered an “excellent eating” fish, hilu was traditionally either eaten raw, dried or salted and baked or broiled (Malo 1951). Because of the quiet demeanor of the species, it was associated with quiet children or ladylike behavior (Titcomb 1972; Handy and Pukui 1998). 4.4.1.23 Thompson's Surgeonfish (Acanthurus thompsoni) Ecology The body of the Thompson’s Surgeonfish is uniformly black to dark brown. The caudal fin is pale with a small dark spot below the pectoral fin. This species ranges throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This species inhabits steep outer reef slopes and drop-offs of 16 to 230 feet deep. Thompson’s Surgeonfish have been observed schooling in groups feeding on zooplankton, fish eggs and crustaceans (Randall 1956). Thompson’s Surgeonfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Thompson’s Surgeonfish at the 098-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 405,776 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Thompson’s Surgeonfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 91,728 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 271,693 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Thompson’s Surgeonfish is a species of Kala (Pukui and Elbert 1986). See Section 4.4.1.8 for more information on kala. 4.4.1.24 Pyramid Butterflyfish (Hemitaurichthys polylepis) Ecology The Pyramid Butterflyfish has a dark brown-yellow area that fully masks the head and extends to a line from the first rays of the dorsal fin to the start of the pelvic fins. The rest of its body is white. Large yelloworange areas at the top of the side form a characteristic pyramidal pattern, giving this species its name. 52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment This species is found throughout the tropical and subtropical waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans (Myers 1999). This fish aggregates in large schools in open water at the edges of steep outer reef slopes at depths of 10 to 200 feet (Lieske and Myers 1994). The Pyramid Butterflyfish feeds mostly on plankton and forms pairs during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). Pyramid Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Pyramid Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 23,217 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Pyramid Butterflyfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 56,677 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 37,586 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has decreased significantly in Open Areas and MPAs and has remained stable in FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance Butterflyfish, while sometimes eaten, appear to have been more commonly caught and used for certain rituals and ceremonies. The Pyramid Butterflyfish, along with other species of butterflyfish, were known as kapuhili, which translates as “…many taboos inherited from chiefly ancestors or from the gods; person with many taboos” (Elbert and Pukui 1986, as cited in Appendix A). 4.4.1.25 Multiband (Pebbled) Butterflyfish (Chaetodon multicinctus) Ecology The Multiband Butterflyfish is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). The body is white with five or six brown vertical bands. A dark vertical bar runs along the eye and a black band along the tail fin. The distinguishing feature is an overall covering of small spots which create a pattern of horizontal and vertical lines along the body. The Multiband Butterflyfish inhabits heavy coral areas of lagoon and seaward reefs at depths of 15 to 100 feet. This species mainly feeds on the polyps of small corals but also supplement their diet with worms, shrimps, hydroids, and algae fragments. This species is often seen in monogamous pairs and defending an established territory (Breder and Rosen 1966). Multiband Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). 53 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Multiband Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,788,604 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Multiband Butterflyfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 580,196 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 378,843 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species declined significantly in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The name kīkākapu is used to describe a number of butterflyfish species and were considered sacred (Titcomb 1972). See also Section 4.4.1.16 for a discussion of the cultural significance of kīkākapu, which includes the Multiband Butterflyfish. 4.4.1.26 Hawaiian Dascyllus (Domino) (Dascyllus albisella) Ecology The Hawaiian Dascyllus is endemic to shallow, protected coral reefs around the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). The center of the body is pale white, and the edges are dark gray to black. This species feeds on zooplankton, invertebrates, and algae at water depths of 3 to 160 feet. Adults are most often observed in protected areas of shallow water with coral or rocky bottoms (Lieske and Myers 1994). Breeding occurs in pairs with eggs deposited in substrate and the males guarding and aerating (Breder and Rosen 1966). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Hawaiian Dascyllus at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 225,153 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Hawaiian Dascyllus at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 57,796 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 63,359 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas and MPAs and has increased significantly in FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Hawaiian Dascyllus is also known as the ʻāloʻiloʻi. The young stages of the fish are called ‘a, or ‘aʻa and also referred to as “ʻaʻakimakau (bait nibbling) which “is a term for a variety or perhaps an alternative name” (Malo 1951). The ‘āloʻiloʻi is referenced in the ʻōlelo noʻeau, “he ‘āloʻiloʻi, ka iʻa waha iki o ke kai,” literally translated as “an ‘āloʻiloʻi, a fish of the sea that has a small mouth” (Pukui 1983). Pukui (1983) relates that this was “said of one who always has little to say.” ‘Āloʻiloʻi were considered “a tasty fish,” and were preferred “eaten raw or cooked on hot ashes” (Titcomb 1972). A method of collecting ʻālo‘iloʻi for consumption was the kūkulu ‘upena, or a standing net, which was cast from shore. 54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.1.27 Saddle Wrasse (Thalassoma duperrey) Ecology The Saddle Wrasse is a common and endemic reef fish of Hawai’i and Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). It is found at depths ranging from 16 to 98 feet. This species has a blue head, green body with a prominent red saddle and purple highlights around the edges of the fins (University of Hawai’i 2016). This species is commonly observed alone, in pairs, or in small groups close to the reef where they forage for small crustaceans, mollusks, worms, urchins, and brittlestars. Canine teeth are used to pick these invertebrates from the reef. Most individuals begin life as females, when older they show the typical blue, red, and green pattern. Females that change to males, which is common in the wrasse family (Labridae) and have a white bar behind the red saddle. These sex-changed males are called “terminal phase” males and become dominant territory holders that maintain a harem of females (University of Hawai’i 2016). Saddle Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Saddle Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 6,396,052 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Saddle Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 537,688 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 140,947 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has declined significantly in Open Areas and FRAs and has remained stable in MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Saddle Wrasse is also known as hinālea lauwili, which is believed to have been named in reference to the wiliwili tree which has bright orange flowers. The species is often mentioned in moʻolelo (stories) and is referenced in traditional fishing practices as well. The fish was historically eaten, though the hard scales on the fish meant that it was usually skinned, and it was often eaten raw. See also Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which include the Saddle Wrasse. 4.4.1.28 Redbarred Hawkfish (Cirrhitops fasciatus) Ecology The Redbarred Hawkfish is found throughout the Hawaiian Islands and Indo-Pacific oceans in a variety of reef habitats at depths of 3 to 170 feet. Primary habitats include seaward reefs and areas with abundant coral growth (Lieske and Myers 1994). Bright red bands and speckles are found on the body, adults grow to 5 inches. This species feeds primarily on small fish, shrimp, and crab and occasionally on zooplankton (Randall 1985). The name hawkfish comes from their habit of “swooping” down on prey or invaders from “perches”. 55 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Redbarred Hawkfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Redbarred Hawkfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 231,580 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Redbarred Hawkfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 9,665 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 6,443 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Redbarred Hawkfish is also known as piliko‘a, which means “clinging to coral” (Titcomb 1972). A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any additional cultural information for the Redbarred Hawkfish. 4.4.1.29 Eightline Wrasse (Pseudocheilinus octotaenia) Ecology The Eightline Wrasse is widespread from east Africa to the Hawaiian Islands. This species has variable color patterns from yellowish/orange to a pink/reddish body. The distinguishing feature of this species are the eight horizontal stripes, ranging from orange to a maroon red. They have a pointed head and mouth which enable them to feed on coral reef invertebrates such as, mollusks, sea urchins, fish eggs, and crab larvae (Myers 1991, 1999). The Eightline Wrasse inhabits corals and seaward reefs at depths of 6 to 164 feet (Myers 1991) and forms distinct mating pairs (Breder and Rosen 1966). This species is diurnal, feeding during the day and resting at night. Eightline Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Eightline Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 689,221 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Eightline Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 187,557 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 187,930 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has declined significantly in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which include the Eightline Wrasse. 56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.1.30 Fourline Wrasse (Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia) Ecology The Fourline Wrasse is found in the tropical waters of the north and south Pacific. This species has a green body with blue and purple fins and four horizontal stripes that run across the upper half of the body. Each stripe is made up of three smaller stripes: one black, one blue and one red stripe. The eye is red with two white lines on it. This species is secretive and inhabits seaward reefs, among coral or rubble at depths of 20 to 144 feet. This species uses the small heads of live coral to hide from predators (Myers 1991) and is thought to mainly feed on demersal eggs, copepods, amphipods, alpheid shrimp, crabs, larval shrimp, and gastropods (Myers 1999). The Fourline Wrasse forms distinct pairing during breeding (Breder and Rosen 1966). Fourline Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Fourline Wrasse at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 1,253,164 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2104 WHRFMA Open Area population of Fourline Wrasse at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 327,758 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 227,663 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas and FRAs and has decreased significantly in MPAs (DAR 2019a). Due to this species’ secretive behavior, visual counts usually underestimate its numbers, Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which includes the Fourline Wrasse. 4.4.1.31 Brown Surgeonfish (Lavender, Forktail Tang) (Acanthurus nigrofuscus) Ecology The Brown Surgeonfish is one of the 10 most collected aquarium fish in West Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). This species is common throughout the Indo-Pacific oceans and is one of the most abundant surgeon fishes (Randall 2002). It is a small but aggressive fish with bluish gray vertical stripes along the body. The pectoral fins are pale with the upper edge narrow and black; pelvic fins are brown. Lips blackish brown, and the dorsal fin base has a prominent black spot larger than 1/2 the eye diameter; a smaller spot is present on base of the anal fin. The Brown Surgeonfish is often found on hard substrates of lagoons and seaward reefs at depths of 6 to 82 feet (Domeier and Colin 1997) where it feeds exclusively on filamentous algae. Adults are usually observed in small groups but can also form large schools in open water. Juveniles are often associated with mixed species aggregations (Kuiter and Tonozuka 2001) and forms large spawning groups of up to 57 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment several thousand individuals (Domeier and Colin 1997). Phylogeographic analyses reveal that the Hawaiian population is genetically connected to other locations in the Central Pacific, comprising a very large management unit in terms of both geography and numbers of individuals (Eble et al. 2011). Brown Surgeonfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Brown Surgeonfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 14,439,543 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Brown Surgeonfish at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 1,646,996 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 2,980,402 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Brown Surgeonfish is also known as the māʻiʻi. The name mā‘i‘i‘i is also applied to a taro variety (Colocasia spp.) and has sometimes been used to refer to other species of surgeonfish (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Traditionally, the māʻiʻi was considered a good eating fish that could be eaten both raw and cooked but was best when broiled (Titcomb 1972). 4.4.1.32 Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby (Puffer) (Canthigaster jactator) Ecology The Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby is endemic to Hawai’i and the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). This species belongs to the pufferfish family (Tetraodontidae) and reaches lengths of 4 inches. The body is brown with white spots, the eye is green. Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby are common in lagoon and seaward reefs at depth of 3 to 290 feet (Mundy 2005). This species has also been found to utilize man-made structures (Brock 1981) and has been shown to feed on sponges, algae, detritus, tunicates, polychaetas, bryozoans, sea urchins, brittle stars, crabs, peanut worms, shrimps, zoanthids, fishes, amphipods and foraminiferans (Randall 1985). It often is afflicted with parasitic worms (nematodes), causing it to become inflated (Deardorff and Stanton 1983). Breeding behavior has not been documented for the Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby; however, the eastern pacific white-spotted toby (Canthigaster punctatissima) has been found to be sexually dimorphic. It is likely that the toby’s breeding behavior is similar. Males and females guard their territories against others of the same sex. Male areas include the smaller territories of multiple females. Males mate with a female from their harem one at a time. The Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby is a broadcast spawner, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). 58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 685,517 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 250,573 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 249,141 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has decreased significantly in Open Areas and MPAs and has remained stable in FRAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby is one of three endemic pufferfish that inhabit Hawai’i’s waters (Hoover 2007). The common name “Toby” originated in Australia. A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any specific Hawaiian names or cultural information related to the Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby; however, tobies are sometimes referred to generally as makimaki (Hoover 2007). Other names traditionally used for pufferfish include ‘oʻopu hue, possibly an alteration of ōpūhue (calabash, gourd), and kēkē (potbelly). 4.4.1.33 Bluestripe Snapper (Taape) (Lutjanus kasmira) Ecology The Bluestripe Snapper is an introduced species in Hawai’i. It has a bright yellow body and fins with four horizontal blue stripes. The yellow fades to white in the lower third of the body. The body is moderately compressed laterally, with an average length of 13.5 inches (Allen 1985b). This species is found throughout the Indo-Pacific oceans. The Bluestripe Snapper inhabits shallow-water reefs (100 to 500 feet) where it feeds on shrimp, cephalopods, gastropods, crabs, and small fish. This species also utilizes artificial structures in shallow bays throughout its range. Juveniles have been found to use seagrass beds until reaching maturity (Lieske and Myers 1994). The introduction of this fish into Hawai’i included at least one non-native parasite that has spread to local fishes (Gaither et al. 2013). Bluestripe Snapper are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Allen 1985b, Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Bluestripe Snapper at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 7,092,851 individuals. However, this is a low estimate because much of the Bluestripe Snapper population occurs below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP (2018) and is not observable by the methods of the survey. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Bluestripe Snapper at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 7,830 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 33,290 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas and FRAs and remained stable in MPAs (DAR 2019a). The large difference in these estimates results from the larger survey area of the CREP survey which samples more of the population. 59 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Cultural Significance Introduced initially from the Marquesas to the Hawaiian Islands in 1958 for commercial fishing purposes, the Bluestripe Snapper, more commonly known by its Tahitian name ta‘ape, has not fared well in Hawai‘i’s fish consumer market. These fish, which tend to school in great numbers, are often regarded by local fishermen as a pest. Given that it arrived in Hawaiian waters so recently, there are currently no known Hawaiian names for this fish or any traditional cultural uses. 4.4.1.34 Peacock Grouper (Roi, Bluespot Peacock Grouper) (Cephalopholis argus) Ecology The Peacock Grouper is widely distributed throughout the Indo-Pacific oceans and has been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. Individuals can reach a length of up to 24 inches and are identified by white vertical stripes on the back half of a brown colored body. Peacock Grouper was thought to present a risk to native species of Hawai’i (Dierking 2007). However, a recently completed 5.5-year study found that removal of the Peacock Grouper did not translate into sustained increases in prey, nor to increases in total fish biomass (Giddens et al. 2017). This Peacock Grouper prefers exposed reef front habitats with a water depth of 3 to 30 feet, while juveniles utilize thick pockets of coral (Myers 1999). Individuals use a variety of hunting techniques to capture prey. They may hover and wait, stalk prey, and follow larger predators such as eels and attack missed prey (Hoover 2008). Dierking et al. (2009) found reef fishes were the principal diet component (97.7% by % Index of Relative Importance [IRI]) of Peacock Grouper, with all 10 of the most abundant species on West Hawai’i reefs found in the stomachs of Peacock Grouper. Some fishes that were rare in the reef environment in West Hawai’i were found to be important components of the diet, while others, although highly abundant on West Hawai’i reefs, had low dietary importance. Crustaceans were the only other higher taxonomic group in the diet but were of minor importance (2.3% by %IRI) (Dierking et al. 2009). Peacock Grouper are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). Males defend territories and their harem of up to six females from other males. CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Peacock Grouper at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 476,556 individuals. WHAP data indicate the 2012/2013 WHRFMA Open Area population of Peacock Grouper at the 30-60-foot depth was approximately 24,610 individuals, and in 2017/2018 was approximately 51,546 individuals (DAR 2014a, 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). Cultural Significance The Peacock Grouper, more commonly known as the roi, and was introduced to Hawai’i from French Polynesia in 1956 to enhance the local fisheries. Because this species was so recently introduced to 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Hawaiian waters, a review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any specific Hawaiian names or cultural information related to it. 4.4.1.35 Psychedelic Wrasse (Anampses chrysocephalus) Ecology The Psychedelic Wrasse is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is found among seaweed coral reefs at depths from 40 to 450 feet (Lieske and Myers 1994). This species is dark brown with white spots and a red tail. However, like others in the wrasse family, as the females mature they undergo a color and sexual transition to the “terminal phase” male. These males have a bright orange head covered in blue spots and radiating lines. Psychedelic Wrasse terminal phase males are usually only found in depths greater than 50 feet (DLNR 2015). The main prey for the Psychedelic Wrasse are macro-invertebrates found among the rocks and corals it inhabits. Females usually form small groups with a single male (Lieske and Myers 1994). Psychedelic Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Psychedelic Wrasse at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 36,770 individuals. However, the Psychedelic Wrasse occupies habitat below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP (2018) study. As such, this is likely a low estimate, because much of the population is not observable by the methods of the study. WHAP estimated a population size of 1,071 in 2017/2018 but noted that this is a deeper water species that is only occasionally recorded on surveys, and thus the population is underestimated (DAR 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has remained stable in Open Areas, FRAs, and MPAs (DAR 2019a). The Psychedelic Wrasse is a DLNR Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN, Section 4.4.3), but is considered a species of ‘Least Concern’ by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN; 2017). Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which includes the Psychedelic Wrasse. 4.4.1.36 Tinker's Butterflyfish (Chaetodon tinkeri) Ecology The Tinker’s butterflyfish is identified by a gold mask over the eye, with a diagonal demarcation separating a white lower/front part of the body and head from a black upper rear portion. Tinker’s Butterflyfish is found from Hawai‘i Island through O‘ahu (DLNR 2015), and the Johnston Atoll to the Marshall Islands (Lobel 2003). Tinker’s Butterflyfish can be found at least as deep as 400 feet on O’ahu and Hawai’i (Pyle pers. comm.) on coral reef slopes. Common prey species for Tinker’s Butterflyfish include small invertebrates, crabs, and worms (Pyle 2001). 61 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Tinker’s Butterflyfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Tinker’s Butterflyfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 18,475 individuals. However, the vast majority of the population occurs well below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP and is not observable by the methods of the survey. WHAP could not produce estimates of this species because the species occurs in habitats not adequately surveyed by WHAP transects (DAR 2014a, 2019a). The Tinker’s Butterflyfish is a DLNR SGCN (Section 4.4.3) but is considered a species of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN (2017). Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.16 for a discussion of the cultural significance of kīkākapu, which includes the Tinker’s Butterflyfish. 4.4.1.37 Longfin Anthias (Pseudanthias hawaiiensis) Ecology The Longfin Anthias can grow up to 4 inches and is bright yellow to orange with red and purple along the fins. It is endemic to Hawai’i and the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003) and is found in caves or coral rubble along steep drop-offs from 85 to 400 feet deep (Randall 2007). This species feeds primarily on larvae of crustaceans and fish eggs (Bachhet et al. 2006). Longfin Anthias are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). Most of the Longfin Anthias population occurs below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP and the 60foot depth surveyed by the WHAP, and therefore the species is not observable by the methods of either survey. As such, data are not available to produce a reliable WHRFMA or island-wide population estimate. Cultural Significance Although endemic to the islands, a review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any specific Hawaiian names or cultural information for the Longfin Anthias. 4.4.1.38 Flame Wrasse (Cirrhilabrus jordani) Ecology The Flame Wrasse is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003, Lieske and Myers 1994). Females are bright red on the dorsal part of the body fading to a light pink on the ventral 62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment side. The fins are opaque with some yellow features on the face. Females grow to about 3 inches before they begin to transform into a male. As the male matures the dorsal remains bright red fading into a vibrant yellow orange. The Flame Wrasse utilizes seaward reefs and forms groups above large drop-offs at a depth of 15 to 600 feet, where it feeds exclusively on zooplankton along the ocean floor (Lieske and Myers 1994). Prime Flame Wrasse habitat became an FRA when Act 306 was implemented (BIAAF, pers. comm.). During breeding males and females form pairs for mating (Breder and Rosen 1966). Flame Wrasse are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 20-30 hours later (Thresher 1984). Most of the Flame Wrasse population occurs below the 60-foot depth surveyed by the WHAP and below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP, and therefore the species is not observable by the methods of either survey. As such, data are not available to produce a reliable WHRFMA or island-wide population estimate. Cultural Significance See Section 4.4.1.4 for a discussion of the cultural significance of hinālea, which includes the Flame Wrasse. 4.4.1.39 Fisher's Angelfish (Centropyge fisheri) Ecology The Fisher’s Angelfish is mostly orange with a thin blue outline highlighting the belly and anal fin, the caudal fin is pale yellow. Adults attain a length of only 2 inches. This angelfish is found throughout Hawai’i and the Johnston Atoll (Lobel 2003). Small groups have been observed feeding on algae and small shrimp associated with coral along outer reef slopes at depths between 10 and 200 feet (Pyle 2001). This species is hermaphroditic and changes sex as it matures. It is distributed from the east coast of Africa to the islands of French Polynesia and Hawaiian Islands and in the western Pacific from southern Japan to New South Wales (Randall 2007). Fisher’s Angelfish are broadcast spawners, with males and females simultaneously releasing eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Fisher’s Angelfish at the 0-98-foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 666,209 individuals. WHAP estimated the Open Area population of this species in 2017/2018 at 59,064 individuals but noted that the species typically occurs at deeper depths, and is only occasionally encountered during surveys, and the population is thus underestimated (DAR 2019a). Since the establishment of the WHRFMA, this species has increased significantly in Open Areas and remained stable in FRAs and MPAs (DAR 2019a) 63 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment The Fisher’s Angelfish is a DLNR SGCN (Section 4.4.3) but is considered a species of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN (2017). Cultural Significance A review of cultural-historical literature (see Appendix A) did not reveal any specific Hawaiian names or cultural information for the Fisher’s Angelfish. 4.4.1.40 Eyestripe Surgeonfish (Palani) (Acanthurus dussumieri) Ecology The Eyestripe Surgeonfish is found throughout the Indo-Pacific region. This large surgeon fish can reach lengths of 21 inches with a body that is mostly yellow with purple highlights. A characteristic bright yellow band goes behind each eye to the gill cover (Myers 1991). The tail is blue to dark purple. The Eyestripe Surgeonfish feeds on both green and brown algae and detritus from the ocean floor (Myers 1991), and are commonly found along clear corals, lagoons, and outer reefs at depths of 13 to 430 feet. Adults are usually observed alone and pair only for mating (Myers 1999). Eyestripe Surgeonfish are broadcast spawners. Many broadcast spawners migrate to the edge of the reef drop off to spawn at dusk or dawn (Thresher 1984). Males and females simultaneously release eggs and sperm into the water column where the eggs are fertilized before floating to the surface until they hatch 2030 hours later (Thresher 1984). CREP (2018) data indicate that the 2016 island of Hawai’i population of Eyestripe Surgeonfish at the 0-98foot depth in hardbottom habitat was approximately 578,835 individuals. WHAP could not produce estimates of this species because the species occurs in habitats not adequately surveyed by WHAP transects. Cultural Significance The Eyestripe Surgeonfish is also known as palani. Palani, meaning “to stink, smell sour or rancid” (Pukui and Elbert 1986), is a well-recognized trait of this fish that is documented in moʻolelo and ʻōlelo noʻeau. Palani were commonly raised in fishponds, particularly for ceremonial uses or were reserved for the ali’i and were kept for breeding, while the offspring were raised tame so that they could be easily removed by hand (Handy and Handy 1972). Palani were considered kapu (taboo) to men (Titcomb 1972). 64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.2 Non-White List Wildlife Species Marine species in Hawai‘i include over 1,200 species of fishes, with around 500 species adapted to live on coral reefs, and the rest adapted to the pelagic open surface waters, mesopelagic, or bathypelagic zones (middle or deep waters), estuaries, or sandy bottoms (DLNR 2015). At the top of the food chain are the apex predators such as the many sharks and large predatory reef and pelagic fishes of Hawai‘i. Over 5,000 marine invertebrates are known from Hawai‘i and include over 100 species of hard, soft, and precious corals as well as hundreds of types of snails, crabs, shrimps and small numbers of worms, jellyfish, sponges, starfish, and tunicates (DLNR 2015). Five marine turtles occur in Hawai‘i; two are common residents that nest on Hawai‘i’s beaches and three others are more occasional visitors. All sea turtles are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Federaland state-listed species are discussed in Section 4.4.4. Approximately 26 species of marine mammals, mostly cetaceans, are considered resident or occasional visitors to Hawai‘i. These include the Humpback Whale or koholā (Megaptera noveangliae), which migrates during the winter months to Hawaiian waters to breed and give birth each year before returning to feed in Alaskan waters during spring and summer, False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens), and the Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Humpback Whales and Hawaiian Monk Seals (Monachus schauinslandi) are common marine mammals in Hawai‘i and are listed as endangered under the ESA (DLNR 2015). All marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Many of the resident whales and dolphins feed on fishes and squids that occur in the moderately deep waters off Hawai‘i’s coasts. Approximately 4,100 species of marine invertebrates are known from Hawai’i. Marine invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits generally include those species that are colorful or aesthetically pleasing. Between 2000 and 2017 over 93% (2,066,025 individuals) of all invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits were collected from the island of O’ahu, based on data provided by the DAR (2014a). This is likely due to White List restrictions in West Hawai’i. In East Hawai’i, non-White List Species may be collected, and invertebrates made up approximately 58% of the total catch of White List and non-White List Species combined. Of the approximately 249,000 invertebrates collected in East Hawai’i since 2000, over 73% (182,710 individuals) were Red Pond Shrimp (species not specified). Red Pond Shrimp (primarily Halocaridina rubra) also make up 42.5% of all species collected in East Hawai’i. Other common species of invertebrates captured in East Hawai’i include hermit crabs (species not specified), Feather Dusters Worms (Sabellastarte spectabilis), and Zebra Hermit Crabs (Calcinus laevimanus). 4.4.2.1 Red Pond Shrimp This group of species live in underground (hypogeal) environments and in anchialine ponds (landlocked ponds with a mix of freshwater and seawater through underground connections to the sea). Of the eight known species to occur in Hawai’i, all are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago (including Johnston Atoll) except Antecaridina lauensis, Calliasmata pholidota, and Metabetaeus lohena which are found throughout Hawai’i and also in Chile (US Fish and Wildlife Ecos Environmental Conservation 12/2015). Halocaridina rubra (‘Ōpae ‘ula, an endemic shrimp species known to be ideal ʻōpelu bai) reaches 0.5 inch in length and 65 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment is an herbivore that grazes on algal, bacterial, and diatom films growing on rocks and other hard substrates. They can also filter feed in mid-water and at the surface. The other species are all larger (up to two inches long) and some are predatory. All have red color and reduced appendages. ‘Ōpae ‘ula carry about 12 fertilized eggs under their abdomen for a brood period of about 38 days. They reproduce 1-2 times per year. Lifespan of ‘Ōpae ‘ula is long, up to 20 years in captivity. Less is known about the life history of the other species, but they are relatively long-lived for species in their taxa. No population estimates are available for Red Pond Shrimp. 4.4.2.2 Hermit Crab (various species) Because specific species of hermit crabs are not reported on Aquarium Permit reporting forms, it is not possible to know which species are collected, with the exception of zebra hermit crabs (Section 4.4.2.3). However, hermit crabs are one of the most common types of tide pool animals. They rely on empty snail shells for protection. Most species will scavenge the reefs consuming fish, other invertebrates, or algae. Some will display a variety of coloration and elaborate eye colors. Approximately 23 species of hermit crabs are known from Hawai’i shorelines. No population estimates are available for hermit crabs. 4.4.2.3 Zebra Hermit Crab (Calcinus laevimanus) This species of hermit crab is found in a large area of the Indo-Pacific, extending from Africa to Australia and Japan to Hawai’i. The common name comes from the coloration, black and white pincers, and white bands on dark legs. They also have orange and sky-blue eyestalks. They prefer to inhabit gastropod shells in intertidal flats, reef flats, and rock platforms, and may also be found in mangrove areas on sand mud bottoms and on rocky shores (Rahayu 2000). No population estimates are available for Zebra Hermit Crabs. 4.4.3 Hawai’i Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are identified in Hawai’i’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) but are not threatened, endangered, or otherwise legislatively protected species. In fact, all three SGCN species noted below (and further discussed in Section 5.0) are listed as species of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN (2017). However, recognizing the need to act to protect endemic species, the DLNR identified Hawai‘i’s indigenous SGCN in Exhibit 1 of Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Chapter 124. This list includes terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, and marine reptiles only. Additional native species were identified and added based on their presence on the following lists (DLNR 2018): • The Federal list of threatened, endangered, candidate and concern species; • Species protected by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act; • The State list of threatened and endangered species; 66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment • The Checklist of the Birds of Hawai‘i; and • Species identified as present in Hawai‘i by groups or organizations with significant experience or expertise (e.g., Audubon Watch List; national and regional Bird Plans, such as the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas; Regional Seabird Conservation Plan). In addition to the above lists, for any terrestrial indigenous species not represented by any of the lists, their status as indigenous automatically included them as Hawai‘i’s SGCN. For aquatic fishes and invertebrates, endemic species were added to the list (DLNR 2018). The DAR also included native species on the IUCN Threatened Red List, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) list. A Statewide Aquatic Wildlife Conservation Strategy (SAWCS) Advisory Council was developed to advise on additional species that were at risk due to specific threats. The SAWCS Advisory Council is a panel with representatives from federal and state agencies, resource user groups, and non-profit organizations that helps the DAR develop its CWCS (DLNR 2018). Additional species considered must meet one or more of the following biological criteria (DLNR 2018): • Species with low or declining populations; • Species indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife; • Species with small, localized “at-risk” populations; • Keystone species; • Indicator species; • Species with limited dispersal; • Disjunct species; • Vulnerable species; • Species of conservation concern; • “Responsibility” species, (i.e., species that have their center of range within a state); and, • Species with fragmented or isolated populations. Currently 25% of fish, 20% of mollusks, 18% of algae, and 20% of the corals are considered endemic to Hawai’i and listed as SGCN species (Randall 2007, DLNR 2015). Based on these parameters, three White List Species occur on Hawai’i’s SGCN list: 1. Psychedelic Wrasse 2. Tinker’s Butterflyfish 67 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 3. Fisher’s Angelfish. The DLNR SWAP (2015) addresses these species and identifies the following actions to ensure the species conservation and sustainability: 1. Conservation Actions: The goals of conservation actions are to not only protect current populations, but to also establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction. Commercial licenses are required for aquarium collectors. In addition to common statewide and island conservation actions, specific actions include: • Restoration of habitat; and, • Maintaining healthy populations with appropriate fishing regulations and education. 2. Monitoring: • Continue to survey for populations and distribution in known and likely habitats. 3. Research Priorities: 4.4.4 • Improve understanding of factors affecting the species population size and distribution; and, • Support aquaculture research to develop captive breeding for species used in the aquarium trade. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species A total of 8 federal and 10 state-listed threatened or endangered marine species, consisting of one seal, four whales, and five sea turtles, occur in Hawai‘i (Table 4-4). Federal endangered species are those species that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) define as being in danger of becoming extinct, while threatened species are those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. State endangered species are those defined by the DLNR as in danger of becoming extinct at a state level, while threatened species are those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future at the state level. No species collected by aquarium fishers occur on the state or federal list of threatened and endangered species. Table 4-4. Threatened and endangered marine species of Hawai’i. Common Name Mammals Hawaiian Monk Seal Fin Whale Humpback Whale Sperm Whale False Killer Whale Reptiles Pacific Leatherback Sea Turtle Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Neomonachus schauinslandi Balaenoptera physalus Megaptera novaeangliae Physeter catodon Pseudorca crassidens E E E E E E NA E E NA Dermochelys coriacea schlegelii E E 68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.5 Common Name Scientific Name Pacific Hawksbill Sea Turtle Loggerhead Sea Turtle Green Sea Turtle Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata bissa Caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys olivacea State Status E T T T Federal Status E T T T Reef Habitat Stretching for more than 1,200 miles in the Central Pacific, Hawaiian coral reefs account for about 85% of all coral reefs in the United States. More than 500 species of algae also live in Hawai’i's coral reefs providing food for fish and oxygen for all marine life. The oceans' algae provide more oxygen than all land plants worldwide combined. There are 78 species of endemic marine algae, 24 species of endemic freshwater algae, and two aquatic plants included on Hawai’i’s list of SGCN (DLNR 2015). Hawai’i’s reefs are unique among the world’s reef ecosystems. Compared to coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific or Caribbean, Hawaiian reefs are relatively young. Hawai’i reefs are therefore dominated by hard corals (as opposed to sponges, tunicates, and soft corals) and are inhabited by distinctive reef fish and other marine life. Most stony corals grow very slowly. Hawai’i hosts about 40 species of hard, reef building corals (MRC 2017). Due to Hawai’i’s extreme isolation, an estimated 25% of the coral reef species are found nowhere else. Stony corals are defined by Hawai’i Administrative Rule 13-95 as any species belonging to the Order Scleractinia (marine corals which generate a hard skeleton). All reef corals, including mushroom corals, belong to this order (DAR 2014b). The animals which form stony corals belong to the same major group as jellyfish and anemones. Most of them are colonial, and all secrete a hard skeleton made of calcium carbonate. The animals themselves, called polyps, form the outer living layer of a coral colony. Each polyp sits in a cup-like depression called a calyx. Most stony corals grow very slowly and can take hundreds of years to recover from damage (DAR 2014b). The characteristic color of many living corals is due to the presence of single-celled algae, called zooxanthellae, which live inside the coral polyp. The coral and algae have a symbiotic relationship. Most stony corals produce colonial forms that are attached to the substrate, but a few are solitary and unattached (DAR 2014b). Ecosystem indicators related to benthic reef community integrity indicate a shift in West Hawai‘i towards lowered reef accretion and reduced structural complexity. Hard coral cover, an indicator of reef topographic complexity, habitat structure, and reef accretion, decreased from an average of 44% to 31% cover in the North from 2003 to 2014, a decline of roughly one-third in just 12 years (Gove et al. 2016). However, over the same time period, hard coral cover remained relatively constant in the South (Gove et al. 2016). The ratio between the cover of calcifying to non-calcifying organisms – an indicator of coral reef community dynamics and the extent to which a given system is dominated by organisms that contribute to coral reef development and persistence – declined across West Hawai‘i since 2003 (Gove et al. 2016). The North experienced the biggest change in this indicator, with the a calcified: non-calcified ratio decreasing by approximately half to a present value of <1, indicating the benthic community is currently dominated by non-calcifying benthic organisms (Gove et al. 2016). 69 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 4.4.5.1 Corals Common to Hawai’i (DAR 2014b) Rose or Cauliflower Coral (Pocillopora meandrina) The most common Pocillopora in Hawai’i, this coral prefers wave-agitated environments, and is found at depths to about 150 feet. Commonly called "rose coral" or "cauliflower coral," the colonies form cauliflowershaped heads about 10 to 20 inches in diameter. Branches are heavy and leaf-like and fork bluntly near the ends. All branches have wart-like projections called verrucae that are covered with calices. Color of living colonies ranges from brown to pink. Lace Coral (Pocillopora damicornis) This delicate and fragile coral forms small bushy clumps up to about 6 inches in diameter. Colonies consist of fine branches covered with calices. These branches range from long and slender in calm waters to more robust forms in areas of wave action. Sometimes the skeleton will create pocket formations around a crab that lives among the branches. Usually found in protected areas and inner portions of large reef flats, this species appears to strongly depend on sunlight, as it is rarely found below about 30 feet. Colonies range in color from light brown in shallow waters to dark brown in deeper waters. Antler Coral (Pocillopora eydouxi) Colonies consist of thick pipe-like branches that resemble moose antlers. This species also possesses verrucae and is usually found in depths of 35 to 150 feet. Live colonies are brown in color and usually darker than other Pocilloporid corals. Lobe Coral (Porites lobata) This coral produces many encrusting or massive forms on the reef from the intertidal zone to depths of over 180 feet. Long narrow cracks found on the coral heads are produced by a type of alpheid shrimp. Calices have a snowflake-like appearance and are shallow and flush to the surface. Living colonies range in color from yellowish-green to brown and sometimes blue. Finger Coral (Porites compressa) Distinguishing features are the finger-like branching and shallow snowflake-shaped calices. This species is most common in wave-protected areas like bays or deeper reef slopes to depths of about 150 feet. It has many growth forms, but all of them show some sort of fingerlike branching. Color of live colonies ranges from light brown to light yellowish-green. Rice Coral (Montipora capitata) The most obvious characteristic of this coral is the nipple-like projections (papillae) that cover the surface. These papillae are smooth with no calices on them. Calices are found on the upper surface of the coral between the papillae. The image of the calices and papillae create a "rice & pepper" appearance. This species is found at depths up to about 150 feet. It has a number of growth forms ranging from plate-like to branchlike and encrusting types. Color of living colonies is usually brown. If the colony is growing in a plate form, the edges may be white. 70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Mushroom or Razor Coral (Fungia scutaria) This solitary (single polyp), free-living (unattached) coral is most commonly found on reef flats, frequently between cracks and crevices. It has also been found at depths of over 75 feet. Its disk-like, elliptical shape resembles a mushroom cap and ranges from 1.5 to 7 inches in diameter. Some adults may form a high arch in the middle. Immature forms are attached to the substrate or an adult mushroom coral by a stalk. It grows into a disk and, when large enough, breaks off the stalk and becomes free-living. The color of live specimens ranges from pale brown in bright sunlight to dark brown in shady areas or deeper water. Cup or Tube Coral (Tubastraea coccinea) This is a common non-reef building coral found in shallow Hawaiian waters. This species forms large calices and occurs in clumps that are 2 to 4 inches in diameter. Living tissue is usually bright orange in color but may also appear pink or even black. The bright coloration is not produced by zooxanthellae. This coral is usually found on steep ledges, in caves and in shady tidepools. 4.4.6 Invasive Species From A Guidebook of Introduced Marine Species in Hawai’i (DeFelice et al. 2001): Through the Hawai’i Biological Survey at Bishop Museum, a count of the total number of species in the Hawai’i Archipelago has been compiled. In 1999, there were 23,150 known species of terrestrial and aquatic algae, plants, and animals, including 5,047 nonindigenous species (~ 20%). The total number of marine and brackish water alien species in the Hawaiian Islands was 343, including 287 invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish, and 12 flowering plants. The 287 alien marine invertebrate species make up about 7% of the known marine and brackish water invertebrate fauna in the Hawaiian Islands (4,099 species). Arthropods have been the most successful marine invaders, with 71 suspected alien crustacean species, while 53 alien mollusks have made it to Hawai’i. Limited information exists for these invasive species. The greatest number of introduced marine invertebrates have arrived to Hawai’i through hull fouling, but many have also arrived with solid ballast and in ballast water. DeFelice et al. (2001) considered 201 species (70%) to be introduced, and 86 species (30%) cryptogenic (not demonstratively native or introduced). Two hundred forty-eight (87%) have become established, 15 (5%) arrived but failed to become established, 6 (2%) were intercepted, and the population status of 18 species (6%) is unknown. The nonindigenous invertebrate species in the Hawaiian Islands are primarily of IndoPacific/Philippines Islands region origin. A surprising number of species from the tropical western Atlantic/Caribbean region have invaded Hawai’i as well. Invasive algae pose the largest threat to Hawai’i’s reef ecosystem. The five most common algae species posing the largest threat include Smothering Seaweed (Kappaphycus and Euchema spp.), Gorilla Ogo (Gracilaria salicornia), Leather Mudweed (Avrainvillea amadelpha), Hook Weed (Hypnea musciformis), and 71 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Prickly Seaweed (Acanthophora spicifera). Marine debris arriving from other countries and regions and ballast water/biofouling are the primary threat for invasion in the Hawaiian Islands. Invasive fish species of concern in Hawai’i include two White List Species, the Bluestripe Snapper (Taape), and Peacock Grouper (= Roi, Bluespot Peacock Grouper), and a non-White List Species, the Blacktail Snapper (Lutjanus fulvus). All three species were introduced between 1956-1961, mostly as game fish (IUCN 2017). The Peacock Grouper (Section 4.4.1.34) is a known carrier of Ciguatera (a foodborne illness), which is well known by the local fishermen and therefore its use as a food fish is intentionally very limited (BIAAF, pers. comm., also reviewed in Appendix A). It has become a dominant predator species in the Main Hawaiian Islands and is known to have negative ecological impacts on other endemic and culturally valued species (Dierking 2007). In recent years, efforts to minimize populations of this species have led to statewide events often dubbed “roi round-ups,” where local spear fishers are encouraged to catch and remove as many roi from the reefs as possible. However, a recently completed 5.5-year study found that removal of the Peacock Grouper did not translate into sustained increases in prey, nor to increases in total fish biomass (Giddens et al. 2017). The Bluestripe Snapper (Section 4.4.1.33) and Peacock Grouper (Section 4.4.1.34) are well established in Hawai’i. The Blacktail Snapper occurs at low densities only in the lower Hawaiian Islands (Randall 1987, Gaither et al. 2010 as cited in IUCN 2017). From 2008 through 2014, regional estimates of the density of Blacktail Snapper ranged from 1.8 to 14.1 individuals per 2.5 acres over hard bottoms to 98.5 feet depth in Pacific coral reef areas surveyed by NOAA (NOAA unpublished data as described in Heenan et al. 2014 as cited in IUCN 2017). The highest recorded density was in the MHI region (0.3 to 45.1 individuals per 2.5 acres) as compared to the lowest in the Southern Mariana Islands region (0 to 4.3 individuals; IUCN 2017). 4.4.7 Biological Aspects of the Commercial Aquarium Fishery 4.4.7.1 West Hawai’i Aquarium Project (WHAP) Surveys To monitor and gauge the effects of the aquarium fishing industry, the West Hawai’i Aquarium Project (WHAP) established 25 study sites (Figure 4) along the West Hawai'i coastline in early 1999 at 9 FRA sites, 8 Open Area sites (aquarium fish collection areas) and 6 previously established MPAs to collect baseline data both prior to and after the closure of the FRAs. The MPAs are MLCDs and FMAs, which have been closed to aquarium collecting for at least 9 years and were presumed to have close to “natural” levels of aquarium fish abundances (DAR 2019a). They serve as a reference or ‘control’ to compare with the FRAs and Open Areas. It should be noted that after several years of study and observation, one of the MPA sites (Lapakahi MLCD – subzone B), was found not to be closed to aquarium collecting due to its remoteness and poorly defined seaward boundaries (i.e., 500 feet offshore). As such, the Lapakahi survey site was considered an Open Area for data analysis purposes (DAR 2014a, 2019a). The overall goals of the WHAP were two-fold: 1) To evaluate the effectiveness of the FRA network by comparing targeted aquarium fishes in FRAs and Open Areas relative to adjacent control sites and, 2) To evaluate the impact of the FRA network on the commercial aquarium fishery (DAR 2019a). 72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Detailed explanations of the study sites and survey methods are found in Tissot et al. (2004) and Walsh (2013). To briefly summarize: Densities of all fish and selected invertebrate species were visually estimated along four 82x13 foot strip transects at each of 25 permanent sites located at depths between 30-60 feet in the three types of management areas. All survey divers either had extensive experience in conducting underwater fish surveys in Hawai'i or received training through the UH’s Quantitative Underwater Ecological Survey Techniques (QUEST) training course prior to collecting data (Hallacher and Tissot 1999). In addition to the transect surveys, a 10 minute ‘free-swim’ survey is also conducted by two divers in the areas surrounding the actual transects. The purpose of this survey is to better census uncommon or rare species and species of particular ecological interest such as Bluestripe Snapper, Peacock Grouper, terminal phase parrotfish (Family Scaridae), cleaner wrasses (Labroides spp.) and Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (Acanthaster solaris). All sites are presently surveyed four times per year. Through 2018 (the most recent year for which data are available), a total of 8,712 transects had been completed (DAR 2019a). Six rounds were conducted prior to FRA closure in 1999 (DAR 2014a). Table 4-5 provides West Hawai’i Open Area population estimates of those species on the White List based on the WHAP data. It is important to note that population estimates provided in the table and previous life histories sections, only include West Hawai’i estimates of fish from Open Areas at depths of 30-60 feet (the depth at which WHAP surveys are conducted); thus, the actual population size of each species is likely greater due to individuals at other depths, or in unsurveyed areas. Island-wide population estimates for each species are described in Section 4.4.1 and summarized in Table 4-5. 73 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Table 4-5. West Hawai’i Open Area population estimates of all White List Species based on average WHAP data from 2012/2013 and 2017/2018 and percent of that population collected annually by aquarium fishers at the 30’-60’ depth in 2013/2014 (DAR 2014a) and 2017/2018 (DAR 2019a). Data in this table (recreated from DAR 2014a, 2019a) may differ from other publications due to the time of year data were analyzed, number of monthly reports available to the DAR at that time, and Hawai’i’s confidentiality laws. 2013-2014 Common Name Achilles Tang Yellow Tang Black Surgeonfish (chevron tang) Shortnose (Geoffroy’s) Wrasse Goldrim Tang Fourspot Butterflyfish Orangeband (Shoulder) Surgeonfish Orangespine Unicornfish (Clown Tang) Forcepsfish Spotted Boxfish (Boxfish) Yellowtail Coris (Clown Wrasse) Milletseed (Lemon) Butterflyfish Kole (Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) Pencil Wrasse Bird Wrasse Blacklip Butterflyfish (Coral Butterflyfish) Potter's Angelfish Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface) Black Durgon Gilded Triggerfish (Blue-throat Triggerfish) Lei Triggerfish (Forster’s) Blackside Hawkfish ’Thompson's Surgeonfish Pyramid Butterflyfish Multiband (Pebbled) Butterflyfish Hawaiian Dascyllus (Domino) Saddle Wrasse Catch1 30’- 60’ Open Area Population2 7,073 273,778 4,045 258 439 699 698 4,026 1,045 175 288 61 28,407 108 180 23 945 724 71 19 128 31 130 73 670 43 327 21,627 1,663,775 34,678 3,222 7,517 22,000 26,101 150,642 43,999 9,322 19,762 7,085 3,616,529 19,390 43,254 5,593 237,149 192,404 38,033 11,186 76,440 20,508 91,728 56,677 580,196 57,796 537,688 Catch as % of 30’-60’ Open Area Population 32.70% 17.26% 11.66% 8.01% 5.83% 3.18% 2.67% 2.67% 2.38% 1.88% 1.45% 0.85% 0.79% 0.56% 0.42% 0.40% 0.40% 0.38% 0.19% 0.17% 0.17% 0.15% 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 0.07% 0.06% 2017-2018 Catch1 30’- 60’ Open Area Population2 5,437 264,870 3,878 582 1,324 319 1,293 6,078 840 57 623 98 30,901 278 265 81 2,245 1,602 11 20 78 30 148 42 470 89 538 13,796 2,867,048 98,067 3,222 5,966 15,034 53,694 180,099 39,734 12,887 18,256 2,148 5,312,745 17,182 66,581 39,734 265,488 196,879 92,354 3,222 92,354 23,625 271,693 37,586 378,843 63,359 140,947 Catch as % of 30’-60’ Open Area Population 39.67% 9.24% 3.95% 18.07% 22.19% 2.12% 2.41% 3.37% 2.11% 0.44% 3.41% 4.56% 0.58% 1.62% 0.40% 0.20% 0.85% 0.81% 0.01% 0.62% 0.08% 0.13% 0.05% 0.11% 0.09% 0.14% 0.10% 74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 2013-2014 Common Name Redbarred Hawkfish Eightline Wrasse Fourlined Wrasse Brown Surgeonfish (Lavender, Forktail Tang) Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby (Puffer) Bluestripe Snapper (Taape) Peacock Grouper (Roi, Bluespot Peacock Grouper) Psychedelic (Redtail) Wrasse Tinker's Butterflyfish Longfin Anthias Flame Wrasse Fisher's Angelfish Eyestripe Surgeonfish (Palani) Catch1 30’- 60’ Open Area Population2 6 35 47 180 20 0 9,665 187,557 327,758 1,646,996 250,573 7,830 Catch as % of 30’-60’ Open Area Population 0.06% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0 24,610 236 206 130 67 58 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2017-2018 Catch1 30’- 60’ Open Area Population2 21 97 54 957 26 0 6,443 187,930 227,663 2,980,402 249,141 33,290 Catch as % of 30’-60’ Open Area Population 0.33% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0 51,546 0.00% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 599 290 0 0 288 0 1,071 N/A N/A N/A 59,064 N/A 55.78%3 N/A N/A N/A 0.49%3 N/A 75 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment A summary of the DAR 1999 to 2019 study findings is presented below (DAR 2019a): • Of the 40 collected aquarium species, prior to the closure of aquarium collecting, Yellow Tang made up 81.6% of the total and Kole 9.5% (2017). • In the 20 years since FRA establishment, the population of Yellow Tang has increased 165% in the FRAs, 74% in existing MRAs, and 101% in the Open Areas where fishing effort has been concentrated, with a current population estimate of approximately 5.7 million fish in the 30-60-foot depth range in the WHRFMA. • Outward movement of adult Yellow Tang from protected areas into surrounding areas (‘spillover’) augments adult stocks in Open Areas up to a 0.6 mile or more away. • Overall Kole abundance in the 30-60-foot depth range over the entire West Hawai′i coast increased by almost 5.2 million fish (118%) since FRA establishment (1999/2000), with a current population of about 9.6 million fish. • Commercial aquarium landings of Achilles Tang have declined in West Hawai′i over the past two decades in association with a recent dramatic increase in its value (192% since 2008). This is strongly suggestive of declining availability (i.e., abundance). (Addressed in Section 5.4.1.2 – Achilles Tang). • Achilles Tang have declined significantly in FRAs and Open Areas over the last 20 years. Open Area populations have usually been higher than FRA populations in the past decade. Achilles Tang has had low levels of recruitment over the past two decades, and because of its popularity as a food fish as well as an aquarium fish, this species is harvested both as juveniles and adults. • Of the remaining 7 of the top 10 collected aquarium species, 1 species (Goldrim Surgeonfish) had no significant change in population, 6 species (Orangespine Unicornfish, Chevron Tang, Orangeband Surgeonfish, Brown Surgeonfish, and Potter’s Angelfish) increased significantly in one or more of the management areas, and 1 species (Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface)) declined significantly in both FRA and Open areas. These results suggest that factors other than aquarium collecting are also affecting populations of these fish. • For 26 other species on the White List, 10 showed a significant population increase in one or more of the management areas while 11 decreased. Of the species which declined (11), only a single one, Blackside Hawkfish, declined exclusively in the Open Areas, indicating that factors other than aquarium collecting were also affecting the populations of these species. • For most of the species on the White List, collecting impact, in terms of the percentage of the population being removed annually, is relatively low with 9 species having single digit percent catch and 21 species having catch values <1%. • Survey data are lacking for four species which typically occur in deep water (Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Psychedelic Wrasse, Flame Wrasse and Hawai’i Longfin Anthias), as well as the Eyestripe Surgeonfish (which is typically found over sand during the day, a habitat not surveyed by WHAP). 76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment • In terms of reef fish biomass caught by the different fisheries in West Hawai’i, considerably more biomass is taken by the combined recreational and commercial (non-aquarium) fisheries either including Yellow Tang (2.8 times) or excluding it (8.6 times). The total take of reef fish by commercial and non-commercial (‘recreational’) fishers on other Main Hawai’i Islands greatly exceeds the numbers and biomass of the fish collected by aquarium collectors. • The 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. The Psychedelic Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, and Fisher’s Angelfish are all listed as SGCN in Hawai’i (Section 4.4.3). They are not federal- or state-listed as threatened or endangered species (Section 4.4.4) and are not currently afforded any protection from collection. The Psychedelic Wrasse is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is found among seaweed coral reefs at depths from 40-450 feet (Lieske and Myers 1994) and are the most abundant on the Northwestern side of the island (BIAAF, pers. comm.); Tinker’s Butterflyfish is found deeper than 100 feet on coral reef slopes (Pyle 2001); and, Fisher’s Angelfish have been observed feeding on algae and small shrimp associated with coral along outer reef slopes at depths between 10 and 200 feet (Pyle and Myers 2010). Adequate population estimates based on WHAP data (30-60 feet depth) are not available to assess the impact of continued aquarium collection on these three species due to their deeper water habitats. However, based on deep diver observations, Tinker’s Butterflyfish and Psychedelic Wrasse are substantially more common in the long term protected areas (MPAs). Commercial aquarium fishers generally do not fish in the deeper waters in which these species occur. In 2017, there were 599 Psychedelic Wrasse, approximately 290 Tinker’s Butterflyfish (n.d. in East Hawai’i), and 288 Fisher’s Angelfish collected by aquarium fishers on the island of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). 4.4.7.2 Coral Reef Ecosystems Program (CREP; now known as the Ecosystem Sciences Division) Surveys The NOAA has been involved in a large-scale monitoring program that surveys coral reef fish assemblages and habitats, including White List Species, encompassing the bulk of the US-affiliated tropical Pacific. This effort, formerly known as the Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP), has included over 5,500 surveys around 39 islands, including the island of Hawai’i. The dataset was developed as a resource that could be used to understand how human, environmental, and oceanographic conditions influence coral reef fish community structure, providing a basis for research to support effective management outcomes (CREP 2018). In 2010, the Pacific Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) developed and implemented a standardized survey methodology focusing on reef fish and paired benthic habitat-monitoring using monitoring methods specified in the National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan (NCRMP). The aim of the current systematic sampling design is to maximize survey site replication, while the overarching goal was to generate data representative of coral reef hardbottom substrate at the islands-scale (CREP 2018). Surveys were conducted around the island of Hawai’i in 2010 and 2013–2016 at 257 stationary point count locations (Figure 4) with a randomized depth-stratified design, at depths from 0-98 feet (approximately 030 meters). At each point count location, divers conducted fish counts, estimated benthic cover, and habitat structural complexity. Typically, 3–5 days were spent at each island during each visit (generally once every 77 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment 3 years), conducting 30–50 fish surveys during that time. Detailed explanations of the study sites and survey methods are found in Heenan et. al (2017). To establish survey points, an approximately 98-foot (30-meter) transect is measured out along the substrate. For each point count, a pair of divers conducts simultaneous counts in adjacent 49.2 foot (15 meter) cylindrical plots along the transect (i.e., diver 1 surveys from the 7.5 meter mark along the transect and diver 2 surveys from the 22.5 meter mark) extending from the substrate to the limits of vertical visibility (Heenan et. al 2017). Each fish count consists of two parts, a 5-minute species enumeration in which divers generate a list of taxa observed within their cylinder to species when possible; and, a tally portion in which divers systematically work through their species list recording the number and estimated size of fish present within the cylinder. Tallying is done by conducting a series of rapid visual sweeps of the plot with one speciesgroup (e.g., mid-water, surgeonfish, benthic butterflyfish) counted per sweep. At the end of the sweeps, divers carefully search for small, site-attached, and semi-cryptic species. Surveys were not conducted if horizontal visibility was <25 feet (Heenan et. al 2017). 78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment Figure 4. WHAP and CREP survey locations – Island of Hawai’i. 79 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment To facilitate analysis in this DEIS, estimated population size for each White List Species for the island of Hawai’i was calculated using CREP data by converting survey counts to abundance per unit area, and then multiplying by the estimated area of hardbottom habitat in <30 meters of water (16,840 Ha). Although CREP data are the most comprehensive data publicly available for the island of Hawai’i, certain limitations of the surveys may lead to an underestimate of some populations of aquarium fish. Specifically, surveys are concentrated into a short period of survey effort (about one month each year) located in different locations from one year to the next, allowing for a larger coverage of the entire island, but over five years during a seven-year period. Also, population estimates may be an underestimate for certain species as surveys were only conducted at depths <30 meters (approximately 98 feet) in areas of hardbottom habitat. No data were collected from softbottom habitat, as these tend to not be important habitats for most aquarium species, but certain species may utilize these areas, and therefore are not represented in the population estimate. No data were collected from depths greater than 30 meters (approximately 98 feet), but certain species may utilize these areas as well, and are therefore not represented in the population estimate. In addition, divers are trained in the identification of aquarium fish; however, certain species may be cryptic, skittish, or difficult to identify in the field, which may lead to underestimates of the population of those species. All data collection methods have a range of variation, or uncertainty. For the CREP data, this results in a high and low range for population estimates (Table 5-11). For the purposes of this DEIS, we used the median of those ranges to assess impacts. 4.4.7.3 WHAP and CREP Survey Comparison Both the WHAP and CREP collect data on fish populations in nearshore waters of the island of Hawai’i that are available and appropriate for estimating population size, within the limitations of each survey (e.g., spatial coverage, depth range), and for analysis of the impact of fish collection under Aquarium Permits. In addition, both surveys collect data on the physical conditions at each survey site. The following provides a side by side comparison of some of the parameters of each survey method. • WHAP 25 survey sites with 4 transects (82x13 foot long) each (100 transects total), in specific areas (FRAs, MPAs, Open Areas) along west coast of Hawai’i • 30-60-foot depth survey area • 4-6 survey rounds per year • 8,712 transects completed (1999-2018) • Visually estimated fish density, benthic cover, and habitat structural complexity • CREP 257 point counts covering entire island of Hawai’i except collection zone 107 • 0-98-foot depth survey area • 30-50 surveys once every 3 years • Surveys conducted in 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 • Fish counts, estimated benthic cover, and habitat structural complexity The WHAP data are collected from 25 transect survey sites located within the WHRFMA (Figure 4) and are designed to estimate fish densities over time within the WHRFMA between depths of 30-60 feet. By design, the WHAP focuses on the WHRFMA and does not have full spatial coverage of the island of Hawai’i; 80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences therefore, data generated by the WHAP cannot be used to develop population estimates for East Hawai’i. In addition, because WHAP estimates population size at depths from 30-60 feet, shallow- and deep-water species (or life phases of species) that spend time outside the 30-60-foot depth range are not adequately surveyed by WHAP transects. The CREP data are collected on all reef fish species for the Pacific islands, including from 257 stationary point count locations located around the island of Hawai’i, with the exception of collection zone 107 (Figure 4), from depths of 0-98 feet, providing an assessment of fish populations in both shallow and some deepwater habitats. Deep-water species (or life phases of species) that spend time below the 98-foot depth range are not adequately surveyed by CREP. Differences in study design between the two surveys result in differences in how data are collected and analyzed. However, when CREP data collected at a similar depth as those collected by the WHAP are compared, the population estimates collected by the two surveys are more similar. Both data sets are presented and analyzed in this DEIS. However, due to the larger spatial coverage and greater range of depths surveyed by the CREP, CREP data were considered to be a better estimator of island-wide fish populations, and therefore serve as the primary basis for the impact analysis found in Section 5.0. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section discusses the impacts of implementing the No Action Alternative, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Permit Alternative, the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative, and the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative on resources retained for further analysis. Aspects of the environment that may be affected by the alternatives are discussed to the level of detail commensurate with the potential effect. Those aspects of the environment that would not be affected are discussed briefly. The content, intensity, and likelihood of the impact were taken into consideration in the making of these ratings. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are evaluated for each resource. The temporal scope of the impacts analysis is five years, because the WHRFMA management plan is reviewed every five years by the DLNR in cooperation with the University of Hawai’i (DAR 2019a). Reviews have been completed for the 2010 and 2015 Legislatures, the 2020 Legislature review is drafted (DAR 2019a), and the next review will occur for the 2025 Legislature. The HEPA does not specifically define direct and indirect impacts. As such, for the purposes of this DEIS, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) definitions are used. The NEPA defines direct effects as those effects that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a)). Indirect effects include effects later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b)). Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). The HEPA does not specifically define mitigation. As such, for the purposes of this DEIS, the NEPA definition is used. According to the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 15008.20), mitigation means: 81 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences • Avoiding impact altogether • Minimizing impact • Limiting the degree or magnitude of action • Rectifying impact • Repairing, rehabilitating, restoring • Reducing or eliminating impact over time • Preservation and maintenance activities • Compensating for the impact • Replacing or providing substitutes However, the HEPA Guide (OEQC 2014) indicates that an EIS needs to consider all mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce adverse impacts. Therefore, mitigation is only considered for alternatives with a significant adverse impact. The HEPA defines cumulative impacts as the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (HAR Section 11200-2). Cumulative impacts were analyzed according to a tiered approach, which allows for a resource-specific analysis of regional and local actions and narrows the focus to those impacts with direct influence on the proposed action and agency decision-making. Following this approach, the cumulative impacts analysis focused on potential impacts to White List Species, non-White List Species, SGCN, and reef habitat as these are the resources with the potential for on-going impacts due to commercial aquarium fish collection. The spatial analysis area for cumulative impacts is the nearshore waters of the island of Hawai’i down to 600 feet (100 fathoms), with emphasis on the WHRFMA. As stated in Section 4.4, there is evidence that reef fish around the island of Hawai’i are genetically separated from the rest of the MHI, therefore, the spatial extent of cumulative impacts was limited to the island of Hawai’i. Conclusions of significance are based on the best available data as analyzed in this DEIS. The HEPA standards for a significant impact are described in Section 1.2.2. For the purposes of this DEIS, impacts were assessed on a descending scale: 1. Significant impact (HEPA standards); 2. Significant impact that is mitigable to less than significant; 3. Less than significant impact; 82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 4. No impact; and 5. Beneficial impact. 5.1 HRS §189-3 AND DATA ANALYSIS HRS §189-3 states: (a) Upon the demand of the department, every commercial marine licensee shall furnish to the department a report or reports with respect to the marine life taken and any other information the department may require for the purposes of this section. (b), “Any information submitted to the department by any person in compliance with any requirement under this section shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except when required under court order or pursuant to subpoena issued by the department of the attorney general, or with the prior written consent of the person submitting the information, or under cooperative agreements with government agencies of the United States for exchange and use of the information specifically to manage marine life. The department, by rule, may establish procedures necessary to preserve the confidentiality, except that the department may release or make public any of the information in the aggregate or summary form which does not directly or indirectly disclose the identity of any person who submits information.” The DAR complies with this statute by keeping confidential any catch data when less than three collectors report from an individual collection zone (Figure 1). Collection zones depicted in Figure 1 correspond to areas defined by the monthly report fishers are required to provide to DAR. Confidential data are identified as n.d. (not disclosed) in the tables in Section 5.0. The impact of this statute on data analysis is minimal but can cause confusion when numbers in the text or in the tables do not exactly match up, or do not match previously published reports for which the n.d. data were available (i.e., DAR reports). Although it is possible for 1-2 aquarium fishers to collect large numbers of fish and skew the data, this concern was minimized by the manner in which data were analyzed. Data provided by the DAR for this DEIS were evaluated using many parameters, thereby minimizing bias due to confidentiality. The data were also viewed in aggregate and over extended time periods (i.e., 2000-2017) to further minimize confidentiality issues. Additionally, the 14 fishers requesting the Proposed Action waived their right to confidentiality, so all data from these 14 fishers were released for analysis in the EIS for the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i from 2000 through 2017. 5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 5.2.1 Direct Impacts As noted in Section 4.1.1, the East Hawai’i aquarium fishery represents only a small portion (4.5%) of the overall value of the fishery on the island of Hawai’i and an even smaller portion of the overall value of the fishery in the state of Hawai’i. Table 4-2 (Section 4.1.1) shows the annual average of the East Hawai’i fishery for the period from 2000-2017 was approximately $72,671 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars), as compared to the $1.4 million (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) of the WHRFMA. Since the closure of the WHRFMA to commercial aquarium collection in October 2017, data disclosed from fishers in East Hawai’i 83 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences reported sales of $366,434 of finfish during the 2018 calendar year (DAR 2019b), which is 5 times the historic average value and 2.6 times the maximum reported value from 2000 to 2017 (Table 5-1). Therefore, while the focus of this section is on the WHRFMA and its socioeconomic impacts, East Hawai’i data are included due to their importance for the No Action Alternative, under which no commercial aquarium collection would be allowed to occur within the WHRFMA, as well as other alternatives which would include collection in East Hawai’i either with or without the use of fine mesh nets. Total ex-vessel value (i.e., price received by a fisher for the catch) for the 14 fishers in the WHRFMA ranged from a low of $164,040 in 2001 to a high of $1,162,964 in 2016, with an average of $793,352 (inflationadjusted 2019 dollars; Table 5-1). During the period from 2000 – 2017, the 14 fishers made up from 22.3% to 69.1% of the total economic value of the WHRFMA aquarium fishery (Table 5-1). Total ex-vessel value for all aquarium collectors in the WHRFMA ranged from a low of $731,828 in 2000 to a high of $1,862,185 in 2010, with an average of $1,417,300 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars; Table 5-1). Total ex-vessel value for the state of Hawai’i ranged from a low of $1,333,497 in 2002 to a high of $2,708,609 in 2015, with an average of $2,172,028 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) (Table 5-1). The 2017 ex-vessel inflation-adjusted value for the 14 fishers within the WHRFMA was $932,735; all aquarium fish collection in the WHRFMA was $1,350,592; and aquarium fish collection in the state of Hawai’i was $2,023,037 (Table 4-1). Table 5-1. Minimum, maximum and average market values of the commercial aquarium fishery from 2000 through 2017 (inflation-adjusted 2019 values). See Table 4-2 for additional data by year. East Hawai’i WHRFMA State of Hawai’i All Fishers All Fishers 14 Fishers All Fishers Minimum $17,629 $731,828 $164,040 $1,333,497 Maximum $142,069 $1,862,185 $1,162,964 $2,708,609 Average $72,671 $1,417,300 $793,352 $2,172,028 It should be noted that the dollar value of these fisheries represents only the ex-vessel value, what the fishers are paid for their catch, and does not include the value which would be generated by additional dealer and retail sales. The actual economic value of the catch is thus substantially greater than the exvessel value and is discussed in further detail in the indirect impacts section below. According to data presented in DAR (2019a), the market value of the WHRFMA has increased by 143% between 2000 and 2017, growing from a value of $530,842 in 2000 to a value of $1,290,316 in 2017 (DAR 2019a) 5,representing a 5.36% annual growth rate 6. All commercial aquarium collectors must obtain a state Aquarium Permit and a CML, which allows them to offer the fish for sale. The Aquarium Fish Catch Report requirement is triggered by the CML. Some 5 This value does not match our reported value from 2000, likely due to confidentiality rules (see Section 5.1). 6 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺ℎ = � 2017 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 1/17 2000 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1� ∗ 100 84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences collectors participate in a dive team. To avoid duplicate fish catch reporting, only a principal diver is required to report the catch and effort for the dive team (DAR, pers. comm., 2018). This process ensures that reported catch data are not duplicated in the State’s system. However, this reporting mechanism can lead to confusion by outside observers, as the total number of permit holders is higher than the number of permit holders reporting data (Table 4-1), giving the appearance of under reporting. Analysis by the DAR (2019a) has shown that actual underreporting of catch is small, with a 3.5% difference between the number of animals reported caught and sold in 2010 and a 0.4% difference in 2014, which likely represent live releases and mortality. The number of non-reporting permit holders is actually an indicator of industry growth and direct socioeconomic benefits. For the period 2000 to 2017, the total number of permit holders for the WHRFMA ranged from 24 to 63 (average = 46), while the number of permit holders reporting ranged from 19 to 42 (average = 28). In 2017, it is estimated that up to 57 individuals were directly employed in the commercial aquarium fishery in the WHRFMA (up to 226 employed in the state of Hawai’i). 5.2.1.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, commercial collection of aquarium fish would not occur in the WHRFMA. In East Hawai’i, aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets would continue. Commercial aquarium fishers may no longer find it feasible to target aquarium fish and may begin to participate in other fisheries, but this is not possible to quantify at this time. Under the No Action Alternative, some aquarium collection may continue using legal gear or methods other than fine mesh nets. Since the closure of the WHRFMA to commercial aquarium collection in October 2017, based on data disclosed by the DAR, East Hawai’i reported sales of $366,434 during the 2018 calendar year (DAR 2019b), which is 5 times the historic average value and 2.6 times the maximum reported from 2000 to 2017 (Table 5-1). In East Hawai’i, under the No Action Alternative, it is estimated that the commercial aquarium fishery would add approximately $366,434 to the state of Hawai’i’s economy in the first year of the 5-year analysis period based on what occurred in 2018 (DAR 2019b). Assuming a 5.36% annual growth rate, this would total approximately $2 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $407,878 per year) and an unknown number of jobs (assumed to be <57) under the No Action Alternative. This would represent an increase in East Hawai’i of over $1.6 million compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, though there would also be a loss of approximately $7.9 million in the WHRFMA when compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. An increase in the East Hawai’i commercial aquarium fishery value may offset some of the loss from the WHRFMA fishery under the No Action Alternative, but the fishery as a whole would still add approximately $6.3 million less to the economy over the 5-year analysis period than under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, or $1,250,611 less per year (on average). This represents an annual loss of approximately 0.01% of the $8.6 billion ocean economy in Hawai’i, and an even lesser percentage of the overall Hawai’i economy. The No Action Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Hawai’i’s overall and ocean socioeconomic, and a less than significant impact compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 85 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.2.1.2 Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits would be issued for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i, and it is assumed for this analysis that fishing trends, including the value and sales of fish, would follow historic trends (see Table 42). Based on historic data collected prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection, under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative the commercial aquarium fishery is estimated to create approximately 57 jobs, and add an average of approximately $1,485,429 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars, based on $1,417,300 from the WHRFMA and $72,671 from East Hawai’i) to the state of Hawai’i’s economy during the first year of the 5-year analysis period. Assuming an annual growth rate of 5.36%, this would total over $8.2 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $1.65 million per year). This represents less than 0.02% of the $8.6 billion ocean economy in Hawai’i, and even less of Hawai’i economy overall. The Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a minimal, but beneficial direct impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources. 5.2.1.3 WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative Under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits would be issued for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA, but fine-mesh nets would not be allowed in East Hawai’i. The impact on socioeconomics within the WHRFMA would be creation of an estimated 57 jobs, as well as the addition of approximately $1,417,300 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) to the state of Hawai’i’s economy during the first year of the 5-year analysis period. This value would likely grow by approximately 5.36% each year, for a total value of $7.9 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $1,577,599 per year). In East Hawai’i, given that the WHRFMA would be open to fishing with the use of fine mesh nets, impacts to the economy would be anticipated to be similar to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, or even potentially decrease since fishing in the WHRFMA may provide more favorable given the use of fine mesh nets. Therefore, it is anticipated that aquarium fish collection in East Hawai’i would add, at most, $72,671 in the first year, and given an annual growth rate of 5.36%, a total of $404,451 over the 5-year analysis period (average of $80,890 per year), or less. Thus, this alternative overall would add $7.9 to $8.3 million to the economy over the 5-year analysis period. Assuming an average of $1,577,599 per year from the WHRFMA, and $80,890 per year from East Hawai’i, the total of $1.65 million represents less than 0.02% of the $8.6 billion ocean economy in Hawai’i, and even less of Hawai’i economy overall. The WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative would have a minimal, but beneficial direct impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources, and would have a less than significant direct impact compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.2.1.4 Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative The Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would include issuance of an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i, and implementation of a bag limit of 5 Achilles Tang per day, resulting in an estimated 50% reduction in the number of Achilles Tang collected by the commercial aquarium fishery (due to a 50% reduction in the current bag limit of 10 Achilles Tang). Estimated value of the Achilles Tang catch in the WHRFMA since the 2014 bag limit was imposed has been $135,627 (2015), $129,876 (2016), and $130,853 (2017). The worst-case scenario under the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would be that the income from Achilles Tang would be cut in approximately half (average of $66,059 decrease in income based upon the past three years). This represents approximately 4.7% of the average economic value of the WHRFMA ($1,417,300 per year). This impact may be buffered however, as the cost per fish may increase as the supply of Achilles Tang decreases, negating any socioeconomic impact to the fishers. If this were to be case, the socioeconomic impact of the bag limit would be seen on the consumer side (i.e., those purchasing aquarium fish, who would have to pay a higher premium due to decreased supply). However, assuming that the impact is 4.7% of the WHRFMA value, the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would add approximately $1,350,687 in the first year of analysis, and assuming an annual growth rate of approximately 5.36%, the WHRFMA would add approximately $7.5 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $1,503,452 per year). Impacts in East Hawai’i would remain the same as the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (as no bag limit would be implemented there), for a total of $404,451 over the 5-year analysis period (average of $80,890 per year). Combined, the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i would add approximately $7.9 million to the economy over the 5-year analysis period (average of $1,584,342 per year). The represents less than 0.02% of the $8.6 billion ocean economy in Hawai’i, and even less of Hawai’i economy overall. The Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would have a minimal, but beneficial direct impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources, and a less than significant impact on Hawai’i’s overall and ocean socioeconomic resources compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 5.2.1.5 Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative Under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative, Aquarium Permits would be issued to 14 fishers for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA. No fine mesh nets would be allowed in East Hawai’i, though collection of aquarium fish would still be permitted using other legal means. This would create a minimum of 14 jobs for the 14 fishers who would have permits. The 14 fishers requesting permits averaged $793,352 per year in the WHRFMA between 2000 and 2017, up to a maximum of $1,162,964 (based on the maximum from 2016) (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars; see Table 4-1). Assuming that the first year of the 5-year analysis period would have a market value of $793,352 to $1,162,964, and applying a 5.36% annual growth rate, the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would add from $4.4 to $6.5 million over the 5-year analysis period (average of $883,081 to $1,294,497 per year). Therefore, under this alternative, the commercial aquarium fishery in the WHRFMA 87 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences would represent up to approximately 0.01% of the $8.6 billion ocean economy in Hawai’i, and an even smaller percentage of the overall economy in the State (see Section 4.1). The Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would have a minimal, but beneficial direct impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources compared to the No Action Alternative, and a less than significant impact compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect socioeconomic impacts of the commercial aquarium fishery would primarily involve the additional profits from the aquarium fish market (including freight and packaging), as well as other tourist businesses such as snorkel and dive operations that rely on seeing and interacting with a healthy reef ecosystem. The presence of a healthy reef ecosystem may also impact overall land/home values on the island of Hawai’i. As described in Section 4.1.1, the total sales of the Hawaiian aquarium fishery (including freight and packaging) is nearly six times the ex-vessel value (Walsh et al. 2003). Therefore, it is estimated that the commercial aquarium fishery indirectly adds approximately five times the direct socioeconomic costs described in Section 5.2.1 to the economy. 5.2.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no commercial aquarium fishing would occur in the WHRFMA, but aquarium fishing in East Hawai’i would continue using methods other than fine-mesh nets. The commercial aquarium industry in East Hawai’i is expected to add approximately $2 million over the 5year analysis period to the economy under the No Action Alternative, for an indirect economic benefit of approximately $10 million over the 5-year analysis period, or an average of $2 million per year, representing approximately 0.2% of the annual $84.9 billion gross domestic product of Hawai’i. Based on the direct economic loss of approximately $6.3 million over the 5-year analysis period under the No Action Alternative when compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (this loss is described in Section 5.2.1.2), approximately $31 million in indirect economic benefits of this fishery would not occur over the 5-year analysis period, or an average of $6.3 million per year, representing <0.01% of the annual $84.9 billion gross domestic product of Hawai’i. Under the No Action Alternative, no interaction between other tourist operations and commercial aquarium fishers would occur in the WHRFMA; however, interactions in East Hawai’i would continue and may increase due to increased use of the area by aquarium fishers. No scientific data exist to suggest that in the absence of aquarium fishers an increase in other tourist operations would occur. The loss of funding for reef fish conservation likely would impact the ability of the DAR to monitor and protect reef fish. Nevertheless, the No Action Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources. 88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.2.2.2 Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, commercial aquarium fishing would occur in the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i using fine mesh nets, and it is assumed for this analysis that fishing trends, including the value and sales of fish, would follow those prior to the October 2017 commercial aquarium collection ban (see Table 4-3). Based on the direct economic value of $8.2 million over the 5-year analysis period, the commercial aquarium fishery would indirectly add an additional $41 million under the PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative to the economy of Hawai’i, or an average of $8.2 million per year, representing <0.01% of the annual $84.9 billion gross domestic product of Hawai’i. Indirect socioeconomic impacts between commercial aquarium fishers, dive tour operators and subsistence/cultural fishers are possible if the commercial aquarium fishing leads to a decrease in demand for snorkel and scuba tours or a decrease in availability of species of fish targeted for subsistence/cultural fishing activities. As the number of commercial aquarium collectors in West Hawai'i began to rise in the 1980s conflicts between dive tour operators and commercial aquarium collectors began to increase. A short-lived informal “Gentleperson’s Agreement” was reached in 1987 whereby aquarium collectors agreed to refrain from collecting in certain areas. In return, charter operators agreed not to initiate legislation opposing collecting and to cease harassment. In 1991, four of the areas from the Gentleperson’s Agreement were established as the Kona Coast Fisheries Management Area (FMA) within which aquarium collecting is prohibited (Walsh et al. 2003; HAR §13-58). This, in part, led to the development of the WHRFWG and the WHRFMA, minimizing indirect impacts to other, tourist related industries (e.g., dive and snorkel operations), and subsistence and/or cultural fishing. In addition, the average collection of 37 of the 40 White List Species is below 1% of their overall island of Hawai’i populations and collection of the remaining three species would be less than 5% of their overall population (Section 5.4.1.2). The small percentage of fish collected over multiple areas would be imperceptible to the average observer. Available data do not suggest that the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative has impacted the tourism industry or land values in Hawai’i. Hawai‘i’s tourism industry achieved new records in total visitor spending and visitor arrivals in 2017, marking the sixth consecutive year of record growth in both categories. Total spending by visitors to the Hawaiian Islands increased 5.6% to a new high of $16.81 billion (HTA 2018). When adjusted for inflation, total visitor spending was up 3.5% from 2016 (Figure 3). A total of 9,404,346 visitors came by air or by cruise ship to the state, up 5.3% from the previous record of 8,934,277 visitors in 2016. Total visitor days rose 4.8% compared to 2016. The average spending per day by these visitors ($198 per person) was also higher than 2016 ($197 per person; HTA 2018). Despite the housing crisis and recent recession, the average sale price of homes steadily increased in Hawai’i from 2011 to 2014 after a few years of year-to-year fluctuation. The average sale price of homes in 2014 was $594,440, which was 26.4%higher than the average sale price in 2011. A rapid price increase was observed particularly in 2013 and 2014. The average sale price in 2013 and 2014 was about 10%higher than the price in the prior year. In 2015, the total number of home sales increased by 9.3%, but the average sale price was 0.3% lower than the previous year (HDBEDT 2016). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, a portion of the direct and indirect income from this fishery (total of $49.2 million over the 5-year analysis period) would continue to be put back into Hawai’i’s economy through re-investment efforts in terms of equipment, maintenance, supplies, and personnel. 89 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences In addition, while the aquarium fishery directly employs permitted collectors, these collectors hire staff/assistants, sell their catch to wholesalers, who in turn get the fish to the market, which includes pet stores and their customers (Dierking 2002). This economic value is represented in the $41 million indirect economic benefit, but there are also jobs, which cannot be quantified at this time. The Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Hawai’i's tourist industry, and a minimal, but beneficial indirect impact on Hawai’i's overall economy through reinvestment efforts in terms of equipment, maintenance, supplies, and personnel. 5.2.2.3 WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative Under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, it is assumed that the indirect socioeconomic impacts in the WHRFMA would be similar to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (Section 5.2.2.2). In East Hawai’i, the impacts may be similar to the No Action Alternative, though with the WHRFMA open to fishing with the use of fine mesh nets, aquarium fish collection in East Hawai’i may return to levels seen under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, or even decrease since fishing in the WHRFMA may prove more favorable given the use of fine mesh nets. Based on the $7.9 to $8.2 million in direct economic benefits under the WRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, the indirect economic benefits would range from $39.5 to $41 million ($7.9 to $8.2 million per year), representing <0.01% of the annual $84.9 billion gross domestic product of Hawai’i. The WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Hawai’i's tourist industry, and a minimal, but beneficial indirect impact on Hawai’i's overall economy through re-investment efforts in terms of equipment, maintenance, supplies, and personnel. 5.2.2.4 Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative The indirect impacts of the Achilles Tang Conservation (Preferred) Alternative would be similar to those of the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (Section 5.2.2.2), though the indirect economic benefits may decrease to $39.5 million in line with the direct economic decrease, representing <0.01% of the $84.9 billion annual gross domestic product of Hawai’i. The reduction in the Achilles Tang bag limit may make the species more visible to divers and snorkelers, but the impact would be less than significant. A minimal, but beneficial indirect impact on Hawai’i's overall economy would occur under the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative through re-investment efforts in terms of equipment, maintenance, supplies, and personnel. 5.2.2.5 Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative Under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative, Aquarium Permits would be issued for 14 fishers for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA. Based on the direct economic benefit of $4.4 to $6.5 million over the 5-year analysis period, an indirect economic benefit of $22 to $32.5 million would be added to the economy, representing <0.01% of the $84.9 billion annual gross domestic product of Hawai’i. No fine mesh nets would be allowed in East Hawai’i, though collection of aquarium fish would still be permitted using other legal means. It is anticipated that indirect impacts in East Hawai’i would be similar to 90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences the No Action Alternative, though with the WHRFMA open to fishing with the use of fine mesh nets for the 14 fishers, who represented nearly 70% of the fishery in 2017, aquarium fish collection in East Hawai’i may return to levels seen under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, or even decrease since fishing in the WHRFMA may prove more favorable given the use of fine mesh nets. Other indirect impacts of the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would be similar to those of the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (Section 5.2.2.2). The Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Hawai’i's tourist industry, and a minimal, but beneficial indirect impact on Hawai’i's overall economy through re-investment efforts in terms of equipment, maintenance, supplies, and personnel. 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts For the period 2000 to 2017, the commercial aquarium fishery within the WHRFMA added an average of $1,417,300 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) annually to the state of Hawai’i’s economy, while the overall aquarium fishery within the state of Hawai’i added an average of $2,172,028 (inflation-adjusted 2019 dollars) (Table 4-3). Thus, the WHRFMA aquarium fishery accounts for approximately 65% of the overall aquarium fishery within Hawai’i. In 2016, the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Hawai’i was $84.9 billion, of which, the commercial aquarium fishery contributed $2,257,021 (0.003%), of which $1,582,011 was from the WHRFMA. Over the 5-year analysis period, it is estimated that the aquarium fishery on Hawai’i would directly add $404,000 (under the No Action Alternative) to $8.2 million (under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative) to the state’s economy. All alternatives under consideration would have a minimal, but beneficial cumulative impact on Hawai’i's overall and ocean socioeconomic resources. The reduction in Achilles Tang bag limit under the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative and the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative may have an effect on the non-aquarium commercial fishery; however, given that known catch of Achilles Tang made up less than 1.5% of the White List Species collected by commercial fishers on the island of Hawai’i, and average only 222 per year on the Island (or 592 state-wide) (see Section 5.4.3.2, Table 5-12), the impact is anticipated to be less than significant. 5.2.4 Mitigation No significant adverse socioeconomic impacts are anticipated under any of the five alternatives under consideration. Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed. 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts A full analysis of the cultural impacts of commercial aquarium collection is found in the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) located in Appendix A. As discussed in Section 4.2 and detailed in the CIA, many of the 40 White List Species have a cultural significance in Hawai’i, and there are distinct differences between the traditional Native Hawaiian approach to fish harvest and management and the western model approach. 91 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences As concluded in the CIA, cultural impacts would occur if issuance of Aquarium Permits under an alternative would cause a significant decline in the population of a White List Species considered to be a cultural resource, either directly through the collection of fish or indirectly through habitat impacts. Table 4-3 lists the 40 White List Species, and Section 4.4 includes a brief summary of known cultural significance by species. While not all species have a known Hawaiian cultural significance, for this analysis, it was assumed that the 33 species on the White List identified as having a cultural use for food, medicinal, religious or ceremonial purposes could have a cultural impact if populations of those species were impacted. As detailed in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline under any of the five alternatives under consideration. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources as a result of commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives under consideration would be less than significant. 5.3.2 Cumulative Impacts It is acknowledged that cultural resources, including traditional practices specific to both species and places, have been impacted by past and current actions, and will continue to be impacted by reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts of the five alternatives under consideration are addressed in this section. It is not possible to fully quantify the cumulative effects of past and ongoing actions on cultural practices and beliefs. Many users and user groups have collected fish in the waters around the island of Hawai’i for various purposes for centuries. The commercial aquarium fishery has existed in Hawai’i since the late 1940s and in the past the fishery has impacted cultural resources by virtue of the fact that commercial aquarium collection occurs in a culturally significant area (the ocean), and in some instances involves culturally significant species. However, commercial aquarium collection is not the only fishery occurring in the ocean and affecting some of the White List Species, including those with cultural significance (e.g., Achilles Tang) (see Section 5.4.3). Harvest of some of the White List Species by other non-regulated users (e.g., subsistence fishers, non-aquarium commercial and recreational fishers) occurs and is anticipated to continue under any of the five alternatives under consideration. In addition, other ocean users may indirectly affect reef fish and the reefs they depend on, such as beachgoers using sunscreen, scuba divers and snorkelers affecting fish behavior, and boaters anchoring on top of reefs (see Section 5.4.3.4). Beach and shoreline development may also have effects on reefs and reef fish. In addition to effects on culturally significant White List Species by the various user groups discussed above, climate change resulting in warming ocean temperatures and habitat loss due coral bleaching also affects reef fishes including population effects (see Section 5.4.3.5). As concluded in the CIA (Appendix A), cultural impacts would occur if a significant decline in the population of a White List Species considered to be a cultural resource occurs. The DAR (2019a) has noted significantly declining populations in one or more management area for 12 of the White List Species, and cumulatively, all of the factors discussed above likely contribute to the declines. Therefore, cumulative cultural resource impacts to these 12 White List Species would occur under any of the five alternatives under consideration and would be significant (including the No Action Alternative). No cumulative cultural resource impacts to the remaining 28 White List Species are anticipated, given that populations have 92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences remained stable or increased for 24 of those species, and population trend data is not available for the other four species 7. However, as noted above and in Section 5.4.3, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019a). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives would collect less than 1% of the islandwide population estimates for 10 of the species (Table 5-14). For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 4% of the island-wide population (Table 5-14). Based on this, while commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Additionally, measures included in the Preferred Alternative (e.g., limited permit issuance, reduced Achilles Tang bag limit) may mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources by limiting the number of Aquarium Permits issued as well as the number of Achilles Tang that can be collected by commercial aquarium collectors each day. These measures may increase the number of Achilles Tang available for cultural practices and traditional subsistence fishers, and potentially decrease user conflict between commercial collectors and subsistence fishers or cultural practitioners. 5.3.3 Mitigation No significant adverse direct or indirect cultural resource impacts are anticipated under any of the five alternatives under consideration. Significant cumulative impacts are anticipated; however, commercial aquarium collection is a less than significant factor in the cumulative impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed. Nevertheless, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigative measures (see Section 5.0) such as a reduction in the number of Aquarium Permits that would be issued, limiting collection using fine mesh nets to the WHRFMA, and reducing the bag limit for the Achilles Tang, all of which would minimize impacts to cultural resources. Species not adequately surveyed by WHAP include Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse, and Eyestripe Surgeonfish. Tinker’s Butterflyfish have a CREP (2018) population estimate of 18,475, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 5% of the island-wide population (though it should be noted that the vast majority of the population occurs well below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP and thus the population estimate is likely low). Eyestripe Surgeonfish has a CREP (2018) population estimate of 578,835, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 0.3% of the island-wide population. Flame Wrasse do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017. Longfin Anthias also do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. 7 93 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Direct Impacts According to data presented in DAR (2019a), the number of collected fish in the WHRFMA has increased by 29% between 2000 and 2017, growing from a collection of 252,290 in 2000 to a collection of 324,565 in 2017 (DAR 2019a) 8, representing an annual growth rate of 1.49% 9. Table 5-2 summarizes the historic collection data for East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA by year for all commercial aquarium collectors, as well as for the 14 fishers requesting Aquarium Permits under the Preferred Alternative. Table 5-2. Total fish and invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits from East Hawai’i and total White List Species collected from the WHRFMA annually from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a). Also included for comparison are data from collection of fish within East Hawai’i in 2018. East Hawai’i WHRFMA Fiscal Year 14 fishers All fishers 14 fishers All fishers 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 807 0 0 3,447 638 3,390 1,048 222 29 3,644 453 465 2,483 1,568 7,832 2,739 3,652 6,685 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 7,942 22,371 11,036 36,924 21,494 9,232 39,058 104,670 55,945 52,799 25,272 15,504 47,430 27,510 43,232 73,780 157,836 168,265 180,209 151,514 193,444 151,264 196,710 156,312 213,362 204,544 234,488 254,928 293,845 241,070 243,085 192,102 233,930 336,436 433,270 478,122 337,287 342,954 284,537 377,805 361,452 349,971 362,444 338,848 358,671 377,479 2017 6,442 22,002 236,022 324,565 Percent contribution of 14 fishers 19.7% 11.3% 22.5% 31.5% 46.9% 38.8% 37.7% 44.9% 56.4% 53.2% 52.1% 43.2% 61.0% 56.4% 69.2% 71.1% 77.8% 72.7% Combined 14 fishers 48,237 27,510 43,232 77,227 158,474 171,655 181,257 151,736 193,473 154,908 197,163 156,777 215,845 206,112 242,320 257,667 297,497 242,464 All fishers 247,755 243,085 192,102 233,930 336,436 441,212 500,493 348,323 379,878 306,031 387,037 400,510 454,641 418,389 391,647 383,943 392,983 346,567 The numbers in 2000 do not match the number presented elsewhere in the text, likely due to confidentiality of data (Section 5.1). 8 9 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺ℎ = � 2017 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 1/17 2000 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1� ∗ 100 94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences East Hawai’i WHRFMA Percent 14 fishers All fishers contribution of 14 fishers N/A, aquarium fishing closed as of October 2017 Fiscal Year 14 fishers All fishers 20181 26,775 55,815 38,859 430,934 2,984,695 5,974,028 2,159 30,781 165,816 331,890 Total (2000-2017) Average (20002017) Combined 14 fishers All fishers 26,775 55,815 50.0% 3,023,554 6,404,962 50.0% 167,975 355,831 Data from 2018 were provided for the calendar year for all fishers, and for the fiscal year for the 14 fishers. However, both datasets contain 12 calendar months, and are considered comparable for analysis. 1 5.4.1.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative issuance of Aquarium Permits would not occur and commercial aquarium fishing would not be permitted in the WHRFMA. Therefore, collection of all White List Species in the WHRFMA would be zero and reef habitat would not be affected. In East Hawai’i, aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets would continue. Since the closure of the WHRFMA to commercial aquarium collection in October 2017, commercial aquarium collectors in East Hawai’i collected 55,815 fish in the 2018 calendar year (based on data provided by the DAR), and an additional 32,331 fish to-date in 2019 (data provided on October 21, 2019, DAR 2019b). Assuming 55,815 fish are collected in the first year of the 5-year analysis period, and an annual growth rate of 1.49% in collection, a total of 287,516 fish would be collected over the 5-year analysis period (average of 57,503 per year). Of the 88,146 fish collected in East Hawai’i in 2018 and 2019, nearly 86% were Yellow Tang (Table 5-3). Due to confidentiality laws (Section 5.1), information on species collected is limited, however the species composition for 93% of all collection in provided in Table 5-3. Assuming that similar collection would occur annually over the 5-year analysis period under the No Action Alternative, collection of each species would result in impacts to 1.11% or less of the estimated population per year. Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) suggest collection of between 5% and 25% is sustainable for various reef species in the Philippines that are similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, triggerfish), and all 7 species fall below this threshold. See “Impact of Collection on White List Species Populations” in Section 5.4.1.2 for a further discussion on population impacts. No collection of invertebrates was provided for 2018 or 2019 from East Hawai’i, though this could be due to Hawai’i confidentiality laws (see Section 5.1). Therefore, we assume that the collection of invertebrates would follow historic trends from 2000-2017, and would not increase under the No Action Alternative, as collection of invertebrates has not and would not be allowed in the WHRFMA (i.e., there has been no change in laws/regulations regarding invertebrate collection on the island of Hawai’i). The only invertebrate with catch data provided from 2000-2017 was the Red Pond Shrimp, which had an average collection of 20,301 individuals per year, and a maximum of 97,730 in 2012 (DAR 2018a). Therefore, while still applying a 1.49% annual growth rate for collection, it is anticipated that 20,301 to 97,730 invertebrates (mainly Red Pond Shrimp) would be collected during the first year of the 5-year analysis period, and a total of 104,575 to 503,430 would be collected over the 5-year analysis period (average of 20,915 to 100,686 per year). 95 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Table 5-3. Projected annual and total collection of fish species collected in East Hawai’i over the 5-year analysis period, based on an average collection of 57,503/year total fish, and impact on the CREP (2018) population estimates. Species Yellow Tang Achilles Tang Kole, Goldring Surgeonfish Black Surgeonfish (Chevron Tang) Tinker’s Butterflyfish Orangespine Unicornfish Goldrim Tang All Others (White List and non-White List) CREP (2018) Population Estimates (lower-upper estimate limit) 8,262,144 (6,849,295-9,674,993) 231,377 (113,989-348,765) 11,697,561 (9,547,971-13,847,152) 549,462 (355,535-743-388) 18,475 (1,556-38,505) 897,085 (758,978-1,035,192) 97,924 (10,276-185,573) NA % of total catch in East Hawai’i (20182019) Projected Average Annual Collection Under No Action Alternative % of the CREP population collected annually 85.7% 49,280 0.60% 4.5% 2,588 1.11% 2.0% 1,150 <0.01% 0.3% 173 0.03% 0.3% 173 0.94% 0.2% 115 0.01% <0.1% 58 0.06% 7.0% 4,025 NA Without the use of fine mesh nets, the size class of fish collected may increase over that which is caught with fine mesh nets (i.e., the smaller fish would escape the larger mesh), but again this impact cannot be quantified at this time. The No Action Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on reef fish populations and the reefs in which they occur, and a minor beneficial impact when compared to the Pre-Commercial Aquarium Ban Alternative. 5.4.1.2 Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative issuance of an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits would occur and commercial aquarium fishing would take place in both the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i. Based on historic trends, it is assumed that between 113 and 226 Aquarium Permits would be issued in the State of Hawai’i (minimum and maximum of the last 18 years, Table 4-1), and between 24 and 60 Aquarium Permits would be issued for fishers in the WHRFMA (Table 4-2). Impacts to invertebrates, including the Red Pond Shrimp, would be similar to the No Action Alternative, with a total of 104,575 to 503,430 invertebrates (mostly Red Pond Shrimp) collected over the 5-year analysis period (average of 20,915 to 100,686 per year). 96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences It is likely that fishing pressure on the species collected in the past would remain relatively the same as what occurred prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection, resulting in an estimated 331,890 (18-year average) individual fish collected from the WHRFMA. Prior to October 2017, an average of 30,781 fish and invertebrates were collected from East Hawai’i (Table 5-2). Based on data provided, 42.4% were Red Pond Shrimp, while the rest were fish species or other invertebrates (DAR 2018a). However, no other invertebrate species’ catch data were provided due to confidentiality, and therefore, we conservatively assume that the remaining 57.6% of the catch was fish. Therefore, of the 30,781 fish and invertebrates collected in an average year, it is assumed that 57.6% of those are fish (17,730). Assuming a 1.49% annual growth rate on the average collection from the WHRFMA (331,890 per year) and East Hawai’i (17,730 per year), a total of 1.8 million fish would be collected from the Island of Hawai’i over the 5-year analysis period, with 1.7 million of those collected in the WHRFMA and 91,000 from East Hawai’i (average of 341,929 and 18,266 per year). White List Species WHRFMA (Only White List Species Collected) The top 10 collected species in the WHRFMA made up 98.2% of all fishes collected in fiscal year 2017 (DAR 2019a): • • • • • • • • • • Yellow Tang (81.6% of the total catch) Goldring Surgeonfish, Kole (9.5% of the total catch) Orangespine Unicornfish (1.9% of the total catch) Achilles Tang (1.7% of the total catch) Black Surgeonfish (1.2% of the total catch) Potter’s Angelfish (0.7% of the total catch) Ornate Wrasse (0.5% of the total catch) Goldrim Surgeonfish (0.4% of the total catch) Orangeband Surgeonfish (0.4% of the total catch) Brown Surgeonfish (0.3% of the total catch) The remaining 30 White List Species made up the remaining 1.8% of collected fish (DAR 2019a). Total abundance of nearshore fishes has had a significant positive trend in all management areas (open areas, FRAs and MPAs) since 2003 (DAR 2019a). WHAP data indicate that establishment of the FRAs has had a significantly positive impact on Yellow Tang and Kole populations in the WHRFMA (DAR 2019a; Table 5-4). Achilles Tang have decreased in both FRAs and Open Areas, suggesting that factors other than aquarium collection are also affecting their population (DAR 2019a; Table 5-4). Of the remaining 7 of the top 10 collected aquarium species, 1 species (Goldrim Surgeonfish) had no significant change in population since establishment of the FRAs in 1999, 6 species (Orangespine Unicornfish, Black Surgeonfish,, Orangeband Surgeonfish, Brown Surgeonfish, and Potter’s Angelfish) increased significantly in one or more of the management areas, and 1 species (Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface)) declined significantly in both FRAs and Open areas, suggesting that factors other than aquarium collecting were also affecting the Ornate Wrasse population. 97 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Additionally, a comparison of West Hawai’i with Maui using 2002-2010 WHAP data and CREP data found that for the 10 most collected species in the WHRFMA (not the same 10 species listed above, as this list can vary by year), all were more abundant within the Open Areas of the WHRFMA (where aquarium collection occurs) than in the Maui MPA closed areas, and five of the species were significantly more abundant (DAR 2019a). 98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Table 5-4. Change in density of the top 10 collected species in the WHRFMA based on WHAP data. ‘Before’ = Mean of 1999-2000; ‘After’ = Mean 2017-2018. Youngof-year (YOY) not included. Bold = statistically significant t-test (DAR 2019a). COMMON NAME Yellow Tang Kole (Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) Orangespine Unicornfish Achilles Tang Black Surgeonfish Potter’s Angelfish Ornate Wrasse Goldrim Surgeonfish Orangeband Surgeonfish Brown Surgeonfish AREA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA MEAN DENSITY (NO./100M2) Before 12.73 10.24 23.08 28.38 21.18 28.53 0.81 1.12 1.59 0.26 0.31 0.42 0.18 0.17 0.53 1.38 1.65 1.54 0.94 2.20 1.24 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.13 0.31 0.56 8.57 11.20 7.68 After 33.79 20.53 40.07 52.60 41.65 62.64 0.67 1.59 2.88 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.76 0.84 0.98 2.28 2.47 2.39 0.66 1.83 1.59 0.09 0.06 0.21 0.22 0.50 0.87 13.90 25.77 22.21 OVERALL% CHANGE IN DENSITY ρ +165.4% +100.6% +73.6% +85.4% +96.6% +119.6% -16.8% +42.6% +81.4% -82.7% -70.5% -48.3% +319.2% +402.1% +83.7% +66.0% +49.9% +55.4% -30.1% -16.6% +28.5% +156.6% +605.9% +102.4% +73.9% +60.0% +56.3% +62.1% +130.1% +189.3% <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.26 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 0.46 0.42 0.45 0.24 <0.01 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 99 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences YELLOW TANG The Yellow Tang has been the most collected species every year since 1976 (DAR 2018a). Since 2000, 5,972,413 individuals of all White List Species have been collected in the WHRFMA; 4,885,736 (81.8%) of those were Yellow Tang. The average number of Yellow Tang captured each year since 2000 was 271,430 individuals, ranging between a minimum catch of 152,047 individuals (2002) and maximum of 386,767 (2006). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that between 152,047 and 387,767 Yellow Tang would be collected each year, for a total of approximately 760,000 to 1.9 million Yellow Tang over the 5-year analysis period. Based on data collected between 2010 and 2016 by the CREP (2018), the island of Hawai’i Yellow Tang population is estimated at 8,260,141 individuals (Table 5-5). The WHAP estimates the 2017/2018 Open Area Yellow Tang population in the WHRFMA at 2,867,048 at the 30’-60’ depth, an increase of over 1.2 million fish since 2012/2013. Collection of Yellow Tang between 152,047 and 386,767 individuals would remove approximately 2% to 5% of the current estimated population for the island of Hawai’i (Table 5-5). While this collection would occur only within the WHRFMA, there is evidence for connectivity between FRAs and Open Areas around the island of Hawai’i (Christie et al. 2010), therefore, analyzing the impacts on just the Open Area populations is not representative of the impact. See “Impact of Collection on White List Species Populations” below. Table 5-5. CREP (2018) estimated population of Yellow Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). Island of Hawai’i Pop (CREP 2018) 8,262,144 WHAP Open Area Pop. Est. 30’-60’ Depth in WHRFMA Only1 2012/2013 2016/2017 Minimum WHRFMA Collection per Year2 1,663,775 2,867,048 152,047 Maximum WHRFMA Collection per Year2 Minimum % of Hawai’i Population Maximum % of Hawai’i Population 386,767 1.84% 4.68% Include both adults and young-of-the-year. Data for 2012/2013 are from DAR 2014a. Data for 2016/2017 are from DAR 2019a. 2 From 2000 – 2017 1 The DAR(2019), stated: • Since the FRAs were established, the population of Yellow Tang has increased 165% in the FRAs and 101% in the Open Areas (areas fished by commercial aquarium fishers), compared to 74% in the MPAs. Overall Yellow Tang abundance in the 30-60-foot depth range over the entire West Hawai′i coast had increased 150% (over 3.4 million fish) from 1999/2000 to 2017/2018 to a population of approximately 5.7 million fish. • There were no significant differences in the abundance of adult Yellow Tang in open vs. closed areas in shallow water (10-20-foot depths). Total estimated coastwise population of adult Yellow Tang in this depth range was estimated to be >2.5 million individuals. West Hawai′i had a significantly greater percent change in Yellow Tang density within its planned networked MPAs (and Open Areas) as compared to two non-networked sites on Maui. 100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Figure 5 illustrates the population trends for Yellow Tang since the FRAs were established, illustrating the upward trend in all areas, even with commercial aquarium collection of 4,885,736 Yellow Tang between 2000 and 2017 in the WHRFMA. Figure 5. Overall changes in Yellow Tang density (Mean ± SE) in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. Yellow vertical bars indicate mean density (MAY-NOV) of Yellow Tang YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). It is important to note that the Yellow Tang breeding population (larger, adult fish), reflected in the trend lines in Figure 5, is not collected by commercial aquarium fishers, nor is this age/size class desired as a food fish. The brood stock is therefore protected and not significantly reduced as a result of aquarium fish collection. The vertical bars (YOY = young of the year) essentially represent the replacement/recruitment rate of the species (i.e., when juvenile fish survive to be added to a population). It is these juveniles up to several years of age that are targeted by the aquarium fishery, as there is no market for the larger fish. Even with the targeting the smaller fish by the commercial aquarium collectors, juvenile Yellow Tang densities have significantly increased by 60.8% within Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). 101 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences GOLDRING SURGEONFISH, KOLE The Kole has been the second most collected species every year since 1976 (DAR 2018a). Since 2000, 5,972,413 individuals of all White List Species have been collected in the WHRFMA; 552,603 (9.3%) of those were Kole. The average number of Kole captured each year since 2000 was 30,700 individuals, ranging between a minimum catch of 15,961 (2001) and maximum of 42,112 (2006). Under the PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that between 15,961 and 42,112 Kole would be collected each year, for a total of approximately 80,000 to 210,500 over the 5-year analysis period. Based on data collected between 2010 and 2016 by the CREP (2018), the island of Hawai’i Kole population is estimated at 11,697,561 individuals (Table 5-6). The WHAP estimates the 2017/2018 Open Area Kole population in WHRFMA at 5,312,745 at the 30-60-foot depth, an increase of nearly 1.7 million fish since 2012/2013. Collection of between 15,961 and 42,112 Kole individuals would remove less than 0.4% of the current estimated population for the island of Hawai’i (Table 5-6). While this collection would occur only within the WHRFMA, there is evidence for connectivity between FRAs and Open Areas around the island of Hawai’i (Christie et al. 2010), therefore, analyzing the impacts on just the Open Area populations is not representative of the impact. See “Impact of Collection on White List Species Populations” below. Table 5-6. CREP (2018) estimated population of Kole for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018b). Island of Hawai’i Pop (CREP 2018) 11,697,561 WHAP Open Area Pop. Est. 30’-60’ Depth in WHRFMA Only1 2012/2013 2017/2018 3,616,529 5,312,745 Includes both adults and young-of-the-year 2From 2000-2017 1 Minimum WHRFMA Collection per Year2 Maximum WHRFMA Collection per Year2 Minimum % of Hawai’i Population Maximum % of Hawai’i Population 15,961 42,112 0.14% 0.36% The DAR(2019), stated: • The FRAs have also been very successful in increasing Kole populations. The number of Kole increased significantly in all management areas, including Open Areas, from 1999/2000 to 2012/2013. Overall Kole abundance in 30-60-foot depth range over the entire West Hawai′i coast increased 118% (nearly 5.2 million fish) during this time period with a population of about 9.6 million fish in 2019. • Long-term West Hawai′i studies have found Kole populations had decreased 14% in South Kona and 71% in South Kohala. Given the length of protection at these sites and the overall decline in habitat quality and fish populations in South Kohala, it seems unlikely that the declines are due primarily to aquarium collecting. Comparative surveys utilizing DAR and NOAA data indicate Kole are substantially more abundant in West Hawai′i over most size ranges than in any of the other islands in the MHI or the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Figure 6 illustrates the population trends for Kole since the FRAs were established, illustrating the upward trend in all areas, even with commercial aquarium collection of 552,603 Kole between 2000 and 2017 in the WHRFMA. Figure 6. Overall changes in Kole density (Mean ± SE) in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. Vertical bars indicate mean density (JUN-NOV) of Kole YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). Trend lines in Figure 6 reflect Kole brood stock, i.e., large sized fish not collected by commercial aquarium fishers. The brood stock is therefore protected and not significantly reduced as a result of aquarium fish collection. The vertical bars (YOY = young of the year) essentially represent the replacement/recruitment rate of the species (i.e., when juvenile fish survive to be added to a population). It is these juveniles up to several years of age that are targeted by the aquarium fishery, as there is no market for the larger fish. OTHER TOP 10 WHITE LIST SPECIES (CATCH RANKED 3-10) These 8 species (Orangespine Unicornfish, Achilles Tang, Black Surgeonfish, Potter’s Angelfish, Ornate Wrasse, Goldrim Surgeonfish, Orangeband Surgeonfish, and Brown Surgeonfish) made up 7.1% of the catch in fiscal year 2017. When abundances of these eight collected species are combined, they have increased in all management areas since the FRAs were established (Figure 7). Abundances have been 103 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences consistently higher in Open Areas for five of these species, and no consistent pattern was observed for the other three species (Table 5-4). Figure 7. Overall changes in density (Mean ± SE) for the top 3-10 collected aquarium species combined in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1999-2018. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). Six of these species had long-term population increases in one or more of the management areas (Table 5-4). For the other two species, the Ornate Wrasse and the Achilles Tang, there were long-term population declines in both FRAs and Open Areas, with larger declines seen in FRAs than in Open Areas (Table 5-4), suggesting that some factor other than commercial aquarium collection was driving the decline. The Achilles Tang is discussed in more detail below. ACHILLES TANG The Achilles Tang has generally been the third most collected species every year since 1976, with a few exceptions (4th most captured fish from 2008-2009 and again 2015-2017; DAR 2018a). Since 2000, 5,972,413 individuals of all White List Species have been collected in the WHRFMA; 132,775 (2.2%) of those were Achilles Tang. The average number of Achilles Tang captured each year since 2014 (when the 104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences current bag limit of 10 was implemented) was 5,600 individuals, ranging between a minimum catch of 5,568 (2015) and maximum of 5,757 (2016). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that approximately 5,600 Achilles Tang would be collected each year. Based on data collected between 2010-2016 during CREP (2018) surveys, the Achilles Tang population on the island of Hawai’i is estimated at 231,000 individuals (Table 5-7). The WHAP estimates the 2017/2018 Open Area Achilles Tang population in WHRFMA at 13,796 at the 30-60-foot depth, a decrease of 7,831 since 2012/2013 (Table 5-7). Collection of 5,600 Achilles Tang would remove approximately 2.42% of its current estimated population for the island of Hawai’i (Table 5-7). While this collection would occur only within the WHRFMA, there is evidence for connectivity between FRAs and Open Areas around the island of Hawai’i (Christie et al. 2010), therefore, analyzing the impacts on just the Open Area populations is not representative of the impact. See “Impact of Collection on White List Species Populations” below. In addition, as noted below in this section, the WHAP surveys underestimate Achilles Tang population size for a variety of reasons. Table 5-7. CREP (2018) estimated population of Achilles Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). Island of Hawai’i Pop (CREP 2018) 231,377 WHAP Open Area Pop. Est. 30’60’ Depth in WHRFMA Only1 2012/2013 2018/2019 21,627 13,796 Average WHRFMA Collection per Year2 5,600 Average % of Hawai’i Population 2.42% Inlcudes both adults and young-of-the-year. See discussion below. 2 From 2015-2017, after the daily bag limit of 10 Achilles Tang was implemented. This data ranges from 5,473 to 5,757, with an average of 5,600. Due to the small range, the average was used. 1 The DAR(2019a) stated: • Commercial aquarium landings of Achilles Tang have declined in West Hawai′i over the past two decades in association with a 192% increase in its value since 2008. This is suggestive of declining availability (i.e., abundance). Achilles Tang has declined in FRAs and Open Areas over the last 20 years but have generally been more abundant in Open Areas than protected FRAs. Achilles Tang has had low levels of recruitment over the past two decades (mean Yellow Tang recruitment has been 57 times greater, and Kole recruitment has been 54 times greater). • An important caveat is that the reef areas where the WHAP transects are located are not the prime habitat for adults of this species. As such the bulk of the population is not adequately surveyed by WHAP monitoring. • Results from the WHAP monitoring program and long-term studies suggest there should be concern for the sustained abundance of this species. Achilles Tang are a very popular food fish as well as an aquarium fish and thus are being harvested both as juveniles and adults. Low levels of recruitment over the past 11 years appear insufficient to compensate for the existing levels of harvest. In order to address concerns regarding aquarium impacts on this species, the new West Hawai′i Regional Fishery Management Area Rule (HAR § 13-60.4) includes an Achilles Tang bag 105 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences limit of 10 fish/person/day which applies only to aquarium collectors (2014). (Addressed below in this section). Although the most recent DAR report (2019a) suggests there should be concern for the sustained abundance of Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA, the report concedes that WHAP transects are not located in prime habitat for adult Achilles Tang (i.e., high energy shallower surge zones), and therefore the bulk of the Achilles Tang population is not adequately surveyed by WHAP monitoring (DAR 2019a). In addition, WHAP transects are not located in all collection zones found within the WHRFMA (Figure 4), including the two zones (100A and 108) with the highest percentage of the Achilles Tang collection, suggesting that the population of Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA is likely higher than estimated by the WHAP. This is supported by CREP (2018) data which show approximately 43% (approximately 79,000 individuals) of the island of Hawai’i Achilles Tang population (approximately 184,000 individuals) resides in collection zones 100 and 108. The island of Hawai’i is divided into 14 collection zones for reporting purposes (Zones 100-108; Figure 4). The WHAP has survey transects only on the west side of the island as far south as collection zone 100B, but no transects within collection zones 100A and 108 located on the southwest and southeast portions of the island, respectively (Figure 4). Since 2000, 56% of all Achilles Tang catch data provided were from collection zones 100 and 108, and since 2012 when collection zone 100 was subdivided into 100A and 100B, 51% of all Achilles Tang catch data provided have been from collection zones 100A and 108 (DAR 2018a). Since 2000, less than two fishers have reported catch of Achilles Tang in collection zones 104, 105, and 106 (all n.d. data), and only in one year did more than two commercial aquarium fishers report Achilles Tang collection from zone 107 (DAR 2018a). Because WHAP transects are not located in prime habitat, and no transects are located in areas where the majority of Achilles Tang collection occurs and over 40% of the population occurs, Achilles Tang population estimates based on WHAP data are likely underestimated (this is supported by the DAR [2019] report), which thus results in the impact of the collection being overestimated when based solely on WHAP data. These issues related to the WHAP data support the use of the CREP population estimate for evaluating the impact of the collection (Table 5-7), as CREP surveys have good spatial coverage in all West Hawai’i collection zones and in the shallower water zones occupied by Achilles Tang. The most recent DAR report (2019a) states that commercial aquarium landings of Achilles Tang have declined in West Hawai′i over the past two decades in association with a dramatic increase in its value (DAR 2019a). The results presented by Stevenson et al. (2013) suggest the MPA network significantly displaced fishing effort from the central to the northern and southern coastal regions of the island of Hawai’i farther from ports of entry, and that estimated catch revenues and experimental catch per unit effort were statistically greater as distance from port of entry increased. These findings suggest that commercial aquarium fishers are traveling farther to reach suitable habitat areas open to Achilles Tang collection (e.g., Collection Zones 100A and 108), resulting in increased collection costs due to increased fuel consumption, equipment wear and tear, business expenses, time, etc., which is then passed on to wholesalers (i.e., increased cost per fish). At the same time, the bag limit on Achilles Tang implemented in 2014 has resulted in reduced Achilles Tang catch (average of 5,600 per year since 2014, down from 7,740 in 2014), affecting the number of fish brought to market (i.e., supply), which may also raise the price per fish. Therefore, the 106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences conservation measures that have been implemented to manage aquarium fish harvest (i.e., establishment of MPA network, bag limits) are more likely the cause of lower catch and increased value of Achilles Tang than declining availability. Figure 8 illustrates the population trends for Achilles Tang since the FRAs were established, illustrating the downward trend in all areas. This downward trend has also been document by the Shallow Water Resource Fish Surveys (SWRF), which survey the shallower reef areas utilized by this species and have indicated a significant (90%) decline in Achilles Tang biomass in their primary adult habitat since 2008 (DAR 2019a). However, unlike aquarium collectors in West Hawai’i, there has never been a bag limit on this species for other fisheries. It is also important to note that these surveys only count Achilles Tang larger than 10 cm in size 10. The catch of Achilles Tang decreased from 7,740 in 2014 to an average of 5,600 per year from 2015-2017. It is important to note that the Achilles Tang bag limit of 10 fish per day began in 2014, which likely accounts for the reduced catch after 2014. Additionally, unlike the Yellow Tang and Kole, Achilles Tang have generally been more abundant over the past decade in Open Areas compared to the protected FRAs, which may reflect habitat differences or differential non-aquarium fishing pressure in various areas (DAR 2019a). https://nmspapahanaumokuakea.blob.core.windows.net/papahanaumokuakeaprod/media/archive/council/meetings/2018/rac-dar-report-07-19-18.pdf 10 107 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Figure 8. Overall changes in Achilles Tang density in FRAs, MPAs, and Open Areas, 1990-2018. Vertical bars indicate mean density (JUN-NOV) of Achilles Tang YOY. YOY are not included in trend line data (DAR 2019a). As discussed above, due to WHAP survey locations, Figure 8 is likely an underestimate of the overall WHRFMA Achilles Tang population (DAR 2019a), as it represents only those Achilles Tang observed at a depth of 30-60 feet (not prime adult habitat) and does not include areas where most Achilles Tang are collected (Collection Zones 100A and 108; prime habitat for all sizes, Figure 4). OTHER 30 WHITE LIST SPECIES The top 10 collected species made up 98.2% of the collected fish in the WHRFMA in 2017, and the remaining 30 White List Species made up the remaining 1.8% of collected fish. These each made up less than 1% of the overall catch in the WHRFMA since 2000. Of these species, four do not have WHAP data due to occurring in deeper habitats not surveyed by WHAP (Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Hawaiiian Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse) or being found in different habitat during the daytime which is not surveyed (Eyestripe Surgeonfish). Two additional species, the Psychedelic Wrasse and the Fisher’s 108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Angelfish, tend to be in deeper waters, but are also recorded in WHAP transects (though these estimates are considered to be substantially lower than their actual abundances; DAR 2019a). Thus, there are good long-term survey data for an additional 26 White List Species (Table 5-8). Of these, 10 showed a significant increase in population size in one or more management area, while 9 showed a decrease, though only one of the decreases was exclusively in the Open Areas, and 1 species had both an increase and a decrease in different management areas. Six species had no significant changes in population in any of the areas. Aquarium collection of the one species that declined exclusively in the Open Areas, the Blackside Hawkfish, is low, and is only 0.13% of the Open Area Population, making it unlikely that aquarium collecting alone is the cause of this species decline in Open Areas (DAR 2019a). In addition, the Open Area population increased from 20,508 in 2012-2013 (DAR 2014a) to 23,625 in 20172018 (DAR 2019a), indicating that recruitment of this species is occurring even in the presence of commercial aquarium collection, given that the population estimates include young-of-year, compared to the density estimates which do not. Table 5-8. Change in density of 26 additional White List Species in the WHRFMA based on WHAP data. ‘Before’ = Mean of 1999-2000; ‘After’ = Mean 2017-2018. Young-of-year (YOY) not included. Bold = statistically significant t-test (DAR 2019a). COMMON NAME Forcepsfish Yellowtail Coris Psychedelic Wrasse Shortnose Wrasse Saddle Wrasse Multiband Butterflyfish Fourspot Butterflyfish Fisher’s Angelfish AREA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA MEAN DENSITY (NO./100M2) Before 0.41 0.41 0.84 0.17 0.13 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 3.66 5.93 4.39 5.20 4.00 4.94 0.05 0.54 0.43 0.00 After 0.59 0.37 0.79 0.20 0.17 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.08 2.91 4.23 3.93 2.69 3.28 3.19 0.03 0.14 0.20 0.00 OVERALL CHANGE IN DENSITY ρ +0.19 -0.04 -0.05 +0.02 +0.04 +0.14 0.00 0.00 +0.02 -0.01 +0.01 +0.06 -0.74 -1.70 -0.46 -2.51 -0.17 -1.75 -0.02 -0.40 -0.23 0.00 <0.05 0.58 0.71 0.61 0.53 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.73 0.77 0.31 <0.001 <0.001 0.17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.65 <0.001 <0.05 1.00 109 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences COMMON NAME Pencil Wrasse Bird Wrasse Thompson’s Surgeonfish Milletseed Butterflyfish Eightline Wrasse Hawaiian Dascyllus Blacklip Butterflyfish Lei Triggerfish Spotted Boxfish Fourline Wrasse Pyramid Butterflyfish Blackside Hawkfish Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby AREA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA MEAN DENSITY (NO./100M2) Before 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.64 1.04 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.00 0.04 0.44 2.20 3.31 3.17 0.02 0.51 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.53 0.75 0.57 0.05 0.10 0.10 1.36 1.66 2.95 0.02 0.66 0.59 0.34 0.41 0.26 1.13 3.48 2.87 After 0.55 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.84 0.62 1.53 1.64 2.53 1.55 0.00 0.02 0.01 1.14 1.75 1.83 0.33 0.59 0.15 0.07 0.29 0.04 0.69 0.86 1.06 0.08 0.12 0.19 1.81 2.12 1.76 0.07 0.35 0.10 0.23 0.22 0.26 1.00 2.32 2.14 OVERALL CHANGE IN DENSITY ρ +0.54 0.00 +0.02 +0.11 +0.03 +0.17 -0.01 +0.48 +0.92 +1.84 +0.89 0.00 -0.02 -0.43 -1.05 -1.56 -1.34 +0.31 +0.08 +0.04 +0.07 +0.29 +0.02 +0.16 +0.11 +0.50 +0.03 +0.02 +0.08 +0.45 +0.46 -1.19 +0.04 -0.31 -0.49 -0.11 -0.19 0.00 -0.13 -1.16 -0.73 <0.001 1.00 0.78 <0.05 0.82 <0.05 0.82 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 1.00 0.57 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.41 0.70 <0.05 <0.001 0.68 0.07 0.24 <0.001 0.49 0.73 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 0.37 <0.01 <0.05 0.08 <0.01 1.00 0.34 <0.001 <0.01 110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences COMMON NAME Redbarred Hawkfish Gilded Triggerfish Black Durgon Bluestripe Snapper Peacock Grouper AREA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA FRA Open MPA MEAN DENSITY (NO./100M2) Before 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.14 0.31 1.26 0.53 0.43 2.21 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.57 0.57 0.89 After 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.82 0.86 4.36 0.80 0.31 0.17 0.72 0.48 0.83 OVERALL CHANGE IN DENSITY ρ +0.01 -0.09 -0.04 -0.11 -0.27 -0.90 +0.29 +0.42 +2.14 +0.73 +0.18 -0.02 +0.16 -0.09 -0.06 0.84 0.63 0.49 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 0.83 0.09 0.28 0.72 Capture data from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a), CREP (2018) population estimates, and estimated catch percentages for all White List Species in both West and East Hawai’i can be found in Section 5.4.1.3. East Hawai’i Commercial aquarium fish collection in East Hawai’i is significantly less than in the WHRFMA, in both level of effort and number of individuals kept. Between 2000 and 2017, approximately 160,272 White List Species were collected from East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a), compared to the 5,972,413 fish collected in the WHRFMA. The number of commercial aquarium fishers reporting catch is also significantly lower in East Hawai’i with an average of 5 permitted fishers reporting each year since 2000, compared to an average of 28 permitted fishers reporting from the WHRFMA over the same time period (this number does not include any permit reports that fall under the n.d. category). Of the approximately 160,272 White List Species fish collected in East Hawai’i over the past 18 years, approximately 75% (119,959) were Yellow Tang. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the Yellow Tang were captured from 2000- 2011. From 2011-2014 (the last year for which data are available due to data confidentiality), the average catch of Yellow Tang was 6,836 per year ranging between a minimum of 2,774 (2013) and a maximum of 14,269 (2014) individuals. Kole and Achilles Tang captures in East Hawai’i since 2000 have averaged 1,047 and 703 individuals per year, respectively. The island of Hawai’i population estimates for Yellow Tang, Kole, and Achilles Tang based on data collected between 2010 and 2016 during CREP (2018) surveys are shown in Table 5-9. Based on these estimates, and the minimum and maximum collection of each species over an 18-year period, the proportion of the overall population removed by the East Hawai’i fishery is less than 1% for each species. 111 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Table 5-9. CREP (2018) estimated populations of Yellow Tang, Kole, and Achilles Tang for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of population collected by commercial aquarium fishers in East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). Species Island of Hawai’i Pop (CREP 2018) Yellow Tang Kole Achilles Tang 8,262,144 11,697,561 231,377 From 2000-2017 1 Minimum Collection per Year1 2,774 76 525 East Hawai’i (DAR2018a) Maximum Minimum % of Collection per Hawai’i Year1 Population 14,269 0.03% 3,601 <0.001% 1,525 0.23% Maximum % of Hawai’i Population 0.17% 0.03% 0.66% Of the remaining fish species collected in East Hawai’i, none averaged more than 53 individuals collected per year since 2000; most averaged less than 25 individuals per year. Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that the collection of White List Species in any year of the 5-year analysis period would be similar to the 18-year annual average. Capture data from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a), CREP (2018) population estimates, and estimated catch percentages for all White List Species in both East and West Hawai’i can be found in Section 5.4.1.3. Based on the analysis presented in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on White List Species. Non-White List Species WHRFMA Only White List Species are allowed to be collected from the WHRFMA and any non-target, non-White List Species captured incidentally during fishing activities are to be immediately released at the capture site (Act 306; Section 1.2.3.1). Incidental captures are limited due to the capture methods implemented by fisherman, which focus on target species. Any incidental captures would therefore be negligible, and no significant direct impacts to non-White List Species in the WHRFMA are anticipated. East Hawai’i East Hawai’i is not restricted to the White List Species and many additional forms of aquatic life can be collected. Based on collection data between 2000 and 2017, a single invertebrate species, Red Pond Shrimp (unidentified species), made up the majority of the catch (DAR 2018a). Of the 249,007 non-White List aquatic animals collected in East Hawai’i over the past 18 years, approximately 73% (182,710 individuals) of the provided catch data were Red Pond Shrimp (this value is likely even higher, given the large number of years that could not disclose Red Pond Shrimp numbers due to data confidentiality, and Red Pond Shrimp made up over 99% of the collection when looking only at disclosed data). On average, more than 20,000 Red Pond Shrimp are collected annually from East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a). All remaining 79 non-White List Species collected in East Hawai’i averaged three or less individuals collected per year since 2000 based on the data reviewed. Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that annual collection of non-White List Species over the 5-year analysis period would be similar to the catch from 2000 to 2017. 112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Based on the analysis presented in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on Non-White List Species. Hawai’i Species of Greatest Conservation Need WHRFMA Although listed as a Hawaiian SGCN, the IUCN (2017) provides this assessment of the Psychedelic Wrasse: This species has a relatively restricted distribution in the east-central and north-western Pacific Ocean, being found only around the Hawaiian Islands Chain. Although there is no evidence for any population declines, the species is taken in the marine aquarium fish trade. However, more than two thirds of its range are enclosed by the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. This species is therefore listed as Least Concern. A total of 4,931 Psychedelic Wrasse were collected in the WHRFMA from 2000 to 2017 (DAR 2018a), representing 0.08% of the total White List Species collected over that same period. The average number of Psychedelic Wrasse captured each year since 2000 was 274 individuals, ranging between 97 (2003) and 599 (2017) individuals collected (Table 5-10). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that between 100 and 600 Psychedelic Wrasse would be collected annually. The population of Psychedelic Wrasse in the WHRFMA has remained relatively stable between 1999/2000 and 2017/2018 (Table 5-8), with no statistically significant changes in either the Open Areas or protected areas. Although listed as a Hawaiian SGCN, the IUCN (2017) provides this assessment of the Tinker’s Butterflyfish: The species is common and fairly widespread. Although it is occasionally collected for the aquarium trade, its deep-water habitat likely prevents the harvest of many specimens. Therefore, harvesting does not appear to be a major threat and there are no signs of significant decline. It is listed as Least Concern. A total of 5,561 Tinker’s Butterflyfish were collected in the WHRFMA from 2000 to 2017 (DAR 2018a), representing 0.09% of the total White List Species collected over the same period. The average number of Tinker’s Butterflyfish captured each year since 2000 was 309 individuals, ranging between 166 (2013) and 586 (2015) individuals collected (Table 5-10). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that between 170 and 590 Tinker’s Butterflyfish would be collected annually over the 5-year analysis period. Although listed as a Hawaiian SGCN, the IUCN (2017) provides this assessment of the Fisher’s Angelfish: Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, large overall population, relatively limited collection for the aquarium fish trade, no substantial habitat loss, and no major threats overall. 113 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences A total of 1,538 Fisher’s Angelfish were collected in the WHRFMA from 2002 to 2017 (DAR 2018a) 11, representing 0.03% of the total White List Species collected over the same period. The average number of Fisher’s Angelfish captured each year since 2000 was 96 individuals, ranging between 22 (2004) and 288 (2017) individuals collected (Table 5-10). Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that between 20 and 290 Fisher’s Angelfish would be collected annually. Fisher’s Angelfish have shown a significant increase in population within the Open Areas (Table 5-8), though it should be noted that this species tends to be a deeper water species, and the population estimates for WHAP are considered to be substantial underestimates (DAR 2019a). Island of Hawai’i population estimates for Psychedelic Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, and Fisher’s Angelfish based on data collected between 2010 and 2016 by the CREP (CREP 2018) are shown in Table 5-10. Based on these estimates, and the minimum and maximum catch for each species over an 18-year period (all within the WHRFMA; fewer than three collectors reported these species in any given year in East Hawai’i, therefore, data were not disclosed 12), the proportion of the overall population removed by the WHRFMA fishery ranges from less than 1% for Fisher’s Angelfish to 3.2% for Tinker’s Butterflyfish. In addition, Kane and Tissot (2017) demonstrate that densities of all three species are greater at depths below the 98-foot survey depth of the CREP surveys, suggesting that the actual populations of all three species are higher than those reported by the CREP surveys, and the actual impact of commercial aquarium collection is lower than reported in Table 5-10. Table 5-10. CREP (2018) estimated populations of Psychedelic Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, and Fisher’s Angelfish for the island of Hawai’i and percentage of populations collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA (DAR 2018a). Species Psychedelic Wrasse Tinker’s Butterflyfish Fisher’s Angelfish Island of Hawai’i Pop1 (CREP 2018) 30’-60’ Open Area Population (2017/2018)2 Minimum Collection per Year3 Maximum Collection per Year3 Minimum % of Hawai’i Population Maximum % of Hawai’i Population 36,770 1,071 97 599 0.26% 1.63% 18,475 N/A 166 586 0.9% 3.17% 666,209 59,064 22 288 0.003% 0.04% All species population estimates are likely low due to the depths at which they occur. Pschedelic Wrasse and Fisher’s Angelfish are only occasionally recorded on surveys, so these population estimates are underestimated. Tinker’s Butterflyfish generally occurs in deeper habitats not adequately surveyed by transects. 3 From 2000-2017 1 2 Based on deep diver observations, Tinker’s Butterflyfish and Psychedelic Wrasse are substantially more common in the long term protected areas (MPAs) (DAR 2019a). Tinker’s Butterflyfish is observed more Data not available for 2000 and 2001. Some collection data in East Hawai’i were disclosed by the 14 fishers (see Section 5.1), these data and the impacts on the population are provided in Table 5-11. 11 12 114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences often in Open Areas when compared to FRAs, while Psychedelic Wrasse observations are equivalent between these two areas (DAR 2019a). Based on the analysis presented in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have less than significant direct impacts on SGCN species in the WHRFMA. East Hawai’i Due to the low number of individual Aquarium Permits and low number of areas fished in East Hawai’i, reliable catch and population numbers are not available for the Psychedelic Wrasse in East Hawai’i. However, no Psychedelic Wrasse have been collected from East Hawai’i in 9 of the 18 years between 2000 and 2017 (DAR 2018a). It is likely that Psychedelic Wrasse are primarily collected as a result of opportunistic collection by fishers while targeting other species. For the 14 fishers who disclosed their catch data (see Section 5.1), collection of Psychedelic Wrasse averaged 2 individuals per year between 2000 and 2017, with a maximum collection of 16 in one year (see Table 5-11), representing 0.04% of the islandwide population. This level of collection is below the lower end of what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). The same data limitations apply to the Tinker’s Butterflyfish in East Hawai’i, though data from two years between 2000 and 2017 were disclosed (DAR 2018a). Collection of Tinker’s Butterflyfish for these two years averaged 36 individuals per year collected in East Hawai’i, with a maximum of 38 individuals. Additional data disclosed by the 14 fishers (see Section 5.1) have collection of Tinker’s Butterflyfish in East Hawai’i averaging 22 individuals per year, with a maximum collection of 94 individuals, representing approximately 0.5% of the island-wide population estimate (Table 5-11). This level of collection is below the lower end of what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). As noted in other sections, the CREP population estimate for the Tinker’s Butterflyfish is likely low, so the actual impact to this species is likely even smaller. No Fisher’s Angelfish have been reported as collected from East Hawai’i during the period 2000-2017. Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, it is anticipated that annual collection of SGCN species over the 5-year analysis period would be similar to the catch from 2000 to 2017. Based on the analysis presented in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on SGCN species in East Hawai’i. Reef Habitat Herbivores, which feed on marine algae, and especially coral scraping herbivores such as parrotfish (Scaridae), are widely considered to play a key role in the overall health and subsequent recovery of coral reefs after disturbances such as bleaching. Herbivorous fish constitute roughly 50% of total fish biomass in West Hawai’i (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). The four largest groups of herbivorous coral reef fishes are the parrotfishes, damselfishes (Pomacentridae), rabbitfishes (Siganidae), and surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae). No parrotfishes or rabbitfishes (none in Hawai’i) are included on the White List, and therefore cannot be collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA. Only one damselfish, the Hawaiian Dascyllus (Section 4.4.1.26), is included on the White List and can be collected. However, 115 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Hawaiian Dascyllus are not herbivores and the average number collected per year since 2000 is 1 in East Hawai’i and 119 in the WHRFMA (Table 5-11). Herbivores collected by the aquarium fishery typically consist of the smaller size classes, either by regulation (e.g., HAR 13-60.4 prohibits the collection of more than 5 Yellow Tang/day larger than 4.5 inches) or by market demand (i.e., minimal market for large adult fish in the aquarium trade). In addition, bag limits are in place for the three White List Species (5 Yellow Tang >4.5” and 5 fish <2”; 5 Kole >4” [AQ fishers only] ; and Achilles Tang [10 fish/day]) that have made up 93.3% of all individuals collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA since 2000 (Section 5.4.1.2). Even with making up the highest proportion of the catch, WHAP data indicate populations of Yellow Tang and Kole continue to increase (Section 5.4.1.2) and based on CREP population estimates the average annual collection of the three species represents less than 4% of the overall island of Hawai’i population of Yellow Tang and Achilles Tang and less than 1% of the overall island of Hawai’i population of Kole (Table 5-11). Additionally, DAR (2019a) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant reduction in herbivores as a result of commercial aquarium collection would occur under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Alternative. In a study analyzing the effects of aquarium collectors on coral reefs in Kona, Hawai’i, Tissot and Hallacher (2003) concluded that there were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collected sites (i.e., sites where aquarium collection occurs) to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. In addition, they found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. The DAR has been conducting related observations since 2003 (DAR 2018c). Monitoring of coral reef benthic cover is conducted approximately every four years at 25 permanent monitoring sites. Monitoring is conducted more frequently if substantial benthic change occurs between regular sampling years (e.g. after a coral bleaching event). The analysis compares the presence or absence of commercial aquarium collecting in West Hawai’i relative to overall coral cover and changes in coral cover. Major results of the study are presented below: • Coral cover was slightly higher within areas closed to the commercial aquarium fishery compared to Open Areas, but the difference was not statistically significant for any year of monitoring (2003: p = 0.276; 2007: p = 0.275; 2011: p = 0.496; 2014: p = 0.554; 2016: p = 0.673; 2017: p = 0.782). Additionally, there was no apparent trend of declining coral cover in the Open Areas over time. • From 2003 to 2017, overall mean coral cover declined less within Open Areas compared to areas closed to commercial aquarium collection (Closed areas: -22.5% ± 3.4%; Open Areas: -15.5% ± 2.3%), but this difference in change in coral cover was not significant (p = 0.093). • From 2014 to 2016, West Hawai’i experienced a severe coral bleaching and mortality event, which peaked in the fall of 2015. Over this time-period, overall mean coral cover decline was slightly less 116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences in the areas open to commercial aquarium collection, but again, the difference was not significant (Closed areas: -19.6 % ± 6.0 %; Open Areas: -17.6 % ± 1.3 %; p = 0.605). • From 2016 to 2017, approximately one year after coral post-bleaching mortality subsided, minimal change in coral cover was documented within areas open to commercial aquarium collection (Open Areas: 0.07 % ± 2.1 %), compared to a slight decline in mean coral cover in areas closed to collection (Closed: -1.94 % ± 2.3 %), and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.038). Based on the analysis presented in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on reef habitat or the resilience of corals to respond to widespread bleaching events. Impact of Collection on White List Species Populations This Section summarizes the White List Species collection data under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative, as well as population estimates, into tabular format (Table 5-11). The primary purpose of the data analysis in regard to White List Species was to estimate, as accurately as possible, what the current populations of White List Species are, what level of collection was occurring in those populations prior to the 2017 ban on aquarium collection, and the average and maximum proportion of the population collected annually for the period 2000-2017 for each species. The CREP (2018) data compiled by the NOAA are comprehensive in both scope and spatial coverage and provide as accurate a depiction of population numbers as possible for the island of Hawai’i. The DAR (2018a) catch data provide collection numbers to allow for impact analysis. As noted throughout this DEIS, confidentiality regulations (HRS §189-3) and changes in the manner in which data were collected over the years did impact the analysis but was mitigated by the approach used during the analysis (i.e., using aggregate numbers). This method presents the most inclusive evaluation of the impact of the commercial aquarium fish collection on each of the 40 White List Species. 117 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Table 5-11. Summary of CREP (2018) population estimates, disclosed catch data from East and West Hawai’i since 2000 (DAR 2018a), and the impact of average and maximum annual collection by species for the 40 White List Species. n.d. = Not Disclosed (Section 5.1); NA = Insufficient data available Common Name Achilles Tang3 Bird Wrasse Black Durgon Island of Hawai’i Pop. Mean (lowerupper estimate limit) (CREP 2018) 231,377 (113,989348,765) 877,224 (686,1351,068,313) 1,354,454 (991,0541,717,854) East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) WHRFMA (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Island of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year1 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year2 Maximum Catch per Year2 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. 703 (337) 1,525 (1,746) 0.30% (0.15%) 0.66% (0.75%) 5,600 (4,058) 5,757 (5,027) 2.42% (1.75%) 2.49% (2.17%) 6,303 (4,395) 7,282 (6,773) 2.72% (1.90%) 3.15% (2.93%) n.d. (1) n.d. (6) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 345 (146) 624 (224) 0.04% (0.02%) 0.07% (0.03%) 345 (147) 969 (230) 0.04% (0.02%) 0.11% (0.03%) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 64 (25) 143 (86) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.01% (<0.01%) 64 (25) 207 (87) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (0.01% Black Surgeonfish 549,462 (355,535-743388) n.d. (33) n.d. (181) NA (0.01%) NA (0.03%) 3,535 (2,334) 8,598 (4,711) 0.64% (0.42%) 1.56% (0.86%) 3,535 (2,367) 12,133 (4,892) 0.64% (0.43%) 2.21% (0.89%) Blacklip Butterflyfish 131,260 (53,712208,807) n.d. (0) n.d. (4) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 72 (33) 129 (88) 0.05% (0.03%) 0.10% (0.07%) 72 (33) 201 (92) 0.05% (0.03%) 0.15% (0.07%) Blackside Hawkfish 246,727 (201,538291,917) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 42 (29) 85 (69) 0.02% (0.01%) 0.03% (0.03%) 42 (29) 127 (70) 0.02% (0.01%) 0.05% (0.03%) Bluestripe Snapper Taape 7,092,851 (265,73914,451,440) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00% (0.00%) 0.00% (0.00%) 43 (21) 98 (53) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 43 (21) 141 (53) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) Brown Surgeonfish 14,439,543 (12,820,40516,058,680) n.d. (0) n.d. (0) NA (0.00%) NA (0.00%) 891 (317) 2,476 (997) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (<0.01%) 891 (317) 3,367 (997) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (0.01%) Eightline Wrasse 689,221 (535,601842,842) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 119 (81) 390 (528) 0.02% (0.01%) 0.06% (0.08%) 119 (81) 509 (529) 0.02% (0.01%) 0.07% (0.08%) Eyestripe Surgeonfish 578,835 (438,301719,369) n.d. (0) n.d. (0) NA (0.00%) NA (0.00%) 403 (11) 1,143 (30) 0.07% (<0.01%) 0.20% (<0.01%) 403 (11) 1,546 (30) 0.07% (<0.01%) 0.27% (0.01%) 118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Common Name Island of Hawai’i Pop. Mean (lowerupper estimate limit) (CREP 2018) Fisher's Angelfish 666,209 (382,769949,648) Forcepsfish Fourline Wrasse 435,954 (366,537505,372) 1,253,164 (798,8311,707,496) East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) WHRFMA (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Island of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year1 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year2 Maximum Catch per Year2 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00% (0.00%) 0.00% (0.00%) 96 (66) 288 (267) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.04% (0.04%) 96 (66) 384 (267) 0.01% (0.01%) 0.06% (0.04%) 21 (1) 27 (7) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.01% (<0.01%) 1,831 (903) 3,152 (1,535) 0.42% (0.21%) 0.72% (0.35%) 1,852 (904) 4,987 (1,542) 0.43% (0.21%) 1.14% (0.35%) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 73 (29) 171 (74) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.01% (0.01%) 73 (29) 244 (75) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (0.01%) Fourspot Butterflyfish 797,673 (678,338917,008) 30 (9) 30 (46) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 889 (527) 1,630 (896) 0.11% (0.07%) 0.20% (0.11%) 919 (536) 2,524 (942) 0.12% (0.07%) 0.32% (0.12%) Gilded Triggerfish 129,089 (80,159178,020) n.d. (0) n.d. (3) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 45 (21) 157 (59) 0.03% (0.02%) 0.12% (0.05%) 45 (21) 202 (62) 0.03% (0.02%) 0.16% (0.05%) Goldrim Tang 97,924 (10,276185,573) 27 (5) 55 (19) 0.03% (0.01%) 0.06% (0.02%) 554 (329) 1,324 (1,401) 0.57% (0.34%) 1.35% (1.43%) 581 (334) 1,891 (1,420) 0.59% (0.34%) 1.93% (1.45%) Kole 11,697,561 (9,547,97113,847,152) 1,047 (88) 3,601 (374) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.03% (<0.01%) 30,700 (17,985) 42,112 (31,648) 0.26% (0.15%) 0.36% (0.27%) 31,747 (18,073) 73,626 (32,022) 0.27% (0.15%) 0.63% (0.27%) Hawaiian Dascyllus 225,153 (91,266359,040) 12 (0) 12 (5) <0.01% (0.00%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 119 (77) 231 (169) 0.05% (0.03%) 0.10% (0.08%) 131 (77) 351 (174) 0.06% (0.03%) 0.16% (0.08%) Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby 685,517 (566,297804,737) n.d. (0) n.d. (0) NA (0.00%) NA (0.00%) 257 (135) 896 (552) 0.04% (0.02%) 0.13% (0.08%) 257 (135) 1,153 (552) 0.04% (0.02%) 0.17% (0.08%) Lei Triggerfish 1,299,027 (1,182,3641,415,690) n.d. (0) n.d. (0) NA (0.00%) NA (0.00%) 172 (125) 301 (259) 0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (0.02%) 172 (125) 473 (259) 0.01% (0.01%) 0.04% (0.02%) Longfin Anthias NA n.d. (0) n.d. (2) NA NA 102 (53) 102 (147) NA NA 102 (53) 204 (149) NA NA Milletseed Butterflyfish 122,588 (69,611175,565) n.d. (1) n.d. (11) NA (<0.01%) NA (0.01%) 106 (88) 421 (438) 0.09% (0.07%) 0.34% (0.36%) 106 (89) 527 (449) 0.09% (0.07%) 0.43% (0.37%) Multiband Butterflyfish 1,788,604 (1,601,9441,975,264) n.d. (1) n.d. (12) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 1,206 (488) 2,951 (826) 0.07% (0.03%) 0.16% (0.05%) 1,206 (489) 4,157 (838) 0.07% (0.03%) 0.23% (0.05%) 119 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Common Name Island of Hawai’i Pop. Mean (lowerupper estimate limit) (CREP 2018) Orangeband Surgeonfish East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) WHRFMA (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Island of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year1 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year2 Maximum Catch per Year2 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. 1,319,924 (962,2981,677,550) 16 (4) 16 (17) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 828 (568) 2,306 (1,636) 0.06% (0.04%) 0.17% (0.12%) 844 (572) 3,136 (1,653) 0.06% (0.04%) 0.24% (0.13%) Orangespine Unicornfish 897,085 (758,9781,035,192) 36 (7) 59 (39) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 5,827 (2,726) 8,813 (7,206) 0.65% (0.30%) 0.98% (0.80%) 5,863 (2,733) 14,654 (7,245) 0.65% (0.30%) 1.63% (0.81%) Ornate Wrasse 1,630,224 (1,403,1661,857,282) 15 (5) 15 (24) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 1,657 (520) 12,445 (1,318) 0.10% (0.03%) 0.76% (0.08%) 1,672 (525) 14,104 (1,342) 0.10% (0.03%) 0.87% (0.08%) Peacock Grouper - Roi 476,556 (399,275553,837) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 3 (4) 3 (20) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 3 (4) 6 (21) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) n.d. (1) n.d. (4) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 165 (128) 424 (416) 0.10% (0.08%) 0.25% (0.25%) 165 (129) 589 (420) 0.10% (0.08%) 0.35% (0.25%) n.d. (5) n.d. (19) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 1,086 (854) 3,370 (3,004) 0.10% (0.08%) 0.31% (0.28%) 1,086 (859) 4,456 (3,023) 0.10% (0.08%) 0.41% (0.28%) Pencil Wrasse Potter's Angelfish 169,025 (79,513258,536) 1,087,709 (826,1741,349,245) Psychedelic Wrasse 36,770 (10,62762,913) n.d. (2) n.d. (16) NA (0.01%) NA (0.04%) 274 (208) 599 (619) 0.75% (0.57%) 1.63% (1.68%) 274 (210) 873 (635) 0.75% (0.57%) 2.37% (1.73%) Pyramid Butterflyfish 23,217 (559-45,874) n.d. (1) n.d. (10) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.04%) 133 (98) 714 (468) 0.57% (0.42%) 3.08% (2.02%) 133 (99) 847 (478) 0.57% (0.43%) 3.65% (2.06%) Redbarred Hawkfish 231,580 (165,409297,751) n.d. (0) n.d. (1) NA (0.00%) 13 (10) 21 (20) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 13 (10) 34 (21) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.01% (0.01%) Saddle Wrasse 6,396,052 (5,757,3057,034,799) 9 (0) 9 (0) <0.01% (0.00%) <0.01% (0.00%) 602 (304) 982 (585) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (<0.01%) 611 (304) 1,585 (585) <0.01% (<0.01%) 0.02% (0.01%) Shortnose Wrasse 307,032 (157,058457,006) 9 (2) 9 (7) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 228 (175) 582 (558) 0.07% (0.06%) 0.19% (0.18%) 237 (177) 811 (565) 0.08% (0.06%) 0.26% (0.18%) Spotted Boxfish 94,937 (55,775134,099) n.d. (0) n.d. (2) NA (0.00%) NA (<0.01%) 170 (139) 454 (328) 0.18% (0.15%) 0.48% (0.35%) 170 (139) 624 (330) 0.18% (0.15%) 0.66% (0.35%) Thompson's Surgeonfish 405,776 (205,636605,916) n.d. (1) n.d. (9) NA (<0.01%) NA (<0.01%) 182 (130) 947 (931) 0.04% (0.03%) 0.23% (0.23%) 182 (131) 1,129 (940) 0.04% (0.03%) 0.28% (0.23%) NA (<0.01%) 120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences East Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) WHRFMA (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Island of Hawai’i (DAR 2018a) (numbers from 14 fishers in parenthesis; DAR 2019b) Common Name Island of Hawai’i Pop. Mean (lowerupper estimate limit) (CREP 2018) Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year Maximum Catch per Year1 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Average Catch per year2 Maximum Catch per Year2 Average Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Max Percent of Hawai’i Pop. Tinker's Butterflyfish 18,475 (1,55638,505) 36 (22) 38 (94) 0.20% (0.12%) 0.21% (0.51%) 309 (279) 586 (478) 1.67% (1.51%) 3.17% (2.58%) 345 (301) 909 (572) 1.87% (1.63%) 4.92% (3.10%) Flame Wrasse NA n.d. (3) n.d. (40) NA NA 75 (59) 168 (173) NA NA 75 (62) 243 (213) NA NA 11,996 (1,580) 33,809 (5,575) 0.15% (0.02%) 0.41% (0.07%) 271,430 (130,569) 386,767 (231,588) 3.29% (1.58%) 4.68% (2.80%) 283,426 (132,149) 668,194 (237,163) 3.43% (1.60%) 8.09% (2.87%) 17 (2) 18 (16) <0.01% (<0.01%) <0.01% (<0.01%) 575 (360) 851 (627) 0.15% (0.09%) 0.22% (0.16%) 592 (362) 1,428 (643) 0.15% (0.09%) 0.36% (0.16%) Yellow Tang Yellowtail Coris 8,262,144 (6,849,2959,674,993) 391,507 (318,678464,335) 1 In some instances, the maximum catch of the 14 fishers requesting permits is greater than the maximum catch previously reported. This is likely due to data that had previously not been disclosed (see Section 5.1). 2 Based on the sums of the average or maximum from East Hawai’i and the average or maximum from West Hawai’i. 3 The average and maximum catch for the Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA is limited to 2015-2017 data, after the implementation of the 2014 bag limit, to more accurately reflect future trends. 121 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences While research into the reproductive biology and fecundity (i.e., ability to produce offspring) of specific species of reef fish is limited in availability, some generalities can be derived from available research, and most reef species are long-lived and highly productive. For reef fishes in general, the relationship between size and fecundity is well documented, with larger fish producing exponentially more eggs (Thresher 1984, Berkeley et al. 2004). Moreover, evidence from a diverse set of species indicates that older individuals produce larger, faster growing, and more starvation-resistant larvae (Thresher 1984, Bobko and Berkeley 2004). For these reasons, Birkeland and Dayton (2005) recommend protecting larger or older individuals to increase the sustainability of harvested populations. Yellow Tang is a species which provides a good example of high fecundity, as well as the relationship between size and fecundity. Bushnell et al. (2010) studied Yellow Tang and found large individual variation in batch fecundity, with a range from 44 to >24,000 eggs per female produced on a single sampling date. Smaller females (3.1-4.75-inch standard length [LS]), produced limited numbers of eggs, while larger females (≥4.75-inch LS) were capable of maximal egg production (>20,000 eggs per batch). Bushnell et al. (2010) estimated the annual fecundity of Yellow Tang to average 1,055,628 eggs per female (with a standard error of 120,596 eggs). In addition to high levels of fecundity, many reef fish are long-lived. Choat and Axe (1996) studied four Naso species in the Great Barrier Reef, and found life spans of 35 to 40 years, with rapid growth during the first 3 to 4 years of life. Eble et al. (2009) found that the Hawaiian kala (Naso unicornis) is also long-lived, with rapid initial growth. Sampled kala ranged in age from 1 to 58 years with the majority of growth occurring within the first 15% of the life span. These two studies indicate that Naso species in general exhibit lifespans in excess of 40 years (Eble et al. 2009). While studying habitat- and sex-specific life history patterns of Yellow Tang, Claisse et al. (2009) found a 41-year old individual. In addition, they found median size and age at the transition between deeper coral-rich and shallow turf dominated habitat use were about 0.75 inch longer and about 2 years older for males than females and coincided with an increase in reproductive output. The sexual difference in size at habitat transition, combined with sexual size dimorphism results in differences in the size distributions of both sexes in the two habitats (Claisse et al. 2009). Due to the combination of a high fecundity and long life-span, reef fish can likely sustain fairly high levels of continuous harvest. While specific research into sustainable levels of collection has not been conducted for the 40 White List Species, Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) suggest collection of between 5% and 25% is sustainable for various reef species in the Philippines that are similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, triggerfish). For 37 of the 40 White List Species, the average annual collection under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would represents less than 1% of the estimated island-wide population, with the remaining three species averaging less than 5% (Table 5-11). In addition to the low percentage of the populations which are harvested each year, commercial aquarium fishing has a distinct advantage over other types of fishing because it is targeted to specific species, and within those species, it primarily targets specific size-classes which minimizes the impact to the brood stock. Because commercial aquarium fishers target the smaller individuals in populations, the larger individuals with higher fecundity are left within the population. 122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Based on the low percentage of the overall populations collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on reef fish populations and the reefs in which they occur. 5.4.1.3 WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative Under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits would be issued for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA, but fine-mesh nets would not be allowed in East Hawai’i. The impact on biological resources, including reef habitat, within the WHRFMA would be similar to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. In East Hawai’i, given that the WHRFMA would be open to fishing with the use of fine mesh nets, impacts to biological resources would be anticipated to be similar to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative or even potentially decrease since fishing in the WHRFMA may prove more favorable given the use of fine mesh nets. Therefore, impacts to fish populations are anticipated to be similar to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative for both the WHRFMA and East Hawai’i, with collection impacting less than 3.5% of any single species’ population on average. Based on the low percentage of the overall populations collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on reef fish populations and the reefs in which they occur, and similar impacts when compared to the Pre-Commercial Aquarium Ban Alternative. 5.4.1.4 Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative Under the Achilles Tang Conservation (Preferred) Alternative, impacts would be the same as those described in Section 5.4.1.2 for the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative for all fish, invertebrate species, and reef habitat, with the exception of the Achilles Tang, in both the WHRFMA and East Hawaii. Based on WHAP data, the DAR has suggested decreasing population trends for the Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA. Commercial aquarium fishers worked with DLNR in 2012 to pass HAR 13-60.4, which beginning in 2014 limited commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang to 10 individual fish per day (recreational and non-aquarium commercial harvest is not subject to the bag limit). Under the Achilles Tang Conservation (Preferred) Alternative, the daily bag limit for Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA would be reduced from 10 per day to 5 per day. Therefore, under this alternative, annual catch of Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA over the 5-year analysis period is estimated to be reduced by 50% from that under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (5,600; the average amount collected since the 2014 bag limit was imposed) to 2,800, or 1.2% of the islandwide population that would be collected annually over the 5-year analysis period. In East Hawai’i, impacts to the Achilles Tang would be anticipated to be similar to those seen under the No Action Alternative (either remaining similar to historic catch, or potentially increasing slightly due to the bag limit in the WHRFMA), 123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences ranging from 0.21% - 0.93% of the island-wide population (Table 5-3), for a total impact of up to 2.13% of the population (WHRFMA and East Hawai’i combined). This level of collection is below the lower end of what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Therefore, the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would have less than significant direct impacts on reef fish populations and the reefs in which they occur and would have a minor beneficial impact for the Achilles Tang when compared to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 5.4.1.5 Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative Under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative, Aquarium Permits would be issued to 14 fishers for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA. No fine mesh nets would be allowed in East Hawai’i, though collection of aquarium fish would still be permitted using other legal means. The 14 fishers requesting Aquarium Permits collected up to a maximum of 293,845 fish in the WHRFMA in a single year during the period from 2000-2017 (see Table 5-2). Conservatively assuming collection in the first year of the 5-year analysis period started at this maximum, and then grew at 1.49% per year, a total of 1,513,665 fish would be collected over the 5-year analysis period, or an average of 302,733 per year. Impacts to individual species in the WHRFMA are shown in Table 5-11, using both the average and maximum number of each of the White List Species collected in the WHRFMA by the 14 fishers annually between 2000 and 2017, and what percent of the CREP population estimates those values represent. The impacts on individual species’ populations is less than 2% for all species when looking at average collection rates, and less than 3% when looking at maximum rates. Additionally, the bag limit for Achilles Tang would be implemented, resulting in similar impacts to that species as seen under the Achilles Tang Alternative, though again, because of the limited number of Aquarium Permits that would be issued, it is anticipated that the impact may be even smaller. Therefore, under this alternative, annual catch of Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA over the 5-year analysis period is estimated to be reduced by 50% from that under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative (4,058; the average amount collected since the 2014 bag limit was imposed, or 5,027, the maximum collected since the bag limit was imposed) to 2,029 to 2,514, or 0.88% to 1.09% of the island-wide population that would be collected annually over the 5-year analysis period. An additional 1,683 to 3,092 Achilles Tang would be estimated to be collected from East Hawai’i (52% of the No Action Alternative, see discussion below, plus 337 to 1,746 from the 14 fishers in East Hawai’i, see Table 5-11). This results in a total of 3,712 to 5,606 Achilles Tang, or 1.60% to 2.42% of the island-wide population. This level of collection is below the lower end of what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). In East Hawai’i, the impacts would be anticipated to be similar to the No Action Alternative, although lower given that 14 of the fishers would be able to collect aquarium fish in the WHRFMA using fine mesh nets and these fishers are anticipated to decrease their collection in East Hawai’i to levels seen under the PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative. Based upon data from 2018 (DAR 2019b), the 14 fishers collected approximately 48% of the fish in East Hawai’i. Under the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative, it is thus 124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences assumed that the collection in East Hawai’i would decrease 48% from the No Action Alternative collection of 57,503 fish per year, to 29,902 fish, plus an average of 2,159 fish per year from East Hawai’i collection (Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban) by the 14 fishers (see Table 5-2), for a total collection of 32,061 fish per year in East Hawai’i under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative, or 160,305 fish total over the 5-year analysis period. Impacts to individual species would be anticipated to follow the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative trends for the 14 fishers for the island of Hawai’i (see Table 5-11), plus additional impacts from other fishers in East Hawai’i of 52% of the No Action Alternative. Even when combined with collection from the WHRFMA, the impact to a species’ population would be less than 4% (see Section 5.5.1). Based on the low percentage of the overall populations anticipated to be collected annually by the 14 commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on reef fish populations and the reefs in which they occur, and a minor beneficial impact on reef fish populations compared to the Pre-Commercial Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. 5.4.2 Indirect Effects 5.4.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative issuance of Aquarium Permits would not occur and commercial aquarium fishing would stop in the WHRFMA. In East Hawai’i, aquarium collection using legal gear or methods other than fine-mesh nets would continue. Commercial aquarium fishers may no longer find it feasible to target aquarium fish and may begin to participate in other fisheries, but this is not possible to quantify at this time. In the WHRFMA, where no fish would be collected, a minor, although unquantifiable, increase in number of White List Species, non-White List Species, and SGCN may occur over the 5-year analysis period, which may provide additional viewing opportunities for tourists, an increase in the prey base, additional individual herbivores to maintain the reef, and increased competition between species for available resources. However, data do not exist that would allow for a thorough analysis of such effects, and many species did not see differences in population trends between areas open and closed to commercial aquarium collection since establishment of the FRAs in 1999 (Table 5-4 and Table 5-8; DAR 2019a). In East Hawai’i, collection may increase under the No Action Alternative (see Section 5.4.1.1), and without the use of fine mesh nets, the size class of fish collected may increase over that which is caught with fine mesh nets (i.e., the smaller fish would escape the larger mesh), but again this impact cannot be quantified at this time. These larger fish may represent the brood stock. Based on the analysis provided in Section 5.4.1.1, the impact to any population of White List Species of fish would be less than 1% of the island-wide population. Additionally, research conducted on herbivores showed that numbers did not decline in areas open to commercial aquarium collection in the WHRFMA between 2003 and 2017. Since collection rates are generally higher in the WHRFMA, even with the anticipated increase in collection under the No Action Alternative in East Hawai’i, no indirect impacts due to commercial aquarium collection on the biological function of herbivore populations are anticipated. 125 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Therefore, it is anticipated that the No Action Alternative would have a less than significant indirect impact on tourists, as well as on collected fish populations and the reefs in which they occur in East Hawaii. 5.4.2.2 Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative Under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative issuance of an unlimited number of Aquarium Permits would occur and commercial aquarium fish collection would take place. An estimated 1.7 million individual, primarily juvenile fish would be collected from the WHRFMA and an estimated 91,000 primarily juvenile fish and 67,229 invertebrates would be collected from East Hawai’i. Collection of these primarily juvenile fish and invertebrates would result in a decrease in the number of White List Species, non-White List Species, and SGCN over the 5-year analysis period, which may provide fewer viewing opportunities for tourists, a decrease in the prey base, and reduced competition between species for available resources, Given the low proportion of the island populations of the species that would be removed (Table 5-11, Section 5.4.1.2), and the geographic area over which the collection would occur (i.e., WHRFMA, island of Hawai’i), it is anticipated that indirect impacts on viewing opportunities, prey base, and competition would be minor or nonexistent. This conclusion is supported by the observation that population trends for many species did not differ between areas open and closed to commercial aquarium collection (Table 5-4 and Table 5-8). Additionally, between 2003 and 2017, total fish abundance significantly increased by 34.9% within Open Areas, where commercial aquarium collection was occurring (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). Total fish biomass also increased by 19.8%, though this change was not statistically significant (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). Species richness (the number of species observed per survey) remained constant for MPAs, FRAs and Open Areas (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). As discussed in Section 5.4.1, herbivore numbers did not decline in the Open Areas between 2003 and 2017, and therefore, no indirect impacts due to commercial aquarium collection under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative on the biological function of herbivore populations are anticipated. Based on the Tissot and Hallacher (2003) study and the 15 years of coral reef data collected and analyzed by the DAR (2018c), it is not anticipated that any significant indirect impacts to reef habitat would occur under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. From 2003 to 2017, mean coral cover declined less within Open Areas than within areas closed to commercial aquarium collection (though the difference was not statistically significant; DAR 2019a). The DAR (2019a) concluded that commercial aquarium collecting is not having any measurable negative impact on percent coral cover or change in coral cover over time. It is anticipated that implementation of the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a minor beneficial effect on invasive fish species over the 5-year analysis period. A total of 128 individual Bluestripe Snappers have been caught in the WHRFMA since 2000, based on disclosed data (DAR 2018a). The Peacock Grouper and Blacktail Snapper have not been reported as caught from the WHRFMA over the 18year assessment period. Of the three invasive fish species, only the Peacock Grouper has been reported as caught (all n.d. data) in East Hawai’i. Based on the analysis in this section, the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative would have a less than significant indirect impact on tourists, as well as on collected fish populations and the reefs in which they occur. 126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.4.2.3 WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative Under the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative, Aquarium Permits would be issued for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA, but fine-mesh nets would not be allowed in East Hawai’i. The indirect effect on biological resources within the WHRFMA would be similar to the PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative. In East Hawai’i, indirect effects to biological resources would be anticipated to be similar to the No Action Alternative, though with the WHRFMA open to fishing with the use of fine mesh nets, indirect effects of aquarium fish collection in East Hawai’i may return to levels seen under the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative or even decrease since fishing in the WHRFMA may prove more favorable given the use of fine mesh nets. Based on the analysis in this section, the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative would have less than significant indirect impact on tourists, as well as on collected fish populations and the reefs in which they occur. 5.4.2.4 Achilles Tang Conservation (Preferred) Alternative Indirect impacts under the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would be similar to those of the PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative. The implementation of the 5 per day bag limit on Achilles Tang may provide a benefit to Achilles Tang populations, potentially leading to minor population growth as well as increased viewing opportunities for tourists, but this cannot be quantified at this time. Based on the analysis in this section, the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative would have less than significant indirect impact on tourists, as well as on collected fish populations and the reefs in which they occur. 5.4.2.5 Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative Under the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative, Aquarium Permits would be issued to 14 fishers for the use of fine-mesh nets within the WHRFMA. No fine mesh nets would be allowed in East Hawai’i, though collection of aquarium fish would still be permitted using other legal means. It is anticipated that collection of approximately 1.5 million fish would occur in the WHRFMA, resulting in indirect impacts similar, though smaller in scale, to the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative. In East Hawai’i, between 91,000 and 383,489 fish would be collected, and 67,229 invertebrates, resulting in indirect effects between the No Action and Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban alternatives. Additionally, this alternative would implement a bag limit on Achilles Tang, leading to similar indirect impacts on that species as the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative, though again, because of the limited number of Aquarium Permits that would be issued, it is anticipated that the indirect effects may be even smaller. Based on the analysis in this section, the Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) Alternative would have less than significant indirect impact on tourists, as well as on collected fish populations and the reefs in which they occur. 127 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts As stated in Section 4.4, Toonen et al. (2011) conclude that the Hawaiian Archipelago is not a single, wellmixed marine community, but rather there are at least four significant multi-species barriers to dispersal along the length of the island chain, and that species that appear capable of extensive dispersal, such as Yellow Tang and Kole, show significant population differentiation within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In addition, there are significant consensus genetic breaks that restrict gene flow between islands, including a barrier between the island of Hawai’i and the rest of the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). Therefore, the geographic boundary for analysis of cumulative effects is the island of Hawai’i. 5.4.3.1 Recreational Aquarium Fish Collection As of April 2018, all recreational permits for collection of aquarium species with fine mesh nets were voided, and no collection with fine mesh nets is currently legally allowed, pending environmental review (DAR 2019a). Given the five-year analysis period, it cannot currently be predicted when or if these permits will be reinstated, therefore, the following discussion focuses on the cumulative impacts if the permits were to be reinstated, and pressure remained similar to historic trends. Recreational aquarium fish collection is governed by state law and regulations. Under HRS 188-31, individuals may use fine mesh nets (< 2-inch mesh) to collect aquatic life for an aquarium. A permit is not required if: • The net has large mesh (more than two-inch mesh); • The net has small mesh but is less than three feet in length, height, or width, including the handle; or, • Using a slurp gun. A recreational aquarium permit is required if using a small mesh net other than a hand net, or a small mesh hand net larger than the dimensions indicated above. Small mesh throw nets are always prohibited. Regardless of whether a permit is required, regulations that impose bag limits, seasons, and limit the size of fish that can be collected apply to all recreational fish collection. The aquarium permit only exempts a person from the small mesh restriction. The recreational aquarium permit rules apply everywhere in the state, except for West Hawai’i, which has its own rules and permits specific to the WHRFMA (HAR §1360.4). Under a recreational aquarium permit, individuals are authorized to collect up to five aquatic animals per day (1,825 per year) (HAR 13-60.4). Since 2000, the number of recreational permits issued for the state (island-specific numbers not available) has averaged 159 annually (DAR 2018a). The DAR collected recreational aquarium fish catch information from 1975 until 1985, after which, data collection was discontinued, and currently no reporting of catch is required for recreational aquarium permit holders. Historic recreational catch data were not digitized or processed into a database, and therefore, are not available for analysis (DAR 2018a). 128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Because reporting of recreational aquarium catch is not required, the impact of recreational collection on White List Species cannot be quantified. It is likely that not all recreational permit holders collect the maximum allowable number (1,825); however, if each of the average 159 statewide permit holders were to collect 50% of the allowable catch (913), it would result in the collection of 145,088 aquatic animals per year statewide. If it is assumed that only 50% are White List Species, it would result in an estimated 72,544 White List Species collected by recreational aquarium permit holders annually. The same estimation would apply to non-White List Species. These estimates are likely high based on results from Harding (2017), which found that 57% of recreational aquarium permit holders surveyed had not utilized their permit in the previous 12-month period. Of the 43% who had used their permits, their average yearly catch was 45 fish per permit (Harding 2017), which is below the maximum allowable number of 1,825 fish or the 50% used to estimate impacts above. Because reporting of recreational aquarium catch is not required, the impact of the collection on SGCN cannot be quantified. Nevertheless, it is likely that SGCN are occasionally collected by recreational aquarium permit holders. However, given the low number of SGCN individuals collected by commercial aquarium collectors (average 274 Psychedelic Wrasse/year; average 309 Tinker’s Butterflyfish/year; average 96 Fisher’s Angelfish/year) it is estimated that recreational collectors are collecting fewer individuals of these species. Because reporting of interactions (e.g., damage from contact with collection equipment) with corals resulting from recreational aquarium collecting and recreational aquarium catch is not required, the impact of the interaction with reef habitat cannot be quantified. However, studies conducted by Tissot and Hallacher (2003) found that aquarium collecting had no significant impact (beneficial nor detrimental) on reef habitat. In addition, 15 years of coral reef data collected and analyzed by the DAR (2018b) found no significant difference in coral cover in areas open to commercial aquarium fish collection. It is assumed that recreational aquarium collect would likewise not have a significant impact. Recreational aquarium collection impacts to biological resources cannot be fully quantified. However, data presented by DAR (2014a, 2019a) indicate that some species may be declining in various management areas (e.g., FRA, MPA, Open) due to factors other than commercial aquarium collecting which may include recreational aquarium collection. 5.4.3.2 Non-Aquarium Commercial and Non-Commercial Fishing (Non-Aquarium Fish) Coral reef species are targeted by non-aquarium commercial fishers using numerous fishing gears including nets, traps, hook and line, spear, hand, and other methods. Commercial fish industry landings in Hawai‘i have increased annually since 2006 and the NOAA reported total landings in 2013 were valued near $108 million dollars (DLNR 2015). Akule (coastal pelagic scads) dominate nearshore commercial landings and are typically collected using surround or fence nets, gillnets or hook and line (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council-WPRFMC 2017). Other top species by weight and value include soldierfishes, parrotfish, surgeonfishes and goatfishes, which may be targeted because they may bring a high price in some seasons (WPRFMC 2017). Non-commercial fishing includes subsistence/consumptive, recreational, and cultural fishing and gathering activities that occur in ocean and coastal zones. The State of Hawai’i has the most developed recreational 129 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences fishing infrastructure in the U.S. Pacific and is a substantial economic contributor to the State. The State of Hawai’i does not track non-commercial fish collection. However, creel surveys suggest that the total inshore non-commercial catch from reef areas could be as high as the reported commercial catch (WPRFMC 2017). The most recent DAR summary report available on the West Hawai’i aquarium fishery (DAR 2019a) analyzed data collected since 2003 by the Hawai’i Marine Recreational Marine Fishing Survey (HMRFS) and subsequently since 2007 by NOAA’s Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) to gain perspective on the generalized impact on reef fishes by aquarium collecting versus other types of reef fishing activities. Statewide, looking at the period from 2008-2011, the number of reef fishes caught by the recreational and commercial sectors was found to be comparable, averaging 1,511,025 per year for recreational fishers and 1,554,010 per year for commercial (i.e., non-aquarium) fishers. McCoy et al. (2018) found that 12.8% of households on Hawai’i participate in recreational (non-aquarium) fishing. Most of this fishing is conducted using lines from shore (65.6%), which catches an estimated 0.33 pounds of reef fish per hour fished (McCoy et al. 2018). The results of this study found that on Hawai’i, noncommercial annual catch was approximately 10.5 times commercial catch when comparing the average pounds per year between 2004 and 2013 (McCoy et al. 2018). In West Hawai’i (i.e., the WHRFMA), on average the commercial aquarium fishery annually takes 1.8 times (343,729/year) the number of reef fishes taken annually by recreational and other commercial fishers combined (194,674/year) (DAR 2019a). However, if Yellow Tang, which is primarily collected at small sizes and generally not targeted by other fishers, is excluded, on average the recreational and commercial fisheries combine to take 3 times the number of reef fishes (194,674/year) caught annually by aquarium collectors (64,815/year) (DAR 2019). In terms of reef fish biomass caught by the different fisheries in West Hawai’i (i.e., the WHRFMA), DAR (2019a) concluded that more biomass is taken by the combined recreational and commercial fisheries regardless of including Yellow Tang (2.8 times) or excluding Yellow Tang (8.6 times). In addition, unlike the aquarium fishery which targets mostly immature fish, the commercial and recreational fisheries selectively target the larger breeding portion of the population which has profound implications for the sustainable usage of the resource (DAR 2019a). Therefore, on the island of Hawai’i, commercial aquarium fish collection constitutes 25% of the total catch and 11% of the biomass (when excluding Yellow Tang, whose population has been increasing even with commercial aquarium collection). The non-aquarium commercial fish industry targets some coral reef species; however, commercial nonaquarium fishers do not directly target most White List Species. Data for non-aquarium commercial fishing is lacking due to the DAR confidentiality regulations (HRS §189-3). Because most non-aquarium commercial fishers do not target aquarium species, there are usually less than three fishers reporting. Therefore, the data presented in Table 5-12 are underestimated. 130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Table 5-12. Available data on White List Species collected by commercial non-aquarium fishers in the State and on the island of Hawai’i from 2000-2017 (DAR 2018a). n.d. = Not Disclosed (see Section 5.1). White List Species Achilles Tang Yellow Tang Kole (=Goldring Surgeonfish, Yelloweye, Goldring) Peacock Grouper (=Roi, Bluespot Peacock Grouper) Eyestripe Surgeonfish (=Palani) Orangeband (=Shoulder) Surgeonfish Saddle Wrasse Brown Surgeonfish (=Lavender, Forktail Tang) Bluestripe Snapper (=Taape) Total Collected Annual Average 1,552 87 n.d. East Hawai'i Catch Annual Total Average 2,435 136 n.d. Island of Hawai’i Catch Annual Total Average 3,987 222 n.d. Annual Average 10,641 592 n.d. 4,773 266 28,496 1,584 33,269 1,849 103,391 5,744 212 12 73 4 285 16 17,892 994 4,891 272 2,412 134 7,303 406 202,286 11,239 396 22 604 34 1,000 56 95,380 5,299 4 1 62 4 66 4 1,150 64 58 4 58 4 58 4 64,660 3,593 80,159 4,454 715,913 39,773 WHRFMA Catch Total n.d. 15,499 27,327 861 98,800 126,127 State Catch Total Total 1,146,711 It is expected that the average number of White List individuals collected annually by non-aquarium commercial fishers would continue at these rates (at a minimum) over the 5-year analysis period. Because reporting of non-aquarium recreational, cultural and subsistence/consumptive catch is not required, the impact of recreational, cultural and subsistence/consumptive collection on White List Species, non-White List Species, and SGCN cannot be quantified. However, nearshore recreational and subsistence catch is likely at similar catch levels as that of non-aquarium commercial fishing (Friedlander 2017). The impacts of non-aquarium commercial and non-commercial fishing on biological resources cannot be fully quantified. However, as discussed above data presented by DAR (2019a) indicate that some species 131 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences are declining in various management areas (e.g., FRA, MPA, Open) due to factors other than commercial aquarium collecting, which include non-aquarium commercial and non-commercial fishing. However, there is no way to fully quantify the cumulative effects of past and ongoing non-aquarium commercial and noncommercial fishing on biological resources. Given the assumed past and present impacts of non-aquarium commercial and non-commercial fishing on biological resources, foreseeable future actions would likely result in some impacts to biological resources. 5.4.3.3 Commercial Aquarium Collection As noted in Section 1.0, the commercial aquarium collection fishery has existed in Hawai’i since the late 1940s. Commercial aquarium collection pursuant to permits issued by DLNR was only recently halted after the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s determination that DLNR’s issuance of the permits required compliance with HEPA. Cumulatively, since 1976, a total of 8.6 million White List Species individuals have been collected by commercial aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA area (DAR 2018a). Over 69% of that catch has occurred since 2000 and was included in the analysis of this DEIS. Regardless, this collection has already occurred, and is reflected in the current population estimates used to evaluate impacts on species (see Section 5.4.1.2). Given the long history of commercial aquarium collection in Hawai’i, it is reasonably foreseeable that commercial aquarium collection will continue. Based on available data regarding species abundance and yearly commercial aquarium catch over the past 18 years, it is expected that in the reasonably foreseeable future, commercial aquarium collection will proceed generally at the same rate and have the same level of impact as in the past 18 years. To the extent new data regarding the impacts of commercial aquarium collection on biological resources becomes available in the future, DLNR may consider those data and, to the extent necessary, supplement this impacts analysis. As noted in Section 5.4.1.2: • Reef fish have high fecundity and are long lived, and as such produce a large number of young each year over many years; • Commercial aquarium collection targets juvenile fish leaving behind the adult broodstock; and, • A low percentage of the overall population of each of the targeted species would be collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, and this collection would be spread throughout the year and across multiple areas. As such, Section 5.4.1.2 concludes that commercial aquarium collection would not have a significant impact on island of Hawai’i reef fish populations. Thus, it is not anticipated that losses would accumulate over time due to the low percentage collected each year and the high fecundity of reef fishes. 5.4.3.4 Tourism Hawai’i is a major tourist destination and the tourism industry contributes the most to the state’s economy. Over time this industry has grown and reshaped the native landscapes and sensitive ecosystems through major coastal development, increased energy consumption, and tourism based recreational activities. 132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Major coastal development for tourism (i.e., hotels, resorts, restaurants, recreational outfitters) and associated point source pollution (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, and sediment from agriculture and development) threaten the quality of coral reef ecosystems (State of Hawai’i 2010). When coral reefs are damaged, it could potentially expose reef dependent organisms and leave them vulnerable to other threats such as disease, predation, and climate change (State of Hawai’i 2010), including the reef fishes and other aquatic animals targeted by both commercial and recreational aquarium fishers. Human interaction with native flora and fauna is also a growing concern. Damage to sensitive ecosystems (i.e., coral reefs, tide pools, shorelines) through tourism-based recreation overuse (e.g., SCUBA diving, snorkeling, etc.) has been attributed to killing many aquatic organisms that in turn may affect many more species that rely on such organisms as a food source. Damage to coral reef habitat in association with tourism (through coastal development, point source pollution, and recreational activities) threatens most White List Species that are dependent on reefs for habitat and foraging in the foreseeable future (State of Hawai’i 2010). 5.4.3.5 Climate Change Warming of the planet and rising average temperatures may produce variations in precipitation and temperature patterns, sea levels, and storm severity. This process is commonly referred to as “climate change.” Changes in sea surface temperatures have been documented, with temperatures warmer than normal in recent years (increase of 0.22 °F per decade), and even reaching record levels of thermal stress in September 2015 (Casey 2001; Gove et al. 2016). Warmer water temperatures can result in coral bleaching. When water is too warm, corals will expel the algae living in their tissues causing the coral to turn completely white. When coral bleaches, it is not dead; corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress and are subject to mortality. In 1998, global coral bleaching and die-off was unprecedented in geographic extent, depth, and severity. Researchers predict that coral bleaching events would occur when the average sea temperatures are 33.8 °F or more above average (DLNR 2015). In the fall of 2015, leeward reefs of Hawai‘i Island suffered catastrophic coral mortality due to widespread and severe coral bleaching. Survey results indicated that overall coral bleaching prevalence averaged 53.3% and resulted in an average coral cover loss of 49.7%. Regional differences in bleaching prevalence and subsequent coral mortality were not detected. High post-bleaching mortality was detected for the coral species, Pocillopora meandrina, Porites evermanni, and Porites lobata (Kramer et al., 2016). Acidification can also damage corals and marine life that depend on minerals for shell/skeletal development. The acidity of the Pacific Ocean has increased by about 25% over the last 300 years and is predicted to increase 4050% by 2100 (EPA 2016). Based on studies in the Great Barrier Reef, fishing pressure had minimal effect on bleaching (Hughes et al. 2017). On the island of Hawai’i, the total cover of hard coral decreased between 2003 and 2017 in MPAs, FRAs and in Open Areas, with the smallest decline seen in Open Areas, though all areas saw significant declines ranging from 48.7% in Open Areas to 57.8% in FRAs (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). Given that Open Areas did not see a more severe decline than areas closed to commercial aquarium collection, it is not anticipated that commercial aquarium collection has a less than significant impact on coral declines. 133 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Currently, it is projected that with warming of approximately 5⁰F per decade, coral reefs will experience annual bleaching beginning by about 2040 in the Hawaiian Islands, though this may be delayed by approximately 11 years if the warming reductions in the 2015 Paris Agreement are met (U.S. Global Change Research Program [USGCRP] 2018). Bleaching and acidification will result in a loss of reef structure and lead to declines in fishery yields and loss of habitat (USGCRP 2018). Bleaching events in Hawai’i are tracked by NOAA, the DLNR, DAR, and other partners (found online at www.hawaiicoral.org). Changes in climate currently impact the physical resources of Hawai’i. Warming sea temperatures and acidification could result in damage, disease outbreaks, and ultimately death of coral reefs. The weakening or loss of coral reef ecosystems may threaten entire marine ecosystems in the region as many organisms, including numerous fish species, are not only dependent on these ecosystems for suitable habitat, but due to the isolation of the islands in the central pacific, are unable to move to new environments that provide suitable conditions for survival (EPA 2016). Several White List and non-White List Species are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago (including Johnston Atoll) and therefore may be impacted when faced with changes in climate over time (e.g., warming temperatures, habitat loss due coral bleaching, etc.). The extent and severity of impacts to White List Species from climate change have been ongoing for decades and are expected to increase in the foreseeable future. If environmental fluctuations resulting from climate change (e.g., tropical storms, coral bleaching episodes, acidification, etc.), or other natural or human factors, change habitat conditions, fishing mortality may present a higher risk to some White List and non-White List Species and SGCN. 5.4.3.6 Cumulative Impact Conclusion The DAR (2019a) has noted significantly declining populations in one or more of the management areas for 12 of the White List Species, and cumulatively, all of the factors discussed above likely contribute to the declines. Therefore, cumulative impacts to these 12 White List Species would occur under any of the five alternatives under consideration and would be significant (including the No Action Alternative). Minor cumulative impacts to the remaining 28 White List Species are anticipated, given that populations have remained stable or increased for 24 of those species, and population trend data is not available for the other four species 13. However, as noted in Section 5.4.3, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019a). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline 13 Species not adequately surveyed by WHAP include Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse, and Eyestripe Surgeonfish. Tinker’s Butterflyfish have a CREP (2018) population estimate of 18,475, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 5% of the island-wide population (though it should be noted that the vast majority of the population occurs well below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP and thus the population estimate is likely low). Eyestripe Surgeonfish has a CREP (2018) population estimate of 578,835, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 0.3% of the island-wide population. Flame Wrasse do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017. Longfin Anthias also do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. 134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives would collect less than 1% of the islandwide population estimates for 10 of the species (Table 5-14). For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 4% of the island-wide population (Table 5-14). Based on this, while commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Additionally, measures included in the Preferred Alternative (e.g., limited permit issuance, reduced Achilles Tang bag limit) may mitigate potential impacts by limiting the number of Aquarium Permits issued as well as the number of Achilles Tang that can be collected by commercial aquarium collectors each day. As described above, commercial aquarium collection is not the only stressor on this species, and therefore, it is anticipated that additional conservation measures designed to address the other stressors (e.g., commercial and recreational fisheries) will need to be implemented in order to sustain the population. The DAR (2019a) supports this conclusion, stating that conservative bag limits, as proposed in the Preferred Alternative for commercial aquarium collection, should be considered for other fisheries as well. There are currently no bag limits for Achilles Tang applied to any other fishery. 5.4.4 Mitigation No significant adverse direct or indirect biological resource impacts are anticipated under any of the five alternatives under consideration. Significant cumulative impacts are anticipated; however, commercial aquarium collection is a less than significant factor in the cumulative impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed. Nevertheless, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigative measures (see Section 5.0) such as a reduction in the number of Aquarium Permits that would be issued, limiting collection using fine mesh nets to the WHRFMA, and reducing the bag limit for the Achilles Tang, all of which would minimize impacts to biological resources. 5.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Table 5-13 summarizes the environmental consequences by alternative during the 5-year analysis period. Table 5-13. Summary of direct and indirect impacts by alternative over the 5-year analysis period. Alternative No Action Socioeconomics Direct Indirect Tourism $2 million added to the economy (based on fishing in East Hawai’i), unknown number of jobs (<57) $6.3 million added to the economy, unknown number of indirect jobs (less than other alternatives) No interactions between collectors and tourists in the WHRFMA, potential increase in East Hawai’i Cultural Resources Direct and Indirect No impact on culturally significant fish populations Biological Resources Collection of Fish No collection in WHRFMA Collection of 287,516 fish in East Hawai’i Coral Reefs and Herbivores No impact on coral. No impact on herbivore numbers. 135 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources Direct and Indirect Socioeconomics Alternative Direct Indirect Tourism Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban $8.2 million added to the economy and 57 jobs $41 million added to the economy, unknown number of indirect jobs No known quantifiable impact on the tourism industry WHRFMAonly Programmatic Issuance of Permits $7.9 to $8.2 million added to the economy and 57 jobs. $39.5 to $41 million added to the economy, unknown number of indirect jobs No known quantifiable impact on the tourism industry Achilles Tang Conservation $7.9 million added to the economy and 57 jobs $39.5 million added to the economy, unknown number of indirect jobs No known quantifiable impact on the tourism industry, may increase viewing potential for Achilles Tang Limited Permit Issuance (Preferred) $4.4 to $6.5 million added to the economy and 14 jobs $22 to $32.5 million added to the economy, unknown number of indirect jobs No known impact on the tourism industry, may increase viewing potential for Achilles Tang 5.5.1 Biological Resources Collection of Fish Collection of 1.7 million White List Species fish from the WHRFMA Collection of 91,000 fish from East Hawai’i Collection of 1.7 million White List Species fish from the WHRFMA Collection of less than 91,000 fish from East Hawai’i Collection of 1.7 million White List Species fish from the WHRFMA, collection of Achilles reduced by 50% Collection of 91,000 fish from East Hawai’i Collection of 1.5 million White List Species fish from the WHRFMA, collection of Achilles Tang reduced by >50%, Collection of between 160,305 fish from East Hawai’i Coral Reefs and Herbivores Summary of Impacts on White List Species Populations Table 5-14 below summarizes the population impacts (based on the percent of the population collected) of the five alternatives on each of the 40 White List Species. The No Action Alternative looks at the 15 White List Species with historic collection data from East Hawai’i; the Pre-Aquarium Collection Ban Alternative and the WHRFMA-only Programmatic Issuance of Permits Alternative are based on average and maximum collection for the entire island of Hawai’i (see Table 5-11); the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative is also based on the average and maximum collection for the island of Hawai’i, but with a decreased Achilles Tang collection in the WHRFMA; and, the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative is based on the average and maximum collection of the 14 fishers in the WHRFMA, with a decrease in the Achilles Tang collection, added to the impacts from East Hawai’i under this alternative (based on the No Action). Table 5-14. Summary of the annual impact (percent collected by commercial aquarium collectors) on populations of the White List Species based on CREP (2018) population estimates and the projected annual collection under each alternative (see Table 5-1 and 5-11 for additional details). NA indicates the species does not have a population estimate. Species No Action Alternative Achilles Tang 1.11% Bird Wrasse n.d. PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative WHRFMAOnly 2.72% to 3.15% 0.04% to 0.11% Achilles Tang Conservation Limited Permit Issuance 1.41% to 2.13% 1.60% to 2.42% 0.02% to 0.03% 136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative Species No Action Alternative WHRFMAOnly Achilles Tang Conservation Limited Permit Issuance Black Durgon n.d. <0.01% to 0.02% <0.01%-0.01% Black Surgeonfish 0.03% 0.64% to 2.21% 0.45% to 0.91% Blacklip Butterflyfish n.d. 0.05% to 0.15% 0.03% to 0.07% Blackside Hawkfish n.d. 0.02% to 0.05% 0.01% to 0.03% Bluestripe Snapper Taape n.d. <0.01% <0.01% Brown Surgeonfish n.d. 0.01% to 0.02% <0.01%-0.01% Eightline Wrasse n.d. 0.02% to 0.07% 0.01% to 0.08% Eyestripe Surgeonfish n.d. 0.07% to 0.27% <0.01%-0.01% Fisher's Angelfish n.d. 0.01% to 0.06% 0.01% to 0.04% Forcepsfish n.d. 0.43% to 1.14% 0.21% to 0.35% n.d. 0.01% to 0.02% <0.01% to 0.01% Fourspot Butterflyfish n.d. 0.12% to 0.32% 0.07% to 0.12% Gilded Triggerfish n.d. 0.03% to 0.16% 0.02% to 0.05% Goldrim Tang 0.06% 0.59% to 1.93% 0.37% to 1.48% Kole <0.01% 0.27% to 0.63% 0.15% to 0.27% Hawaiian Dascyllus n.d. 0.06% to 0.16% 0.03% to 0.08% Hawaiian Whitespotted Toby n.d. 0.04% to 0.17% 0.02% to 0.08% Lei Triggerfish n.d. 0.01% to 0.04% 0.01% to 0.02% Longfin Anthias n.d. NA NA Milletseed Butterflyfish n.d. 0.09% to 0.43% 0.07% to 0.37% Multiband Butterflyfish n.d. 0.07% to 0.23% 0.03% to 0.05% Orangeband Surgeonfish n.d. 0.06% to 0.24% 0.04% to 0.13% Orangespine Unicornfish 0.01% 0.65% to 1.63% 0.31% to 0.82% Ornate Wrasse n.d. 0.10% to 0.87% 0.03% to 0.08% Fourline Wrasse n.d. <0.01% <0.01% Pencil Wrasse n.d. 0.10% to 0.35% 0.08% to 0.25% Potter's Angelfish n.d. 0.10% to 0.41% 0.08% to 0.28% Psychedelic Wrasse n.d. 0.75% to 2.37% 0.57% to 1.73% Pyramid Butterflyfish n.d. 0.57% to 3.65% 0.43% to 2.06% Redbarred Hawkfish n.d. <0.01% <0.01%-0.01% Saddle Wrasse n.d. <0.01% to 0.02% <0.01%-0.01% Shortnose Wrasse n.d. 0.08% to 0.26% 0.06% to 0.18% Peacock Grouper - Roi Spotted Boxfish n.d. 0.18% to 0.66% 0.15% to 0.35% Thompson's Surgeonfish n.d. 0.04% to 0.28% 0.03% to 0.23% Tinker's Butterflyfish 0.94% 1.87% to 4.92% 2.12% to 3.36% Flame Wrasse n.d. NA NA 137 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences 5.6 PreAquarium Collection Ban Alternative Species No Action Alternative WHRFMAOnly Achilles Tang Conservation Limited Permit Issuance Yellow Tang 0.60% 3.43% to 8.09% 1.91% to 3.18% Yellowtail Coris n.d. 0.15% to 0.36% 0.09% to 0.16% EVALUATION OF HEPA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Below is a summary of the evaluation of the significance criteria described in Title II, Chapter 200, Hawai’i Administrative Rules, with the five criteria where the DLNR requested further analysis shown in bold.  Significance Criteria #1: The Preferred Alternative (i.e., Limited Permit Issuance Alternative) does not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource. Fish Populations: Collection of the 40 White List Species represents less than 3% of each population when looking at average collection rates, and less than 4% when looking at maximum collection rates. Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) suggest collection of between 5%-25% is sustainable for various reef species similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, triggerfish). Under the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative, only six species have a maximum collection rate above 1% of the estimated island of Hawai’i population estimates (Table 5-14). Collection of these species would need to increase by 1.6 to 2.9 times the maximum levels seen between 2000 and 2017 to reach 5% of the estimated populations, and two of these species (Yellow Tang and Achilles Tang) currently have bag limits, with a reduced bag limit for the Achilles Tang proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Based on the low percentage of the overall populations collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection likely has minimal impacts on populations in general. The DAR (2019a) has noted that 24 of the 40 White List Species have remained stable or significantly increased between 1999 and 2017, when commercial aquarium collection was at a higher rate than what would occur under the Preferred Alternative, therefore, no impacts to these species are anticipated. For the 12 White List Species which had significant declines, as noted in Section 5.4.3, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019a). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. The pressures from commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be lower than rates seen prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection; therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on fish populations as a result of the Preferred Alternative would occur. Reef Habitat: Tissot and Hallacher (2003) concluded that there were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collected sites (i.e., sites where 138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences aquarium collection occurs) to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. In addition, they found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. Additionally, the DAR (2019a) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. The pressures from commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be lower than rates seen prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection; therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on reef habitat as a result of the Preferred Alternative would occur. Cultural Resources: As concluded in the CIA, cultural impacts would occur if issuance of Aquarium Permits under an alternative would cause a significant decline in the population of a White List Species considered to be a cultural resource, either directly through the collection of fish or indirectly through habitat impacts. Table 4-3 lists the 40 White List Species, and Section 4.4 includes a brief summary of known cultural significance by species. While not all species have a known Hawaiian cultural significance, for this analysis, it was assumed that the 33 species on the White List identified as having a cultural use for food, medicinal, religious or ceremonial purposes could have a cultural impact if populations of those species were impacted. As detailed in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on cultural resources would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Other Resources: Aside from reducing the number of Aquarium Permits issued and reducing the daily bag limit for Achilles Tang, the Preferred Alternative does not include any activities different from, or in addition to, those that have occurred in the past. There would be no construction of permanent or semi-permanent infrastructure, no discharges into coastal, surface or ground waters, and no dredging, and no significant use of hazardous materials that could be released into the environment. The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant beneficial or adverse impacts to water and air quality, geology and soil resources, aesthetics, noise, vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, and avian species, threatened and endangered species, land use, public health and safety, communications, transportation, utilities, or population and demographics from the current baseline condition.  Significance Criteria #2: The Preferred Alternative does not curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment. Act 306 has created a platform on which the public can learn about and participate in the management of the fishery. Since the Act’s implementation, the DAR has created FRAs and conducts annual monitoring and research on the fish and coral, ensuring that the full range of 139 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences beneficial uses of the environment remain now and into the future. The loss of the aquarium fishery may mean the loss of funds to support monitoring and research that benefits reef ecosystems. Aquatic Invasive Algae Control: Tissot and Hallacher (2003) found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. Additionally, the DAR (2019a) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. The pressures from commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be lower than rates seen prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection; therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on aquatic invasive algae control as a result of the Preferred Alternative would occur. Tourism: Available data do not suggest that the commercial aquarium collection has impacted the tourism industry in Hawai’i. The Hawai‘i’s tourism industry achieved new records in total visitor spending and visitor arrivals in 2017, marking the sixth consecutive year of record growth in both categories. Total spending by visitors to the Hawaiian Islands increased 5.6% to a new high of $16.81 billion (HTA 2018). When adjusted for inflation, total visitor spending was up 3.5% from 2016. A total of 9,404,346 visitors came by air or by cruise ship to the state, up 5.3% from the previous record of 8,934,277 visitors in 2016. Total visitor days rose 4.8% compared to 2016. The average spending per day by these visitors ($198 per person) was also higher than 2016 ($197 per person; HTA 2018). Additionally, as described in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline, therefore not significantly impacting viewing opportunities. Consequently, continued commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative, which would limit the number of Aquarium Permits and decrease collection, is not anticipated to significantly impact tourism. Integrity of Diverse Aquatic Ecosystems: As described in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline. Additionally, Tissot and Hallacher (2003) concluded that there were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collected sites (i.e., sites where aquarium collection occurs) to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. Tissot and Hallacher (2003) further found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. Additionally, the DAR (2019a) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019a, Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial 140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. The pressures from commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be lower than rates seen prior to the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection; therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on the integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems as a result of the Preferred Alternative would occur.  Significance Criteria #3: The Preferred Alternative does not conflict with the State’s long-term environmental policies, goals, or guidelines as expressed in chapter 344 HRS. As described in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline under the Preferred Alternative and impacts to coral reefs or herbivores are not anticipated, therefore the Preferred Alternative is not in conflict with the conservation of natural resources or the flora and fauna. There would be a minor, beneficial impact to the economy under the Preferred Alternative. There would be no impact on human population, threatened and endangered species, parks, recreation, and open spaces, transportation, energy use, community life and housing, or education and culture. As described in Section 1.2.3.1, multiple opportunities have been provided throughout the history of the commercial aquarium fishery for citizen participation, including public comment periods during the DEA and FEA (see Section 1.1.2), and as part of this DEIS.  Significance Criteria #4: The Preferred Alternative does not substantially affect the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices of the community or State, but plays an important role as a nearshore fishery in the State. According to DAR (2019a), the marine aquarium fishery is the most economically valuable commercial inshore fishery in the State of Hawai’i, with 68% of the value coming from the Island of Hawai’i, mainly West Hawai’i. Under the Preferred Alternative, it is anticipated that $4.4 to $6.5 million would be added to the state’s economy over the 5-year analysis period (average of $883,081 to $1,294,497 per year), and a minimum of 14 jobs would be created. Loss of the fishery would result in the loss of income, tax revenue, and jobs. Cultural Practices: As concluded in the CIA, cultural impacts would occur if issuance of Aquarium Permits under an alternative would cause a significant decline in the population of a White List Species considered to be a cultural resource, either directly through the collection of fish or indirectly through habitat impacts. Table 4-3 lists the 40 White List Species, and Section 4.4 includes a brief summary of known cultural significance by species. While not all species have a known Hawaiian cultural significance, for this analysis, it was assumed that the 33 species on the White List identified as having a cultural use for food, medicinal, religious or ceremonial purposes could have a cultural impact if populations of those species were impacted. As detailed in Section 5.4, populations of the White List Species are not anticipated to significantly decline under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a significant impact on cultural practices would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative.  Significance Criteria #5: The Preferred Alternative would not affect public health. 141 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences  Significance Criteria #6: The Preferred Alternative does not involve substantial secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. There is no expectation that populations or the public would be negatively impacted by continuing the fishery.  Significance Criteria #7: The Preferred Alternative does not involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality. Two studies have concluded that the fishery has no significant impact on coral or the reef ecosystem (Tissot and Hallacher 2003; DAR 2019a).  Significance Criteria #8: The Preferred Alternative does not involve a commitment for larger actions. When the full range of impacts to White List Species are considered (e.g., recreational aquarium collection, non-aquarium commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourism, climate change), there is a significant cumulative impact to some White List Species. However, the Preferred Alternative is not a significant contributor to the cumulative effect upon the environment. The DAR (2019a) has noted significantly declining populations in one or more of the management areas for 12 of the White List Species, and cumulatively, all of the factors discussed in Section 5.4.3 (including recreational aquarium fish collection, non-aquarium commercial and noncommercial fishing, tourism, and climate change) likely contribute to the declines. However, as noted in Section 5.4.3, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019a). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under the Preferred Alternative would collect less than 1% of the island-wide population estimates for 10 of the species. For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 1.1% of the Achilles Tang population and less than 2.1% of the Pyramid Butterflyfish. Impacts to Kole, which are also commonly collected for consumption, would be less than 0.3% of the island-wide population. Additionally, this species has shown significant increases in population since establishment of the WHRFMA (DAR 2019a), despite cumulative pressures from both commercial aquarium collection and other fisheries. Based on this, while commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Minor cumulative impacts to the remaining 28 White List Species are anticipated, given that populations have remained stable or increased for 24 of those species, and population trend data is not available for the other four species 14. Species not adequately surveyed by WHAP include Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse, and Eyestripe Surgeonfish. Tinker’s Butterflyfish have a CREP (2018) population estimate of 18,475, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 5% of the island-wide population (though it should be noted that the vast majority of the population occurs well below the 98-foot depth surveyed by the CREP and thus the population estimate is likely low). Eyestripe Surgeonfish has a CREP (2018) population estimate of 578,835, and collection under any of the alternatives would be less than 0.3% of the island-wide population. Flame Wrasse do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017. Longfin Anthias also do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. 14 142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted  Significance Criteria #9: The Preferred Alternative does not affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats nor does it have a significant impact on rare species.  Significance Criteria #10: The Preferred Alternative does not detrimentally affect air or water quality or ambient noise levels. At most, 14 boats would be involved in the island of Hawai’i aquarium fishery under the Preferred Alternative as compared to the thousands of other boats on the waters of Hawai’i.  Significance Criteria #11: The Preferred Alternative would not significantly affect or suffer damage by being located in environmentally sensitive areas, geologically hazardous land, estuaries, freshwater, or coastal water. As noted earlier, the fishery has been active since the late 1940s. Regulations have been implemented restricting the fishery from sensitive areas.  Significance Criteria #12: The Preferred Alternative does not substantially affect scenic vistas and view planes identified in county or state plans or studies.  Significance Criteria #13: The Preferred Alternative does not require substantial energy consumption. No significant adverse effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation for impacts is not warranted and no mitigation measures would be implemented. Nevertheless, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigative measures (see Section 5.0) such as a reduction in the number of Aquarium Permits that would be issued, limiting collection using fine mesh nets to the WHRFMA, and reducing the bag limit for the Achilles Tang, all of which would minimize impacts to biological resources. Under HRS 188-31, the DLNR may issue a commercial Aquarium Permit to a qualified party for a period of one year in duration, subject to renewal. Therefore, this DEIS analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits on affected resources for a period of five years. Less than significant or slightly beneficial impacts are expected under the Preferred Alternative. 6.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED See the FEA 15 for a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals consulted during development of the FEA, which was used as the basis for development of this DEIS. 6.1 CONSULTED PARTIES The following individuals requested to be a Consulted Party during development of the DEIS: • Keith Dane, Hawai’i Policy Advisor, The Humane Society of the United States http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08-HA-FEA-EISPN-Hawaii-Island-Commercial-AquariumPermits.pdf 15 143 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Distribution of the DEIS • Rene Umberger, Executive Director, For the Fishes • Laura Friend, Litigation Fellow, The Humane Society of the United States • Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director, Center for Biological Diversity • Mike Nakachi, President, Moana Ohana • Teresa E. Kaneakua, ‘Aho Hui Kia‘i Kānāwai Lead Compliance Specialist, Office of Hawaiian Affairs • Inga Gibson, Policy Director, Pono Advocacy, LLC • Kealoha Pisciotta, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa Each of these individuals was contacted on August 2, 2019 via email and/or mail, seeking advice and input for DEIS development. The Applicant requested any information or advice concerning the fishery and other potentially impacted environmental, cultural, or other resources. Consulted Parties were asked to respond within 30 days. Comments received and responses to those comments are provided in Appendix B. The consultation process for cultural resources is described in depth in Section 4 of Appendix A. 6.2 FEDERAL AGENCIES The following federal agencies were consulted during the development of this DEIS: • National Marine Fisheries Service • Coral Reef Ecosystem Program 6.3 STATE AGENCIES The following state agencies were consulted during the development of this DEIS • Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources • Hawai’i State Department of Health, Office of Environmental Quality Control 7.0 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DEIS The distribution list for the DEIS is included in Appendix C. 144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement List of Preparers 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Bob Likins Terry VanDeWalle Senior Ecologist Molly Stephenson Wildlife Biologist 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Ahti, A.P., R.R. Coleman, J.D. DiBattista, M.L. Berumen, L.A. Rocha, and B.W. Bowen. 2016. Phylogeography of Indo-Pacific reef fishes: Sister wrasses Coris gaimard and C. cuvieri in the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. Journal of Biogeography 43:1103-1115 Allen, G.R. 1985a. Butterfly and angelfishes of the world. Vol. 2. 3rd edit. in English. Mergus Publishers, Melle, Germany. Description available at: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Centropyge-potteri.html. Accessed on 3 January 2018. Allen G.R. 1985b. FAO species catalogue, Vol. 6, Snappers of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125(6):1-208. Bachhet, P., T. Zysman and Y. Lefèvre. 2006. Guide to Tahiti and her Islands fish. Tahiti (French Polynesia): Editions the Windward Islands. 608 pp. Beckwith, M.W. 1951. The Kumulipo A Hawaiian Creation Chant. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Berkeley, S.A., M.A. Hixon, R.J. Larson et al. 2004. Fisheries sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial distribution of fish populations. Fisheries 29: 23-32. Birkeland, C., P.K. Dayton. 2005. The importance in fishery management of leaving the big ones. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 356-358. Bobko, S.J., S.A. Berkeley. 2004. Maturity, ovarian cycle, fecundity, and age-specific parturition of black rockfish (Sebastes melanops). Fisheries Bulletin 102: 418-429. Breder, C.M. and D.E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. 941 p. Description available at: https://www.fishbase.de/References/FBRefSummary. php?id=205. Accessed throughout preparation of EA. Brock, R.E. 1981. Colonization of Marine Fishes in a Newly Created Harbor, Honokohau, Hawai’i! Pacific Science 34(3): 313-326. 145 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Burgess, W.E. 1978. Butterflyfishes of the world. A monograph of the Family Chaetodontidae. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Description available at: https://www.fishbase.de/References/FBRefSummary.php?id=205. Accessed throughout preparation of EA. Bushnell, M.E. 2007. Reproduction of Zebrasoma flavescens: oocyte maturation, spawning patterns and an estimate of reproductive potential for female Yellow Tang in Hawai’i. University of Hawai’i. Bushnell, M.E., J.T. Claisse, and C.W. Laidley. 2010. Lunar and seasonal patterns in fecundity of an indeterminate, multiple-spawning surgeonfish, the Yellow Tang Zebrasoma flavescens. Journal of Fish Biology. 76:1343–1361. 19pp. Casey K.S. and P. Cornillon. 2001. Global and Regional Sea Surface Temperature Trends Journal of Climate 14.18: 3801-3818. Cesar, H., P. van Beukering, S. Pintz, J. Dierking. 2002. Economic valuation of the coral reefs of Hawaii; Final report. Available at: https://www.coris.noaa.gov/portals/pdfs/hicesar.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2018. Choat, J.H., Clements, K.D. and Robbins, W.D. 2002. The trophic status of herbivorous fishes on coral reefs. 1. Dietary analyses. Marine Biology 140: 613-623. Choat, J.H. and L.M. Axe. 1996. Growth and longevity in acanthurid fishes; an analysis of otoliths increments. Marine Ecology Progress Series 134: 15-26. Christie, M.R., B.N. Tissot, M.A. Albins, J.P. Beets, Y. Jia, D.M. Ortiz, S.E. Thompson, and M.A. Hixon. 2010. Larval Connectivity in an Effective Network of Marine Protected Areas. PLoS ONE. 5(12): 18. Claisse J.T., M. Kienzle, M.E. Bushnell, D.J. Shafer, and J.D. Parrish. 2009. Habitat- and sex-specific life history patterns of Yellow Tang Zebrasoma flavescens in Hawai’i, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 389:245-255. Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP); Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. 2018. National Coral Reef Monitoring Program: Stratified Random surveys (StRS) of Reef Fish, including Benthic Estimate Data of the U.S. Pacific Reefs since 2007. Metadata available at: https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/24447. Accessed 12 February 2018. Cracknell, D., M.P. White, S. Pahl, W. J. Nichols, and M. H. Depledge. 2016. Marine Biota and Psychological Well-Being: A Preliminary Examination of Dose-Response Effects in an Aquarium Setting. Environment and Behavior 40(10): 1242-1269. Craig, M.T. 2010. Macropharyngodon geoffroy. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20104.RLTS.T187680A8599138.en. Accessed on January 3, 2018. 146 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Division of Aquatic Resources, Hawai’i (DAR). 2004. Report to the twenty-third legislature regular session of 2005 on a report on the findings and recommendations of effectiveness of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area. State of Hawai’i. 38pp. DAR. 2010. Walsh, W., Cotton, S., Carman, B., Livnat, L., Osada, K., Barnett, C., Tissot, B., Stevenson, T., Wiggins, C., Tarnas, D., Bourdon, and S. Peck. Report on the Findings and Recommendations of Effectiveness of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area. Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai’i, State of Hawai’i. DAR. 2014a. Report to the thirtieth legislature regular session of 2015 on a report on the findings and recommendations of effectiveness of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area. State of Hawai’i. 51pp. DAR. 2014b. Coral and Live Rock Rules of Hawai’i. Available at http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/habitat/coralreefs/coral-and-live-rock-laws-of-hawaii/. Accessed January 12, 2018. DAR. 2017. Update of court rulings regarding aquarium fishing, including FAQs. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/announcements/update-of-supreme-court-ruling-regarding-aquariumfishing/. Accessed on January 29, 2018. DAR. 2018a. Permit, value, level of effort, and catch data from 1976-2017 provided by DAR per preparers request in reference to this report. DAR. 2018b. 2017 summary statistics on the Yellow Tang, goldring surgeonfish, and Achilles Tang. 3pp. DAR. 2018c. Impact of Commercial Aquarium Collecting on West Hawai’i Coral Cover. DAR Report. 4pp. DAR. 2019. Background and Status of the West Hawai’i Aquarium Fishery and Associated Coral Reef monitoring. September 2019. Deardorff, T.L., Stanton, F.G. 1983. Nematode-induced abdominal distention in the Hawaiian Puffer Fish, Canthigaster jactator (Jenkins). Pacific Science 37(1): 45-47. DeFelice, R.C., L.G. Eldredge, and J.T. Carlton (L.G. Eldredge and C.M. Smith eds.). 2001. A Guidebook of Introduced Marine Species in Hawai'i. Bishop Museum Technical Report 21, August 2001. Sponsored by grants from the Packard Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service to B.P. Bishop Museum and the University of Hawai’i. 70pp. Dierking, J. 2002. Socioeconomics of the aquarium fish industry in West Hawai’i in ‘Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai’i’ (Cesar, van Beukering, Pintz, Dierking 2002). That publication is a result of research funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program, under awards NA870A0381, NA960P0187, NA060A0388, and NA160A1449 to the University of Hawai’i for the Hawai’i Coral Reef Initiative Research Program. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting (CEEC). 22pp. Dierking, J. 2007. Effects of the introduced predatory fish Cephalopholis argus on native reef fish populations in Hawai’i. 147 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Dierking J., I.D. Williams, and W. Walsh. 2009. Diet composition and prey selection of Cephalopholis argus in Hawai’i. Fishery Bulletin. 107(4):464-476. Domeier, M.L. and P.L. Colin. 1997. Tropical reef fish spawning and aggregations: defined and reviewed. Bull. Mar. Sci. 60(3):698-726. Earthjustice. 2012. Citizens and Conservation Groups File Suit to Protect Hawai‘i’s Reef Ecosystems. State issuance of aquarium collection permits without environmental review poses danger to alreadystressed coral reefs. Available at: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/citizens-and-conservationgroups-file-suit-to-protect-hawai-i-s-reef-ecosystems. Accessed January 5, 2018. Eble. J.A., R. Langston, and B.W. Bowen. 2009. Growth and Reproduction of Hawaiian Kala, Naso unicornis. Report prepared for Fisheries Local Action Strategy, Division of Aquatic Resources. 15pp. Eble, J.A., L.A. Rocha, M.T. Craig, and B.W. Bowen. 2011. Not all larvae stay close to home: Long-distance dispersal in Indo-Pacific reef fishes, with a focus on the Brown Surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigrofuscus). Journal of Marine Biology, Article ID 518516. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. What Climate Change Means for Hawai’i. Available at: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-changehi.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2018. 2pp. Fornander, A. 1916. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume IV. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. Friedlander, A.M., M.K. Donovan, K.A. Stamoulis, I.D. Williams, E.K. Brown, E.J. Conklin, E.E. DeMartini, K.S. Rogers, R.T. Sparks, and W.J. Walsh. 2017. Human-induced gradients of reef fish declines in the Hawaiian archipelago viewed through the lens of traditional management boundaries. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, September 2017, 12pp. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2832. Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2019. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (08/2019). Gaither, M.R., G. Aeby, M. Vignon, Y. Meguro, M. Rigby, C. Runion, R.J. Toonen, C.L. Wood, and B.W. Bowen. 2013. An invasive fish and the time-lagged spread of its parasite across the Hawaiian archipelago. PLoS One 8: e56940. Giddens J.L., C. Wiggins, A.M. Friedlander, E. J. Conklin, K. A. Stamoulis, and D. Minton. 2017. Assemblage-level effects of the introduced peacock hind (Cephalopholis argus) on Hawaiian reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 14pp. Gove, J.M., J.J. Polovina, W.J. Walsh, A. Heenan, I.D. Williams, L.M. Wedding, R.J. Ingram, J. Lecky, K.L.L. Oleson, H. Walecka, S.F. Heron, C.S. Couch and E.A. Howell. PIFSC. 2016. West Hawai‘i Integrated Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystem Trends and Status Report. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication, SP-16-004, 46p. doi:10.7289/V5/SP-PIFSC-16-004. 148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Gove, J.M., J. Lecky, W.J. Walsh, R.J. Ingram, K. Leong, I.D. Williams, J. Polovina, J.A. Maynard, R. Whittier, L. Kramer, E. Schemmel, J. Hospital, S. Wongbusarakum, E. Conklin, C. Wiggins and G.J. Williams. 2019. West Hawai’i Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystem Status Report. NOA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, SP-19-001, 46pp. doi: 10.25923/t3cc-2361. Gusset, M. and G. Dick. 2011. The Global Reach of Zoos and Aquariums in Visitor Numbers and Conservation Expenditures. Zoo Biology 30: 566-569. Hallacher L.E. and B.N. Tissot. 1999. QUEST: Quantitative Underwater Ecological Survey Techniques: A coral reef monitoring workshop. Proceedings of the Hawai’i Coral Reef Monitoring Workshop, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy. 1972. Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Handy, E.S.C. and M.K. Pakui, 1998. The Polynesian Family System in Ka’u Hawai’i. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Harding, K. 2017. DAR Recreational Aquarium Permittee Survey. October 2017. Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Hawai‘i’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Prepared by H. T. Harvey and Associates, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 1,055pp. Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2018. Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/hswap/cwcs/hawaii/species/. Accessed on January 22, 2018. Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (HDBEDT). 2016. Residential Home Sales in Hawai’i; Trends and Characteristics: 2008-2015. Available at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/homesale/Residential_Home_Sales_in_Hawaii_M ay2016.pdf. Accessed on May 10, 2018. HDBEDT. 2019. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1,2018.Geography:Hawaii. http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/popestimate/2018_county_char_hi_file/PEP_2018_PEPAGESEX _HIcounties.pdf. June 19, 2019. Hawai’i Department of Agriculture (HDA). 2013. How Important is Agriculture Today? Available at: http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/blog/ag-resources/how-important-is-agriculture-today/. Accessed on January 29, 2018. Hawai’i, The State of. 2010. Hawai’i Coral Reef Strategy: Priorities for Management in the Main Hawaiian Islands 2010-2020. Honolulu, HI. Hawai’i Tourism Authority (HTA). 2018. 2017 Annual Visitor Research Report. Available at: www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research/annual-visitor-research-reports/ 149 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Heenan A, Williams ID, Acoba T, DesRochers A, Kosaki RK, Kanemura T, Nadon MO, and Brainard RE. 2017. Long-term monitoring of coral reef fish assemblages in the western Central Pacific. Scientific Data. 4:170-176. Hoover, J.P. 2007. Hawai’i’s Fishes: A Guide for Snorkelers and Divers. Second. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Hoover, John P. 2008. Ultimate Guide to Hawaiian Reef Fishes. Mutual Publishing. Description available at: http://eol.org/pages/212559/details. Hughes, T.P. et al. 2017. Global Warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature. 543(7645):373. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2017. Fish ecology and status. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed on February 8, 2018. Jokiel, P. L., K.S. Rogers, W.J. Walsh, D.A. Polhemus, and T.A. Wilhelm. 2011. Marine resource management in the Hawaiian Archipelago: The traditional Hawaiian system in relation to the western approach. Journal of Marine Biology. Article ID 151682. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. 1867. Ke Emi Ana O Na Kanaka O Hawaii Nei. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (Honolulu), November 30, 1867, vol. VI, no. 48, p. 1. Kane, C.N. and B.N. Tissot. 2017. Trophic designation and live coral cover predict changes in reef-fish community structure along a shallow to mesophotic gradient in Hawaii. Coral Reefs. 36(3): 891-901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1581-x. Kent, H.W., 1986. Treasury of Hawaiian Words in One Hundred and One Categories. Masonic Public Libarary of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. Kramer, K.L., S.P. Cotton, M.R. Lamson, W.J. Walsh. 2016. Bleaching and catastrophic mortality of reefbuilding corals along west Hawai‘i island: findings and future directions. Proceedings of the 13th International Coral Reef Symposium, Honolulu: 229-241. Kuiter, R.H. and T. Tonozuka, 2001. Pictorial guide to Indonesian reef fishes. Part 3. Jawfishes - Sunfishes, Opistognathidae - Molidae. Zoonetics, Australia. p. 623-893. Description provided at: http://www.fishbase.org/references/FBRefSummary.php?ID=48637. Lieske, E. and R. Myers, 1994. Collins Pocket Guide. Coral reef fishes. Indo-Pacific & Caribbean including the Red Sea. Haper Collins Publishers, 400 p. Description provided at: http://www.fishbase.org/References/FBRefSummary.php?id=9710. Liliuokalani. 1978. An Account of the Creation of the World According to Hawaiian Tradition, Translated from Original Manuscript Preserved Exclusively in Her Majesty’s Family. Pueo Press, Kentfield. Lobel, P. S. 2003. Reef Fish Courtship and Mating Sounds: unique signals for acoustic monitoring. Listening to Fish: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Applications of Passive Acoustics to Fisheries. MIT SeaGrant publication, Cambridge, MA. 150 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Loke, M., C. Geslani, B. Takenaka and P.S. Leung. 2012. An overview of seafood consumption and supply sources: Hawai′i versus U.S. CTAHR, University of Hawai′i at Mānoa Economic Issues EI-22. 9 pp. Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. Second edition ed. Translated by N. B. Emerson. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication. B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Maly, K and O Maly. 2003. Volume 1: KA HANA LAWAI’A A ME NA Ko’A 0 NA KAI ‘EWALU: A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands vi, 113-115 (2003). Manu, M., S.M. Kamakau, and E.M. Nakuina. 2006. Hawaiian Fishing Traditions. Kalamaku Press, Honolulu, HI. Marine Resources Council (MRC). 2017. Maui Coral Reef Ecology. Available https://www.mauireefs.org/maui-coral-reef-ecology/. Accessed on January 22, 2018. at: McCoy, K.S., I.D. Williams, A.M Friedlander, H. Ma, L. Teneva, J.N. Kittinger. 2018. Estimating nearshore coral reef-associated fisheries production from the main Hawaiian Islands. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0195840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195840. Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D.W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. McClung. October 2005. Hawai’i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 722 pp. Miyasaka, A. 1994. Status report, aquarium fish collections, fiscal year 1993–1994. Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Mundy, B.C., 2005. Checklist of the fishes of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Bishop Mus. Bull. Zool. (6):1-704. As cited in Walsh 2003. Myers, R.F. 1991. Micronesian reef fishes. Second Ed. Coral Graphics, Barrigada, Guam. 298pp. Description provided at: http://www.fishbase.org/References/FBRefSummary.php?id=1602. Myers, R.F. 1999. Micronesian reef fishes: a comprehensive guide to the coral reef fishes of Micronesia, 3rd revised and expanded edition. Coral Graphics, Barrigada, Guam. 330pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. 2019. NOAA Report on the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes Economy: Regional and State Profiles. Charleston, SC: Office for Coastal Management. Available at: coast.noaa.gov. Accessed on May 7, 2018. Ochavillo, D. and G. Hodgson. 2006. MAQTRAC marine aquarium trade coral reef monitoring protocol data analysis and interpretation manual. Reef Check Foundation. California, USA. 39 pp. Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC). 2012. Guide to the Implementation and Practice of the Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act. State of Hawai’i. 96pp. OEQC. 2014. Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act Citizen’s Guide. October 2014. 30 pp. Price, S. 1983. Climate, in Armstrong, R. W. (ed.), Atlas of Hawai’i, 2nd ed., Univ. Hawai’i Press., Honolulu, HI, pp. 59-63. 151 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Pukui, M.K. 1983. ʻOlelo Noʻeau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Pukui, M.K. and S.H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Rev. and enl. ed ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pyle, R. 2001. Chaetodontidae. Butterflyfishes. In: K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem (eds), FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 5. Bony fishes part 3 (Menidae to Pomacentridae), pp. 3224-3265. FAO, Rome. Pyle, R. & Myers, R. 2010. Centropyge fisheri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T165828A6142661. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T165828A6142661.en. Accessed on 01 February 2018. Rahayu, D.L. 2000. Hermit crabs from the South China Sea (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura: Diogenidae, Paguridae, Parapaguridae). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 8:377-404. Randall, J.E. 1956. A revision of the surgeonfish genus Acanthurus. Pac. Sci. 10(2):159-235. Randall, J.E. 1985. Guide to Hawaiian reef fishes. Harrowood Books, Newtown Square, PA 19073, USA. 74 p. Randall, J.E. 1986. Cirrhitidae. p. 664-666. In M.M. Smith and P.C. Heemstra (eds.) Smiths' sea fishes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Randall, J. 1987. Introductions of Marine Fishes to the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 41(2): 490-502. Randall, J.E. 2002. Acanthuridae. Surgeonfishes. In: K.E. Carpenter (ed.), The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Bony fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals, pp. 1801-1805. FAO, Rome Randall J.E. 2007. Reef and shore fishes of the Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu. 560pp. Randall, J.E and Clements, K.D. 2001. Second revision of the surgeonfish genus Ctenochaetus (Perciformes: Acanthuridae), with descriptions of two new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes 32: 33. Randall, J.E., G.R. Allen and R.C. Steene. 1990. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. 506 p. Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF). 2008. Exotic species sighting program and volunteer database. Available at: www.reef.org. Accessed on January 22, 2018. Sazima, I., C. Sazima and J.M. Silva Jr., 2003. The cetacean offal connection: feces and vomits of spinner dolphins as a food source for reef fishes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 72(1):151-160. 152 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited Stevenson, T.C., B.N. Tissot, and J. Dierking. 2011. Fisher behavior influences catch productivity and selectivity in West Hawai’i’s aquarium fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 813–822. Stevenson, T.C., B.N. Tissot, and W.J. Walsh. 2013. Socioeconomic consequences of fishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawai’i. Biological Conservation. 160:50-58. Thresher R.E. 1984. Reproduction in Reef Fishes. TFH Publications, Inc. Neptune City, New Jersey. 399pp. Hardcopy available at Stantec. Tissot, B.N. and L.E. Hallacher. 2003. Effects of aquarium collectors on coral reef fishes in Kona, Hawai’i. Conservation Biology 17 (6):1759-1768. Tissot, B.N., W.J. Walsh and L.E. Hallacher. 2004. Evaluating effectiveness of a marine protected area network in West Hawai‘i to increase productivity of an aquarium fishery. Pacific Science. 58(2):175– 188. Titcomb, M. 1972, Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Toonen, R.J., K. R. Andrews, I. B. Baums, C. E. Bird, G.T. Concepcion, T.S. Daly-Engel, J.A. Eble, A. Faucci, M.R. Gaither, M. Iacchei, J. B. Puritz, J.K. Schultz, D.J. Skillings, M.A. Timmers and B.W. Bowen. 2011. Defining Boundaries for Ecosystem-Based Management: A Multispecies Case Study of Marine Connectivity across the Hawaiian Archipelago. Journal of Marine Biology, Volume 2011, Article ID 460173, 13 pg. doi:10.1155/2011/460173. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. Impacts, Ricks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Reidmiller, D.R, C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock and B.C. Stewart, eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. University of Hawai’i, Waikiki Aquarium. 2016. Potter’s Angelfish. Available http://www.waikikiaquarium.org/experience/animal-guide/fishes/angelfishes/potters-angelfish/. Accessed on 3 January 2018. at: Walsh, W.J., Cotton S.P., Dierking, J., and I.D. Williams. 2003. The Commercial Marine Aquarium Fishery in Hawai'i 1976-2003. In: Friedlander A.M. (ed.) Status of Hawai`i’s Coastal Fisheries in the New Millennium. Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the American Fisheries Society, Hawai`i Chapter. pp. 132-159. Walsh, W.J. 2013. Background Paper on West Hawai’i Aquarium ‘White List’. March 2013. Walsh, W.J., S. Cotton, C. Barnett, C. Couch, L. Preskitt, B. Tissot, K. Osada-D’Avella. 2013. 2009 NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program; Hawai’i Island Monitoring Report 10/01/2009-12/31/2012. 97pp. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 2005. Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions for Western Pacific Archipelagic and Remote Island Areas Fishery Ecosystem Plan Management Unit Species (Crustacean, Bottomfish, Precious Coral, Coral Reef Ecosystem). Appendix 153 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Literature Cited A. Available at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Appendix-Demersal-FEP-EFHdescriptions-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on May 14, 2018. WPRFMC. 2017. Hawaiian Archipelago. Available at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/managed-fisheryecosystems/hawaii-archipelago/. Accessed on February 5, 2018. Work, TM; Aeby, GS. 2014. Skin pathology in Hawaiian goldring surgeonfish, Ctenochaetus strigosus (Bennett). J. Fish Dis. 37: 357–62. 154 >wwmz_u_x A Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area Including the Near Shore Waters from ʻUpolu Point to Ka Lae, Kohala, Kona, and Ka‘ū Districts, Island of Hawaiʻi (except those areas already designated for no collection) Prepared By: Lokelani Brandt, M.A., Lauren M. U. Kepa‘a, and Matthew R. Clark, M.A. Prepared For: , ASM Project Number 31580.00 Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 1615 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 October 2019 A Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area ʻUpolu Point to Ka Lae, Kohala, Kona, and Ka‘ū Districts, Island of Hawaiʻi Table of Contents CHAPTERS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................. 3 ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 2. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 4 AQUARIUM FISHING AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WHRFMA ............... 16 Community Consultation and the Creation of the Fish Replenishment Areas within the WHRFMA ................................................................................................... 16 Creation of the “White-List” Species ........................................................................... 17 3. CULTURE-HISTORICAL CONTEXT ................................................................... 18 SETTLEMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS............................................................ 18 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AHUPUA‘A SYSTEM ............................................................ 19 Nā Papakū O Ka Moana: Marine Extension of the Ahupua‘a..................................... 20 Kuleana: The Establishment of Native Access to Natural Resources.......................... 22 OCEANIC ORIGINS ......................................................................................................... 23 The Great Fishermen, Kapūhe‘euanui.......................................................................... 24 Kanaloa, Deity of the Ocean ........................................................................................ 24 Kānenuiʻākea: The Creator of Heaven and Earth and the Arrival of Kāne, Kanaloa, and Haumea in Keʻei, South Kona ............................................................................... 25 Māui Uses Manaiakalani to Fish the Hawaiian Islands Out of the Sea ....................... 26 The Kumulipo ............................................................................................................... 26 TRADITIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES....................................... 29 Ho‘okupu & Pule: Reciprocity as a Means to Maintaining Spiritual Balance and Abundance .................................................................................................................... 30 Kilo: Astute Observation of the Natural World............................................................ 31 Kapu and Noa: Harvest Restrictions ............................................................................ 31 Koʻa .............................................................................................................................. 33 Kūʻula ........................................................................................................................... 36 Loko I‘a: Fishponds ...................................................................................................... 39 TRADITIONAL HAWAIIAN NEARSHORE FISHING TECHNIQUES ....................... 40 Hand Collecting ............................................................................................................ 42 Hook and Line .............................................................................................................. 43 Lures ............................................................................................................................. 43 Netting .......................................................................................................................... 44 Poisoning ...................................................................................................................... 49 Snaring.......................................................................................................................... 50 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA i Table of Contents Page Spearing ........................................................................................................................ 50 HAWAIIAN FISH NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................... 52 CULTURAL USES OF THE “WHITE LIST” SPECIES ................................................. 53 Acanthurus achilles (pākukui, pākuikui, pāku‘iku‘i).................................................... 53 Acanthurus dussumieri (palani) ................................................................................... 55 Acanthurus nigirican .................................................................................................... 56 Acanthurus nigrofuscus (māʻiʻi‘i, mā‘i‘i) .................................................................... 56 Acanthurus olivaceus (naʻenaʻe).................................................................................. 56 Anampses chrysocephalus, Cirrhilabrus jordani, Macropharyngodon Geoffroy, Pseudocheilinus octotaenia, Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia, Pseudojuloides cerasinus (hīnālea); Coris gaimardi (hīnālea ‘akilolo); Gomphosus varius (hīnālea ‘i‘iwi); Thalassoma duperrey (hīnālea lauwili); ............................................ 56 Canthigaster jactator ................................................................................................... 60 Cephalopholis argus..................................................................................................... 60 Chaetodon kleinii and Chaetodon tinkeri, (kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili); Chaetodon miliaris and Chaetodon multicinctus (kīkākapu); Chaetodon quadrimaculatus (lauhau); Forcipiger flavissimus (lauwiliwili nuku ‘oi‘oi); Hemitaurichthys polylepis (kapuhili) ............................................................... 61 Cirrhitops fasciatus (piliko‘a) ...................................................................................... 62 Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis (kole) and Ctenochaetus strigosus (kole, kole makaonaona) ................................................................................................................ 62 Dascyllus abisella (‘āloʻiloʻi) ...................................................................................... 63 Halichoeres ornatissimus (lāʻō) ................................................................................... 63 Lutjanus kasmira .......................................................................................................... 63 Melichthys niger (humuhumu ‘ele‘ele) and Sufflamen bursa (humuhumu lei, humuhumu umaumalei) ................................................................................................ 64 Naso lituratus (umaumalei, kala umaumalei) and Acanthurus thompsoni (kala)........ 64 Ostracion meleagris (pahu, moa)................................................................................. 65 Paracirrhites forsetri (hilu, hilu piliko‘a) .................................................................... 65 Pseudanthias hawaiiensis............................................................................................. 67 Zebrasoma flavescens (lā‘ī pala, lauʻīpala)................................................................. 67 THE ARRIVAL OF WESTERNERS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN HAWAIʻI ........................... 67 Fishing Rights Codified in the Hawaiian Kingdom Government Constitutional Laws of 1839 and 1840 ................................................................................................ 68 THE LEGACY OF THE MĀHELE ‘ĀINA OF 1848 ......................................................... 72 Fisheries and Fishing Rights Recorded During the Māhele ‘Āina ............................... 73 ii CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA Table of Contents Page PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION: AHUPUAʻA BOUNDARIES AND FISHING RIGHTS ALONG THE WESTERN COAST OF HAWAIʻI ISLAND ............................................................................................................ 76 North Kohala District ................................................................................................... 77 South Kohala District ................................................................................................... 81 North Kona District ...................................................................................................... 85 South Kona District ...................................................................................................... 93 Ka‘ū District ................................................................................................................. 99 POST-MĀHELE TO EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY COMMERCIAL FISHING .......................................................................................................................... 101 Commercial Aquarium Fishing in Hawai‘i ................................................................ 103 4. CONSULTATION .................................................................................................... 104 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 108 BIMO AKIONA ............................................................................................................... 108 RANDY VITOUSEK ....................................................................................................... 109 PELIKA ANDRADE ....................................................................................................... 111 KAI KULEANA NETWORK: ARIC ARAKAKI, GEORGE FRY III, KALANI HAMM, PI‘I LAEHA, REGGIE LEE, MAKA‘ALA KANEALI‘I, HANNAH KIHALANI SPRINGER, KU‘ULEI KEAKEALANI, KRISTA JOHNSON, AND CHUCK LESLIE. ............................................................................................................. 112 KAILAPA HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY: CINDY SHARP, JORDAN HOLLISTER, KAENA PETERSON, JUSTIN P. ASING, JONAH YARDLEY, ROBIN YARDLEY, TED ANGELO, JIMMY BOUNCS, PUALANI LINCOLN MAIELUA, KEALII MAIELUA, TANI WAIPA, MARK KEALII FREITAS, MAKA‘ALA AND ROGER KANEALI‘I, AND SUSAN AND PAUL FISCHER.......................................................................................................................... 114 JAMES MANOHA .......................................................................................................... 115 KEHAU SPRINGER ........................................................................................................ 116 HENANI ENOS ............................................................................................................... 117 NOHEA KA‘AWA, MEL JOHANSEN, JOHN REPLOGLE, MEGHAN LAMSON, SHAYLAN CRYSDALE, AND LESTER GEBIN ...................................... 119 MIKE NAKACHI, LING NAKACHI, AND KAIAKEA NAKACHI ............................ 124 WILFRED KAUPIKO, KA‘IMI KAUPIKO, AND GREG ASNER .............................. 125 SHANE PALACAT-NELSON ........................................................................................ 128 KEALOHA PISCIOTTA ................................................................................................. 128 KUPA O HO‘OKENA: DAMIEN KENISON, JOE BALSIMO, STANFORD CHO, AND HAWILA ALANI................................................................................................... 128 5. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 132 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................. 137 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA iii Table of Contents FIGURES Page 1. Map showing the extent of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area, extending from the Kohala to the Ka‘ū Districts of Hawai‘i Island, with the no collection areas indicated. .......... 2 2. Geological map of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. ............................................ 6 3. Map showing the location of harbors and launch ramps within (and nearby) the WHRFMA. ................ 7 4. Detail of the North and South Kohala portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area.................................................................................................................................... 8 5. Detail of the North Kona portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. ................. 9 6. North Kohala coastline fronting Kaiholena Ahupuaʻa, view to the south. ............................................. 10 7. South Kohala coastline fronting Puakō in Lālāmilo Ahupuaʻa, view to the north with Kohala Volcano visible in the background. ....................................................................................................... 10 8. Detail of the South Kona portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. ............... 12 9. Low, rocky coastline of North Kona fronting Keahuolū Ahupuaʻa, view to the north........................... 13 10. Laʻaloa Beach Park along the North Kona coastline, view to the north. .............................................. 13 11. Detail of the Kaʻū portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. ........................ 14 12. South Kona coastline, view to the south across Pāpā Bay towards Miloliʻi. ........................................ 15 13. Kaʻū coastline, view to the northwest from Ka Lae.............................................................................. 15 14. Example of a yellow FRA sign (located at Makahiki Point, Pāpā Bay, South Kona) indicating that aquarium collection is prohibited, view to the north. ..................................................................... 17 15. Kū‘ula stones (Brigham 1902:94) ......................................................................................................... 37 16. Diagram showing Hawaiian maritime econiches during A.D. 1800 (Newman 1970:92). .................... 41 17. Example of hīna‘i (Kahā‘uelio 2006:192). ........................................................................................... 42 18. Complete lūhe‘e (center) and associated components (Kahā‘uelio 2006:70). ...................................... 44 19. Girl with gill net, pre-1900s (Hawai‘i State Archives Call No. PP-34-8-008). .................................... 45 20. Lau kapalili method of net fishing ca. 1930 (Kahā‘uelio 2006:18). ..................................................... 47 21. Kanaka with scoop net ca. 1925 (Cobb 1905:716). .............................................................................. 49 22. Spear fishing ca. 1890 (Kahā‘uelio 2006). ........................................................................................... 51 23. Kanaka diving into ocean with spear (Grosvenor 1909:11). ................................................................ 51 24. Assortment of melomelo sticks (Kahā‘uelio 2006:114). ....................................................................... 57 25. Ahupua‘a of the North Kohala District. ................................................................................................ 80 26. Ahupua‘a of the South Kohala District. ................................................................................................ 84 27. Ahupua‘a of the North Kona District. ................................................................................................... 89 28. Ahupua‘a of the South Kona District. ................................................................................................... 96 29. Ahupua‘a of the Ka‘ū District............................................................................................................. 100 30. Fisherman using the ‘upena ho‘olei (throw net) ca. 19th century (Hawai‘i State Archives Call No. PP-22-8-003). ................................................................................................................................ 102 iv CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA Table of Contents TABLES Page 1. “White-List” Species .............................................................................................................................. 18 2. List of Hawaiian anatomical terms given various parts of the fish (from Titcomb 1972:54). ................ 53 3. “White-list” species with known Hawaiian name(s) and status.............................................................. 54 4. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the North Kohala District. ..................................................... 79 5. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the South Kohala District. ..................................................... 83 6. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the North Kona District. ........................................................ 85 7. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the South Kona District. ........................................................ 94 8. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the Kaʻū District. ................................................................... 99 9. Persons/organization contacted for consultation................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX Page Ka Wai Ola Public Notice......................................................................................................................... 145 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA v 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), ASM Affiliates (ASM) has prepared a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the proposed issuance of fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA). The WHRFMA(the study area), established in 1998 by ACT 306 of the State Legislature of Hawai‘i, includes the nearshore waters of the Kohala, Kona, and Ka‘ū Districts on the west side of Hawaiʻi Island, extending from ʻUpolu Point to Ka Lae, and from the upper reaches of the wash of the waves onshore, seaward to the limit of the State’s police power and management authority (Figure 1). This CIA is intended to inform an HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared on behalf of PIJAC (the applicant) that will allow for the issuance of fourteen annual commercial aquarium permits for the collection of forty fish species (referred to as ‘white list’ species) from within the WHRFMA, excluding those areas already designated for no collection. The no collection areas include all previously established Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs), Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs), Netting Restricted Areas (NRAs), and Fisheries Management Areas (FMAs) located within the WHRFMA (see Figure 1). Per the draft EIS for this project, the proposed action is as follows: Under the Limited Permit Issuance Alternative, the DLNR would begin issuing new Aquarium Permits to 14 aquarium fishers in the WHRFMA, thereby allowing these 14 individuals to resume commercial aquarium fish collection in the WHRFMA. No additional permits would be issued. Permittees would abide by all rules and regulations set forth in HRS 189-2,3 (Commercial Marine Permit), HRS-188-31 (Section 1.2.1), governing Commercial Aquarium Permit use, and would obtain a West Hawai′i Aquarium Permit as required under HAR 13-60.4 (Section 1.2.3.2). These rules and regulations include restrictions on equipment, restrictions on access to various areas, bag limits on various collected fish species, collection in the WHRFMA restricted to 40 White List species only, and reporting requirements. In addition, daily bag limit for commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang within the WHRFMA would be reduced from 10 per day to 5 per day. The following report, which has been prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, adopted by the Environmental Council, State of Hawai‘i, on November 19, 1997 (Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) 1997), assesses the potential cultural impacts of aquarium collection by the proposed fourteen permit holders. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 1 1. Introduction Figure 1. Map showing the extent of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area, extending from the Kohala to the Ka‘ū Districts of Hawai‘i Island, with the no collection areas indicated. 2 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 1. Introduction REGULATORY BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The objective of the action proposed in the EIS is to create a program under the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) (the approving agency) that will help to facilitate a permitting process for the issuance of commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA (pursuant to Aquarium Fishing Permits issued under Hawai’i Revised Statute §188-31) so that fourteen commercial aquarium fishers’ on the Island of Hawai‘i can continue to operate their businesses in compliance with all applicable State of Hawai‘i laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the industry. Hawai’i Revised Statute (HRS) §188-31 (2013; Title 12 – Conservation and Resources; 188 – Fishing Rights and Regulations; 188-31 – Permits to take aquatic life for aquarium purposes) states that: 1. Except as prohibited by law, the department, upon receipt of a written application, may issue an aquarium fish permit, not longer than one year in duration, to use fine meshed traps, or fine meshed nets other than throw nets, for the taking of marine or freshwater nongame fish and other aquatic life for aquarium purposes. 2. Except as prohibited by law, the permits shall be issued only to persons who can satisfy the department that they possess facilities to and can maintain fish and other aquatic life alive and in reasonable health. 3. It shall be illegal to sell or offer for sale any fish and other aquatic life taken under an aquarium fish permit unless those fish and other aquatic life are sold alive for aquarium purposes. The department may adopt rules pursuant to HRS chapter 91 for the purpose of this section. Additionally, aquarium permits issued for commercial aquarium collection within the WHRFMA are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-60.4, which includes provisions for restrictions on equipment and access to various areas within the fishery, collection restrictions (40 White List species only), bag limits on certain fish species, and catch reporting requirements. From 2000 to 2017, the DLNR issued between 24 and 60 commercial aquarium permits annually within the WHRFMA (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 2018). However, no commercial aquarium fishing permits have been issued or renewed by the DLNR under HRS §188-31—and no aquarium collection has occurred within the WHRFMA—since September of 2017, when the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i ruled that the issuance of such permits (for aquarium collection using fine meshed traps or nets) constitutes a discretionary State action and is thus subject to the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). HEPA requires that State agencies consider the impact of governmental actions on the environment by preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to document the potential impacts of the State action. Accordingly, a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the issuance of commercial aquarium permits for the entire Island of Hawaiʻi (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 2018) was prepared (by the current applicant) and submitted to the DLNR for review on June 7, 2018. The FEA, proposed a “finding of no significant impacts” (FONSI) for the action, but the DLNR disagreed with that finding and determined, based on the significance criteria outlined in Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules, that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As stated in Act 50, proposed and passed as Hawai‘i State House of Representatives Bill No. 2895, and signed into law by the Governor on April 26, 2000, “environmental assessments or environmental impact statements should identify and address effects on Hawaii’s culture, and traditional and customary rights,” as: . . . native Hawaiian culture plays a vital role in preserving and advancing the unique quality of life and the “aloha spirit” in Hawai‘i. Articles IX and XII of the state constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the State impose on governmental agencies a duty to promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of native Hawaiians as well as other ethnic groups. Moreover, the past failure to require native Hawaiian cultural impact assessments has resulted in the loss and destruction of many important cultural resources and has interfered with the exercise of native Hawaiian culture. The legislature further finds that due consideration of the effects of human activities on native Hawaiian culture and the exercise thereof is necessary to ensure the continued existence, development, and exercise of native Hawaiian culture. It is the need to identify and address the effects of the proposed action (issuing fourteen commercial aquarium fishing permits within the WHRMA) on Hawaii’s culture, and traditional and customary rights, that has necessitated the preparation of this CIA. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3 2. Study Area Description ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION In a letter reviewing the FEA for the issuance of commercial aquarium permits for the Island of Hawaiʻi (dated July 26, 2018), Suzanne Case, Chair of the DLNR, specifically requested that further analysis occur in the EIS on several significance criteria under HAR § 11-200-12, including the take of aquarium fish as an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of natural or cultural resources, and the impact of the take of aquarium fish on cultural practices in the state. More specifically, with regards to assessing the cultural impacts, Case writes that: Cultural impacts of aquarium fishing need significantly more analysis than provided in the FEA. The OEQC guidelines should be followed for assessing cultural impacts, including consulting with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action’s potential impacts. Traditional Hawaiian practices and subsistence uses, local place-based and life-cycle knowledge, and traditional Hawaiian cultural significance of each type of aquarium fish taken should be reviewed. The indirect impact of modern technologies for highly efficient catch methods on traditional harvest capabilities should be included in the analysis. While the action proposed in the current EIS differs somewhat from the action previously proposed in the FEA— limiting the geographic extent for the issuance of permits to the WHRFMA (rather than the entire Island of Hawaiʻi) and capping the total number of annual commercial aquarium permits issued at 14—the additional analysis requested above by the DLNR has been used to guide the scope of work presented in this CIA, which was prepared following the OEQC Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (adopted by the Environmental Council, State of Hawai‘i, November 19, 1997). According to those guidelines: In scoping the cultural portion of an environmental assessment, the geographical extent of the inquiry should, in most instances, be greater than the area over which the proposed action will take place. This is to ensure that cultural practices which may not occur within the boundaries of the project area, but which may nonetheless be affected, are included in the assessment. (State of Hawai’i, Office of Environmental Quality Control 2012:11) For this reason, for assessing the potential cultural impacts of the issuance of fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA, the entire fishery management area along the western coast of Hawai‘i Island is considered, not just those areas within which commercial aquarium fishing will be permitted. To Hawai‘i’s host culture, the ocean is viewed as an integrated whole, flowing unrestrained by politically imposed boundaries. While the proposed collection of fish to supply the aquarium industry will not be conducted in all existing marine managed areas, this study, in alignment with the OEQC guidelines seeks to understand the cultural beliefs, practices, and resources, even within those communities situated in or adjacent to previously established marine managed areas. This study therefore, utilizes a moku (district) level analysis and at times draws upon cultural-historical background for specific ahupua‘a. The following CIA report is divided into five main sections, which includes: 1) and introduction of the proposed action; 2) a description of the general geographic context of the study area, which includes a discussion on the formalization of the WHRFMA and the establishment of the marine managed areas; 3) a culture-historical background for the nearshore waters of West Hawai‘i Island that includes a discussion of the traditional Hawaiian cultural significance of each type of aquarium fish taken; 4) a summary of the methods and results of consultation with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants regarding cultural resources and cultural practices of the study area, and the proposed action’s potential impacts; and 5) an analysis of potential cultural impacts that may result from the proposed action. At the conclusion of the CIA recommendations are offered regarding appropriate mitigation strategies that may be employed by the applicant and DLNR to help minimize the potential for cultural impacts that could result from the issuance of fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA. 2. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The study area for the CIA consists of the entire West Hawaiʻi Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA), which extends for 147 miles along the west coast of Hawaiʻi Island from its northernmost extent at ‘Upolu Point in the Kohala District to its southern most extent at Ka Lae in the Ka‘ū District (see Figure 1). The DLNR describes the geographical jurisdiction of the WHRFMA as extending from “the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on shore, seaward to the limit of the State’s police power and management authority” (DLNR 1999:3). The specific boundaries of the WHRFMA are described as follows in Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules §13-60.4-2: 4 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description …The four points shall be identified as the landward northern point, the landward southern point, the seaward northern point, and the seaward southern point. The landward boundary for each of these areas shall be an imaginary line drawn along the highest wash of the waves between the landward northern point and the landward southern point. Should there be a stream or river flowing into the ocean, the landward boundary shall be an imaginary straight line drawn between the shoreline on either side of the stream or river, as if the stream or river was not there. Imaginary straight lines drawn through the landward and seaward northern points, and through the landward and seaward southern points, shall constitute the northern and southern boundary lines of each area. The seaward boundary of each area shall be determined by an imaginary line drawn along the one hundred fathom (six hundred feet) depth contour, between the intersection of the one hundred fathom depth contour and the northern and southern boundary lines. Seaward GPS reference points are for guidelines and the one hundred fathom depth contour otherwise controls the seaward boundary. Any area designated in this chapter shall include the submerged lands and overlying waters within these four boundaries. (DLNR 1999:5) The WHRFMA spans the coastline of three traditional moku (districts) on the west side of Hawaiʻi Island— Kohala (North and South), Kona (North and South), and Kaʻū—and includes more than 170 distinct ahupuaʻa (Soehren 2004, 2005a, 2005b), whose boundaries encompass the shoreline resources and, in many cases, extend out into the nearshore waters of the fishery. Geologically, the jagged coastline is formed by four of the island’s five volcanoes (Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualālai, and Mauna Loa; Figure 2), and the underwater terrain typically follows the sloping profile of those volcanoes to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean (Sherrod et al. 2007). West Hawai‘i Island also has the longest continuous coral reef in the main Hawaiian Islands, and is home to a highly productive and diverse marine ecosystem that supports an abundance of tropical corals, reef fishes, sea turtles, cetaceans, and manta rays. Boating access to the WHRFMA is limited to four small boat harbors (SBH) located at Kawaihae, Honokōhau, KailuaKona, and Keauhou, an anchorage at Mahukona, and launch ramps at Puakō, Honaunau, Kauhako (the beach at Hoʻokena), Miloliʻi, and Kaulana that are operated by the DLNR, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) and the County of Hawaiʻi (Figure 3). The Kohala District (North and South) encompasses the northernmost region of the study area (Figure 4). Beginning at the northern tip of the Island at ‘Upolu Point in the ahupuaʻa of Kahei, this district extends south to the ahupua‘a of Waikoloa and the ‘ili kūpono of ‘Anaeho‘omalu—traditionally a politically independent land division within the Waikoloa Ahupua‘a. Within the Kohala District are seven marine managed areas: Lapakahi MLCDSubzones A and B; North Kohala FRA; Kawaihae Harbor FMA; Wailea Bay MLCD; Puakō Bay and Puakō Reef FMA; and the Puakō-‘Anaeho‘omalu FRA and NRA (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). The Kohala portion of the study area (Figure 6) is comprised of short expanses of reefs, sheltered bays, rocky shoreline that are interspersed with low lying cliffs, with a few white sand beaches near the Kawaihae area. Most of the North Kohala shoreline (from KāheiHualua Ahupua‘a at the north to Waikā Ahupua‘a at the south) has remained undeveloped with the exception of a few homes situated makai (seaward) of the ʻAkoni Pule Highway and the Kawaihae-Mahukona Road. This modern settlement pattern stands in contrast to the South Kohala shoreline (from Kawaihae 1 Ahupua‘a at the north to Waikoloa Ahupua‘a and ‘Anaeho‘omalu at the south) portion of the study area, which contains several large resort developments along the coast. Geologically speaking, this northernmost section of the study area is situated along the coast of Kohala Volcano, and contains the oldest lava substrates (see Figure 2). Similar to North Kohala, the South Kohala coast (Figure 7) is comprised of low rocky shorelines interspersed with both large and small stretches of fine white sand beaches. The reef system in this portion of the study area is far more developed and in some places extends for some distance into the sea. It is at these white sand beaches fronting the well-developed reef areas that residential and large scale commercial developments specifically resorts and condominiums) are concentrated. A distinguishing characteristic of this region are the many shallow bays, some of which were traditionally walled (both natural and artificial) and converted into loko i‘a (fishponds), and the many naturally occurring loko wai (freshwater ponds). Both of these features were traditionally utilized for aquaculture and were strictly managed. Currently, within South Kohala, DOBOR maintains the Kawaihae small boat harbor and the Puakō launch ramp (see Figure 3). This section of the study area includes the coastal portions of three of the island’s volcanoes, Kohala, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa (see Figure 2). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 5 2. Study Area Description Figure 2. Geological map of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. 6 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description Figure 3. Map showing the location of harbors and launch ramps within (and nearby) the WHRFMA. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 7 2. Study Area Description Figure 4. Detail of the North and South Kohala portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. 8 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description Figure 5. Detail of the North Kona portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 9 2. Study Area Description Figure 6. North Kohala coastline fronting Kaiholena Ahupuaʻa, view to the south. Figure 7. South Kohala coastline fronting Puakō in Lālāmilo Ahupuaʻa, view to the north with Kohala Volcano visible in the background. 10 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description The Kona District, which makes up the greatest portion of the WHRFMA (see Figure 5 and Figure 8), commences at its northernmost ahupua‘a of Puʻu Anahulu at the boundary of the South Kohala District, and extends south to Kaulanamauna Ahupuaʻa at the boundary of the Kaʻū District. The Kona portion of the WHRFMA includes at least ninety-eight ahupuaʻa (Soehren 2004). Within the North Kona District (from Pu‘uanahulu Ahupua‘a at the north to Honalo-Mā‘ihi 1 & 2 Ahupua‘a at the south) are eleven marine managed areas: Kīholo Bay FMA; Ka‘ūpūlehu Marine Reserve; Kikaua Point-Mākole‘ā NRA (labeled in Figure 5 as the “Kekaha Kai State Park”); the Kona Coast FMAs, which includes the Wāwāloli, Papawai Bay, and Kailua Bay; Kaloko-Honokōhau FRA; Old Kona Airport MLCD and no boating zone; Kailua Bay Zones A & B FMA, Kailua-Keauhou Bay FRA (labeled in Figure 8 as the “Kailua-Alii Drive” and “Keauhou Bay”). The coastline of the North Kona region is characterized by its rocky shoreline, low lying cliffs, many sheltered bays, speckled with both white and black sand beaches, as well as pebbled beaches (Figures 9 and 10). The latter two beach types were created as a result of more recent volcanic activity originating from the slopes of Hualālai Volcano, upon which most of this district is situated, although the northernmost section of this district includes coastal Mauna Loa flows as well (see Figure 2). The reefs in this area are well developed, and in some areas extend upwards of 0.5 miles into the ocean. Also, present within this region are loko wai and loko i‘a. Similar to South Kohala, modern settlement in North Kona (inclusive of residential and large scale commercial development) is centered primarily around the sandy beaches and loko wai, although it does extend into the more desolate lava fields adjacent to those areas as well. Population density along the Kona coast increases significantly in the region extending south from the Kona Airport at Keāhole Point (the western tip of Hawaiʻi Island) to Keauhou Bay, within the town of Kailua-Kona. The area makai Ali‘i Drive along the coast within Kailua-Kona is extensively developed and heavily populated. Within North Kona, DOBOR maintains the Honokōhau, Kailua-Kona, and Keauhou small boat harbors (see Figure 3). The South Kona District (from Ke‘eke‘e-Kanakau Ahupua‘a at its northern extent to Kaulanamauna Ahupuaʻa at its southern extent) includes eight marine managed areas (see Figure 8 and Figure 11): Red Hill FMA; Kealakekua Bay MLCD Zones A & B; Nāpo‘opo‘o-Hōnaunau FRA; Ho‘okena FRA; Ka‘ohe FRA; Miloli‘i FRA, and the Hanamalo Point-Kanewa‘a Point NRA (labeled as South Kona in Figure 11). The coastline in this area is predominately rocky, comprised of both high and low-lying cliffs interspersed with an occasional black sand beach. Many sheltered bays are also present along the South Kona coast. The reefs in this area are well developed, especially in the larger sheltered bays. Modern coastal development, now comprised of residential lots has, for the most part, followed traditional coastal settlement patterns which are concentrated in the vicinity of Kealakekua Bay, Kahauloa, Ke‘ei, Hōnaunau, Keālia, Kauhakō, Ho‘okena, Ka‘ohe, Pāpā, and Miloli‘i (Figure 12). DOBOR currently maintains the Miloli‘i launch ramp, while the County of Hawai‘i maintains the Hōnaunau launch ramp (see Figure 3). Although no longer considered an active boat ramp, historically, Ho‘okena beach (Kauhakō) also served as a major landing point. Geologically this section of the study area is situated entirely along the coast of Mauna Loa, as is the adjacent section of the study area within the Kaʻū District (see Figure 2). The southernmost portion of the WHRFMA, within the Ka‘ū District, extends from Manukā Ahupua‘a at its northern end to Ka Lae (the southernmost point of Hawaiʻi Island) and the ahupuaʻa of Puʻuʻeo, at its southern end (see Figure 11). The only marine managed area in this portion of the WHRFMA is the Kanonohe-Kalipoa netting restricted area, which is labeled “Ka Lae, Ka‘u” in Figure 11. This portion of Ka‘ū is characterized by its rocky coastline with both high and low-lying cliffs and the occasional white or black sand beach occurring within some of the many sheltered bays (Figure 13). The reefs in this area are mostly short, but highly developed. DOBOR currently maintains one (Kaulana launch ramp) of the two launch ramps in the Ka‘ū District. The Kaulana launch ramp is, however, located to the east beyond the WHRFMA boundaries (see Figure 3). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 11 2. Study Area Description Figure 8. Detail of the South Kona portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. 12 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description Figure 9. Low, rocky coastline of North Kona fronting Keahuolū Ahupuaʻa, view to the north. Figure 10. Laʻaloa Beach Park along the North Kona coastline, view to the north. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 13 2. Study Area Description Figure 11. Detail of the Kaʻū portion of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area. 14 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description Figure 12. South Kona coastline, view to the south across Pāpā Bay towards Miloliʻi. Figure 13. Kaʻū coastline, view to the northwest from Ka Lae. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 15 2. Study Area Description AQUARIUM FISHING AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WHRFMA The collection of aquarium fish in West Hawaiʻi has a long and contentious history (Walsh 2000). While Division of Fish and Game received legislative authority to regulate the industry and issue Aquarium Fishing Permits as early as the 1950s, and division suspended those permits for a time in 1973 over public concern about aquarium collection, aquarium collection activities remained largely unregulated in West Hawaiʻi until roughly twenty years ago, when the WHRFMA was established. The concept of the WHRFMA was introduced to the Hawai‘i legislature by Democratic Representative David Tarnas in 1997 as House Bill (HB) 3457. This bill was introduced following decades of conflict between various user groups within West Hawaiʻi fishery (Walsh 2000). The discussions to improve marine management efforts within West Hawai‘i came primarily through the West Hawaiʻi Reef Fish Working Group (WHRFWG), a group that formed in May of 1996 following the passage of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 184, which requested that the DLNR convene a task force to assist in developing a comprehensive management plan to regulate the take of aquarium fish within the area. In describing the purpose of HB 3457, Walsh writes: This bill established a West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area along the entire West Hawaii coast (Upolu Pt. to Ka Lae) to provide for effective management of marine resources. Along several provisions of this bill was a requirement to set aside 50% of the FMA as Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs) where aquarium collecting was prohibited….During committee hearings of HB3457, the 50% provision for FRAs was reduced to “a minimum of 30%”. (Walsh 2000:3) With the support of aquarium collectors and other user groups, HB 3457 was approved by the Hawai‘i State Legislature on July 13, 1998, where it became Act 306 and subsequently codified as HRS 188F (Walsh 2014). This Act established the WHRFMA to: “(1) Effectively manage fishery activities to ensure sustainability; (2) Enhance nearshore resources; and (3) Minimize conflicts of use in this coastal area” (ibid.:3). With the passage of the act, the DLNR, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) was tasked with meeting four additional management goals for the fishery: “(1) Designate a minimum of 30% of coastal waters as Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs) where aquarium collecting is prohibited. (2) Establish a day-use mooring buoy system and designate some high-use areas where no anchoring is allowed. (3) Establish a portion of the FRAs as fish reserved where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is allowed. (4) Designate areas where the use of gill nets is prohibited” (ibid.:9). Community Consultation and the Creation of the Fish Replenishment Areas within the WHRFMA Additionally, Act 306 also mandated that the DLNR/DAR conduct close and substantial consultation with community members and resource users during the FRA designation process. To aid with the execution of Act 306, in 1998, Pete Hendricks of DAR, along with Sara Peck of the West Hawaii Sea Grant and Dr. William J. Walsh began to assemble a council that would have broad geographic representation and representation from various stakeholders, communities, and user groups in West Hawai‘i. On June 16, 1998, this council, originally dubbed the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Management Council (WHRFMC) convened with twenty-four voting members and representation from various state agencies, user groups, and community members. The council’s name was later changed to the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Council (WHFC). As the FRA designation process unfolded, the participating aquarium collectors, after seeing that the FRA site selection process included more than 30% of the WHRFMA, began to openly oppose the designation process. Despite the challenges faced by the council in maintaining attendance and reaching critical management decisions, nine separate areas (including previously protected areas) comprising a total of 35.2% of the WHRFMA were selected (Walsh 2000). One of the major complications that arose during the selection process concerned the fishing communities in both Miloli‘i and Ho‘okena, who had worked previously with Dr. Kimberly Lowe of DAR in creating FMA proposal for their respective areas. According to Walsh (2000:5), the FMA proposals “specified a ban on aquarium collecting in a 33-mile zone in the vicinity of these communities” and that “of and by itself this zone exceeded 30% of the coastline.” Despite this prior plan, all parties including those representing these communities were able to reach a compromise, “which ultimately reduced these no collecting areas to slightly more than a third of what the communities had expected” (ibid.:5).” In order to enhance enforceability and stabilize the West Hawai‘i fishery, the council added several provisions to the draft FRA rule (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HAR) §13-60.3), which included: Two boundary changes, establishment of seaward boundaries at 600 ft., inclusion of GPS boundary coordinates, prohibition of aquarium collecting gear or collected animals within FRAs, and aquarium vessel registration/identification system, and a control date for possible future use in a limited entry program. (Walsh 2000:5) 16 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 2. Study Area Description The proposed FRA rules were subsequently presented to the public on April 28, 1999 at a well-attended public hearing, where they received overwhelming support (93.5% of the 876) from a wide range of the community members present (Walsh 2014). The FRA rules were later voted on by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), who unanimously approved them and their provisions, with the exception of the prohibition on aquarium collecting gear within the FRAs, which was ultimately omitted from the final rules package without explanation. After review by the Attorney General’s office, on December 17, 1999 the proposed rules were sent back to the BLNR for re-approval, and HAR §13-60.3 was signed by Governor Ben Cayetano on December 31, 1999 (Walsh 2000:1). The latter four management goals described above, which prohibit the collecting of aquarium fish anywhere within the FRA boundaries, were subsequently adopted as HAR §13-60.4 (following the repeal of HAR §13-60.3), and signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie on December 26, 2013 (Walsh 2014). The on shore boundaries of the FRAs created by Act 306—whose seaward boundaries extend to a depth of 100 fathoms—are marked with distinct yellow signs that indicate that the taking of aquarium fish is prohibited (Figure 14). There a currently ten established FRAs located within the WHRFMA, along with various other Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs), Netting Restricted Areas (NRAs), and Fisheries Management Areas (FMAs) where aquarium fishing is not permitted (see Figure 1). Figure 14. Example of a yellow FRA sign (located at Makahiki Point, Pāpā Bay, South Kona) indicating that aquarium collection is prohibited, view to the north. Creation of the “White-List” Species The rules adopted in 2013 (HAR §13-60.4) also called for the establishment of a list of fish species (a “white-list”) that could be taken by aquarium collectors within the WHRFMA (Walsh 2013). After an analysis of relative catch report data, population data, and habitat maps provided by DAR and NOAA, the DLNR established a list of forty distinct fish species (henceforth referred to as the “white-list”) that could be taken, while the capture of all other fish (not on the list) was prohibited. Subsection b of HAR §13-60.4-7 states that, “In addition to other regulations deemed necessary for the management of the West Hawai‘i regional fishery management area, an aquarium permit holder may only take or possess specimens of the following species of fish for aquarium purposes while within the West Hawai‘i regional fishery management area…” (DLNR 1999:15–16). Table 1, presented below, lists all forty fish white-list species sorted by scientific name and the common name as it appears in subsection b of HAR §13-60.4-7 (ibid). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 17 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 1. “White-List” Species Scientific Name Acanthurus achilles Acanthurus dussumieri Acanthurus nigricans Acanthurus nigrofuscus Acanthurus olivaceus Acanthurus thompsoni Anampses chrysocephalus Canthigaster jactator Common Name Achilles tang eyestripe surgeonfish goldrim surgeonfish brown surgeonfish orangeband surgeonfish Thompson’s surgeonfish psychedelic wrasse whitespotted Toby Centropyge fisheri Centropyge potteri Cephalopholis argus Chaetodon kleinii Chaetodon miliaris Chaetodon multicinctus Fisher’s angelfish Potter’s angelfish peacock grouper, roi blacklip butterflyfish milletseed butterflyfish multiband butterflyfish Chaetodon quadrimaculatus Chaetodon tinkeri Cirrhilabrus jordani Cirrhitops fasciatus Coris gaimard fourspot butterflyfish Tinker’s butterflyfish flame wrasse redbarred hawkfish yellowtail coris Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis chevron tang Scientific Name Ctenochaetus strigosus Dascyllus albisella Forcipiger flavissimus Gomphosus varius Halichoeres ornatissimus Hemitaurichthys polylepis Lutjanus kasmira Macropharyngodon geoffroy Melichthys niger Naso lituratus Ostracion meleagris Paracirrhites forsteri Pseudanthias hawaiiensis Pseudocheilinus octotaenia Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia Pseudojuloides cerasinus Sufflamen bursa Thalassoma duperrey Xanthichthys auromarginatus Zebrasoma flavescens Common Name goldring surgeonfish Hawaiian Dascyllus forcepsfish bird wrasse ornate wrasse pyramid butterflyfish bluestripe snapper, taape shortnose wrasse black Durgon orangespine unicornfish spotted boxfish blackside hawkfish Hawaiian longfin Anthias eightline wrasse fourlined wrasse smalltail wrasse lei triggerfish saddle wrasse gilded triggerfish yellow tang 3. CULTURE-HISTORICAL CONTEXT To understand the vast landscape of the study area and the inherent cultural mores and traditions that developed as a direct result of interacting with this very landscape, it is imperative that the culture-historical research be conducted within the epistemological framework of the host culture. This is achieved by presenting indigenous narratives wherever possible. As such, this chapter presents a discussion of the culture-historical background for the study area. The information presented below is meant to provide a comprehensive understanding of the cultural significance of the area and the “white-list” species, and to establish an analytical basis for the assessment of any potential cultural impacts that the proposed issuance of fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA might have. The chronological summary presented below begins with the settlement of the Hawaiian Islands followed by a discussion on the development of the ahupua‘a system and its marine components. This is followed by a presentation of legendary accounts that focuses on the oceanic origins and cosmogony of the Hawaiian people, or Kānaka Maoli (lit. the true people), and a discussion on traditional marine resource management strategies and fishing practices, as well as traditional nearshore fishing techniques. To develop an understanding of the customary uses of the “whitelist” species, a discussion on Hawaiian fish nomenclature is provided, which is followed by a detailed presentation on the cultural uses of all species listed on the “white-list.” This is followed by a summary of hallmark historic events specific to West Hawai‘i, which include the arrival of westerners in 1779 and the first company of missionaries in 1820, and the subsequent transformation of traditional marine resource management practices. A discussion of the 1848 Māhele ‘Āina and its effects on traditional marine resource procurement are then presented which is followed by a presentation on the boundary commission testimonies for the respective districts. The culture-historical background section concludes with a summary of the events during the second half of the 19th century, with emphasis on the gradual transformation of commercial fishing in Hawai‘i. SETTLEMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS While the question of the timing of the first settlement of Hawai‘i by Polynesians remains unanswered, several theories have been offered that derive from various sources of information (i.e., archaeological, genealogical, mythological, oral-historical, and radiometric). However, none of these theories is today universally accepted. What is more widely 18 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context accepted is the answer to the question of where Hawaiian populations came from and the transformations they went through on their way to establish a uniquely Hawaiian culture. More recently, with advances in palynology and radiocarbon dating techniques, Kirch (2011) and others (Athens et al. 2014; Wilmshurst et al. 2011) have convincingly argued that Polynesians arrived in the Hawaiian Islands, sometime between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1200 and expanded rapidly thereafter (c.f., Kirch 2011). The initial migration to Hawai‘i is believed to have occurred from Kahiki (the ancestral homelands of Hawaiian gods and people) with long distance voyages occurring fairly regularly through at least the thirteenth century. It has been generally reported that the sources of the early Hawaiian populations originated from the southern Marquesas Islands (Emory in Tatar 1982). In these early times, Hawai‘i’s inhabitants were primarily engaged in subsistence-level agriculture and fishing (Handy and Handy 1991). This was a period of great exploitation and environmental modification when early Hawaiian fishers and farmers developed new subsistence strategies by adapting their familiar patterns and traditional tools to their new environment (Kirch 1985; Pogue 1978). According to Fornander (1969), the Hawaiians brought from their homeland certain Polynesian customs and belief: the major gods Kāne, Kū, Lono, and Kanaloa; the kapu system of law and order; the pu‘uhonua (places of refuge), their ‘aumakua (family or personal gods), and the concept of mana (supernatural or divine power). For generations following initial settlement, communities were clustered along the watered, ko‘olau (windward) shores of the Hawaiian Islands. Along the ko‘olau shores, streams flowed and rainfall was abundant, and agricultural production became established. The ko‘olau region also offered sheltered bays from which deep-sea fisheries could be easily accessed, and nearshore fisheries, enriched by nutrients carried in the freshwater, could be maintained in fishponds and coastal waters. It was around these bays that clusters of houses where families lived could be found (McEldowney 1979). In these early times, Hawai‘i’s inhabitants were primarily engaged in subsistence-level agriculture and fishing (Handy and Handy 1972). Following the initial settlement period, areas with the richest natural resources became populated and perhaps crowded, and by about A.D. 1200, the population began expanding to the kona (leeward side) and more remote regions of the island (Cordy 2000). Along the kona coast of Hawai‘i Island, communities were initially established near sheltered bays with access to fresh water, where an abundance of marine resources were readily available. As indicated by the archaeological record, historic documentation, and legendary accounts, this shoreline zone was used primarily for habitation and related activities, such as recreation, ceremonial practices, canoe storage, fishing and associated rituals, and burial (Johnson and Wolforth 2006). Smaller temporary habitations associated with fishing activities were also common along the shore (Cordy 1995). By the early 17th century, the Hawaiian royalty built chiefly centers within the shoreline zone of central Kona with royal compounds located at Kailua in the vicinity of Kamakahonu and Kaiakeakua, Kahalu‘u-Keauhou, Ka‘awaloa-Kealakekua, and Hōnaunau. Such royal centers included dwellings for chiefs, their court, and local makaʻāinana (common people) in addition to public structures, such as heiau, sporting grounds and places of refuge (Cordy 1995). As the population continued to expand so did social stratification, which was accompanied by major socioeconomic changes and intensive land modification. Most of the ecologically favorable zones of the windward and coastal regions of all major islands were settled and the more marginal leeward areas were being developed. During this expansion period, additional migrations to Hawai‘i occurred from Tahiti in the Society Islands (Kamakau 1976). Rosendahl (1972) has proposed that settlement along the leeward coast of Hawaiʻi Island at this time was seasonal and recurrent, and that coastal sites were primarily occupied during the drier summer to exploit marine resources, while the upland sites were primarily occupied during the wetter winter months to focus on agriculture. An increasing reliance on agricultural products may have eventually caused a shift in social networks, as Hommon (1976) argues kinship links between coastal settlements disintegrated as those links within the mauka-makai settlements expanded to accommodate the exchange of agricultural products for marine resources. This shift is believed to have resulted in the establishment of the ahupua‘a system sometime during the A.D. 1400s (Kirch 1985), which added another component to an already well-stratified society. The implications of this model include a shift in residential patterns from seasonal, temporary occupation, to the permanent dispersed occupation of both coastal and upland areas. DEVELOPMENT OF THE AHUPUA‘A SYSTEM For Hawai‘i Island, the formalization of the ahupua‘a land management system is attributed to ‘Umi a Līloa, a renowned ali‘i of the Pili line who rose to power during the early 16th century (Cordy 1994). ‘Umi a Līloa was also known for separating the various classes of chiefs, priests, and laborers (Beamer 2014; Cordy 2000; Kamakau 1992). An ahupua‘a is a traditional land division that typically incorporated all of the eco-zones from the mountains to the sea, and for several hundred yards beyond the shore, assuring a diverse subsistence resource base for its residents, and a source of taxation (tribute) for the chiefs (Hommon 1986). Although the ahupua‘a land division typically CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 19 3. Culture-Historical Context incorporated all of the eco-zones, their size and shape varied greatly (Cannelora 1974; Kamakau 1976). Ahupua‘a boundaries were generally defined by the natural topography (i.e. hills, ridgelines, gulches, craters, etc.) as well as the natural resources that occurred within a given area (Lyons 1875). In summarizing the types of ecozones that could be found in a given ahupua‘a, Hawaiian scholar and historian, Samuel Kamakau writes: Here are some names for [the zones of] the mountains—the mauna or kuahiwi. A mountain is called a kuahiwi, but mauna is the overall term for the whole mountain, and there are many names applied to one, according to its delineations (‘ano). The part directly in back and in front of the summit proper is called the kuamauna , mountaintop; below the kuamauna is the kuahea, and makai of the kuahea is the kuahiwi proper. This is where small trees begin to grow; it is the wao nahele. Makai of this region the trees are tall, and this is the wao lipo. Makai of the wao lipo is the wao ‘eiwa, and makai of that the wao ma‘ukele. Makai of the wao ma‘ukele is the wao akua, and makai of there is the wao kanaka, the area that people cultivate. Makai of the wao kanaka is the ‘ama‘u, fern belt, and makai of the ‘ama‘u the ‘apa‘a, grasslands. A solitary group of trees is a moku la‘au (a “stand” of trees) or an ulu la‘au, grove. Thickets that extend to the kuahiwi are ulunahele, wild growth. An area where koa trees suitable for canoes (koa wa‘a) grow is a wao koa and mauka of there is a wao la‘au, timber land. These are dry forest growths from the ‘apa‘a up to the kuahiwi. The places that are “spongy” (naele) are found in the wao ma‘ukele, the wet forest. Makai of the ‘apa‘a are the pahe‘e [pili grass] and ‘ilima growths and makai of them the kula, open country, and the ‘apoho hollows near to the habitations of men. Then comes the kahakai, coast, the kahaone, sandy beach, and the kalawa, the curve of the seashore—right down to the ‘ae kai, the water’s edge. That is the way ka po‘e kahiko [the ancient people] named the land from mountain peak to sea. (Kamakau 1976:8–9) The ahupua‘a were also divided into smaller individual parcels of land (such as the ‘ili, kō‘ele, māla, and kīhāpai, etc.), generally oriented in a mauka-makai direction, and often marked by stone alignments (kuaiwi). In these smaller land parcels the native tenants tended fields and cultivated crops necessary to sustain their families, and the chiefly communities with which they were associated. As long as sufficient tribute was offered and kapu (restrictions) were observed, the common people, who lived in a given ahupua‘a had access to most of the resources from mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied to residency on a particular land, and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship of the natural environment, and supplying the needs of the ali‘i (see Kamakau 1961:372-377 and Malo 1951:6367). Entire ahupua‘a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed konohiki or lesser chieflandlords, who answered to an ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a (chief who controlled the ahupua‘a resources). The ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a in turn answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire district). Thus, ahupua‘a resources supported not only the maka‘āinana and ‘ohana who lived on the land, but also contributed to the support of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian life and was the product of strictly adhered to resources management planning. In this system, the land provided fruits and vegetables and some meat in the diet, and the ocean provided a wealth of protein resources. Also, in communities with long-term royal residents, divisions of labor (with specialists in various occupations on land and in procurement of marine resources) came to be strictly adhered to. It is in this cultural setting that we find the present study area. Nā Papakū O Ka Moana: Marine Extension of the Ahupua‘a The ahupua‘a land management system and its traditional resource zones also served as a terrestrial extension of Hawai‘i’s oceanic ecosystem. Kānaka Maoli organized the kai into distinct ecological zones along both horizontal and vertical planes known as nā papakū o ka moana (marine zones). Each named zone was unique based on location, depth, color, geographical character, and procurable coastal and pelagic resources, as well as wiliau (ocean currents). These zones extended from where the waves gently dissolve over the sand to the distant kahikimoe (horizon). In his book Hawaiian Antiquities, Hawaiian scholar David Malo (1951:48–49) enumerated some of these papakū o ka moana as follows: 1. The ancients applied the name kai to the ocean and all its parts. That strip of the beach over which the waves ran after they had broken was called ae-kai. 2. A little further out where the waves break was called poina-kai. The name pue-one was likewise applied to this place. But the same expressions were not used of places where 20 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context shoal water extended to a great distance, and which were called kai-kohola (such as largely prevail for instance at Waikiki). 3. Outside of the poina-kai lay a belt called the kai-hele-ku, or kai-papau, that is, water in which one could stand, shoal water; another name given it was kai-ohua. 4. Beyond this lies a belt called kua-au where the shoal water ended; and outside of the kuaau was a belt called kai-au, ho-au, kai-o-kilo-hee, that is, swimming deep or sea for spearing squid, or kai-hee-nalu, that is, a surf swimming region. Another name still for this belt was kai-kohola. 5. Outside of this was a belt called kai-uli, blue sea, squid-fishing sea kai-lu-hee, or sea-ofthe-flying-fish, kai malolo, or sea-of-the-opelu, kai-opelu. 6. Beyond this lies a belt called kai-hi-aku, sea for trolling the aku, and outside of this lay a belt called kai-kohola, where swim the whales, monsters of the sea; beyond this lay the deep ocean, moana, which was variously termed waho-lilo (far out to sea), or lepo (underground), or lewa (floating), or lipo (blue-black), which reach Kahiki-moe, the utmost bound of the ocean. 7. When the sea is tossed into billows they are termed ale. The breakers which roll in are termed nalu. The currents that move through the ocean are called au or wili-au. 8. Portions of the sea that enter into recesses of the land are kai-hee-nalu, that is a surfswimming region. Another name still kai-o-kilo-hee, that is swimming deep, or sea for spearing squid, or called kai-kuono; that belt of shoal where the breakers curl is called puao; another name for it is ko-aka. 9. A blow-hole where the ocean spouts up through a hole in the rocks is called a puhi (to blow). A place where the ocean is sucked with force down through a cavity in the rocks is called a mimili, whirlpool; it is also called mimiki or an aaka. 10. The rising of the ocean tide is called by such names as kai-pii (rising sea), kai-nui (bigsea), kai-piha (full sea), and kai-apo (surrounding sea). 11. When the tide remains stationary, neither rising nor falling, it is called kai-ku, standing sea; when it ebbs it is called kai-moku (the parted sea), or kai-emi (ebbing sea), or kai-hoi (retiring sea), or kai-make (defeated sea). 12. A violent, raging surf is called kai-koo. When the surf beats violently against a sharp point of land, that is a cape (lae), it is termed kai-ma-ka-ka-lae. 13. A calm in the ocean is termed a lai or a malino or a pa-e-a-e-a or a pohu. As coastline geography is variable along the western shore of Hawai‘i Island, ranging from nearly vertical sea cliffs to fine-sanded bays, not all oceanic zones exist in all locales. According to Kamakau (1979), there were names for sea ponds that were nearly entirely surrounded by land—kai hāloko or kai puhi lala; for bays—kai kū‘ono; for lagoons—loko kai; for areas of the sea that were nearly landlocked—hāloko kai; and for places where seawater surged into a pond—kai hī. There were also specific names to indicate areas where waves multiplied—kai ko‘o, and subsequently diverged from each other—kai kulana. Kamakau (1979) also mentions that in more rugged environments, such as at Ka Lae in Ka‘ū, places where waves crashed against points of land were known as kai maka lae, and places where waves crashed into the bases of cliffsides were termed kai kuehu. Terms were also given to rocky places on the shoreline where waves broke within a crevice—kai puhi; where the sea ebbed up and down inside a crevice—mimilo, mimiki, or ‘a‘aka; and for blowholes, which were known simply as puhi (ibid.). In locales such as Ka‘ū and the southern part of South Kona, the rocky shoreline limited resource areas where reef-bound marine life dwelled, including “squid, mullet, goatfish, parrotfish and the like” (Handy and Pukui 1998:223). Kānaka Maoli also distinguished the various moods and surface characteristics of the ocean by name. For instance, calm and peaceful seas were kai malina, kai pohu, or kai paeaea; and areas where the sea was glassy and appeared to puddle on the surface were kai kāhekaheka, kai ki‘o, or kai hāpuna (Kamakau 1979). The famed proverbial sayings, “Ke kai malino o Kona” and “Kona, kai malino a Ehu” refers to the calm seas of the Kona District with the latter saying associating the calm seas with Kona’s ruling chief ‘Ehu (Pukui 1983:186,199). The calm sea of Kona, which produced “innumerable streaks of color” is described in the saying, “Kona i ke kai mā‘oki‘oki” which has been translated by Pukui (1983:199) to mean “Kona the sea that is cut up.” CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 21 3. Culture-Historical Context There were also designations for contrasting parts of the kai based upon its color. Areas of the kai that were white were generally referred to as kai kea, with foamy, white seas being distinguished as kai ke‘oke‘o. Kānaka Maoli further distinguished striated, variegated seas for which the Kona District was famed, as kai mā‘oki‘oki, and sections that were richly red like ‘alaea (ocherous earth) as kai ‘ula‘ula (red sea) and golden yellow like ‘ōlena (turmeric) as kai lenalena (yellow sea). The ancient people also identified parts of the kai which were designated for certain activities. For instance, shallow parts of the sea where one could wade out into the shoal were known as the kai hele kū, and places where one could submerge and bathe were referred to as kai ‘au kohana. There were also places designated for diving—kai lu‘u, as well as surfing—kai he‘e nalu or kua‘au (Kamakau 1979). Access to nearshore and offshore fisheries constituted an important component of the ahupua‘a system. In detailing the nature of traditional fishers, Lyons writes: While the smaller ahupuaas had to content themselves with the immediate shore fishery extending out not further than a man could touch bottom with his toes, the larger ones swept around outside of these, taking to themselves the main fisheries much in the same way as that in which the forests were appropriated. (Lyons 1875:111) In describing the intimate connection between the ‘ohana the ahupua‘a system, Handy and Pukui (1998:18) relate, “the ‘Ohana as a functioning social mechanism operates within the milieu of the sea, shore, coastal and inland slopes and uplands, subject to weather, sun and moon.” Regarding marine resource management, Kānaka Maoli carefully regulated resource extraction within the different designated marine zones (discussed above) to ensure the preservation of the physical, biological, and ecological integrity of the kai, as well as the perpetuation of the ancient ‘ohana (family) based socio-economic system (Jokiel et al. 2011). As related by Handy and Pukui: . . . The fisherman needing poi or ‘awa would take fish, squid or lobster upland to a household known to have taro, and would return with his kalo (taro) or pa‘i‘ai (hard poi, the steamed and pounded taro corm). A woman from seaward, wanting some medicinal plant, or sugar cane perhaps, growing on the land of a relative living inland would take with her a basket of shellfish or some edible seaweed and return with her stalks of sugar cane or her medicinal plants. In other words, it was the ‘ohana that constituted the community within which the economic life moved. (Handy and Pukui 1998:6) Kuleana: The Establishment of Native Access to Natural Resources The hoa‘āina (native tenants) and ‘ohana (families) who lived on the land had rights to the gather forest and marine resources for subsistence and for tribute (Jokiel et al. 2011; MacKenzie 1991). As part of these rights, the ahupua‘a residents were also required to supply resources and labor that supported the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms as well as provide offerings to appease their multitude of akua (Malo 1951). These services were a kuleana (privilege and responsibility) that came with the tenancy within a given ahupua‘a. The ahupuaʻa thus became the equivalent of a local community, with its own social, economic, and political significance, and it also served as a taxable base for the aliʻi during the Makahiki (festival beginning about the middle of October and lasting about four months, with sports and religious festivities and taboo on war) (Kelly 1956). During the annual Makahiki procession, the highest chief of the land sent select members of his retinue to collect ho‘okupu (tribute and offerings) in the form of goods from each ahupua‘a. The hoa‘āina (native tenants) who resided in the ahupua‘a brought their share of ho‘okupu to an ahu (altar) that was symbolically marked with the image of a pua‘a (pig). Kamakau describes some of the reasons for the annual Makahiki and notes the observance of kapu that restricted the consumption of certain vegetables and meats including fish: The Makahiki festival was a time to rest, and a time to make great feasts of commemoration (‘aha‘aina ho‘omana‘o) for life and health of the body, and for the help received from the gods. All manual labor was prohibited and there were several days of resting and feasting. Chiefs and people made manu joyful Makahiki feasts at the end of each year. The custom (malama) of feasting came from very ancient times; and from the time that chiefs became rulers of the kingdoms… They made kapu the last three months of the year. The Makahiki began (e kauwelu ai) in the month of Hilina, and at this time pork, coconut, and fish were placed under kapu; the eating of flesh foods (i‘o) was kapu during these months. (Kamakau 1964:19) Ahupua‘a were ruled by ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a or chiefs who controlled the ahupua‘a resources; who, for the most part, had complete autonomy over this generally economically self-supporting piece of land (Malo 1951). Ahupua‘a residents were not bound to the land, nor were they the property of the ali‘i. If the living conditions under a particular ahupua‘a chief were deemed unsuitable, the residents could move freely in pursuit of more favorable living conditions 22 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context (Lam 1985). This structure safeguarded the well-being of the people and the overall productivity of the land, lest the chief lose the support and loyalty of his, or her, principal supporters. Ahupua‘a lands were in turn, managed by an appointed konohiki or lesser chief-landlord, who oversaw and coordinated stewardship of an area’s natural resources (ibid.). In some places, the po‘o lawai‘a (head fisherman) held the same responsibilities as the konohiki (Jokiel et al. 2011). Under this system, the konohiki had the right “to regulate the taking of fish and other marine life from the reefs and fishing grounds abutting the ahupua‘a” (MacKenzie 1991:173). Hoa‘āina also had a right to gather fish, which was, however, “subject to the right of the konohiki to manage and conserve the fisheries” (ibid.).When necessary, the konohiki took the liberty of implementing kapu (restrictions and prohibitions) to protect the mana of the area’s resources from physical and spiritual depletion. Many ahupua‘a were further divided into smaller land units termed ‘ili and‘ili kūpono (often shortened to ‘ili kū) and cultivated patches known as kō‘ele, māla, and kīhāpai (Beamer 2014; Lyons 1875). ‘Ili were created for the convenience of the ahupua‘a chief, and they served as the basic land unit in which the hoa‘āina made a living; these land units were often retained by specific ʻohana for long periods of time (Jokiel et al. 2011; MacKenzie 2015). As the ‘ili themselves were typically passed down in families, so too were the kuleana (responsibilities, privileges) that were associated with them. The right to use and cultivate ‘ili was maintained within the ‘ohana, regardless of any change in title of the ahupua‘a chief (Handy and Handy 1991). Malo (1951), recorded several types of ‘ili, including the ‘ili pa‘a, a single intact parcel, and the ‘ili lele, a discontinuous parcel dispersed across an area. Whether dispersed or wholly intact, the ‘ili land division required a cross section of the available resources, and for the hoa‘āina, this generally included access to agriculturally fertile lands, and the coastal fisheries. While much of these same resource principles applied to another type of ʻili, the ‘ili kūpono, these land units were politically independent of the ahupua‘a chief. This ‘ili kūpono designation was often applied to specific areas containing resources that were highly valued by the ruling chiefs, such as fishponds (Handy and Handy 1991). The ali‘i who presided over the ahupua‘a (ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a), in turn, answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire moku or district) (Malo 1951). Although moku (districts) were comprised of multiple ahupua‘a, they were considered geographical subdivisions with no explicit reference to rights in the land (Cannelora 1974). This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian life and was strictly adhered to. Collectively, the ali‘i regardless of their rank, held a vested responsibility, and were obligated to ensure, “the beneficial use of the land for all of the people” (MacKenzie 1991:173). It is vital to note that this complex and highly established system evolved well-before the Western concept (and practice) of private property and codified laws was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. As knowledge of place developed over the centuries and was passed down intergenerationally through example, direct teaching, and experience, detailed information of an area’s natural cycles and resources became ingrained and well-understood. Decisions pertaining to the use and management of natural resources were based on generations worth of highly informed knowledge, and were sustainably adapted to meet the needs of a growing population. This highly-complex land management system set the foundation for traditional customary rights of the Kānaka Maoli, all while mirroring the Hawaiian thought process, and the unique culture that coevolved with these islands. Their relationship to the land and sea was fortified by their spiritual beliefs and origin stories that tied them to the greater cosmos. As evidenced in the subsequent section, the ancient Kānaka Maoli did not agree on a single creation story. Their pluralistic outlook on their origins reveal their profound connection to the ocean. The ocean was a living deity who they called Kanaloa. The ocean was the pathway of the gods and people who traveled by way of the waʻa (canoe) and the very element that connected them to their ancestral homeland, Kahiki. The ocean was the seat of life from which the islands were fished, and pulled up from its depth. The ocean and its creatures shared a kinship connection to the chiefs and the people, and were incorporated in an ancient genealogical chant known as the Kumulipo. As ancient as some of these stories may be, they remain an integral component for understanding the deep reverence and connection Kānaka Maoli have to the their land and sea. OCEANIC ORIGINS The Kānaka Maoli were anchored through their ingrained philosophy of life to the ‘āina (land), wai (water), lewa (heavens), and the kai (ocean). These life-giving aspects of their natural environment were the foundation upon which they constructed their physical and spiritual world. Every natural element found within the Hawaiian world, whether on the land, in the sea, or in the heavens, was believed to be the physical embodiment of the akua (deities). The natural wonders of the universe were the source of life for the Kānaka Maoli, and were thus acknowledged, named, and deeply revered. Traditional legendary accounts describing the origins of the Kanaka (humans) are plentiful, and a review of these accounts reveals that the ancient people of these islands did not agree on a single creation story (Fornander 1916–1917). While Western scientists emphasize the geological formation of the Hawaiian Islands, traditional CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 23 3. Culture-Historical Context accounts feature the ocean as the origin of the islands. The ocean is also described as the pathway of the gods, carrying them from their ancestral homeland of Kahiki to the shores of Hawaiʻi. As the current study area includes the nearshore waters of West Hawaiʻi, the most relevant of these accounts are summarized below. The Great Fishermen, Kapūhe‘euanui One such account concerns the genealogy of a Tahitian priest,‘Ōpu‘ukahonua (lit. the budding earth), who established the “royal parents or ancestors of these islands,” as there were, “ninety-five generations from him to Kamehameha the Great” (Fornander 1916–1917:20). According to this genealogical account (as told by Fornander 1916–1917:20), the islands “were found or obtained by the fishing of Kapuheeuanui,” a great fisherman (ka lawai‘a nui), who fished them up one-by-one: When Kapuheeuanui let down his fishing line into the sea from Kapaahu [Kohala] his line caught something that he thought was a fish and drew the line onto the canoe when, behold, it was a piece of coral. The priest Laulialamakua came along as Kapuheeuanui was disentangling his line from the coral and preparing to throw it away. Then the priest spoke to him, “Eh! Don’t throw away that piece of coral, for that is a chief, a foreteller of events. Go thou and look for a pig and appease the god, and after prayer call its name Hawaiiloa, then throw it back into the sea, and it will grow up into an island.” (ibid.) Kapūhe‘euanui obeyed the commands of the priest and the next day, he went back out and again fished up another piece of coral. The priest Laulialamakua intervened and declared that this piece of coral be called Mauiloa. On the third day of fishing, Kapuhe‘euanui caught another piece of coral and showed it to the priest who named it O‘ahunuiala‘a. Day after day, Kapuhe‘euanui continued to fish up coral fragments all of which were named by the priest “until all the islands now comprising the group were successfully raised as corals.” Fornander also narrates a chant describing the fishing up of the islands by the great fisherman Kapūhe‘euanui: E Lono, e Lono-e! E Lonokaeho! O Lono, O Lono, listen, O Lonokaeho! Lonokulani alii o Kauluonana. Lonokulani, chief of Kauluonana, Eia na waaa kau mai, Here are the canoes, get on board, E hoi e noho ia Hawaiikuauli, Come along and dwell in Hawaii-with-the-green-back, He aina loaa i ka moana, A land that was found in the ocean, I hoea mai loko o ka ale; That was thrown up from the sea, I ka halehale poi pu a Kanaloa; From the very depths of Kanaloa, He koakea i halelo i ka wai, The white coral in the watery caves I lou i ka makau a ka lawaia, That was caught on the hook of the fisherman; A ka lawaia nui o Kapaahu The great fisherman of Kapaahu, A ka lawaia nui o Kapuheeuanui The great fisherman Kapuheeuanui. A pae na waa, kau mai, The canoes touch the shore, come on board, E holo ai i Hawaii, he moku; Sail to Hawaii, an island, He moku Hawaii, An island is Hawaii; He moku Hawaii na Lonokaeho. An island is Hawaii for Lonokaeho to dwell on. (Fornander 1916–1917:22-23) Fornander reported that this chant was recited by the Tahitian chief Makuakaumana when he and the 12th century priest Pa‘ao went back to Tahiti in search of a new chief for Hawai‘i Island. When Makuakaumana and his company had reached the shores of Moa‘ulanui‘ākea in Tahiti, Makuakaumana called out to Lonokaeho to sail to Hawai‘ikuauli, (a poetic name given to Hawai‘i Island describing its verdant countryside) to become its principle chief. Lonokaeho declined the offer and instead arranged for the chief Pili to sail to Hawai‘i to become its chief. This chant also tells of the islands being fished up from the depth of the ocean, from the realm of the great oceanic deity, Kanaloa, who is mentioned in the chant excerpted above. Kanaloa is also the subject of many legends discussed below. Kanaloa, Deity of the Ocean Kanaloa is one of the four male gods that were worshipped by both makaʻāinana (lit. people that attend the land) and aliʻi (chiefs) in Hawai‘i and throughout Polynesia (Beckwith 1970; Malo 1951). The three other male gods—Kāne, Kū, and Lono, along with four female gods: La‘ila‘i, Haumea, Hina, and Pelehonuamea, make up the pantheon of Hawaiian gods (Kanaka‘ole Kanahele et al. 2009). In the islands of the South Pacific, Kanaloa is known by other names (Taaroa in Tahiti; Tangaloa in Samoa; Tanaoa in Marquesas; Tangaro in Aotearoa) and in some places he is considered the creator, and the god of the ocean (ibid.). In Hawai‘i, his domain extended over the ocean and many 24 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context native Hawaiians today maintain the understanding that the ocean itself is Kanaloa. Kanaloa (the ocean) was considered the roadway for the navigator and served as the connection between the various islands across the vast Pacific Ocean; navigators and paddlers, who traveled at the mercy of the Kanaloa often invoked prayers to him for favorable weather and ocean conditions (ibid.). Kanaloa is embodied in several ocean species including the elusive and polychromatic he‘e (octopus) and mūhe‘e (squid) (Handy and Handy 1991). The he‘e form of Kanaloa was also applied to the area of healing and was used by a kahuna lapa‘au (healing practitioner) to perform a healing ceremony called he‘e mahola (Malo 1951). Malo (ibid.:109) expounds upon this ceremony writing, “[t]he hee mahola ceremony was through to be the thing to disperse (hehee) disease and bring healing to the body.” Other important body forms of Kanaloa included the koholā (whale), specifically the palaoa (sperm whale), from which the lei niho palaoa (ivory tooth pendant) was carved and worn exclusively by Hawaiian ali‘i. Although whales are typically considered deep sea creatures, recent studies have shown that whales contribute to important nutrient cycling for reef fish (Smith et al. 2013). Kanaloa is also embodied in other large marine mammals including the nai‘a (dolphin), niuhi (tiger shark), pololia (jellyfish), and the hāhālua (manta ray) (Kanaka‘ole Kanahele et al. 2009; Liliuokalani 1978). Kānenuiʻākea: The Creator of Heaven and Earth and the Arrival of Kāne, Kanaloa, and Haumea in Keʻei, South Kona A portion of the current study area, Keʻei in South Kona is mentioned in a legendary account recorded by Kamakau (1968) that details the initial arrival of Kāne, Kanaloa, and Haumea to the Hawaiian Islands, where they were first glimpsed by two fishermen near Keʻei. The arrival of these gods is described in both textual and chant form, with the latter comparing their arrival to swimming fish moving on the currents from Kahiki, their ancestral homeland. Kamakau (ibid.) also relates that Kānenui‘ākea was considered the creator of the “heavens and earth.” In describing the arrival of Kāne, Kanaloa, and their kaikuahine (sister) Haumea, Kamakau writes: …it is said, Kane, Kanaloa, and Haumea came from Kahiki and from the firmament (mai ka lewa mai). They were first seen by a couple of fishermen outside of Ke‘ei, in South Kona. Kuheleimoana and Kuheleipo were the two fishermen who first saw these spirits (po‘e akua) coming over the surface of the sea. When the two men saw these wonderful beings they knelt in profound respect, and they gave them white fish and pointed out the ‘awa plants mauka of ‘Alanapo in Ke‘ei. Those of us who study and understand clearly the prophetic chants (mele wanana) know that the name of Haumea was given to the woman who came with Kane and his companion because she was a woman of mysterious and recurrent births (no ka mea o Haumea ka wahine hanau kupanaha a hanau wawa). Here is a mele of the po‘e kahiko that makes this clear: Holo mai Kane mai Kahiki, Here comes Kane from Kahiki, Holo a i‘a iloko o ke kai, Coming like a fish in the sea, Ke kekele ‘au i ka moana; Gliding through the currents of the ocean; O Haumea ke kaikuahine Haumea the sister O Kanaloa ia me Kane And Kanaloa are with Kane. E ki‘i e ka i‘a kea i kai, La‘a i ku‘emake o Kane, La‘ahia i ke kanawai, He mau lawai‘a i ka moana, O Kuheleimoana O Kuheleipo, E kaka ana i ka malie, I ka la‘i ku pohu malino, I na kai malino a ‘Ehu. Hukia i ka ‘upena luelue. We get the white fish from the sea, That is sacred to the eyebrows of Kane, Consecrated to him by his edict, We two fishermen on the ocean, Kuheleimoana and Kuheleipo, Who are deep-sea fishing in the calm, In the windless calm, In the calm seas of ‘Ehu. The bag net is drawn up. E ho‘i kakou i ka uka, E ‘alana i ka pu ‘awa hiwa; Ha‘awi i ke kaikuahine. We return to shore, And offer the choice ‘awa; It is given to the sister. Elua ‘olua ko Haumea i ke keiki. There are two of you, and Haumea conceives a child. I hanau i kana hiapo, O Ka‘ulawena Konohiki Wananakalana. She gives birth to her first-born, Ka‘ulawena Konohiki Wananakalana. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 25 3. Culture-Historical Context According to Kamakau, the child Ka‘ulawena Konohiki Wananakalana (also known as Mapunaia‘a‘ala) was fathered by one of the Ke‘ei fishermen, Kuheleipo. In the Hawaiian cosmogonic chant, Kumulipo (discussed in further detail below), Mapunaia‘a‘ala was an ancestor of Māui, another noted demi-god who is celebrated in traditional lore for fishing the islands up from the depths of the sea (Beckwith 1951). Māui Uses Manaiakalani to Fish the Hawaiian Islands Out of the Sea Another account describing the oceanic origins of the Hawaiian Islands features the Pan-Pacific kupua or demi-god known as Māui, who among many other monumental life feats is said to have fished the Hawaiian Islands out of the depths of the sea using his supernatural fishhook called Manaiakalani, which was later cast up into the heavens. Westervelt writes: Maui went out from his home at Kauiki, fishing with his brothers. After they had caught some fine fish the brothers desired to return, but Maui persuaded them to go our farther. Then when they became tired and determined to go back, he made the seas stretch out and the shores recede until they could see no land. Then drawing the magic hook, he baited it with the Alae or sacred mud hen belonging to his Mother Hina… Down in the deep sea sank the hook with its struggling bait, until it was seized by “the land under the water.” But Hina the mother saw the struggle of her sacred bird and hastened to the rescue. She caught a wing of the bird, but could not pull the Alae from the sacred hook. The wing was torn off. Then the fish gathered around the bait and tore it to pieces. If the bait could have been kept entire, then the land would have come up in a continent rather than as an island. Then the Hawaiian group would have been unbroken. But the bait broke—and the islands came up as fragments from the under world. (Westervelt 1910:26–28) The Kumulipo While the above accounts attribute the origin of the Hawaiian Islands to various akua (deities) and great fishermen who raised coral and islands from the depths of the ocean, the following account is a mele ko‘i honua, or cosmogonic chant, known as the Kumulipo, which explains the origins of the Hawaiian universe in a different manner. This account describes the birth of various aquatic and terrestrial organisms found in the Hawaiian Islands. Containing over 2,000 lines, this chant was uttered by the high priest Puou in Kealakekua, Kona upon the birth of the 18th-century high chief Ka‘ī‘īmamao, as a way to recognize and fortify the depth of his royal family’s divine origin (Liliuokalani 1978). Various scholars and Hawaiian royalty including Queen Lili‘uokalani and her brother King David Kalākaua have attempted to translate this epic chant, with each translator offering their own interpretation. The Kumulipo anchors the Hawaiian world and its people to the ocean by way of the primal substance known to the Hawaiian people as walewale (slime). According to the Kumulipo, all animate and inanimate objects were hānau (born), including the ‘uku ko‘ako‘a (coral polyp), which was recorded as the very first organism born in the ocean. The small and simple ‘uku ko‘ako‘a is of vital importance to life, as it is the basic building block for all life in the sea. It is from the ‘uku ko‘ako‘a that the ‘āko‘ako‘a (coral head) was born, thus forming the broader foundation for all other marine organisms that inhabit the nearshore reefs, where benthic species and other fish live, including the white list species that are the subject of the current study. This lengthy chant is broken up into sixteen wā (eras). The recurring theme of duality appears in the first four wā in which each aquatic life form is paired with a terrestrial counterpart. The first wā describes a time of eternal darkness (pō) that passes progressively, through the union of male and female energies, ultimately giving birth to light (ao). It is in this first wā that organisms of the benthic zone are born. The second wā of the Kumulipo describes the birth of the fishes and their forest counterparts; the third wā describes the emergence of the winged creatures of both land and sea., and the fourth wā describes the birth of the amphibious creatures (Beckwith 1951). In her explanation of the pairs of aquatic and terrestrial counterparts, Martha Beckwith writes: The names are not invented for mere rhyme value…The punning of names have in some cases a practical magical function. For example, in plant medicine the first food to be taken after dosing with a special medicinal herb is the sea-growing thing whose name matches with it…Such is the nature of the language that these lists may be extended indefinitely. (Beckwith 1951:50–51) It is not until the eight wā of the Kumulipo that the Kanaka Maoli, or the people of the Hawaiian Islands, are born. This birth order informs us of the Hawaiian thought process, which suggests that Kanaka Maoli derive from the same source as all other living creatures, and are therefore an integral part of the vastly complicated and fragile system of 26 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context life. The idea that Kanaka Maoli were born so long after the ocean helps provide context for understanding the reverence that they hold for the kai and all of its life forms. The Kumulipo also serves as a reminder that the wellbeing of Kanaka Maoli is dependent upon maintaining the delicate balance between all life forms, and that a symbiotic relationship exists between the land and the ocean. Although this accounts is set in Hawai‘i’s distant past, the messages and nuanced meanings remain deeply embedded in the spirits and minds of Native Hawaiians today. For the purposes of the current study, in an effort to provide a more complete understanding of the cosmogony of marine life in the Hawaiian Islands, the entirety of the second wā of the Kumulipo is provided in the original Hawaiian with an English translation next to it. The Hawaiian version of this chant comes from a text written by King David Kalākaua that was published by Beckwith (1951:190–194). The English translation is derived from a version of the Kumulipo published by King Kalākaua’s sister, Queen Lili‘uokalani (Liliuokalani 1978:6–11). Both the Hawaiian and English versions have been transcribed and are presented below in their entirety. All fish names are presented in bold print for emphasis; while the white-list species have been underlined for ease of identification: 123. Hanau kama a ka Powehiwehi 124. Ho‘oleilei ka lana a ka Pouliuli 125. O Mahiuma, o Ma‘apuia 126. O noho i ka ‘aina o Pohomiluamea 127. Kukala mai ka Haipu-aalamea 128. O naha wilu ke au o Uliuli 129. O ho‘ohewahewa a kumalamala 130. O pohouli a poho‘ele‘ele 131. O na wai ehiku e lana wale 132. Hanau kama a hilu, a holo 133. O ka hilu ia pewa lala kau 134. O kau[l]ana a Pouliuli 135. O kuemiemi a Powehiwehi 136. O pouliuli ke kane 137. O Powehiwehi ka wahine 138. Hanau ka i‘a, hanau ka Nai‘a i ke kai la holo 139. Hanau ka Mano, hanau ka Moana i ke kai la holo 140. Hanau ka Mau, hanau ka Maumau i ke kai la holo 141. Hanau ka Nana, hanau ka Mana i ke kai la holo 142. Hanau ka Nake, hanau ka Make i ke kai la holo 143. Hanau ka Napa, hanau ka Nala i ke kai la holo 144. Hanau ka Pala, hanau ke Kala i ke kai la holo 145. Hanau ka Paka, hanau ka Papa i ke kai la holo 146. Hanau ke Kalakala, hanau ka Huluhulu i ke kai la holo 147. Hanau ka Halahala, hanau ka Palapala i ke kai la holo 148. Hanau ka Pe‘a, hanau ka Lupe i ke kai la holo 149. Hanau ke Ao, hanau ke Awa i ke kai la holo 150. Hanau ke Aku, hanau ke ‘Ahi i ke kai la holo 151. Hanau ka Opelu, hanau ke Akule i ke kai la holo 152. Hanau ka ‘Ama‘ama, hanau ka ‘Anae i ke kai la holo 153. Hanau ka Ehu, hanau ka Nehu i ke kai la holo 154. Hanau ka ‘Iao, hanau ka ‘Ao‘ao i ke kai la holo 155. Hanau ka ‘Ono, hanau ke Omo i ke kai la holo 156. Hanau ka Pahau, hanau ka Lauhau i ke kai la holo 157. Hanau ka Moi, hanau ka Lo‘ilo‘i i ke kai la holo 158. Hanau ka Mao, hanau ka Maomao i ke kai la holo 159. Hanau ke Kaku, hanau ke A‘ua‘u i ke kai la holo 160. Hanau ke Kupou hanau ke Kupoupou i ke kai la holo 161. Hanau ka Weke, hanau ka Lele i ke kai la holo 162. Hanau ka Palani, hanau ka Nukumomi i ke kai la holo 163. Hanau ka Ulua, hanau ka Hahalua i ke kai la holo 164. Hanau ka ‘Ao‘aonui, hanau ka Paku‘iku‘i i ke kai la holo 165. Hanau ka Ma‘i‘i‘i, hanau ka Ala‘ihi i ke kai la holo 166. Hanau ka ‘O‘o, hanau ka ‘Akilolo i ke kai la holo 167. Hanau ka Nenue, noho i kai The first child born of Powehiwehi (dusky night) Tossed up land for Pouliuli (darkest night), For Mahiuma or Maapuia, And lived in the land of Pohomiluamea (shoughy hill of Mea); Suppressed the noise of the growth of unripe fruit, For fear Uliuli would cause it burst, and the stench To disagree and turn sour, For pits of darkness and pits of night. Then the seven waters became calm. Then was born a child (kama), ‘twas a Hilu and swam. The Hilu is a fish with standing fins, On which Pouliuli sat. So undecided seemed Powehiwehi, For Pouliuli was husband And Powehiwehi his wife. And fish was born, the Naia (porpoise) was born in the sea and swam. The Mano (shark) was born, the Moana was born in the sea and swam. The Mau was born, the Maumau was born in the sea and swam. The Nana was born, the Mana was born in the sea and swam. The Nake was born, the Make was born in the sea and swam. The Napa was born, the Nala was born in the sea and swam. The Pala was born, the Kala was born in the sea and swam. The Paka (an eel) was born, the Papa (crab) was born in the sea and swam. The Kalahala was born, the Huluhulu was born in the sea and swam. The Halahala was born, the Palapala was born in the sea and swam. The Pea (starfish) was born, the Lupe was born in the sea and swam. The Ao was born, the Awa was born in the sea and swam. The Aku (bonito) was born, the Ahi (same kind) was born in the sea and swam. The Opelu (same as above) was born, the Akule was born in the sea and swam. The Amaama (mullet) was born, the Anae (large kind) was born in the sea and swam. The Ehu was born, the Nehu was born in the sea and swam. The Iao (used for bait) was born, the Aoao was born in the sea and swam. The Ono (large fish) was born, the Omo was born in the sea and swam. The Pahau (striped flatfish) was born, the Lauhau was born in the sea and swam. The Moi was born, the Loiloi was born in the sea and swam. The Mao was born, the Maomao was born in the sea and swam. The Kaku was born, the A‘ua‘u was born in the sea and swam. The Kupou was born, the Kupoupou was born in the sea and swam. The Weke was born, the Lele was born in the sea and swam. The Palani was born, the Nuku Moni was born in the sea and swam. The Ulua was born, the Hahalua was born in the sea and swam. The Aoaonui was born, the Pakuikui was born in the sea and swam. The Maiii was born, the Alaihi was born in the sea and swam. The Oo was born, the Akilolo was born in the sea and swam. The Nenue was born and lived in the sea; CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 27 3. Culture-Historical Context 28 168. Kia‘i ia e ka Lauhue noho i uka 169. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 170. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 171. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Guarded by the Lauhue that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 172. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 173. Hanau ka Pahaha no i kai 174. Kia‘i ia e ka Puhala noho i uka 175. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 176. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 177. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Haha was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Puhala that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 178. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 179. Hanau ka Pahau noho i kai 180. Kia‘i ia e ka Lauhau noho i uka 181. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 182. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 183. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Pahau was born in the sea; Guarded by the Lauhau that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 184. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 185. Hanau ka He‘e noho i kai 186. Kia‘i ia e ka Walahe‘e noho i uka 187. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 188. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 189. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Hee was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Walahee that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 190. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 191. Hanau ka ‘O‘opukai noho i kai 192. Kia‘i ia e ka ‘O‘opuwai noho i uka 193. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 194. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 195. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Oopukai was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Oopuwai that lived in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 196. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 197. Hanau ka puhi Kauwila noho i kai 198. Kia‘i ia e ka Uwila noho i uka 199. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 200. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 201. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Puhi kauwila was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Uwila that lived in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 202. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 203. Hanau ka Umaumalei noho i kai 204. Kia‘i ia e ka ‘Ulei noho i uka 205. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 206. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 207. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Umaumalei was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Ulei that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 208. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 209. Hanau ka Paku‘iku‘i noho i kai 210. Kia‘i ia e ka la‘au Kukui noho i uka 211. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 212. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 213. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Pakuikui was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Laukukui that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 214. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 215. Hanau ka Laumilo noho i kai 216. Kia‘i ia e ka [la‘au] Milo noho i uka 217. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 218. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 219. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Laumilo was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Milo that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 220. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 221. Hanau ke Kupoupou noho i kai 222. Kia‘i ia e ka Kou noho i uka 223. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 224. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 225. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Kapoou was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Kou that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 226. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 227. Hanau ka Hauliuli noho i kai 228. Kia‘i ia e ka Uhi noho i uka 229. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 230. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 231. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Hauliuli was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Uhi that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 232. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 233. Hanau ka Weke noho i kai Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Weke was born and lived in the sea; CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context 234. Kia‘i ia e ka Wauke noho i uka 235. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 236. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 237. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Guarded by the Wauke that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 238. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 239. Hanau ka ‘A‘awa noho i kai 240. Kia‘i ia e ka ‘Awa noho i uka 241. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 242. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 243. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Aawa was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Awa that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 244. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 245. Hanau ka Ulae noho i kai 246. Kia‘i ia e ka Mokae noho i uka 247. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 248. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 249. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Ulae was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Mokae that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 250. O kane ia Wai‘ololi, o ka wahine ia Wai‘olola 251. Hanau ka Palaoa noho i kai 252. Kia‘i ia e ka Aoa noho i uka 253. He po uhe‘e i ka wawa 254. He nuku, he kai ka ‘ai a ka i‘a 255. O ke Akua ke momo, ‘a‘oe komo kanaka Man by Waiololi, woman by Waiolola, The Palaoa (sea-elephant) was born and lived in the sea; Guarded by the Aoa that grew in the forest. A night of flight by noises Through a channel; salt water is life to fish; So the gods may enter, but not man. 256. O ke ka‘ina a palaoa e ka‘i nei 257. E kuwili o ha‘aha‘a i ka moana 258. O ka opule ka‘i loloa 259. Manoa wale ke kai ia lakou 260. O kumimi, o ka lohelohe a pa‘a 261. O ka‘a monimoni i ke ala 262. O ke ala o Kolomio o miomio i hele ai 263. Loa‘a Pimoe i ke polikua 264. O Hikawainui, o Hikawaina 265. O pulehulehu hako‘ako‘a 266. Ka mene ‘a‘ahu wa‘awa‘a 267. O holi ka poki‘i i ke au ia uliuli 268. Po‘ele wale ka moana powehiwehi 269. He kai ko‘ako‘a no ka uli o Paliuli 270. O he‘e wale ka ‘aina ia lakou 271. O kaha uliuli wale i ka po—la 272. Po—no The train of the Palaoa (walrus) that swim by, Embracing only the deep blue waters, Also the Opule that move in schools, The deep is as nothing to them. And the Kumimi (a crab) and Lohelohe (a locust) cling together To the rolling motion of their cradle On their path so narrow, so slim, to move, Till Pimoe (a mermaid) is found in the depth of her cave, With Hikawainui, and Hikawaine Amongst piles of heated coral That were thrown in piles unevenly, So thin and scraggy in the blue tide. Surely it must be dismal, that unknown deep; ‘Tis a sea of coral from the depth of Paliuli, And when the land recedes from them The east is still in darkness of night, ‘Tis night As reflected in the origin stories previously described, the Kānaka Maoli ordered all living things in the world. The ocean and its creatures were living resources of divine origin capable to living and reproducing without the aid of man. Their dependency on thriving but finite resources of the Hawaiian Islands and the adjacent oceanscape, coupled with an ever growing population, required that the Kānaka Maoli, form the beginning, develop systems, practices, and cosmology that would maintain the ecological and spiritual integrity of the islands’ finite resources. Over time, what developed was sophisticated and highly integrated set of stewardship practices that were codified in the socio-political system, and interwoven with their spiritual beliefs. TRADITIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The ancient and ingrained philosophy of life of the Native Hawaiian people, or Kānaka Maoli, was reinforced through cultural norms, beliefs, values, and practices that tied them to their environment in a very intimate and profound way. Evident in traditional resource stewardship practices are several underlying components: having a personal and reciprocal relationship with the resources; the belief that all things are interconnected; exercising self-control; having the staunch support of a socio-political system that valued the management and beneficial use of natural resources; and uncodified laws that imposed serious consequences for violators. This lifestyle helped maintain natural, spiritual, and social orders that were actualized as place-based cultural practices. In describing the intimate relationship that exists between the Hawaiian people and the ‘āina (land) and the kai (ocean), Hawaiian historian and cultural specialist, Kepā Maly writes: In the Hawaiian context, these values—the “sense of place”—have developed over hundreds of generations of evolving “cultural attachment” to the natural, physical, and spiritual environments. In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawai‘i, one must understand that Hawaiian CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 29 3. Culture-Historical Context culture evolved in close partnership with its’ natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature begins. In a traditional Hawaiian context, nature and culture are one in the same, there is no division between the two. The wealth and limitations of the land and ocean resources gave birth to, and shaped the Hawaiian world view. The ‘āina (land), wai (water), kai (ocean), and lewa (sky) were the foundation of life and the source of the spiritual relationship between people and their environs. (Maly 2001:1) The ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverbial saying) “Hānau ka ‘āina, hānau ke ali‘i, hānau ke kanaka” (Born was the land, born were the chiefs, born were the commoners), conveys the belief that all things of the land, including kanaka,were literally born, and are thus connected through kinship links that extend beyond the immediate family (Pukui 1983:57). ‘Āina, or land, was perhaps most revered, as another ʻōlelo no‘eau notes, “He ali‘i ka ‘āina; he kauwā ke kanaka,” which has been translated by Pukui (1983:62) as “[t]he land is a chief; man is its servant.” The lifeways of early Kānaka Maoli, which depended upon the finite natural resources of these islands, necessitated the development of sustainable resource management practices. Over time, what developed was an adaptable management system that integrated the watershed, freshwater, nearshore fisheries, all of which are connected through the many unique ecosystems that extend from the mountains to the sea (Jokiel et al. 2011). As evidenced by their understandings and use of this island environment, Kānaka Maoli were masters of exploring, utilizing, and maximizing the wide array of island resources. However, included in any form of traditional land use was the practice of mālama, meaning as “to take care of, tend, attend, care for, preserve, protect, beware, save, maintain; to keep or observe, as a taboo…” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:232). The nuanced practice of mālama was a shared responsibility that was reinforced at a personal, familial, and social level throughout the society. In traditional Hawaiian society, all persons who exercised their right to utilize a resource were also expected to follow social and customary rules and rituals, one of which included the ritualistic gifting of ho‘okupu to the many akua, who in their elemental form imparted abundance and fertility to the land and sea. Ho‘okupu & Pule: Reciprocity as a Means to Maintaining Spiritual Balance and Abundance While the people held the responsibility of tending to the land and sea, the ali‘i held the prerogative of caring for, and looking after, the solidarity of the land and people (Malo 1951). Maintaining a reciprocal relationship with the kini akua (the multitude of gods) and ‘aumākua (ancestral gods), however, was traditionally a task undertaken by all classes of people. This was accomplished through ritualistic processes, including pule (prayers), giving ho‘okupu in the form of physical offerings, and also maintaining heiau (temple) rituals (ibid.). While there were many heiau types, each dedicated for a specific purpose, those devoted specifically to the occupation of fishing included the ko‘a and kū‘ula, both of which are discussed in more detail in the ensuing paragraphs. Maintaining balance with the gods was a practice vital to the life of the Kānaka Maoli. Failure to provide an adequate tribute to the gods was believed to disrupt the solidarity of the land and people, thereby provoking the gods to unleash their elemental powers onto upon them. Early Missionary, William Ellis described how fish were used to appease akua associated with the volcanic activity of Hawai‘i Island. Ellis writes: The whole island was considered as bound to pay them tribute, or support their heiaus, and kahu (devotees;) and whenever the chiefs or people failed to send the proper offerings, or incurred their displeasure by insulting them or their priest, or breaking the tabu (sacred restrictions) of their domains in the vicinity of the craters, they filled Kirauea [Kīlauea] with lava, and spouted it out, or, taking a subterranean passage, marched to some one of their houses (craters) in the neighbourhood where the offending parties dwelt, and from thence came down upon the delinquents with all their dreadful scourges. If a sufficient number of fish were not taken to them by the inhabitants of the sea-shore, they would go down, and with fire kill the fish, fill up with pahoehoe (lava) the shallow places, and destroy all the fishing grounds. (Ellis 1917:186) In the Kekaha region of North Kona, historical accounts describe the destruction of great fishponds by Pelehonuamea, the fiery goddess of lava. Historical accounts describe Pelehonuamea, who after having been denied fish by the local fishermen, consumed the massive Pā‘aiea fishpond that belonged to Kamehameha. This fishpond was said to have extended for some three miles along the Kona coast from Ka‘elehuluhulu to Wāwāloli, at the boundary of ‘O‘oma Ahupua‘a (Maguire 1926). 30 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Kilo: Astute Observation of the Natural World Kilo or perceptive observation of the natural world was perhaps one of the most fundamental stewardship tools used by the Kānaka Maoli. The vast knowledge acquired through the practice of kilo enabled them to observe and record the subtlest changes, distinctions, and correlations in their natural world. Examples of their keen observations are evident in Hawaiian nomenclature, where numerous types of rains, clouds, winds, stones, terrestrial and oceanic environments, flora, and fauna—many of which are geographically unique and distinct—have been named. These names are recorded in centuries-old traditions such as oli (chants), mele (songs), pule (prayers), inoa ‘āina (place names), and ‘ōlelo no‘eau, which were transmitted orally from one generation to the next. The Kānaka Maoli knowledge of the natural environment was further reinforced through other traditional practices and arts including, but not limited to, lawai‘a (fishing) and mahi‘ai (farming), both primary occupations, hula (traditional dance), and lapa‘au (traditional healing). Kapu and Noa: Harvest Restrictions As discussed above, the dependency on a thriving, but finite, set of natural resources led the Kānaka Maoli to develop a sophisticated and comprehensive system of land stewardship in the Hawaiian Islands that was reinforced culturally through a strict adherence to terrestrial and marine management practices that were governed, and enhanced, by the dual concepts of kapu and mana. Kānaka Maoli believed that all things natural, places, and even people, especially those of high rank, possessed a certain degree of mana or “divine power” (Pukui et al. 1972; Pukui and Elbert 1986:235). The concept of mana is believed to be derived from the kini akua, or the multitude of Hawaiian gods, who were embodied in elemental forces, including the kai (ocean), the land and its natural resources, and certain material objects and persons as well (Crabbe et al. 2017). Buck (1993) expands upon this concept, noting that mana was associated with “the well-being of a community, in human knowledge and skills (canoe building, harvesting) and in nature (crop fertility, weather etc.).” To ensure the mana of the resources, certain places, and people remained protected from over-exploitation and defilement, kapu of various kinds were implemented and strictly enforced. According to Elbert and Pukui (1986:132) kapu are defined as “taboo, prohibitions; special privilege or exemption...” Kepelino (1932) notes that kapu associated with the gods applied to all social classes, while the kapu associated with the chiefs were applied to the people. As the laws of kapu dictated social relationships, they also provided “environmental rules and controls that were essential for a subsistence economy” (Else 2004:246). Standing in juxtaposition to the concept of kapu is the concept of noa, translated as “freed of taboo, released from restrictions, profane, freedom” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:268). Some kapu— particularly those associated with maintaining social hierarchy and gender differentiation—were unremitting, while other kapu, such as those placed on natural resources were applied and enforced according to seasonal changes. The application of kapu to natural resources ensured that such were resources remained unspoiled and available for future use. When the ali‘i or the lesser chiefs (including konohiki and po‘o lawai‘a) determined that a particular resource was to be made available to the native residents, a decree was proclaimed indicating that kapu had been lifted, thereby making it noa. Although transitioning a resource from a state of kapu to noa allowed for its use, native residents were still expected to practice sustainable harvesting methods and pay tribute to the ruling chief and the gods and goddesses associated with that resource. Kapu were strictly enforced and violators faced serious consequences including death (Jokiel et al. 2011). Details about the kapu system and its use as a marine resource management strategy were described by early visitors and missionaries to the islands, including Scottish surgeon and naturalist Archibald Menzies, and British Missionary, William Ellis. Menzies was a surgeon and naturalist on board the H.M.S. Discovery. He visited Hawaiʻi Island on three separate occasions in 1792, 1793, and 1794 and recorded many observations of Hawaiian cultural in his journals, which were published in 1920. Ellis on the other hand, arrived first to Honolulu in 1822, and then returned to Hawai‘i Island later in 1823, where he and other missionaries toured the island to identify potential locations for future mission stations. Menzies, in his journal entry for February 24th, 1793, provides some insights into the traditional kapu system as it related to fishing practices, recording that a man had been put to death in South Kona, near Nāpo‘opo‘o Beach, for breaking a fish-related kapu. In the entry he writes: Close to the foot of the marae [heiau], some of the natives pointed out to us the grave of a man that had been put to death about a fortnight before on account of breaking the kapu, which was simply this: The bay had been tabooed some days on account of a large shoal of fish that appeared on the coast, at which time this unfortunate man was seen going across the entrance of it in a small canoe. He was immediately pursued, and when brought on shore, they first broke the bones of his arms and CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 31 3. Culture-Historical Context legs, and afterwards put an end to his miserable existence by stabbing his body with their pahoas [daggers]. (Menzies 1920:72) Ellis too, recorded details about the traditional repercussions of breaking a kapu, which he referred to as “tabu,” writing in the 1820s that:, The flesh of hogs, fowls, turtle, and several other kinds of fish, cocoa-nuts, and almost every thing offered in sacrifice were tabu to the use of the gods and the men; hence the women were, except in cases of particular indulgence, restricted from using them. . . Particular fruits, animals, and the fish of certain places, were occasionally tabu for several months from both men and women (Ellis 1831:387). Ellis continues that, “when the fish of a certain part are tabued, a small pole is fixed in the rocks on the coast, in the centre of the place, to which is tied a bunch of bamboo leaves, or a piece of white cloth” (ibid.:389). In relating some of the consequences of breaking a kapu, Ellis tells of the wife of Alapai, an ali‘i of Waimanu, “who was afflicted with an affection of the spine, which prevented her walking without support,” who told them, “she had incurred the displeasure of the gods by eating a fish that was tabu, or sacred, and that the disease which rendered her a cripple was her punishment” (ibid:375). Violators of kapu who managed to escape death, either sought refuge at a pu‘uhonua (a designated place of refuge), or were sometimes freed by the word of certain chiefs (Kamakau 1992). At the pu‘uhonua, after completing the proper rituals, the violator was absolved of his, or her, crime and allowed to reintegrate back into society. One such pu‘uhonua was located at Hōnaunau in Kona, and was described by Ellis during the 1820s as follows: Adjoining the Hare of Keave [Hale o Keawe] to the southward, we found a Pahu tabu (sacred enclosure) of considerable extent, and were informed by our guide that it was one of the pohonuas [sic] of Hawaii, of which we had so often heard the chiefs and others speak. There are only two on the island; the one which we were then examining, and another at Waipio, on the north-east part of the island, in the district of Kohala. These Puhonuas were the Hawaiian cities of refuge, and afforded an inviolable sanctuary to the guilty fugitive, who, when flying from the avenging spear, was so favoured as to enter their precincts. This had several wide entrances, some on the side next the sea, the others facing the mountains. Hither the manslayer, the man who had broken a tabu, or failed in the observance of its rigid requirements, the thief, and even the murderer, fled from his incensed pursuers, and was secure. To whomsoever he belonged, and from whatever part he came, he was equally certain of admittance, though liable to be pursued even to the gates of the enclosure. Happily for him, those gates were perpetually open; and as soon as the fugitive had entered, he repaired to the presence of the idol, and made a short ejaculatory address, expressive of his obligations to him in reaching the place with security. (Ellis 1917:126–127) The importance of fishing related kapu in traditional Hawaiian society, and the necessity for them, has been described by Manuia Maunupau, a native of O‘ahu and practitioner of traditional Hawaiian fishing methods, who was born in 1872 and spent his formative years fishing with his father, Maihui, in North Kona. Advocating for all those who fish the waters of Hawaiʻi to maintain their kuleana and have respect for the resources, he states: The ancient Hawaiian did everything he could to preserve the fishing ground. No fishing ground can be preserved unless precautions such as the Hawaiians observed are taken. This is true not only of aku and ahi fishing but of every other kind of fishing. The Hawaiians had a kapu on alongshore fishing in certain places when deep sea fishing was open. The kapu places were marked with coconut leaves. In the case of inshore fishing, one place was kapu for a month; then this area was opened and the next was kapu. At certain times of the year, certain seaweeds were kapu, because when fish food was preserved by this means, the shore fishing was saved for the people. There used to be plenty of fish in Hawaiian waters, but these have to a great extend disappeared because constant fishing has wiped them out. The fish are gone for good unless we have closed and open seasons for different kinds of fishing. The government is trying to place certain restrictions on fishing. If the ancient form of kapu used by the old-time Hawaiians could be revived in these new governmental restrictions, we should again have plenty of fish, provided the restrictions were observed as were the kapus in the old days. 32 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context The old Hawaiian fisherman was a skilled and selected person. He had knowledge of, and respect for, the traditions and customs of fishing. He was careful to observe these customs, because through them, fishing was preserved for the coming generations, and his children were trained in the skill they would need as they became fishermen. Fishing in those days was not a matter of getting all the fish and moving on to another fishing ground. The Hawaiian fisherman was much too clever to do this, and he respected the traditions of his people too much to do it. Laws today cannot help to preserve the fish in Hawaiian waters, unless in addition to the laws, we have a feeling of respect for them and observe them because we see that they are beneficial. (Maunupau in Handy et al. 1981) Maunupau’s sentiments are still echoed today amongst native fishing practitioners and should serve as a valued reminder of the importance of maintaining Hawai‘i’s precious fishing grounds. Another component of the traditional Hawaiian approach to marine resource management was maintaining designated fishing grounds, known as koʻa, where non-current swimming i‘a (fish) congregated, fed, and slept. Koʻa Ko‘a fishing has a long standing history in West Hawai‘i as a valued cultural practice. Even since the introduction of modern fishing technologies, fishing for ‘ōpelu using ko‘a remains a living cultural expression deeply anchored in familiar cultural mores. Accounts describing ‘ōpelu fishing utilizing ko‘a are well recorded in historical literature. Designated fishing grounds known as koʻa, often identified as either a depression or a mound on the floor of deep parts of the ocean, were places guaranteed to yield a great quantity of fish for po‘e lawai‘a who fished there. However, in order to preserve the long-term integrity of the koʻa, po‘e lawai‘a would only fish them selectively, ensuring that they did not overharvest them, lest they would be spoiled forever (Handy et al. 1981). Some koʻa were species-specific and bore the corresponding names of the species found at them, such as ‘ahi (ko‘a hī ‘ahi), ‘ōpelu (ko‘a ‘ōpelu), and kāhala (ko‘a hī kāhala) (Kamakau 1976). Maunupau, the old Kona fisherman quoted above (in Handy et al. 1981:105), characterized ko‘a as “an area in which fish were always found.” He related that regarding aku koʻa in particular: It was a depression in the bottom of the ocean and was particularly deep. The Hawaiians knew just where to go to find fish. They did not fish just anywhere over the ocean, but only in those places where fish were always found. They found good fishing grounds, located them by certain marks, and never missed the place. The koa is not so important in aku fishing because aku swim with the current, but it is very important in deep sea fishing. However, the fisherman who knows where the koa is can always go there and get his fish. Today a person can watch from shore and see schools of aku going in a certain direction and disappearing at a certain spot. This is a koa. The fish either go to that hole and sleep or they simply remain there. At any rate, they may be found there the next day. The experienced Hawaiian fisherman of the present does not fish outside the koa. (ibid.) As expressed by Ka‘elemakule, within Kekaha in North Kona, fishing for aku, ‘ahi, and ‘ōpelu was commonly practiced at the famed ko‘a of Hale‘ōhi‘u: . . . Among the important fishing practices of Kekaha, that I was taught in my youth were aku fishing, ahi fishing, and fishing for opelu with nets. These were the important fishing customs that I was taught... Fishing for these fish was done at the koʻa ʻōpelu (ʻōpelu fishing station or grounds), that was not too far out. And beyond that, was the koʻa for aku and ʻahi fishing. The koʻa for these fish (the ʻahi and aku), was the famous koʻa lawaiʻa (fishing ground) of Kekaha, known by the name, “Haleʻōhiu.” (Ka‘elemakule in Handy et al. 1981:223) Similarly, Issac W. H. Kihe also wrote about the famed fishing ko‘a between Keāhole Point in North Kona and ‘Upolu Point in Kohala. Kihe, who often used the pen name Ka Ohu Haaheo i na Kuahiwi Ekolu, authored a series of articles that were published in the Hawaiian language newspaper, Ka Hōkū O Hawai‘i between September 13th, 1923 and August 28th, 1924. An excerpt is taken from his October 11th, 1923, article in which Kihe described the location and names of these fishing ko‘a: Aia i mua o keia lae ma ka aoao maloko he ale hohonu a ma ia wahi e kahe mai ai ka wiliau me ka Ikaika a pii maluna o ua pohaku nei a kahi aku la me he waikahe ala no kekahi muliwai a loaa aku la na ko’a hi-aku, hi-ahi, kahala, opakapaka, a pela wale aku. O kekahi oia mau ko’a lawaia, o Paoo, o Opae, o Kahakai, o Kahakina, o Kahawai, o Kapapu, o Kanahahe, o Kaluahine, o Kanukuhale, o Kahoowaha, o Honu, o Muliwai, kiei i ka lepo o Haena i Kohala… (Kihe 1923:1) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 33 3. Culture-Historical Context Located in front of this point, on the inner side of the deep billows, where the current flows with force, ascending up over this rock and flowing out like a flood from a river mouth until reaching the fishing grounds for aku, ahi, kahala, ʻōpakapaka, and other such fish. Some of these fishing grounds were named Pāoʻo, ʻŌpae, Kahakai, Kahakina, Kahawai, Kapapu, Kanahahe, Kaluahine, Kanukuhale, Kahoʻowaha, Honu, Muliwai peering towards the land of Hāʻena in Kohala… Although ‘ōpelu fishing could be conducted in shallow waters, they were perhaps, more prevalent at offshore ko‘a where they could be found in great abundance. In this manner, ‘ōpelu were traditionally caught by net or by line using various types of bait including ‘ōpae ‘ula (a tiny endemic red shrimp). Within Kona, ‘ōpelu were caught by the hundreds along the coastline of Kalaemanō (National Park Service Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail 2007). John Kaʻelemakule, Sr., who wrote a series of articles that were published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii between 1928 and 1930 describing life along the North Kona coast, related that fishing for ‘ōpelu was of great importance to the Hawaiians, particularly within Kona, where this type of fish served as one of the primary sources of sustenance. Ka‘elemakule describes the practice and nuances of ‘ōpelu fishing in the Kekaha region of Kona at a ko‘a ‘ōpelu called Kaloahale in Awalua during the calm season: ʻŌpelu fishing was another one of the important practices of these islands in ancient times; it was perhaps the foremost of the practices in the streaked sea (kai māʻokʻioki) of Kona. It became the type of fishing that contributed to the livelihood of the fishermen and their families... For ʻōpelu fishing, two men are adequate in going on the canoe to the place of the koʻa ʻōpelu which has been known since the days of the ancient people. It is at a place where one can look below and see the fish, that he prepares to feed the ʻōpelu. The man at the front of the canoe is the fisherman, the one who is prepared for this manner of fishing, he leads in all things for this kind of fishing. There in front of the fisherman was set out the bait of the ʻōpelu, that is the ʻōpae ʻula (red shrimp) and sometimes other baits as well. He’d give the man at the back of the canoe the bait, this man would do whatever the fisherman told him to. The man in the back had a stone weight, the black dirt, and the coconut sheath in which the ʻōpae ʻula or other bait would be placed and folded in. This would be wrapped with cordage and let down into the water about 2 or three fathoms deep, then the man would jerk the cord and the bait would be released. The water would be blackened by the dirt, and this would help the fisherman see the ʻōpelu eating in the water. . .When many ʻōpelu were seen, he would have the man feed the fish again and lower the net into the water. While the ʻōpelu were eating, the net was drawn up, and as the fish tried to swim down, they were caught in the net... While I was a youth living at my beloved land of Mahaiʻula, I fished for ʻōpelu. I went with my foster father, Kaʻaikaula, to fish for ʻōpelu at the koʻa ʻōpelu (ʻōpelu fishing ground) called “Kaloahale,” it was directly seaward of the black sand shore of Awalua. . . ...When the calm weather returned to the land of Kekaha, that was the time that one saw the lehua blossoms return to the sea [a poetical description of the people from the uplands who dwelt in the area of growth of the lehua trees, and who returned to the shore for fishing in good weather]. It was then, that I would also see the fleets of canoes traveling from one extremity to the other upon the sea of my beloved land. At those times, people were also seen looking for aku, the fruit of the sea. It was at this time that I entered into the business of trading the fine dried fish of the land, taking them to Kawaihae and sending them to Honolulu. I continued this work for some time, moving forward without any problems befalling me. As a result, I accumulated quite a bit of money, which I kept hidden in one of the caves of the land. . . When my new house was completed, Poke, my foster mother, named the house “Kalāhikiola.” We spoke about this and I desired to have a song for our house on the day of the feast for moving into the house. . .As we prepared for the feast to enter the house, there were not many things that would be set out, but they were things which we Hawaiians were accustomed to. It was poi; kālua (roast) pig; poi palau (taro pudding); and things of the ocean, like the ʻōpihi (limpets), limu (seaweeds), wana (urchins); and the fat awa (milkfish) that came from the fishpond of Makalawena (awa momona o ka loko iʻa o Makalawena). . . (Ka‘elemakule in Maly and Maly 2003:224) Theodore Kelsey, who spent his entire life recording Hawaiian traditions, further elaborated on the significance of the ‘ōpelu to the kanaka, who regarded the fish as sacred (ibid.). This belief appears to have originated during the arrival of the 12th century Tahitian priest, Pā‘ao, who while on his journey to Hawai‘i encountered dreadful weather. Hapai (1920) relates that in an effort to placate the akua and calm the ocean, Pā‘ao tossed his aku and ‘ōpelu overboard, 34 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context which almost immediately cleared the weather, making for a safe journey. Pā‘ao then called the fish back to his boat and upon his arrival to Hawaii Island, he liberated the aku and the ʻōpelu in nearshore waters (ibid.). Titcomb (1972) relates that “at Kalae in Ka‘u, there was a special heiau called Kalalea for the ‘opelu.” Kelsey also describes a sacred feeding ceremony conducted by po‘e lawai‘a during a span of four months in Kona, when the ‘ōpelu were offered as tribute: By far the most important of the fishes thus fed was the sacred ‘opelu, which in turn with the akufish was tabued in ancient times for six months of the year. Next to the ‘opelu came the nenue, which congregated close inshore. For a few days it might be fed previous to catching it with net, fish-trap, or hook. The bait, cooked in an underground oven for the purpose, was a sea-moss known as limuʻakiʻaki. The kala-fish, found in the same locations as the nenue, was also fed at times. It was caught in basket-traps, using limu-kala sea-weed for bait. To a very limited extent eels were fattened on crushed manini or other fish. Fed on crabs, at times, were such charming pets as devil-fish. Sharks (mano), regarded as ancestral guardians known as ʻaumakuas, were sometimes reared from infancy. Like faithful dogs they would follow their masters while in or upon the ocean. Many a tale is told of how faithful sharks saved the lives of their keepers by bearing them ashore on their backs. A most interesting case of feeding, is such it may be called, was the insertion of pebbles into the mother-ofpearl bivalves known as papaua (pah-pah-ooʻ-wuh), which when matured were known as pas. The pebbles caused the shells to increase in size and strength for use as trolling-spoons, also known as pas, for catching aku-fish. The land of Kona, Hawaii, was particularly renowned for its excellent pas. Opelus, after the abrogation of the old tabu-system, were not fed and caught at any time. No indeed, there were special periods for these purposes. In Puna, Hawaii, the season of feeding and catching combined lasted from October through December. In Kona, where ʻopelu fishing assumed considerable proportions, the fish were fed from May to August. From August to December they repaid the hospitality of their hosts. At the opening of the ʻopelu-feeding season in Kona an interesting ancient ceremony, probably performed in the same manner in other localities, took place just before sunset on the night previous to setting forth. This was to secure the favor of the fish-god. To this deity, accompanied by weird chanting and prayer, were offered a cup of the divine ʻawa, a small sacred black pig cooked in an imu, and consecrated red fish, red tapa, and a red malo or loin-cloth. Imagine a fleet of graceful outrigger canoes paddled by stalwart brown fishermen, gliding swiftly, just before sunrise, over the tranquil sea, the beautiful variegated sea of Kona (Kona kai malino, kai maʻokiʻoki). With them, in gourd calabashes (ipu pohue), or open-mouthed food-containers of lauhala (poho lauhala) they bear a tempting repast for the ʻopelus. Rap! Rap! Rap! They strike the outsides of their canoes with their paddles, chanting impressively, perchance, the while. In this interesting manner fish were called to meals in olden days. A man in each canoe would rap a few handfuls of food, together with a flat stone for a sinker, in a piece of brown coconut-fibre cloth that grows at the base of the long crowning leaves. The parcels were then lowered into the sea to a depth of say two fathoms, to which the fish were to become accustomed, and released by a jerk of the line so that they showered downward in tasty morsels. Cloth and stone were then hauled in for another load. ʻOpelu breakfast was served. Toward sunset many of these fish-stewards provided supper for the ʻopelus. In most localities a few days of such stewardship were deemed sufficient. (Kelsey in Maly and Maly 2003:224) While koʻa themselves were established as underwater fish habitats, they also had a connection to the land, for the locations of fishing koʻa were identified using markers on the shore. In some cases, these markers were geological features, such as puʻu (hills), but the markers could also be single stones or piles of rocks intentionally placed along the shore to coincide with the underwater location of the koʻa: Perhaps the most important stones in ancient times were the ku‘ula and koa stones of the fishermen. Koa stones—either natural stone outcrops or stone piles used for marking and finding fishing grounds—could be located near fishing grounds or simply used to triangulate their location. Some koa were nothing more than piles of stones built up in the ocean by members of a fishing family. Such koa might be markers for a natural fishing ground or serve to attract a fish colony. (Gutmanis 1991:26) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 35 3. Culture-Historical Context Some of these markers also served as fishing shrines where Kānaka Maoli made offerings and recited prayers either hoping to secure a good catch, or expressing gratitude for the sea’s bounty. Elbert and Pukui (1986) explain that these types of structural ko‘a were utilized in ceremonies that would cause the fish to multiply. Malo relates the following details regarding how kanaka used two points on the land to triangulate the location of deep sea koʻa: These koa-lawaia were so deep under water that the eye failed to perceive them, nor could the fish be seen when swimming over them, nor when they seized the hook. In order to find them, it was necessary to take one’s bearings from the land. Two bearings were required; and where these were found to intersect, there was the koa, and there the fisherman let down his hook or his net. (1951:211) In the late 19th century publication Hawaiian Fisheries and Methods of Fishing, Beckley elaborates on how kanaka used their deep understanding of the Islands’ terrain, both beneath the sea and on land, for fishing: . . . Every rocky protuberance from the bottom of the sea for miles out, in the waters surrounding the islands, was well known to the ancient fishermen, and so were the different kinds of rock fish likely to be met with on each separate rock. The ordinary habitat of every known species of Hawaiian fishes was also well known to them. They often went fishing so far out from land as to be entirely out of sight of the low lands and mountain slopes and took their bearing for the purpose of ascertaining the rock which was the habitat of the particular fish they were after, from the positions of the different mountain peaks. (1883:10) Locating underwater ko‘a was only one part of a successful catch. In order to ensure that they would return with food, po‘e lawai‘a had to combine their knowledge of each particular i‘a sought with their understanding of the most practical materials, methods, and palu (bait) for catching them. They also had to observe very specific kapu that were dependent upon their particular akua, and spiritually express their intent and thankfulness through rituals conducted both prior to, and after, fishing. A po‘e lawai‘a’s success could be enhanced through the spiritual guidance provided by an akua that dwelled within a ko‘a stone, which was sometimes associated with a kū‘ula (discussed in the following section). Kūʻula A kūʻula, meaning “red Kū,” is “any stone god used to attract fish, whether tiny or enormous, carved or natural, named for the god of fishermen;” (Figure 15) it is also a “heiau near the sea for worship of fish gods;” and a “hut where fish gear was kept with kūʻula images so that gear might be impregnated with kūʻula mana, usually inland and very taboo” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:187). Maunupau, who was intimately familiar with the various ko‘a and their respective kūʻula situated along the Kona coastline, particularly those associated with Hale‘ōhi‘u, relates that “the fishermen of old Hawaii believed that they needed some supernatural power to aid them in their undertaking, and hence religion and fishing were closely connected by ceremonies and customs” (in Handy et al. 1981:106). Maunupau provides the following details about kūʻula: . . . In the olden days, every heiau or temple had in it a fish god or kuula. Each fisherman had his own kuula. Perhaps it might be a stone or image he had pulled up in the ocean, and which he regarded from then on as his kuula, or it might be the family god or aumakua. The kuula was supposed to bring luck and success in fishing. (ibid:105.) In describing the purpose of the kū‘ula, Kihe (1924:4) relates that “…aia maia wahi he kuula, oia hoi, he wahi hooulu i’a a maia wahi e hanaia ai na hana hoomana hooulu i’a, a hoolaupa’i a hoomomona hoi i ka i’a…[located at this place was a kū‘ula, that is, a place to increase the fish and at the place is where ritual occurred to increase the fish, and multiply and fatten the fish…].” Large kū‘ula were often “set up on promontories along the sea shores, or near streams and ponds…small kū‘ula were carried to sea in the fishing canoes to attract fish” (2001:151). Some kūʻula were contained within heiau and “set in circular enclosures, nearly always built of limestone or coral,” (ibid.). An altar (koʻa) consisting of a platform of stone placed before the kū‘ula, was where the offerings were placed, and: Within the enclosure of the large shrine, sometimes called a heiau ko‘a, an imu was kept. Here pigs were cooked and eaten, along with other feast foods, as part of the ceremony of dedicating a new fishnet. Also within the area was a lele altar where bananas were offered. These may be a tribute to Kanaloa who is associated with bananas. (These fruits were never carried to sea by fishermen.) The customs seem to have differed among the fishermen as to the number of fish that would be left on the fishing shrine when they returned from a successful catch. This is understandable since the fishermen prayed to and respected their own family ‘aumakua as well as Kū‘ula. 36 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Upon returning from the sea some fishermen went to the ko‘a with two fish in their right hand for the male ‘aumākua and two in their left hand for the female ‘aumākua. They addressed the gods and placed the fish on the altar. After the gods had received the “essence” (aka) of the offering the fishermen were free to take the fish away and add them to the catch for distribution and use. Maunupau wrote that the first fish caught was marked by cutting off its tail. It was placed in the bow of the canoe and was kapu. When ashore the fishermen placed this fish on the kū‘ula for his ‘aumakua. (ibid.151–152) The cycle of giving back to the akua was accomplished through regulatory tribute associated with the kū‘ula. There are contrasting accounts as to how this was accomplished, but Maunupau relates that “the first fish caught was marked with a tail or fin mark and saved as an offering to the kuula” (Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1931). Similarly, Keli‘ipio and Nakuina (1900:111), writing during the late 19th century, expanded upon this practice: The first fish caught by fishermen, or any one else, was marked and dedicated to Kuula. After this offering was made, Kuula’s right therein being thus recognized, they were free from further oblations so far as that particular variety of fish offered was concerned. All fishermen, from Hawaii to Niihau, observed this custom religiously. When the fishermen caught a large supply, whether by the net, hook or shell, but one of a kind, as just stated, was reserved as an offering to Kuula; the remainder was then free to the people. Offerings at the kū‘ula were made immediately upon the return of the canoe to the shore: As soon as the fishing fleet reached the shore, the head fisherman stepped ashore holding an aku fish in each hand and went to the heiau of Ku‘ula where he offered prayer; and when he had finished this worship of the god, he threw down the fishes for the male aumakua on one side and those for the female on the other. (Kamakau in Titcomb 1972:44) Figure 15. Kū‘ula stones (Brigham 1902:94) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 37 3. Culture-Historical Context Kūʻula (lit. red Kū) bear the name of Kūka‘ilimoku, an akua traditionally associated with war. Fishermen often prayed, and still pray, to Kūka‘ilimoku and his wife Hina (Beckwith 1970:11). Kūka‘ilimoku, as the ruler over all of the male gods, had dominion over Kū‘ulakai, an ali‘i and akua of Hānā, Maui, who himself controlled “all the gods of the sea” (ibid.:19). Valeri (1985:76) relates that Kū‘ulakai married Hinapukui‘a (“Hina gathering seafood”), whose dominion was over the shoreline, and to them was born their son ‘Ai‘ai (“eats food”). Fishing stones dedicated to Hina and ‘Ai‘ai were once utilized by the ancient fishers of Hawaiʻi. The mana of Hina was said to control certain fish, namely the aku, akule, ‘ō‘io, moi, a‘u, and the manini (Fornander 1919–1920). Fornander relates that things that were reddish in color were considered sacred to Kū. Therefore, in addition to ‘aumākua, kū‘ula stones were imbued with the spirit of their namesake Kū‘ulakai as well as Kūka‘ilimoku. The following account, compiled by June Gutmanis (from George Ai, Louis Aila, Ned Burgess, Arthur K. Cathcart, Ah Sam Cheong, Thomas Maunupau, Kalahikiola Naluelua, Henry Young, and Maryknoll Kalahikiola Sotkaeff), details how kūʻula stones acquired the spirits within them. This account explains the mutually beneficial relationship between kūʻula and their po‘e lawai‘a caretakers: Ku‘ula stones were believed to contain a spirit that attracted fish and helped fishermen. They could be either naturally shaped stones or slightly worked. According to tradition, the naturally shaped stones contained a spirit, either placed there by the gods or there of its own choice. A man-made ku‘ula was believed to receive its spirit only after appropriate prayers and offerings had been made. The ku‘ula could be either of black- or light-colored stone; some said that the dark stones were male and the light ones female. A naturally formed ku‘ula might be found by a fisherman realizing that the stone contained a spirit. Other times, it was believed, a stone chose a fisherman for its kahu (caretaker). It might come to him in a dream, saying, “I am cold, come and get me.” The fisherman would ask, “What do you say? Where are you?” The stone would then describe just where it was and how to find it, what to bring as an offering, and when to come for it. Sometimes the stone would not reveal what it wanted the first time it appeared in a dream. It might take days, weeks, or even months before the stone revealed its whereabouts. If the stone was female and the dreamer a man, the stone might even flirt with him. The dreamer would search for the stone, carefully following all the directions given by the ku‘ula. When found, the stone would have the mouth of a fish. It when then be taken home and put in a kapu (taboo) place where nothing could disturb it. Only the guardian chosen by the stone could handle it. It was believed that if others handled it and the stone did not wish them to, it would become hot like fire. Those who had ku‘ula stones believed that caring for them was as serious as caring for a baby. The guardian would ask the pohaku (stone) what it wanted. The answer would come in a dream or vision. The ku‘ula had to be fed three meals a day. If even one meal were missed, the guardian could be in for trouble. It also needed clothing—a malo (loincloth) that could be wrapped around the stone or used as a blanket. The malo had to be kept very clean. According to tradition, if the stone was well cared for and all of the requirements met, its guardian would profit richly. It was said that the more you gave the stone, the more fish you would catch. Lights, laughter, and activity would bless the home of the caretaker. Sometimes the ku‘ula would vanish. Like a little child it would go out to play and disappear. But apparently it always knew when it was time to come home and would then reappear. A person in need of help would traditionally make offerings to the stone and wait. It might take days or even months, but when the stone was ready, it would give the location of a school of fish. It would also tell what time of day the fish would appear and what line or net and bait to use. When caught, the fish were to be shared with everyone. Pregnant women customarily received double the share of others. (Gutmanis 1991:26–28) As Gutmanis goes on to relate, an important aspect of the keeping of kūʻula was that they were transferred from one generation to the next: A ku‘ula could be used for generations. When the guardian had grown old, the stone would tell him who the next caretaker should be. It would know which child in the family should carry on the tradition. It was believed that the stone could “fall in love” with anyone. 38 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Sometimes the ku‘ula would be given to a member of the family, but the guardian would not tell the chosen person the purpose of the stone. One night the stone would come to its new caretaker and reveal its name, its work, and how to care for it. It could be within a few days or it might take years. Belief in the ku‘ula and koa stones continues. The traditions surrounding them are still practiced by some, and the recipient of such a stone must care for it. Its powers are unknown and untapped. The stone may be a source of power for good, and, if treated with respect, one that will reward its guardian richly. (Gutmanis 1991:26–28) Thus, the continued care and worship of kūʻula by Hawaiian po‘e lawaiʻa was a quintessential spiritual practice and heritable custom that endures as a tangible connection to the past. Drawing upon the knowledge of the ancient po‘e lawai‘a, whose spirits remain tied to the depths of the kai and the treasured kai lawai‘a (fishing grounds), it is clear that the Kānaka Maoli revered all marine life and holistically managed the marine resources. Since becoming a po‘e lawai‘a was a privilege, each fisher felt a deep respect for the ocean’s cosmic connection with the heavens and the earth, and while it was their job to provide food for their ‘ohana and ali‘i on land, they made it their kuleana to protect and perpetuate the ancient fishing grounds. Although the ʻike (knowledge) of Kānaka Maoli extended from the mountain tops to the depths of the ocean, for the purposes of the current study, the remaining discussion will focus on the traditional fishing methods, beliefs, and cultural practices associated with the nearshore fisheries that are within the study area vicinity. Loko I‘a: Fishponds Another method by which the Kānaka Maoli were able to sustainably support the population of these islands was through the creation of a distinctly Hawaiian aquaculture system, known as loko i‘a (fishponds). Loko is the general term used to refer to any pond, lake or pool of water and i‘a referring to the fish that were raised therein (Pukui and Elbert 1986). With respect to the study area, such features are concentrated primarily within the Kona and South Kohala portion of the WHRFMA. While the initial origins of loko i‘a remain largely unknown, traditional lore associates this engineering feat with Kū‘ulakai (Fornander 1919–1920; Valeri 1985). Kū‘ulakai is said to have built a large fishpond next to his home that was filled with fish (ibid.). These fish were considered the bodies of Kū‘ulakai, his wife Hinapukui‘a, and their son ‘Ai‘ai, all of whom were important fishing gods (Fornander 1919–1920). In their 1975 study, Apple and Kikuchi identified five primary types:1) loko kuapā, characterized by its seawall (kuapā) in which at least one makahā (sluice gate) was built; 2) loko pu‘uone (or loko hakuone), identifiable by its natural elongated sand barrier that enclosed a body of water; 3) loko wai, a body of fresh water typically found inland from the shoreline; 4) loko i‘a kalo (or loko lo‘i kalo), a fishpond that utilized an irrigated taro plot; and 5) the loko ‘ume‘iki, a fish trap recognizable by its numerous stone-flanked lanes that allowed fish to move into or out of the trap with the ebb and flow of the tide. With the exception of loko wai and loko i‘a kalo, which were inland freshwater ponds, all remaining fishponds were constructed within the littoral zone and were nourished from a mixture of freshwater (wai) and seawater (kai) (Keala et al. 2007). Although loko i‘a varied in shape and size, they were a component of the total food production system in Precontact times and their primary purpose, as purported by Apple and Kikuchi (1975:6), was to make “fresh food, available in quantity at call…” Keala et al. (2007) elaborate on this, noting that fishponds “…were used to provide a reliable, convenient, and every-ready supply of fresh seafood for the ruling ali‘i (chief) and the royal court.” During Precontact times, and even into the early Historic period, all loko i‘a and their products were strictly controlled by the ruling class. In relating the importance of loko i‘a to Hawaiian nobility and the indirect benefits to the general populace, Apple and Kikuchi write: Access to these ponds and their products was limited to the elite minority of the native population- the chiefs and priest. Prehistoric ponds and pond products appear to have been taboo to the vast majority of Hawaiians and to have yielded them no direct benefit. However, indirect public benefit came from ownership by the chiefs of exclusive food sources. Royal fishponds and their terrestrial equivalents, the royal gardens (Kō‘ele), insured less demand on the commoners’ food production resources. Every fish taken from a royal fishpond left its counterpart in natural habitat available to lesser chiefs and commoners. Ownership of one or more fishponds was one of the ultimate, highstatus symbols in the status-conscious Hawaiian culture. (Apple and Kikuchi 1975:2) Traditionally, herbivores, specifically the ‘ama‘ama (mullet; Mugil cephalus) and awa (milkfish; Chanos chanos) were the primary species raised with loko i‘a. While grown primarily for food, these two species were part of a grouping of fish that were traditionally known as pua‘a kai, literally translated as “sea pig,” which were used as a substitute for pig offerings (Pukui and Elbert 1986:345). Other species of fish that were considered pua‘a kai included CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 39 3. Culture-Historical Context the āhole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), humuhumunukunukuapuaa‘a (Rhinecanthus sp.), kūmū (Parupeneus porphyreus), and pualu (Acanthurus sp.). Tribute to the respective gods was an important component of maintaining a fishpond and detailed in the account concerning the great fishpond of Pā‘aiea which was consumed by Pele after being denied fish from the head fisherman (Maguire 1926). Although fishponds and its products were closely guarded by the ruling ali‘i, and practically off-limits to the common people, they provided for a sustainable and ever-ready supply of fish for the massive royal courts that were established along the coast of the current study area. While constructing a fishpond was an enormous undertaking, requiring the labor of many individuals, maintaining it did not require as much labor, unless the fishpond was impacted by severe weather or war (Apple and Kikuchi 1975). The use of fishponds was another component of the traditional marine management strategies employed by the Kānaka Maoli that helped reduce pressure on the nearshore resources, while at the same time providing a sustainable source of food. TRADITIONAL HAWAIIAN NEARSHORE FISHING TECHNIQUES Kānaka Maoli were tremendously adept po‘e lawai‘a (fishers) who were intimately connected to the kai and its underwater environment. They were innately adapted to its dynamic moods and were sensitive to the ocean’s everchanging conditions and, as a result, they developed a plethora of methods which they used to harvest its bounty wherever they lived. Fishing methods varied greatly within nā papakū o ka moana (the strata of the ocean), with “a different method in shallow water, and in deep water, and a different method again in the fishing grounds midocean” (Fornander 1920:174). While smaller reef fish, limu, shellfish, echinoids, and crabs could be gathered from shallow nearshore waters and along the rocky shoreline of the study area, to access the kai lawai‘a within the open ocean, kanaka used wa‘a (canoes) and specific fishing techniques designed to reach deep-sea fish. The larger deep-water fish species that were “treasured most for subsistence” included ‘ahi, aku, a‘u, mahimahi, nai‘a, kumu, ‘ōpelu, pānuhunuhu, hala hala, uhu, and ulua (Handy and Pukui 1998:223). Typically, deep-sea fishing was conducted during the summer months when particular types of i‘a were more plentiful. Handy and Pukui (ibid.:176) also describe gender base division of labor associated with harvest zones of the ocean, noting that “offshore, reef and along-shore fishing was the function of men, while the collecting of shellfish, sea urchins, crabs and the like, and seaweed was done by women and children.” Traditional shallow water and intertidal marine zones identified by Malo (1951) and elaborated on by Fornander (1920) and Kamakau (1979) included the ‘ae kai, also referred to as lihi kai (water’s edge), the pāhola, also known as the hohola or pālaha (where the water spread about), the pu‘eone, (sand dunes), also the po‘ina nalu, po‘ina a kai, or po‘ina kai (where the waves break). There were also places specifically designated for the catching of small black crabs known as the kai ‘elemihi and kai haha pāpa‘i, and for the gathering of cowry, or leho (kai ‘o leho). Similarly, uhu (parrotfish) were gathered in the shallow waters known as kai kākā uhu with dip nets such as the ‘upena pōuouo, ‘upena kākā uhu, or ‘upena kākā ‘ōpule often lured by another pākali (decoy) uhu (Kahā‘uelio 2006). Pole fishing (kā mākoi) was conducted in shallower waters when the kai paeaea (calm seas) occurred (Kamakau 1979). Fishing required careful preparation of not only the fishing tools, but also deliberate composure of the mind, body, and spirit to properly attune with nature (Handy et al. 1981). Careful protocol was observed in each step of the preparation for fishing from the shaping and lashing of makau (hooks) or pā (lures),to the sewing and weaving of ‘upena (nets) and hīna‘i (baskets), to the shaping of ‘ō (spears), to the storing of the different fishing apparatuses, to the observation of kapu by members of the ‘ohana and the required silence prior to an expedition (ibid.). While the harvesting of nearshore marine resources was a year-round endeavor, offshore fishing was typically done when the sea was calm (Handy and Pukui 1998). The methods used for fishing were dependent upon the type of fish, or intertidal species, that was sought. Some methods required nothing more than a gentle, but swift hand and a watchful eye, while other methods required specialized fishing apparatuses that were crafted from a blend of natural materials including, but not limited to, processed plant fibers, shell, bone, wood, stone, and yellowed foliage. Some fishing methods was done on an individual basis, but as demonstrated below, the traditional practice of near-shore fishing at times involved all ablebodied persons regardless of age or gender. Some of these methods are described by the honorable Daniel Kahā‘ulelio, who recognized the immeasurable value of preserving, sustaining, and sharing generational knowledge of ancient Hawaiian fishing practices passed down from his mākua and kūpuna. After being approached by the editor of Ka Nūpepa Kū‘oko‘a, Kahā‘ulelio consented to pen a series of columns detailing Hawaiian fishing methodology, the first of which was published on February 24th, 1902. Subsequent to his passing, Kahā‘ulelio’s articles, originally written in Hawaiian, were translated into the English language by Mary Kawena Pukui. Kahā‘ulelio’s comprehensive narratives offer precious insight into traditional methods of marine resource procurement, many of which are filled with personal recollections. 40 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Twentieth-century scholar and limu expert, Isabella Abbott, in drawing from an assortment of manuscripts from early works of J. F. G. Stokes, W. T. Bringham, and native scholars like Kamakau, also compiled a great deal of information on traditional fishing methods that is summarized here. Her work focused more on the ethnobotanical uses of plants in Hawaiian culture, and was published in her book, Lā‘au Hawai‘i Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. The descriptions of near shore fishing methods recorded by Abbott are presented below. In the late 1960s, Thomas S. Newman (1970) compiled information about nearshore fishing methods, which he published in his dissertation titled Makai—Mauka: Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778. Newman (ibid.:49), who attempted to “reconstruct sea exploitation practices for specific time periods” compiled information from late 18th and 19th-century accounts. Newman relied almost exclusively on the works of Emma Metcalf Beckley (1883) and John Cobb (1902). Accordingly, 20th-century sources were omitted from his synopsis as, according to Newman (1970:49), these sources failed to provide “(1) demonstratable authority on the subject and (2) a careful delineation of the time period reflected in their descriptions.” Cobb (1902), who worked for the United States Fish Commission, spent three months in 1901 gathering data on commercial fisheries in Hawai‘i, which included observational research, interviews with local fisherman, and analysis of government documents newspapers and other pertinent records. Emma Metcalf Beckley Nakuina was an early Hawaiian female judge who presided over water rights cases. She also wrote extensively about Hawaiian culture and folklore (Hopkins 2012). Newman, in his work, provides a graphic (Figure 16) that shows the maritime econiches in Hawai‘i during the 19th century. The nearshore fishing methods compiled by Newman are elaborated on in the ensuing paragraphs. Figure 16. Diagram showing Hawaiian maritime econiches during A.D. 1800 (Newman 1970:92). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 41 3. Culture-Historical Context Basket Traps Broadly known as hīna‘ī, basket traps (Figure 17) were created from the roots of climbing ‘ie‘ie (Freycinetia arborea) plant and crude versions of hīna‘ī were sometimes made from the vines of the ‘āwikiwiki (Canavalia galeata) (Abbott 1992). Abbott (ibid.:84) also relates that both “men and women alike laid traps in the reef shallows for small-to medium-sized fish such as hīnālea.” Hīna‘i were of various shapes and sizes and some were baited and weighted down with a sinker (see Figure 17). Hīna‘i were also employed when catching freshwater stream fish including ‘ōpae (shrimp) and ‘o‘opu, which was a practice done almost exclusively by women. Relating to basket traps, Newman (1970:52–53) related the following: Relatively few basket traps were made and most were used by women to catch ʻopae, hinalea, kala, and ʻuiʻui. The traps were woven from fresh vines or flexible branches into box-shaped designs. In one common technique, a simple basket was lowered to the bottom in shallow water, often with a bait of pounded shrimp inside and when fish entered the trap, the woman watching nearby would dive to bring the trap to the surface. A more sophisticated version had a conical woven entry protruding into the interior where it terminated in an opening only large enough for a fish to squeeze through. The trap, baited with seaweed, ripe bread­ fruit or papayas, cooked pumpkins or sweet potatoes, was lowered to the bottom, and when the fish entered by the conical entry they were unable to find their way back again. Figure 17. Example of hīna‘i (Kahā‘uelio 2006:192). Hand Collecting Hand collecting, which often required nothing more than a swift hand and watchful eye and a storage vessel, was utilized to catch a variety of nearshore species. In describing the method of hand collecting, a practice that was done by scouring and or diving the nearshore areas, Newman writes: Collecting by hand was practiced in shallow water, both on the surface and by diving. Some types of fish were caught by hand in shallow pools as well as by divers in underwater caves while other food items collected by hand included crabs, lobsters, eels, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, shellfish, 42 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context octopi, shrimp, and seaweed. Much of this type of exploitation was practiced at night, particularly for mobile fauna. No items of material culture were used except for fiber containers in which the organisms were placed, and perhaps the torches used at night to mesmerize fish (Newman 1970:51). Hook and Line Although the hook and line method of fishing was conducted in offshore waters, it was also employed in the nearshore waters, sometimes being attached to a long wood pole. Abbott (1992:83) notes that “hooks were mainly fabricated from non-plant materials—pearl shell, turtle shell, ivory, and bone—but hardwoods like ‘alahe‘e and koai‘e (Acacia koaia) also played a minor part.” Abbott (ibid.) notes that “…wood served only for the shaft of the two-part hook, the second part being a sharp tip made of bone or another substance that would hold a fine edge.” The fibers from the hardy olonā (Touchardia latifolia) were the choice material for fishing lines. To camouflage the white fibers, fishing lines as well as nets were often dyed a reddish brown by immersing it in a dye bath made of pounded kukui (Aleurites mollucana) bark (Langlas 2003). Along the high cliffs of the Puna District of Hawai‘i Island, native residents employed a methods known as kau lā‘au to catch large ulua (jacks). This method required a relatively long and straight ‘ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha) pole, which was extended off the cliff with its base fastened into a crevice. The baited hook and line was then hung from the ‘āmana (Y-shaped cross piece) that was located at the tip of the pole down where it was suspended just above the water (ibid.). In some cases the fisher, using just a baited hook and line, simply cast the rig into the ocean from the shore. In describing the use of a hook and line attached to a pole, Newman (1970:62) explains: Sub-surface angling was done with a pole and line in shallow water and with hand lines for deepwater bottom fishing…Some were attached directly to the hook, while the palu [chum] bait was merely rubbed on the hook; often a bag of bait was lowered near the baited hooks and released underwater. Newman also describes a slightly more complex hook and line contraption called kākā. In describing how this technique was carried out, he writes: Kākā Technique:-- Deep-water bottom fishing used a rig of multiple hooks attached by short leaders to the main 3/8th incl (1.7 cm.) fish line at intervals close to the bottom. Each short line with the hook attached was supported by a section of coconut midrib lashed perpendicular to the main fish line which served to keep the multiple hooks separated from one another and from the main line. (ibid.) Lures Fishing lures crafted from a combination of stone, shell, wood, and plant fibers were a popular method utilized in offshore trolling, as well as in the nearshore waters. While mother-of-pearl shell was the primary material used for trolling lures, which were attached to a line a dragged behind a canoe and used to catch offshore pelagic species, near shore lures were far more specialized, and often used to capture octopus. Octopus lures were known as lūhe‘e (Figure 18) and in describing their composition, Abbott (1992:86) notes: In the pre-contact era, octopus was a very highly regarded food, and besides spearing these animals in their holes, Hawaiian fishermen caught them from canoes using two kinds of lures. The simple of the pair consisted of a hood of wood or bone lashed to a stick, a stone attached as a sinker, and a tuft of tī leaves to camouflage the hook. The second lure included all these elements but also incorporated the colorful, shiny shell of a Mauritius or tiger cowry (leho), bound back to back with the sinker. Since an octopus puts up a good fight, these lures were ruggedly built, tied with olonā cordage and perhaps secured with kēpau as well. Similar lures have been made and used throughout Polynesia since time immemorial and, in the hands of a skilled fisherman, are very effective. The octopus (today commonly referred to in Hawai‘i as “squid”) is a keen-eyed animal generally curious about objects introduced into its environment, and it feeds on cowries, so a leho lure presented it a double temptation as the fisherman slowly dragged it, cowrie side up, along the bottom. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 43 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 18. Complete lūhe‘e (center) and associated components (Kahā‘uelio 2006:70). Netting ‘Upena (nets) of various shapes, mesh width, and sizes were widely used for traditional nearshore and offshore fishing. The fibers of olonā (Touchardia latifolia) were the primary material from which nets and fishing lines were made. Olonā required careful cultivation and could only be grown in the wetter upland areas. For the fishers who relied on these valued fibers, procuring such material necessitated exchange with those of the uplands—a hallmark activity of the ahupua‘a system (Abbott 1992). Traveling along the coastal areas, it is common to see fishers perched low on the rocky reef with long cone shaped nets dangling around their bodies and hands. This type of cast net, although known in Hawaiian as ‘upena ho‘olei, was introduced by Asian migrants during the 19th century (Mitchell 2001). Elbert and Pukui (1986) list some thirty or so names that were used to distinguish net types. Abbott (1992), however, states that the myriad of nets that were traditionally employed can be categorized into four primary types: ‘upena ku‘u (gill nets); ‘upena paloa (seine nets); hukilau (long seine nets), and scoop nets. The amount of culture-historical information available regarding traditional net fishing suggests that these methods were perhaps one of the most popular fishing methods utilized by Kānaka Maoli for the capture of both near and offshore fish species. The different types of nets and netting strategies traditionally used for fishing are described in further detail below. ‘Upena ku‘u (gill nets) In describing the ‘upena ku‘u (Figure 19) Abbott writes: ‘Upena Ku‘u (gill nets): These larger nets, with mesh up to three centimers (one inch) in diameter, were set upright in the water to carch schools of fish such as ‘ōpelu, and ‘akule, species related to the mackerel. They worked by entangling the fills of the swimming fish and ranged from as short as seven meters (twenty-three feet) to ten times that length. (Abbott 1992:83) Newman (1970:53-54) also provided a late 19th century description of gill nets, noting: Gill nets were designed to entangle the fish in a net with a fairly large mesh instead of merely trapping them within an encircling small mesh net wall as was done with seines and bag nets. Gill nets were manufactured in different sizes according to the type of fish to be caught and the habitat 44 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context to be exploited, ranging in length from about 55 feet (17 meters) to over 1,200 feet (366 meters), in depth from seven feet (2 meters) to 25 feet (8 meters), with mesh size from one-half to seven inches (1.2 to 17.7 cm.).Three basic techniques were used in gill netting: 1. letting the net remain stationary and allowing the fish to entangle themselves in the mesh; 2. driving the fish into a stationary net; or 3. moving the gill net to encircle the fish and then scaring them into the entangling mesh. Stationary gill nets were often placed at high tide across shallow openings in the coral reef at night to entangle any fish navigating the fish run. Nets used in this fashion usually had a mesh of two to two and one-half inches (5 to 6 cm.). Drawn gill nets were used to either completely encircle fish or to arc a half-circle around them before the fish were scared into the net by fishermen beating and splashing he water from within the circle or across the open end of the semi-circle. Sometimes, the nets were·drawn up on the shore after the fish were meshed but at other times, the fish were taken out of the nets and put into canoes. Lobsters were caught in a special gill net, with a seven-inch (18 cm.) mesh, by placing the net completely around a rock cluster and leaving it in place all night to entangle the lobsters as they came out of the rock cairn. Gill nets used for specific fish included: 1. a net measuring some 1,200 feet (366 meters) in length, 25 feet (8 meters) in depth, with a mesh of four inches (10 cm.) used to encircle a school of akule, and 2. a gill net some 540 to 900 feet (165 to 275 meters) long, 12 to 18 feet (4 to 5 meters) deep with a three to four inch (8 to 10 cm.) mesh used just outside the reef or breakers to encircle larger fish such as the ʻoʻio.) Figure 19. Girl with gill net, pre-1900s (Hawai‘i State Archives Call No. PP-34-8008). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 45 3. Culture-Historical Context ‘Upena pāloa (seine nets) In describing the ‘upena paloa Abbott writes: ‘Upena Paloa (seine nets) were similar nets, but usually longer, with a large midportion or “bag.” Rather then capturing fish by entangling them in the mesh itself, seines encircled the prey. Like gill nets, they were held upright in the water, their upper edged suspended from floats made of hau wood, the lower portions weighted with stone sinkers. Using large gill nets and seines was a community operation, involving a large number of people, numerous small canoes, and a lot of cooperation. (Abbott 1992:83-84) Adding to Abbott’s discussion about the ‘upena ku‘u, Newman (1970:55) relates the following: A Hawaiian seine was a net deployed in the water and moved horizontally, trapping fish by impounding them within a complete circle formed by the net, or between the net and the shoreline. The fish were not normally entangled in the mesh as with a gill net, but rather were kept within a small circle by the net wall where they could be scooped out with small bag nets or dragged bodily onshore, net and all. A bag net was often used in conjunction with a seine and this combination will be discussed later. Seines varied in length from about six to over 350 feet (2 to 107 meters) in length, with the common large net measuring some 150 to 350 feet (46 to 107 meters) in length, about 10 feet (3 meters) in depth, with a mesh width of several inches. The net size and mesh type seem to have been dependent upon the particular types of fish to be caught and the habitats to be exploited. Hukilau/Lau (long seine nets) In detailing the use of long seine nets, which she referred to as hukilau, Abbott explains: Hukilau nets were used to capture smaller fish in shallow waters, usually in sandy-bottomed bays. The hukilau nets were shorter versions of the seine, with tī leaves tied along the top to alarm the fish and drive them into the center of the net. Setting a hukilau net, too, was a large, cooperative endeavor but with much of the work done by waders rather than from canoes. (Abbott 1992:84) While Abbott refers to the large seine nets as hukilau, Kahā‘ulelio (2006) uses the term lau to describe large seine nets, and notes that hukilau was a specific cooperative fishing method that involved the use of a lau net. Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) describes several cooperative fishing methods, which was done under the direct supervision of a po‘o lawai‘a (head fishermen) and employed the effort of men, women, and children (Figure 20). Kahā‘ulelio (2006:3) notes that “these people became the owners and shareholders in this kind of fishing.” Although a great deal of labor and knowledge was involved in the preparation and execution of this method, it provided an abundance of reef fish such as ‘ōpule, moi li‘i, palapala, kūmū, weke, kala, manini, moano, uhu, ‘ō‘io, hilu, ‘a‘awa and others that were divided to feed multiple ‘ohana (families). The type of fish caught, however, was dependent upon the nature of the area in which this type of fishing was performed. This method, known broadly as lau, is described by Kahā‘ulelio as having two distinguishing types. The primary types, which included the methods known as lau nui, lau lele, lau kapalili, and lau ‘apo‘apo, utilized large draglines and were “done outside of the surf line, or where there was no surfline” (ibid.:3). The lesser types, which included the methods known as lauahi, lau ‘ōhua, lau ‘ōhia liko, lau kō ‘upena pahu, and the lau kō pua li‘ili‘i, utilized drag nets and were “done within the reef” (ibid.). Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) describes the lau nets as being sewn together from at least three distinct nets that contained a different mesh width. These nets were traditionally crafted from the fibers harvested from wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera) and olonā. Once the net was crafted, men, women, and children were ordered to the uplands to gather yellowed foliage of plants such as tī or maiʻa (banana), along with dried wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis) wood, or dried gourds, for use as floats that were attached to the dragline and knotted with tī leaves. In detailing the general nature of how the lau method was conducted, Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) explains that with the lau nui method the net, which was attached to the dragline was loaded onto a canoe along with divers who took the net out to a depth of about fifteen fathoms. At the command of the po‘o lawai‘a (head fisherman), and with the aid of several other canoes, the divers carefully placed and arranged the net in the ocean and watched as the men in the canoe slowly paddled the canoes and net closer to shore. Explaining how the lau net was moved into shore, Kahā‘ulelio writes: At that place, fifteen fathoms in depth, which I had mentioned before, the lau is let down to about half of the depth and is moved evenly up to a depth of four or five fathoms or less. The drag line goes almost to the sea floor but it doesn’t completely touch, lest it snag on the corals or catch in hollows. When the stone anchors of the lau canoes are set, the men begin to pull the lau lines, six 46 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context or seven men per canoe. When the sun shines directly down on the line, the shadows of the lau drive the fish shoreward to the place where the lines are being drawn. (2006:5) As the net was drawn closer to shore, the po‘o lawai‘a and divers continued to monitor and adjust the net. The po‘o lawai‘a then determined where to lay the papa net, which measured roughly six to seven fathoms in length. While the lau net was used to usher the fish closer to shore, the papa net was used to catch the fish that were brought in. As the fish came closer to shore, the papa net was placed at the opening end of the lau net. The divers continued to watch as the fish entered into the papa net, and when it was time the po‘o lawai‘a called for the lifting of the net into the canoe. Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.:7) writes that “at this excited time, like a garden laden with flowers, such are the colors of the fish then as they surge excitedly to and fro, eager to find a way out.” Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.:7, 9) adds that “the canoe to hold the fish draws near and the man the head fisherman placed on that canoe is hard-hearted, cross and stingy so that people don’t crowd about and their hands plow in, bringing misfortune to the group.” Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) goes on to describe the lesser types of lau fishing, one of which was lau kapalili (see Figure 20). Executed in a manner similar to the lau nui method, the lau kapalili technique utilized a much smaller net and was carried out in sandy areas and lagoons. The net was dragged shoreward and the people dragged the net from the shore to the beach, where the fish flapped (kapalili) on the sand. Figure 20. Lau kapalili method of net fishing ca. 1930 (Kahā‘uelio 2006:18). The lau ahi fishing method was carried out during dark nights with no wave action. The net was drawn shoreward within the surf break into a sheltered bay. Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) describes the lau ‘ōhua method as being carried out primarily by children and women, noting that the men aided only in drawing the lau net to shore. The fish caught using this method included juvenile wrasses such as the ‘ōhua pa‘awela and ‘akilolo. The lau ‘ōhua liko method utilized a fine mesh net that measured roughly a fathom in length. The small mesh size allowed for the capturing of small shrimp and other small fish that lived around a heaped up cairn of rocks known as an imu or an ahu. The name used, however, varied from place to place. This method was typically employed in the early morning during low tides. Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.) notes that when mosquito netting became available during the Historic Period it was also used in the lau ‘ōhua liko method. The fine mesh net was placed around the stone cairn and people removed the stones one by one until none remained. The fleeing fish and shrimp were caught in the net then placed into a small pail and later consumed. The lau kō pua method was done by children and adults during the wettest time of the rainy months when the streams were swollen, and the ponds near the beach would break open to the sea. This influx of freshwater attracted schools of tiny fish that were ushered into the sandy shore by children using yellowed banana leaves. The children CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 47 3. Culture-Historical Context and adults then picked up the small fish either by hand, or during the Historic Period by using mosquito netting. The captured fish were placed into a calabash and eaten later. In reflecting upon more recent fishing regulations of the 20th century, Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.:13) laments that “because laws have been made about catching such small fish, this type of fishing is no longer seen.” The final of the lesser type of lau fishing detailed by Kahā‘ulelio (ibid.:13) is the lau kō pahu ‘anae, which he describes as the “easiest kinds of fishing.” This method was used to catch ‘anae and required the labor of four men, two of which kept control of the bag net while the other two controlled the lau dragline. The men worked in unison to bring the dragline and net together to draw in a school of ‘anae. This method was sometimes repeated four or five times, and as many as eighty or more fish could be caught. Scoop Nets The final net types recorded by Abbott (1992) are hand held scoop nets (Figure 21), which she describes as follows: …scoop nets with handles and sometimes with closure mechanisms served a variety of purposes, including catching fish attempting to leap out of seine or hukilau nets. These small, one-person nets were also employed to catch crabs and freshwater shrimp (‘ōpae), the latter being a speciality of women. Scoope net handles and closure were frequently made from the endemic shrub ‘ūlei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia), whose spreading branches can be easily bent into loops. The ends of the piece were lashed together with corn to form the handles of the net. (ibid.:84) Newman (1970) also details the use of scoop nets, but he instead refers to them as “bag nets” with two specific types: hand held ones, and those that were manipulated by attached ropes. Newman’s description of these nets reads thusly: Bag nets were made into an enclosed purse with only one open end; or alternately were flat pieces of netting that were closed into a self-contained bag by manipulating attached flexible sticks in a particular manner to seal it. Although bag nets were extensively used in conjunction with seines, there was a great diversity of bag nets used alone, and these seem to have been quite specialized by type of fish to be caught. An initial ordering of these different types may be made on the basis of use technique: (1) hand held, and (2) manipulated by attached ropes. Hand Held Bag Nets:--The hand-held bag nets were fine meshed small nets fitted on a flexible wooden hoop which held the mouth open, used for dipping out fish trapped by an encircling sein net; for scooping up fish at night in very shallow water areas, usually by torchlight which mesmerized the fish; or by being held across the opening of an underwater hole by a diver while the fish hiding inside were herded into the net with a stick. Rope Manipulated Bag Nets and Baits:--Bag nets manipulated by attached ropes were often used with some form of bait to draw the fish into the net. Common baits were cooked pumpkin, squash, sweet potatoes, kukui and coconut meat; raw mashed bananas, papaya, breadfruit or taro; pounded up fish, sea urchins, shrimp or eels; whole small fish such as nehu, ʻiao, and akule; or a special mixture called palu which was based on the cooked ink bag of the octopus pounded into a paste with ingredients added such as the juices of various plants, salt, spices, kerosene, tobacco juice, liquor, or Perry Davis Pain Killer. These different baits were often mixed with sand, to make the bait sink, and then placed in the water near as well as inside the bag net to attract fish. Some of these baits are obviously the result of European diffusion. When the fish, usually ʻopelu, were inside the bag, it was lifted to the surface by the attached ropes. (Newman 1970:56-57) 48 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 21. Kanaka with scoop net ca. 1925 (Cobb 1905:716). Poisoning The use of plant-based poisons for fishing in Hawai‘i involved the use of two primary agents, the ‘auhuhu (Tephrosia purpurea) and ‘ākia (Wikstroemia sp.). These agents, which can still be found within the study area today, “were crushed, either with a mortar and pestle or with rocks found by the shore,” and then scattered in tide pools, “and in a few minutes the small fish that were present would float to the surface and could be picked up.” (Abbott 1992:86). Abbott emphasizes that: This effect did not last more than twenty or so minutes, depending on the size of the tide pool and the speed with which fresh seawater entered in and diluted the toxin. Any fish that were washed out of the pools or overlooked in the gathering would recover and swim away, since the toxins merely stupefied the fish rather than killing them outright. In this sense, these old “poisons” more closely resembled modern fish anesthetics than the chemical rotenone, another plant derivative used to catch fish, from which fish do not recover. No data suggest that ‘auhuhu or ‘ākia toxins are transferred to humans through consumption of fish caught in this way. (Abbott 1992:86) In relating his knowledge of plant-based poisons, which also describes the use of ‘auhuhu (written by Newman as ahuhu) and ‘ākia, Newman writes: Although fish poisoning was made a misdemeanor by legislation in 1850 (Jordan and Evermann 1902:365), it was still reported by Cobb in 1902. Poisons used were of plant origin and made of pounded ahuhu (Tephrosia purpurea) and ʻakia (Diplomorpha sandwicensis) to be inserted into underwater caves; the fish were not affected as a human food by it [sic]. For obvious reasons there are no data available on poisoned fish in the 1900 commercial market. (Newman 1970:51) Newman also cites Campbell (1967), who described fish poisoning in the same manner as Cobb for the late nineteenth century, but notes that he stated that the fish were instantly gutted after being poisoned to keep the poison from affecting the quality of the flesh. Cobb (1902), on the otherhand, states that the poison did not affect the flesh. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 49 3. Culture-Historical Context Snaring The use of snares is described by Newman as a nearshore fishing method employed only on Hawai‘i Island. In referencing the writing of Cobb (1902), Newman relates: Cobb notes that he only saw snares being used on Hawaii Island and not on any of the other major islands. He says that eels and lobsters were the primary objects of snaring. A noose on a pole was placed in front of an eel hole, bait placed outside and when the eel stuck its head outside the hole to get the bait, the noose was drawn tight and the eel brought to the surface with the pole. A noose attached to a long pole with a forked end was also lowered near bait and the line slipped under the tail of a lobster.(Newman 1970:51–52) Abbott also describes snares being used to catch sharks using the kūpalupalu manō (shark chumming) method. Abbott notes that this method …was practiced only by ali‘i and only as a form of sport. The game sought—niuhi, “man-eating” sharks—were not eaten, although some other sharks were used as food. The snare was made of hau rope and baited with human flesh or decomposed pig. To successfully snare a shark and bring it to shore was considered to increase one’s mana (spiritual force). (Abbott 1992:86) Spearing Traditional ‘ō i‘a or pōluhi (fish spears; Figures 22 and 23) used for catching fish were crafted from several types of hardwood species such as kauila (Alphitonia ponderosa), uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis), and sometimes koai‘e (Acacia sp.), while spears used to catch the elusive he‘e (octopus) were made from alahe‘e (Psydrax odorata), ‘ūlei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia), ‘a‘ali‘i (Dodonaea viscosa), and uhiuhi (Abbott 1992). Fish spears typically ranged in length from one to two meters; those used to catch he‘e were much longer, ranging anywhere from two to four meters in length (ibid.). Kahā‘ulelio (2006) reports that spear fishing was done either by swimming, or from canoes. Abbott (1992:86) relates that spears “saw heavy service in night-time torch fishing as well as during daylight hours… and were especially useful for picking up sea urchins with venomous spines (wana)…” Newman (1970:52) provides the following description of Hawaiian spear fishing, which during the Historic period also included the use of iron tipped spears: Fish spears were about six feet long (2 meters), made of a very hard wood tipped with an iron point, and used underwater by a diver who positioned himself on the bottom and impaled fish on the spear as they came close. It was possible to spear more than one fish per dive by allowing them to slip down the spear after they were pierced. Above surface use of spears was restricted to spearing turtles, octopi, ʻoʻopu-hue, and fish mesmerized by torchlight at night in shallow water. No mention was made of spears propelled by slings or elastic bands, such as the “Hawaiian sling,” and these are undoubtedly of twentieth century origin. While the above-described traditional cultural fishing practices of trapping, hand-collecting, using hook and line, trolling with lures or using octopus lures, netting, poisoning, snaring, and spearing reflect the tangible methods used by po‘e lawai‘a to harvest marine resources, the following section will explore Hawaiian fish nomenclature, which then leads into a discussion of cultural uses of the “white-list” species. The Kānaka Maoli connection to the sea, and all its lifeforms, is further reinforced by ways in which fish were categorized, named, and used. 50 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 22. Spear fishing ca. 1890 (Kahā‘uelio 2006). Figure 23. Kanaka diving into ocean with spear (Grosvenor 1909:11). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 51 3. Culture-Historical Context HAWAIIAN FISH NOMENCLATURE Keen awareness of the natural world, coupled with their high degree of dependency upon marine resources, culminated over time in a complex naming system for Hawaiian marine resources that conveyed not just descriptive information, but other important cultural information as well. Hawaiian fish nomenclature mirrors other aspects of traditional Hawaiian society, where detailed naming practices helped to categorize the seemingly endless varieties of small reef fishes. Hawaiian fish nomenclature has endured to this day through its constant use—a practice that speaks to both the cultural value of fish, and the importance of intergenerational transmission of knowledge. Titcomb (1972:51) relates that “some names of fishes show the relationship of Hawaiians to other Polynesians, and are therefore very old,” but that “many names are peculiar to Hawaii.” Fish names were maintained through direct use, as well as through the creation of chants that served as a memory aid (ibid.). According to Malo (1951) all products of the ocean and in freshwater streams and rivers, whether mobile or not, were considered i‘a (fish). For instance, the various species of limu (seaweed) were included in the category of i‘a (ibid.). Likewise, Titcomb (1972) conveys that the term i‘a was applied to vertebrates and invertebrates alike, even “those that were utterly useless as food and of no importance in any other way.” Titcomb further relates that Hawaiians gave two names to most fish, one designating the kind (or species), the other designating a group characteristic. The names usually chosen for fish were descriptive of the colour, structure or habitat, such as “(1) colour: lelo (reddish), mele (yellow), uli or uliuli (blue, also means green, dark-coloured, that is, the colour of the deep blue sea), kahauli (dark-striped), kea (white); (2) form: po‘onui (large-headed), waha nui (large mouthed); (3) a special characteristic: makaonaona (bright-eyed); moe (sleeping), holo (travelling), ka‘aka‘a lā‘au (stick rolling), pili ko‘a (coral clinging) (ibid.:50-51). This traditional system of nomenclature is exemplified in the naming of wrasses, which were known broadly as hīnālea, and triggerfish known as humuhumu (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Qualifiers describing prominent traits were sometimes added after the general name to identify specific species. This rule was, however, not universally applied as indicated by other examples, which include surgeonfishes (inclusive of tangs and unicorn fish, identified by their sharp protuberances). In this case, individual species were known by specific names such as manini (Acanthurus triostegus; convict tang), kala (Naso unicornis; unicorn fish), kole (Ctenochaetus strigosus), mā‘i‘i‘i (Acanthurus nigrofuscus), and palani (Acanthurus dussumieri) (ibid.). Similarly, names were given to distinguish the growth stages of fish, with the terms ‘ōhua or ‘āhua being used to refer to the schooling of juvenile fish, especially the young of reef fish such as hīnālea, humuhumu, kala, kūpou, manini, pualu, and uhu (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Fish that were cultivated in fishponds, including the ‘ama‘ama or mullet, were the subject of close observation, and the names given to these fish were based on size, with pua being used to refer to fish that were a finger length, and kahaha being used to refer to fish that had reached hand length (Titcomb 1972). While i‘a was broadest term used to refer to all sorts of marine species, fish that dwelled on the coral reefs were termed i‘a o ke ko‘a (lit. fish of the reef), while those that lived in deeper waters were referred to as i‘a o ke kai uli (lit. fish of the deep sea) (ibid.). Kānaka Maoli also distinguished and named the anatomical features of fish, both the exterior features as well as the principal internal organs. Titcomb (1972:54) provides a list of the anatomical terms that were given to the various parts of the fish, which is reproduced below in Table 2.While some fish names were widely used across all marine territories, Titcomb states that: In spite of conscious effort to hand down knowledge, names for some fish names did vary from island to island, and even from one part of an island to another. This may be due in part to faults of memory, though memories were trained to astonishing capacity, and in part to a conscious wish to call a fish by what seemed a more appropriate name. (ibid.:49) Understanding how Kānaka Maoli categorized and named the various marine species provides insight into understanding the cultural value and uses were ascribed to them. The following section discusses the specific cultural uses of the forty fish species on the white-list for the WHFRMA. 52 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 2. List of Hawaiian anatomical terms given various parts of the fish (from Titcomb 1972:54). Hawaiian Term nuku, or nukunuku lae alo English Equivalent nose frontal region over eye chest Hawaiian Term kualā unahi unahi kalakala alo piko belly kakala mahamaha api pihapiha gill plate gill opening gills hi‘u pewa umiumi halo gill fin kiwi English Equivalent dorsal fin (same for soft dorsal) scales the rough scales from mid-body to tail of certain fishes-scutes knife-like cartilage near the tail (as in the surgeon fishes) tail tail fin barbels (same term as is used for beard of a man) the “unicorn” of the kala fish CULTURAL USES OF THE “WHITE LIST” SPECIES In an effort to identify any traditional cultural uses, practices, and beliefs associated with the forty fish species on the “white-list,” the authors of this report began by identifying and compiling the Hawaiian name(s) associated with each of them (Table 3). To verify the accuracy, and to address any discrepancies in traditional naming practices, the Hawaiian names were cross-referenced using various primary and secondary sources, which are cited in the ensuing paragraphs. Once all known Hawaiian names were identified and correlated, additional cultural information was gathered for each of the forty species from various primary and secondary sources written in both the Hawaiian and English languages. The information compiled from these sources summarizes the continued cultural uses of these fish throughout the Precontact and Historic periods. Compiling the Hawaiian names for reef fish was approached with much caution and careful consideration, as the Hawaiian names for the fish in the written literature include many inconsistencies, as well as conflicting naming information. Many fish, especially wrasses and butterflyfishes were traditionally known by multiple names, some of which were qualifiers for specific characteristics. Additionally, Kānaka Maoli gave names to the different growth stages of certain fish, which further adds to the difficulty of understanding the conflicting nomenclature. Where known, the growth stage names are discussed below under the relevant fish subheading, but are not included in Table 3. The Hawaiian fish names presented in Table 3 should not be considered an exhaustive list, as it may not capture regional names, or names used locally by certain families or individuals. Despite the challenges mentioned above, a significant amount of information was found with respect to traditional subsistence practices, beliefs, customs, and general cultural uses of the white-list species. Additionally, the origin status of each fish species—whether they are indigenous, endemic, or invasive—was categorized (see Table 3). This information from collected from Hoover (2007) and the Marine Life Photography database compiled by Keoki and Yuko Stander (www.marinelifephotography.com). Obviously. more culture-historical information is available for the indigenous and endemic fish species, than for invasive species, which arrived to these islands more recently. Acanthurus achilles (pākukui, pākuikui, pāku‘iku‘i) The Achilles tang (Acanthurus achilles), or pāku‘iku‘i, is a feisty surgeonfish that measures from six to eight inches long (Titcomb 1972). This fish is described by Hoover (2007:141) “as blueish black with an orange-red teardropshaped patch over the scalpel and a white-edged orange-red bar on the tail fin.” Its fins are trimmed with white and white stripes are also observed near the mouth and under the eye (ibid.). The spelling and pronunciation of the Hawaiian names for this fish, which include pākukui, pākuikui, and pākuʻikuʻi, vary. Pukui and Elbert (1986:306) note that this fish was considered “good eating” and Titcomb (1972) adds that this fish was “always cooked” and was “excellent when broiled.” An excerpt from a riddle published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Nūpepa Kū‘oko‘a reads “…Pakuikui, he wahi i‘a ono i‘o ano kupono keia kalele leo ana Halale ke kai i ka lehelehe,” which translates to “pakuikui, a truly delicious fish and is just right with a lip smacking sauce” (Kuhelemai Jr. 1907). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 53 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 3. “White-list” species with known Hawaiian name(s) and status. Scientific Name Acanthurus achilles Acanthurus dussumieri Acanthurus nigricans Acanthurus nigrofuscus Hawaiian Names pākukui, pākuikui, pāku‘iku‘i palani unknown māʻiʻiʻi, māʻiʻi Acanthurus olivaceus Acanthurus thompsoni Anampses chrysocephalus Canthigaster jactator Centropyge fisheri Centropyge potteri Cephalopholis argus Chaetodon kleinii na‘ena‘e species of kala species of hīnālea unknown unknown unknown unknown kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili kīkākapu kīkākapu lauhau kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili species of hīnālea pilikoʻa hīnālea ‘akilolo species of kole kole, kole makaonaona ‘āloʻiloʻi lauwiliwili nukunuku ʻoiʻoi hīnālea ‘iʻiwi lāʻō kapuhili unknown species of hīnālea humuhumu ‘eleʻele umaumalei, kala umaumalei pahu, moa hilu, hilu pilikoʻa unknown species of hīnālea species of hīnālea species of hīnālea humuhumu lei, humuhumu umaumalei hīnālea lauwili species of humuhumu lā‘ī pala, lau‘ī pala Chaetodon miliaris Chaetodon multicinctus Chaetodon quadrimaculatus Chaetodon tinkeri Cirrhilabrus jordani Cirrhitops fasciatus Coris gaimard Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis Ctenochaetus strigosus Dascyllus albisella Forcipiger flavissimus Gomphosus varius Halichoeres ornatissimus Hemitaurichthys polylepis Lutjanus kasmira Macropharyngodon geoffroy Melichthys niger Naso lituratus Ostracion meleagris Paracirrhites forsteri Pseudanthias hawaiiensis Pseudocheilinus octotaenia Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia Pseudojuloides cerasinus Sufflamen bursa Thalassoma duperrey Xanthichthys auromarginatus Zebrasoma flavescens 54 Common Name Achilles tang eyestripe surgeonfish goldrim surgeonfish brown surgeonfish, lavender tang orangeband surgeonfish Thompson’s surgeonfish psychedelic wrasse whitespotted Toby Fisher’s angelfish Potter’s angelfish peacock grouper, roi blacklip butterflyfish Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Endemic Endemic Indigenous Endemic Invasive Indigenous milletseed butterflyfish multiband butterflyfish fourspot butterflyfish Tinker’s butterflyfish Endemic Endemic Indigenous Indigenous flame wrasse redbarred hawkfish yellowtail Coris chevron tang goldring surgeonfish Hawaiian Dascyllus forcepsfish bird wrasse ornate wrasse pyramid butterflyfish bluestripe snapper, ta‘ape shortnose wrasse black Durgon orangespine unicornfish spotted boxfish blackside hawkfish Hawaiian longfin Anthias eightline wrasse fourlined wrasse smalltail wrasse lei triggerfish Endemic Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Endemic Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Endemic Indigenous Invasive Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Endemic Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous saddle wrasse gilded triggerfish yellow tang Endemic Indigenous Indigenous CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context The pāku‘iku‘i is also noted in a chant that appears in the epic saga of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. The chant associates this fish with Hawai‘i Island—an island celebrated for its black sands, black pigs, black garments, and the black pākuikui. The chant also draws a correlation between the pākukui and the kukui tree (Aleurites moluccana) that grows on land. The portion of the chant that describes the celebrated features of Hawai‘i Island reads: Kū i Hawai‘i ke one The sand is there at Hawai‘i He one ‘ele‘ele ke one The sand is black volcanic sand He ‘a‘ahu ‘ele‘ele ka ‘a‘ahu Black garments are the attire He pua‘a hiwa ka pua‘a The pig is a black one He ‘eho ka ma‘i, he kukui ka lā‘au. The sickness is a tumor, the kukui is the remedy. Hoeha‘a ka uku na Haumea Hānau kukui ali‘i, ho‘opumehana i ka poli o Papa Hānau ka i‘a, ‘o ka pākuikui Lilo i kai, kia‘i ‘ia e ke kukui noho i uka Hānau ka i‘a, o leho hua kukui Lilo i kai, kia‘i ke kukui i ka uka Hānau ka i‘a o ka uka, huahua kukui Lilo i kai, ho‘okanaka kākou i uka nei. (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006a:67) Haumea’s reward is uncertain Born is the chiefly kukui, warming Papa’s bosom Born is the fish, a pākuikui, a nibbling fish Swept to sea, guarded by the kukui of the uplands Born is the kukui-shell cowry Swept to sea, the kukui guards in the uplands Born is the fish of the uplands, fruitful kukui Swept to sea, we populate these lands. (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006b:64–65) The pāku‘iku‘i is also noted in the second wā of the Kumulipo, which describes this fish as being the offspring of the ‘ao‘aonui (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978). The ‘ao‘aonui, according to Elbert and Pukui (1986:27), is a juvenile kūpīpī (another tyoe of reef fish; Abudefduf sordidus). The Kumulipo chant also relates that the land counterpart of the pāku‘iku‘i is the laukukui or kukui tree (Aleurites moluccana) (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978). Acanthurus dussumieri (palani) The eyestripe surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri), commonly known as palani, is a popular reef fish that ranges from six to twelve inches in length (Titcomb 1972). Palani is characterized by its bright blue tail and underbody, with distinct yellow markings on the dorsal fin, tail, and a yellow band over the eye (Hoover 2007). Its caudal spine is bright white (ibid.). Titcomb (1972:138) reports that “some say that maiko, or maikoiko is the name of the young; other [sic] say maiko is a distinct fish.”. The palani is also noted in the Kumulipo as being the fish that bore the nuku momi, which is described by Elbert and Pukui (1986:272) as “a variety of jackfish (Caranx melampugus).” Titcomb (1972:139). further details the color and markings of the palani as having “… a dull bluish olive color, with brassy and bluish markings and shades, a blue line along base of dorsal fin; caudal fin bluish with blackish olive spots.” Palani, meaning “to stink, smell sour or rancid” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:309), is a well-recognized trait of this fish that is documented in moʻolelo and ʻōlelo noʻeau. One such ʻōlelo noʻeau reads, “Hauna ke kai o ka palani,” translated as “The palani makes a strong smelling soup.” (Pukui 1983:59). Pukui (ibid.:59) indicates that this saying was used in reference to “a person of unsavory reputation [who] imparts it to all he does.” Titcomb notes that despite its strong odor, the palani was a popular fish to eat and was most delightful when broiled (the best method to remove the odor) or cooked in a calabash. If the palani was eaten raw, the skin was always removed. In describing a traditional custom for removing the pungent smell, Titcomb referenced a practice that was reported by Lily Akuna, an informant from the Puna District. Akuna notes: To remove the odor from such fish as the palani, kala, or puwalu, which are good to eat but have a rank odour, lay the fish across the palms of both hands with the head resting in the left hand and the tail in the right. Inhale over the fish from left to right, and expel the breath violently. Turn the fish over and repeat. (Titcomb 1972:30) The mythical origin of this fish’s foul smell is detailed in the moʻolelo of Ke‘emalu (also referenced as Keamalu), published in the January 3, 1917 version of the Hawaiian language newspaper, Ka Hōkū O Hawai‘i and retold by Titcomb (1972). In relating this story, Titcomb writes: As she floated around in the ocean she recalled what her grandmother, Hina, had told her, that she had an ancestor among the fishes of the sea, named Palani-nui-mahao‘o. She called to him an in a short time she found herself on her ancestor’s back, being borne shoreward. As she was taken back to shore, she was seized with such a desire to urinate that she was unable to control herself and so she urinated on her ancestor. Her ancestor became very angry and left her out at sea. It is said that CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 55 3. Culture-Historical Context was how the palani got its strong odour. When she found herself deserted she chanted a chant of derision to this ancestor… (Titcomb 1972:139) Handy and Handy (1972:262) named several types of fish, including palani, which were commonly raised in fishponds. These fish were raised particularly for ceremonial use, or were reserved for aliʻi, and “were kept in the pond to breed,” while the offspring were raised tame so that they could be removed easily from the pond by hand. During spawning seasons certain fish, one of which included the palani were prohibited from being caught or consumed. Additionally, palani were considered kapu to men (Titcomb 1972). In the March 8, 1923 issue of Ka Nūpepa Kuʻokoʻa, an article titled “Ka Hoʻopakele Ana I Nā Iʻa,” (Unknown 1923) offered insight into the traditional beliefs and Kānaka Maoli practices regarding the palani and other similar fish. Presented is a portion of this article concerning palani that was translated by Titcomb: Fish such as the manini, the kole, the uhu, the kumu and the palani and the kala and many others went into sea pools to live until the tiny fish were grown. No kapus were imposed on them at the spawning season. The mullet, squid, aku, opelu and other fish bore their young in a place that was not sheltered…They were made kapu when the spawning season was near until the months for this duty were over. (Titcomb 1972:14) Acanthurus nigirican Dwelling within the surge zone to about thirty feet, the goldrim tang is noted for its black body that bears small white markings below the eyes and behind the mouth (Hoover 2007). Bright yellow stripes are observed on the fin, caudal spine, as well as its dorsal and anal fins (ibid.). The review of historical literature conducted for this study did not reveal any specific Hawaiian name or any specific cultural information related to this species. Acanthurus nigrofuscus (māʻiʻi‘i, mā‘i‘i) Māʻiʻi, shortened from māʻiʻiʻi, is a small reef fish commonly referred to as the brown surgeonfish or lavender tang (Acanthurus nigrofuscus). The name mā‘i‘i‘i is also applied to a taro variety (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Its color varies from dark brown to light grayish brown with a lavender-colored tinge (Hoover 2007). Dull orange spots are also present below the eyes (ibid.). In the Kumulipo, the mā‘iʻi is noted as the parent fish of the ‘ala‘ihi, which according to Elbert and Pukui (1986:17) is the name given to “various species of squirrelfishes of the family Holocentridae.” According to Titcomb (1972), some accounts state that the māʻiʻi is the name given to the juvenile pualu (sometimes spelled as puwalu) (Pukui and Elbert 1986:347), another species of surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus and A. Mata), but others argue that māʻiʻi is its own variety of surgeonfish. Traditionally, the māʻiʻi was considered a good eating fish that could be eaten both raw and cooked, but was best when broiled (Titcomb 1972). Acanthurus olivaceus (naʻenaʻe) The orangeband Surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus), also referred to as naʻenaʻe meaning “quick, alert” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:258), is grayish-brown in color with an orange band trimmed with a purple streak that extends along its body. Kent (1986) reports that naʻenaʻe resides on the outer ends of the reef where waves and a sandy beach are present. The name na‘ena‘e is also applied to a native daisy known for its small yellow, orange, purple, or white flower (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Anampses chrysocephalus, Cirrhilabrus jordani, Macropharyngodon Geoffroy, Pseudocheilinus octotaenia, Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia, Pseudojuloides cerasinus (hīnālea); Coris gaimardi (hīnālea ‘akilolo); Gomphosus varius (hīnālea ‘i‘iwi); Thalassoma duperrey (hīnālea lauwili); Hīnālea, occasionally shortened to ālea, is a name broadly applied to various species known commonly as wrasses. These fish, distinguished by their elongated bodies, can range in size from three to ten inches long (Hoover 2007; Titcomb 1972). Its colors and attributes vary according to species. Hoover (2007:158) relates that “the general Hawaiian name hīnālea is applied to most, but not all; many of the smaller wrasses have no known Hawaiian names.” Elbert and Pukui (1986:71) explain that “hīnālea may be qualified by the terms ‘ele‘ele, līpoa, lolo, nī‘au, nuku ‘i‘iwi, nuku ‘i‘iwi ‘ula, nuku ‘i‘iwi uli, nuku loa, [and] nuku loa ‘ele‘ele.” The hīnālea are found primarily in shallow waters, but are also known to live in waters that are as deep as seven to eight fathoms (Titcomb 1972). Their behavior, and the areas in which they dwell, are described in the ‘ōlelo noʻeau, “naueue ka hiʻu o ka iʻa lewa i ke kai,” literally translated as “the tails of the fish that move in the sea tremble” (Pukui 1983:250). Pukui (ibid.) goes on to explain that this expression was said of fish, such as the hīnālea, whose tails can be seen bending as they seek hollows in the corals 56 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context for hiding during the cold month of Welehu (approximately Novemember). Hīnālea are also described in ethnographic literature as having sharp protuberances (Malo 1951). Specific traditional fishing methods are associated with these fish, including one described by Kahāʻulelio (2006) as melomelo, which involved the use of a carefully curated stick used to attract fish (Figure 24). This method, decribed below, was effective in catching various fish including the palani, mahamea, ‘ōpelu, mā‘iʻiʻi, humuhumu, and hīnālea: It was a smooth, black stick, as long as from the knuckles to the armpit. It was made black. It had a small knob at the top, around which the line was tied. The stick was constantly toasted over the fire and rubbed with the oil of dried coconuts. The rubbing was done with a piece of kapa made of mamaki until it shone; then it was wrapped and laid away in the trunk. If we were to smell it, it was heavily fragrant. The canoe went out before sunrise, just outside of the breakers. There were two of us who used to go, my father and I, with a net having meshes two fingers in width, ten fathoms long, and three wide. As soon as the stick was let down, these fishes gathered to the spot: the palani, mahamea, ʻōpelu, māʻiʻiʻi (palapala), humuhumu, hīnālea and so on. The net was lowered from the back of the canoe, then with a cord of the net held fast in the hand, my father leaped overboard and swam. I, in turn, held the melomelo stick. He swam around the canoe, where he came to the sticks that held the nets open. He tied them together and went on board the canoe, where he watched the fish circling around the stick. He jumped back into the water and pulled the support sticks until they met. All the fish were caught and we turned shoreward. My father called this kind of fishing a “morning meal,” a “cure for hunger,” and when the chiefs wanted fish, it was no trouble to get them. (Kahā‘uelio 2006:111) Figure 24. Assortment of melomelo sticks (Kahā‘uelio 2006:114). CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 57 3. Culture-Historical Context Other traditional fishing methods used to catch hīnālea included the use of hīnaʻi, or basket traps woven from plant-based fibers. One such basket trap was called hīnaʻi hoʻoluʻuluʻu (a diving basket), which was made from the vines of the ‘āwikiwiki (Canvalia galeata). The method of using the hīnaʻi hoʻoluʻuluʻu is described in the book Hawaiian Fishing Traditions as follows: The hīnaʻi hoʻoluʻuluʻu [diving basket], used in catching hīnālea (a small species of Julis), is a small basket made from the vines of the ‘āwikiwiki (a convolvulus) and is made anew from day to day as wanted. A light framework of twigs is first tied together and then the ‘āwikiwiki vines, leaves and all, are wound in and out round and round till the baskets is of the requisite size, three or four feet around and about one and a half feet deep. Shrimp pounded and enclosed in coconut fibre [sic] is occasionally placed at the bottom of the basket for bait, but usually the scent of the bruised and withering ‘āwikiwiki leaves seems to be sufficient to attract the hīnālea. Women attend to this kind of fishing. They wade out to suitable places, generally small, sandy openings in coral ground or reef, and let the baskets down suitably weighted to keep them in position. The weights are attached in such a way as to be easily detached. Each woman then moves some distance away from her basket, from where she can watch the fish enter it. When all the fish in sight have entered, the woman takes the basket up, transfers the fish to a large, small-mouthed gourd, and moves the basket to a fresh place. This kind of fishing can only be done on calm, sunny days at low tide. Since the introduction of the weeping willow, the hīnaʻi hoʻoluʻuluʻu are sometimes made from willow twigs. Such baskets can be used over and over again. Men sometimes take such hīnaʻi and using wana (sea urchin) for bait, with the top of the shell broken to expose the meat, place them in comparatively deep water, piling stones around them to keep them in place. The men leave them for a day or two, and if the place is a good fishing ground, the baskets will be full by the time the men return. (Manu et al. 2006:95) Manu et al. (2006) also describe the use of kūkulu ‘upena (standing nets) and ke kāmākoi—a fishing pole made of bamboo or hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) measuring about eighteen feet long—for catching hīnālea. The ke kāmākoi method was used from the nearshore reefs where the fisher could cast a hook and line attached to the fishing pole into the sea from the shore. Another method employed traditionally for catching hīnālea was poisoning. ‘Upena holahola was the name given to a net that was used in conjunction with certain piscicidal plants that were crushed and placed around a hīnālea fish hole. The toxins released from the crushed plants diffused throughout the water thereby paralyzing the trapped fish and causing the hīnālea to float to the surface into the holahola net (ibid). Considered a popular fish of the Hawaiian diet, hīnālea are referenced in many moʻolelo. One origin story of this fish is associated with a female ʻeʻepa, or mystical being, who after being angered by two other supernatural beings for helping her unfaithful husband, tore her enemies to pieces and transformed the torn pieces into the hīnālea (Kamakau in Titcomb 1972). In the February 8, 1911, issue of Ke Au Hou, a Hawaiian language newspaper, John H. Wise published a moʻolelo that describes the importance of the hīnālea for the conception of a child. In these instances hīnālea were used as offerings to the akua, or gods, responsible for conceiving a child, namely Kū and Hina. The ceremony involved two hīnālea fish that were wrapped in ti leaves and cooked on coals. The first fish belonged to Kū, and a chant would be uttered to grant the woman an offspring. If a son was desired the chanter would mention the duties of a man. For a daughter, the duties of a woman would be mentioned. The second hīnālea was for Hina, Kū’s wife, who was associated with the moon. Chants and prayers were to Hina were given in the same manner as the first fish (Wise 1911). Hīnālea are also noted in the account of ‘Ai‘ai, who was the son of Kū‘ulakai and Hinapukui‘a, both of whom were key fishing deities worshiped by the ancient fishers of Hawaiʻi Nei (Fornander 1919–1920; Valeri 1985). Fornander (1919–1920) relates that in ‘Ai‘ai’s attempt to replenish the fish that were taken from the sea by his parents—after being threatened by Kahoalii, a chief of Hāna, Maui—he seeks the help of his friend Pilihawawa. To restore the fish in the sea, ‘Ai‘ai orders his friend of weave a basket for catching hīnālea. After the basket was woven, it was taken to the rocky shore at which point ‘Ai‘ai summoned the help of his parents by chanting a song that called forth the young hīnālea and ‘ōpule fish. After hearing the calls of her son, Hina ordered her husband Kū to send fish to their son, and as a result droves of fish came onshore, some of which were collected by Pilihawawa. Kū‘ulakai then sent in the surf which carried the fish back into the sea. Manu et al. (2006) also relate another story of the hīnālea that appears in the account of Kalamainuʻu, a moʻo (lizard) goddess. While on Oʻahu, Kalamainuʻu enticed a young aliʻi, Punaʻaikoaʻe, and lured him to her cave on the island of Molokaʻi. Drawn by the beauty of Kalamainuʻu, Punaʻaikoaʻe became her obedient captive and remained in the cave until one day he longed for freedom and to be amongst other people again. Punaʻaikoaʻe overheard the cheers 58 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context of people down below and became intrigued asking Kalamainu‘u about what he heard. She explained that it was the sounds of people celebrating their victories in the Makahiki games. He then asked if he could leave the cave to see the festivities for himself, to which she consented. While mingling with the people, Punaʻaikoaʻe met a man by the name of Hinale, who was the brother of Kalamainuʻu. As they conversed, Hinale discovered that Punaʻaikoaʻe was Kalaimainuʻu’s lover and immediately began plotting to free Punaʻaikoaʻe from his sister. As Punaʻaikoaʻe began to carry out his escape from Kalamainuʻu, the moʻo goddess learned that the plan had been initiated by her brother, Hinale, and she sought revenge. When Hinale discovered that his sister was after him, he fled to the ocean where he transformed into a hīnālea. Kalamainuʻu followed after him, but eventually lost Hinale. She then learned from a hermit crab how to entrap her brother, so she followed his instructions and constructed a basket trap made from the ʻinalua (Cardiospermum halicacabum) vine. After several attempts, Kalamainuʻu eventually captured her brother in the trap, which “has been the method of catching hīnālea ever since” (Manu et al. 2006:53). The story titled The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao (Nakuina 2005) also makes reference to hīnālea and notes that it was the preferred fish to cut through the bitterness of the drink known as ‘awa (kava). This account relates how hīnālea were kept in small sea pools, and collected at the request of a chief. In the preamble to this story, Pāka‘a who was the beloved servant of Keawenuia‘umi, a chief of Hawai‘i Island, was unjustly cast out of the king’s court and replaced by two new, but inept, servants named Ho‘okeleipuna and Ho‘okeleihilo. These two servants knew very little about the chief’s likings, and overtime Keawenuia‘umi became aware of their incompetence. Longing for his beloved servant, Keawenuia‘umi and his entourage set out in search of Pāka‘a, who by this time had relocated to Moloka‘i with his wife and son, Kūapāka‘a. After the king’s arrival on Moloka‘i, Kūapāka‘a invoked a mystical storm through the use of the sacred wind gourd of La‘amaomao, which thwarted the king’s plan to return to Hawai‘i Island. To win the compassion of Keawenuia‘umi, and to gain back his role in the king’s court, Pāka‘a taught his son everything he knew about the chief, including his fondness for consuming hīnālea after downing a cup of ‘awa, his favorite beverage. The portion of the story describing the use of hīnālea is presented below (all mentions of hīnālea are presented in bold text for emphasis): When night fell and everyone was at ease, Keawenuia‘umi reminisced: “My love for Pāka‘a wells up in me. On evenings like this, my kauwā would bring me my cup of ‘awa and live hīnālea, and the intoxication would take effect; I would sit enjoying the intoxication of the ‘awa until I fell asleep; then I would sleep soundly all night long. How I miss Pāka‘a!” Kūapāka‘a heard these words of the ali‘i and reported to his father: “Kā! My haku desires some ‘awa. He spoke of his love for you; when you were his kahu, you brough him his ‘awa. He misses it.” Pāka‘a took out an ‘awa preparation bowl and a cup, some grass for straining the ‘awa, a piece of dried ‘awa root, and portions of ‘awa root already chewed, which he tied into bundles. He put everything into a piece of trimmed kapa, which he took out of the wind gourd of La‘amaomao,, and told his keiki, “Take this dried ‘awa to your ali‘i and show it to him. If he tells you to chew it, look for a dark place and hide the dried ‘awa there, then strain this portion of already chewed ‘awa into the bowl. He’ll be impressed with how quickly you’ve prepared the ‘awa for him. That’s they way I did it when I was with him. After pouring the ‘awa into the cup, serve the ‘awa to him, then run quickly to the beach to get the live hīnālea we put into the small pond, and give them to your haku as pūpū to cut the bitterness of the ‘awa.” When the ali‘i saw the large dried ‘awa root, he told the keiki, “You must chew my ‘awa.” The keiki turned away to a corner of the room and dropped the dried ‘awa root there, then poured water into the preparation bowl and put into it the ‘awa Pāka‘a had already chewed. He strained the juice out of the chewed ‘awa with the grass, then poured the juice into the cup and gave the cup to the ali‘i. Then he ran to the beach and returned with two hīnālea wriggling about in his hands. He put them on a dish and placed the live hīnālea before the ali‘i. (Nakuina 2005:68–69) Hīnālea ‘akilolo The hīnālea ‘akilolo commonly known as yellowtail Coris (Coris gaimardi), ranges in size from five to twelve inches long and varies in color. This name is also applied to the shortnose wrasse (Macropharyngodon geoffroyi), and sometimes the bird wrasse (Gomphosus varius), which is also known more properly as hīnālea ‘iʻiwi, or hīnālea nuku ‘i‘iwi. There are, however, visible differences between these varieties, as hīnālea ‘akilolo are predominantly green in color with a blue underbody, brownish tints towards the tail, and greenish-blue fins, while the hīnālea ‘i‘iwi is predominantly blue (Titcomb 1972). Hīnālea ‘akilolo are also gray in color with white spots on their back and underbody. The hīnālea ‘akilolo is noted in the Kumulipo as being the offspring of the ‘ō‘ō, a fish whose specific type CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 59 3. Culture-Historical Context is unspecified, but may be a name of a “type of swordfish” (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978; Pukui and Elbert 1986:290). The word ‘akilolo, literally translated as “brain biting,” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:14) was used by kahuna (priests) as a pani, or closing medicine, for someone suffering from a head sickness or disease. This variety was also a highly favored delicacy for eating because of its sweet taste. It was traditionally “eaten with salt, dried, broiled over coals or wrapped in ti leaves and then baked or broiled” (Titcomb 1972:78). Hīnālea lauwili The lauwili variety of hīnālea (Thalassoma duperrey) is said to have been named in reference to the famed dryland tree termed wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis)—a tree whose flowers are of a bright orange hue. Often mentioned in moʻolelo and referenced in traditional fishing practices as “the proper fish to eat as an aftertaste to ‘awa [a mildly narcotic drink made from the chewed Piper methysticum plant]” (Titcomb 1972:77). This variety is said to be the most commonly observed of the hīnālea species. Hīnālea lauwili are small coral reef fish that are very abundant in Hawaiian waters. The scales of the fish were hard to remove so it was usually skinned, before or after cooking, or broiling, but was mostly favored when eaten raw. This type of fish was also good for iʻa ho‘omelumelu, which is the practice of removing the entrails, head, tail, and spine, followed by scraping off the scaly skin, then dressing it with condiments (ibid.). Canthigaster jactator Hoover (2007) reports that there are twelve known species of pufferfish that inhabit Hawaiʻi’s waters of which three are endemic, including the Hawaiian whitespotted Toby (Canthigaster jactator). The common name, Toby, originated from Australia is commonly used to identify these diminutive puffers that measure less than four inches long and have a slightly elongated snout. The C. jactator is the most common Toby in Hawaiʻi and is frequently seen in pairs. It is brown with white spots with a light green fluorescent color on the head and snout. These fish can be found in active reef areas or in “dead silty places where little else seems to live” (ibid.:109). Tobys do not have any known specific Hawaiian names, but are sometimes referred to generally as makimaki, “a term apparently not used in ancient times,” and possibly a variation of the word make, meaning death (Hoover 2007:107). Other names traditionally used for pufferfish were ‘oʻopu hue, possibly an alteration of ōpūhue (calabash, gourd) or kēkē (potbelly). However, the review of historical literature conducted for this study did not reveal any Hawaiian name or cultural information specifically related to C. jactator. Centropyge fisheri; Centropyge potteri Species of the genus Centropyge, popularly known as angelfish, typically have a large backward-pointing spine on the gill cover. Of the five species in Hawaiʻi, three are endemic, however, there are no known Hawaiian names for any of these species. The Fisher’s angelfish (Centropyge fisheri), is a small orange-brown fish trimmed in iridescent blue with a translucent tail. These fish are typically found in finger coral (Porites compressa) at depths of 80 feet. Known to be quick moving, they tend to stay close to cover and are not frequently seen, but are found along the West coast of Hawaiʻi Island (Hoover 2007). The well-known endemic Potter’s angelfish (Centropyge potteri) is the most frequently spotted angelfish in Hawaiʻi. This species has a rusty orange color on its head and back, which transitions to a bluish black on the rest of the body. The body is “covered with irregular vertical gray-blue lines” with blue and black horizontal stripes on the rear fins (ibid:3). The males tend have more of a blue color than that of its female counterpart. These fish live in pairs or in small groups, and dwell in the clear water under ledges and on reef slopes with hollow spaces. The review of historical literature conducted for this study did not reveal any specific Hawaiian name or any specific cultural information related to this species. Cephalopholis argus More commonly known as the roi, or peacock grouper, this fish was introduced to Hawai‘i from French Polynesia in 1956 to enhance local fisheries. Roi are known to contain a ciguatoxin which can be dangerous to human health when consumed. Because of this, these fish are a non-targeted species for local fishermen, which as a consequence has led to a significant population increase in the years since they were first introduced (Hoover 2007). It has become a dominant predator species in the main Hawaiian Islands, and is known to have negative ecological impacts on other endemic and culturally valued species (Dierking 2007). In recent years, efforts to minimize roi populations have led to statewide events often dubbed “roi round-ups,” where local spear fishers are encouraged to catch and remove as many roi from the reefs as possible. Hoover (2007) notes that this fish is identifiable by its bright blue spots and dark blue spotted fins, the primary base color of this fish changes as it matures from dark brown to a lighter tan color with 60 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context distinct light colored bans that extend vertically along the back half of the body. Because this species was so recently introduced to Hawaiian waters, the review of historical literature conducted for this study did not reveal any specific Hawaiian name or any specific cultural information related to it. Chaetodon kleinii and Chaetodon tinkeri, (kīkākapu, kapuhili, lauhau, lauwiliwili); Chaetodon miliaris and Chaetodon multicinctus (kīkākapu); Chaetodon quadrimaculatus (lauhau); Forcipiger flavissimus (lauwiliwili nuku ‘oi‘oi); Hemitaurichthys polylepis (kapuhili) Members of the genus Chaetodon, are broadly referred to as butterflyfish and are usually yellow or white in color with distinct markings (Kent 1986; Titcomb 1972). They grow to about six inches in length, and are distinguished by their compressed bodies (ideal for navigating narrow reef spaces) and small pointed mouths. Butterflyfish are known by a number of Hawaiian names including kapuhili, kihikihi, kīkākapu, lauhau, lauwiliwili, lauhau wiliwili, and nukunuku (Titcomb 1972). While sometimes eaten, butterflyfish appear to have been more commonly caught and used for certain rituals and ceremonies. Specific information related to four types of butterflyfish found in the culture-historical literature, kapuhili, kīkākapu, lauhau and lauhau wiliwili, is presented below. Kapuhili The term kapuhili has been translated by Elbert and Pukui (1986:133) as “…many taboos inherited from chiefly ancestors or from the gods; person with many taboos.” Titcomb reports on an account written by S. K. Kamakau in 1845 while he served at the Lahainaluna seminary on Maui that describes how these fish received their distinct marks. In this account, kapuhili is the name of the person, or perhaps the deity, who marked each fish with their distinct colors. Kamakau notes: These islands of Hawaii were created by Kumuhonua (whose wife was Haloiho). He slept and when he awoke, the earth turned and this was called an earthquake. At that time the duty of each creature had not been apportioned, nor were names given to each…So all things were gathered together—animals, birds, crawling things, winged things that fly through the air, and man. The work of each was assigned…It was as Molea in Hamakua that all the fishes gathered, the big fish and the little fish. It was there that all the fishes were marked, and streaked ones, the red ones, the white ones, the yellow ones and all the kinds found in the ocean. Kapuhili was the overseer who marked them. The unmarked fish were spotted simply by having ashes sprinkled over them. Then the proper names were given to each variety of all the fishes in the ocean. (Titcomb 1972:48) Kīkākapu The name kīkākapu is used to describe “various species of butterfly fishes of the genera Chaetodon and Cheilodactylus” and may be further qualified by terms such as “alo lua and ko‘a” (ibid.:148). Titcomb (1972) relates that kīkākapu were also considered sacred, and makes reference to a chant presented in the account of Kihaapi‘ilani, a 16th century chief of Maui (Fornander 1880). The portion of the chant referencing the kīkākapu (name bolded for emphasis) reads thusly: He kakau kiko onio i ka lae, With striped marks on the forehead, Ke kiko o ke ki-kakapu, Marks of the kikakapu, O ka ia kapu hilia au awahia. The sacred fish with the bitter gall. (Fornander 1916–1917:241) (Fornander 1916–1917:240) Kīkākapu are also noted in a name chant composed for Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) that is duly titled Mele no Kauikeaouli. The portion of the mele that references both the kīkākapu and kapuhili (names bolded for reference) is presented below: Ke kakau kiokii onio i ka lae The forehead was marked with variegated stripes, He kikoi kapu, Indicating high kapu; O ke kikakapu o ku ia kapuhili The kikakapu was substituted for kapuhili, Au wahiawahi ia lani. The time that chief ended. (Fornander 1919–1920:485) (ibid.) The use of kīkākapu to signify one’s intent to challenge a group of people is described in an account titled, Kaʻao no Kaipalaoa, ke Keiki Hoʻopapa (Legend of Kaipalaoa, the Hoʻopapa Youngster) (Fornander 1916–1917). As a preamble to this story, Fornander writes that Kaipalaoa was from Waiākea in Hilo and that his father, Halepaki, was CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 61 3. Culture-Historical Context killed by Kalanialiʻiloa, the kapu chief of that island who was also very skilled in hoʻopāpā—a traditional art of riddling and debate—after traveling to Kauaʻi. Kalanialiʻiloa was so accomplished at hoʻopāpā that the fence that surrounded his house was made entirely of the bones of those who he had defeated. To avenge his father’s death, Kaipalaoa sought to master the art of hoʻopāpā and compete against Kalanialiʻiloa. To develop his skills, Kaipalaoa traveled first to the home of his aunt in Kohala, where she taught the young boy everything she knew about this art. Kaipalaoa continued to refine his skills, and eventually made his way to Kauaʻi where he landed his canoe in Hanalei. While at Hanalei, the boy came across two of the king’s canoes that were filled with fish. The boy inquired of the king if he could have some fish, to which the king consented. The boy then grabbed two fish, an oililepa and a kīkākapu, and after an exchange of words with the king, Kaipalaoa continued on his way towards Wailua, where the kapu chief Kalanialiʻiloa lived. In writing about the portion of the story that describing the use of the kīkākapu (name bolded for emphasis), Fornander relates that: From this place he continued on to Anahola; thence on to Kealia and then on to Wailua where Kalanialiiloa resided, where was his bone fence, almost completed, built from human bones. When he arrived at the place he looked and saw the bones of Halepaki his father; they were still fresh, the bones not yet being bleached. At sight of this the boy bowed in sorrow and wept. After his weeping he approached the flagstaff and pushed it down and put up the oililepa, one of the fish brought along by him. He then next took the kapu stick and pushed it down and put up in its place the other fish, the kikakapu. By this action of the boy, it was meant as a challenge to the people that he saw come to meet them in a wrangling contest. When Kalanialiiloa and his instructor saw the action of the boy, they knew at once that he was challenging them to a contest of wits, so a messenger was dispatched to meet the boy showing the challenge was accepted. (Fornander 1916–1917:576) Lauhau and Lauhau wiliwili The term lauhau has been translated as “brightly colored butterfly fish (Chaetodon quadrimaculatus and C. umimaculatus)” and may also be “qualified by the terms kapuhili, kīkākapu, maha uli, nuku ‘i‘iwi or nuku ‘iwi, and wiliwili” (Elbert and Pukui 1986:195). The milletseed butterflyfish (C. miliaris) ranges in length from one to six inches and is pale yellow in color with a black band on the forehead and near the tail (Titcomb 1972). Black to blueish colored blotches also string downward on the body of the fish (ibid.). This variety of fish is known as lau wiliwili or lauhau wiliwili, meaning “wiliwili leaf,” because its shape is believed to resemble the endemic wiliwili tree. The fourspot butterflyfish (C. quadrimaculatus) is termed lauhau. A characteristic of the lauhau is described in the ‘ōlelo noʻeau, “he lauhau, he iʻa hōkake kāheka,” which has been translated as “it is a lauhau, the fish that creates disturbances in sea pools” (Pukui 1983:80). Pukui (ibid.) goes on to elaborate on this saying, noting that it was in reference to “…a boisterous person.” Manu et al. (2006) describe how lauhau were caught using the kūkulu ‘upena method, or a standing net, which was cast from the shore. They indicate that the types of fish commonly caught in the kūkulu nets were ‘āloʻiloʻi (Dascyllus albisella), hīnālea, and lauhau. With respect to its value as a food fish, Titcomb (1972:97) reports that there was some disagreement as some informants reported that this fish was “bony, not worth eating” while others contend “sweet flesh, broiled on charcoal immediately, without scaling or cleaning.” Titcomb adds that the lauhau was used in the ho‘omelumelu style of preparation. Elbert and Pukui (1986:246) define melu as “…slightly decomposed, then salted and seasoned with kukuinut relish, chili peppers, etc.” This ho‘omelumelu preparation of fish was also applied to hīnālea (ibid.). Cirrhitops fasciatus (piliko‘a) The redbarred hawkfish (Cirrhitops fasciatus) is also known as piliko‘a (lit. clinging to coral) (Titcomb 1972). It is marked with five grayish red to brick red bands of color, separated by white stripes that extend along the width of the body (Hoover 2007). White spots are also observed near the face, which diffuse down the length of the body (ibid.). Titcomb (1972:124) notes that piliko‘a were sometimes grouped with ‘o‘opu kai (sea gobies), but that they were “not true‘oʻopu.” Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis (kole) and Ctenochaetus strigosus (kole, kole makaonaona) The black surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis), or Chevron tang is a species of the kole famly. Kole (meaning “raw” or “red”) are also called ukole or pākole. They range in size from four to six inches and are reddish-black in color (Pukui and Elbert 1986:162; Titcomb 1972). The kole makaonaona (Ctenochaetus strigosus), characterized by its yellow-ringed eyes, are the more popular eating variety. The eyes of this variety were described as beautiful and the name kole maka onaona, bright-eyed kole, was often applied to them (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Kole are often found traveling in schools, sometimes associating with the pākuʻikuʻi, or Achilles Tang (Acanthurus achilles), and are 62 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context very abundant in Kona on Hawaiʻi Island. This fish has very small scales, but is known to have tough, thick skin. This trait has been poetically described in the ‘ōlelo noʻeau, “he nanea no ka lawaiʻa kole,”, meaning “it is interesting to fish for kole” (Pukui 1983:91). Pukui (ibid.) further explains that the Eglish word “story” was Hawaiianized to “kole,” and that this proverbial saying uses kole as a metaphor for describing the excitement of getting together to share stories. This fish is also noted in the moʻolelo of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, during the description of Hiʻiaka’s journey from Kohala to Puna, when she was accompanied by Lohiʻau and Wahineʻōmaʻo, and the people they encountered fed them ocean delicacies that included the “sweet-eyed kole fish” (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006b:331). Although the kole is known as being tough-skinned, it is considered a favorite fish to eat raw. Kole was also important for traditional practices and customs relating to the home, as it was believed to hole, or strip, the house of unwanted spiritual energy (Titcomb 1972). As documented by Titcomb, if a home that was under construction needed to be rid of “evil influences,” kole or ‘āholehole (Kuhlia xenura; Hawaiian flagtail) were placed under the east-facing house post prior to it being set (ibid.:60). In the March 8, 1923 issue of Ka Nūpepa Kuʻokoʻa, an article titled Ka Hoʻopakele Ana I Nā Iʻa, offers insights into the traditional beliefs and practices related to catching kole and other similar fish. Presented below is a portion of this article concerning kole (bolded for emphasis), translated by Titcomb: Fish such as the Manini, the kole, the uhu, the kumu and the palani and the kala and many others went into sea pools to live until the tiny fish were grown. No kapus were imposed on them at the spawning season. The mullet, squid, aku, opelu and other fish bore their young in a place that was not sheltered…They were made kapu when the spawning season was near until the months for this duty were over. (Titcomb 1972:14). Dascyllus abisella (‘āloʻiloʻi) The common name for the ʻāloʻiloʻi is the Hawaiian Dascyllus (Dascyllus Abisella). Titcomb (1972) describes the ‘āloʻiloʻi as a “bright and sparkling” demoiselle fish that is brown in color with large white scales extending along the width of the body. Titcomb (1972:64) presents a brief narrative from Kepelino, a Native Hawaiian cultural historian, who described the colors of the ‘āloʻiloʻi as being of “two colours, like mixed paint over the entire body, reddishbrown and black in equal degree.” The middle dorsal area of the body is lighter in color with whitish scales on the dorsal fin, while the rest of the fins are darker in color (ibid.). ʻĀloʻiloʻi typically range from five to eight inches long and have a flat body (Malo 1951; Titcomb 1972). The young stages of the fish are called ‘a, or ‘aʻa and are also referred to as ʻaʻakimakau (bait nibbling), which “is a term for a variety or perhaps an alternative name” (ibid:63). The ‘āloʻiloʻi is referenced in the ʻōlelo noʻeau, “he ‘āloʻiloʻi, ka iʻa waha iki o ke kai,” literally translated as “an ‘āloʻiloʻi, a fish of the sea that has a small mouth” (Pukui 1983:63). Pukui (ibid.) relates that this was “said of one who always has little to say.” ‘Āloʻiloʻi were considered “a tasty fish,” and were preferred “eaten raw or cooked on hot ashes” (Titcomb 1972:63–64). A method of collecting ʻālo‘iloʻi for consumption was done by using the kūkulu ‘upena, or a standing net, which was cast from shore. The types of fish commonly caught in these nets were, ‘āloʻiloʻi, hīnālea (wrasses), and lauhau (butterflyfish) (Manu et al. 2006). Halichoeres ornatissimus (lāʻō) The Ornate Wrasse (Pinkface), referred to in Hawaiian as lāʻō, is a small slender fish that ranges from five to six inches in length. Bright in color, lāʻō are distinguished by their salmon hue and iridescent green stripes that extend across the face (Hoover 2007). The dorsal, anal, and tail fins are blueish with green spots and stripes. Juvenile lā‘ō are dark reddish brown with light green stripes and brown spots. The review of culture-historical literature conducted for this study did not reveal any specific cultural information related to this species. Lutjanus kasmira Introduced initially from the Marquesas to the Hawaiian Islands in 1958 for commercial fishing purposes, Lutjanus kasmira, more commonly known as ta‘ape, or bluestriped snapper, has not fared well in Hawai‘i’s fish consumer market. These fish, which tend to school in great numbers, are often regarded by local fishermen as pest. The name ta‘ape is a Tahitian name that is commonly used in Hawai‘i (Hoover 2007). Ta‘ape are easily identified by their predominately yellow body and four blue stripes that extend along the length of the body (ibid.). Given that it arrived in Hawaiian waters so recently, there are currently no known Hawaiian names for this fish nor any traditional cultural uses, other than it being eaten at times. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 63 3. Culture-Historical Context Melichthys niger (humuhumu ‘ele‘ele) and Sufflamen bursa (humuhumu lei, humuhumu umaumalei) The humuhumu, meaning “to sew, stitch,” is a general name used to refer to many different varieties of trigger fish, including (but are not limited to) the humuhumu ‘eleʻele, or the Black Durgeon (Melichthys niger), and the humuhumu lei or humuhumu umaumalei, or the Lei Triggerfish (Sufflamen bursa) (Titcomb 1972:79). The humuhumu ‘eleʻele, is recognizable by its predominately black colored body with blue iridescent stripes on the head and white stripes at the base of its dorsal and anal fins (Hoover 2007). The humuhumu lei, on the other hand, is grayish-brown and white, but washed with a yellow color on its back (ibid.). The humuhumu lei is said “to have a bad odour” (Titcomb 1972:79). In providing information on the preparation of humuhumu, Titcomb (1972) notes that the skin is tough and hard. She adds that when being prepared, the skin was removed and the flesh salted, and that it was sometimes eaten with limu manauea. The skin is described as having a rank odor which necessitated its removal prior to eating. Traditionally, the humuhumu was broiled in ti leaves, but it is now more typically fried (ibid.). In conveying sentiments about the tastiness of this fish, Titcomb (ibid.:81) states, “Kepelino (52) says the flesh is good, better than manini; another says it is too bony to be considered a good food fish. Japanese in Hawaii are fond of it, and it therefore brings a good price in the market.” Additionally, if the humuhumu were caught in large numbers, then the remains, particularly the head, would be tossed into the fire to help keep the fire burning because of its oils. Titcomb (1972) documents a gathering method for these fish that involved lowering a basket with cooked pumpkins or sweet potatoes as bait onto a school of fish. While the fish attacked the bait in a frenzy the basket would be hoisted up and the fish caught. Naso lituratus (umaumalei, kala umaumalei) and Acanthurus thompsoni (kala) A member of the surgeonfish family (Acenthuridae), the Orangespine Unicornfish (Naso lituratus), known in Hawai‘i as umaumalei, is common in shallow waters where it feeds upon algae, sometimes in schools. In describing the most prominent features of this fish, Hoover (2007:148) writes that it has “bright orange lips, a graceful curve of yellow from eye to mouth (somewhat like a lei), and orange caudal spine identifies this attractive hornless unicorn fish.” The orange markings tend to brighten in color when hunting. The colors are dull when these fish are in their juvenile stage, while large males are distinguished by thin tail streamers (ibid.). This species ranges in size from fourteen to eighteen inches long, but they have yellow tails when they are four to five inches long, and a spike near the caudal fin used as a defense mechanism (Titcomb 1972). A chant submitted by S. Z. Kalaaukumuole (1866) to the November 24, 1866 edition of Ka Nūpepa Kū‘oko‘a states, “O ka Umaumalei ke lii,” which translates as “the umaumalei is chief.” The umaumalei is also referenced in the Kumulipo (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978), where it is paired with its land counterpart the ‘ūlei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia).While the umaumalei is a specific species within the family Acenthuridae, some traditional accounts classify them under the name kala or kala umaumalei (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1867; Titcomb 1972). Kala, although distinguished more by their protruding horn, also have a caudal spine. One such ‘ōlelo noʻeau describing this unique trait states, “mālama i ke kala ka iʻa hiʻu ‘oi,” translated as “watch out for the kala, the fish with a sharp tail,” which is said as “a warning to beware of a person who is well equipped to defend himself” (Pukui 1983:230). Kala in all of its forms was a popular Hawaiian delicacy, containing white meat and usually eaten broiled over coals and rarely eaten raw. The soft parts of the fish are described as good palu (fish bait). This fish is sometimes dried with the tough skin stripped whole, the flesh then cut off in strips and dried, or the meat cut away from the spine and dried with the skin. If the skin is left on, the flesh is cut down to the skin, after the bones are removed, so that the salt will absorb well into the flesh. According to Titcomb (1972), an informant described this fish as best when broiled or baked, after it was about three-quarters dried, and not too stiff or hard. Kala is very abundant and easy to catch which is why it is eaten often (ibid.). The skin of the kala is tough and has no scales which made it ideal for the covering on the pūniu, a small drum that was lashed onto the thigh of a hula dancer. The skin also produces a pungent odor, but its strong smell varied depending on the region it was from, which is a result of their diet. A traditional custom to rid the pungent smell, was done in the same manner as for the palani, which was to lay the fish across both hands with the head on the left palm and the tail on the right palm, then breathe in over the fish, while turning the head from left to right, and then breathe out violently. This process was repeated on the other side of the fish (Titcomb 1972). During the spawning seasons, certain fish were prohibited from being caught and consumed, which included kala (ibid.). In the March 8, 1923 issue of Ka Nūpepa Kuʻokoʻa, an article titled “Ka Hoʻopakele Ana I Nā Iʻa,” offered 64 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context insight into the traditional beliefs and sustainable practices of kala and other similar fish. Presented is a portion of this article concerning kala, translated by Titcomb: Fish such as the Manini, the kole, the uhu, the kumu and the palani and the kala and many others went into sea pools to live until the tiny fish were grown. No kapus were imposed on them at the spawning season. The mullet, squid, aku, opelu and other fish bore their young in a place that was not sheltered…They were made kapu when the spawning season was near until the months for this duty were over. (Titcomb 1972:14). Manu et al. (2006) described the ‘ie kala (lit. kala basket) as the largest type of hīnaʻi (basket fish trap). These baskets were round and flat, and about four to five feet long and two and a half to three feet deep with a one and a half foot opening. Near the large end of the opening, a small wicker cylinder or cone is attached and turned inwards towards the bottom of the basket with the free end of the cone small enough for the kala to fit through. Use of the ‘ie kala is described as follows: Immediately below the end of this cone, on the bottom of this basket, is placed the bait, properly secured, which in the case of the kala is limu kala (a course brownish-yellow algae on which this fish feeds and from which it takes its name), ripe breadfruit, cooked pumpkins, half-roasted sweet potatoes, and papayas. This basket is called ‘ie lawe (taking basket). The fishermen generally feed the fish at a given place for a week or more before taking any, using large feeding baskets, similar to the ‘ie lawe, but without the inverted cylinder and wider at the mouth to allow the fish free entry and exit. After a week or two of feeding, the fish become very fat and fine-flavored, and also very tame, so that baskets full of fish can be drawn up in the ‘ie lawe without in the least disturbing the fish which are still greedily feeding in the feeding baskets. The ‘ie kala are occasionally used to catch other kinds of fish, substituting bait known to attract particular kinds, but the technique is never as successful as with kala. (Manu el al. 2006:96) Additional methods for catching kala included the use of a holoholo, a net tied to a twelve-foot-long piece of alaheʻe (Canthium odoratum) wood. The net was lowered down in an area with swift-ebbing tides with one person holding the net and the other corralling fish into it (Manu et al. 2006). Hinaʻi pai kala, was a method of using a plaited basket as a net. The basket was filled with limu kala (seaweed), kalo (taro) and pumpkin and then let down for the fish to feed. This process was continued until the fish became plump and accustomed to feeding in the basket, then a “catching net” was lowered down to collect kala. Ostracion meleagris (pahu, moa) The Spotted Boxfish (Ostracion Meleagris) or trunkfish, is a commonly known as pahu, meaning “box,” a name likely applied because of puffy triangular shaped body (Pukui and Elbert 1986:300). This fish is also known as moa, which is noted as a Proto Polynesian word (ibid.). The pahu, identifiable by its brownish colored body with white spots, can grow up to nine inches long and prefers living in quiet waters along the shoreline (Hoover 2007). If it is disturbed it emits a poison from the skin. Traditionally, these fish were kapu (forbidden) to women. (Kent 1986). Titcomb (1972) adds that there was little flesh on this fish and that they were not eaten. Paracirrhites forsetri (hilu, hilu piliko‘a) The blackside hawkfish (Paracirrhites forsetri) is known by many names, including hilu, ‘eleʻele, lauwili, melemele, moelola, pano, pāniʻo, pilikoʻa, ʻula and uli, but is most commonly referred to as hilu (Pukui and Elbert 1986). The hilu is a brightly colored fish with prominent white and black stripes running horizontally across its body and a speckled face (Hoover 2007). It ranges in size from twelve to eighteen inches long (Titcomb 1972). Juvenile hilu are often tricolored, with bands of yellow, black, and white (Hoover 2007). Malo (1951) describes hilu as having eminences, or kino ‘oe‘oe (sharp protuberances). Titcomb (1972:75) relates that “they are found in crevices of the reef, under large projecting limu-covered rocks, or asleep in the sandy bottom, completely hidden.” This species prefers to keep out of sight but they are sometimes seen associating with other species of the wrasse family such as the ‘aʻawa (ibid.). Considered an “excellent eating” fish, hilu was traditionally either eaten raw, dried or salted and baked or broiled (Malo 1951:46). It is said that an expectant mother that craved hilu, “a small bright fish that feeds busily about coral heads, foretold a quiet, industrious child” (Handy and Pukui 1998:77). Titcomb (1972:75) adds that, “all Hawaiian informants remark upon the “quiet, ladylike” demeanour of the hilu. A child that is quiet from childhood, is called a hilu, a pregnant woman who eats hilu will have a quiet, dignified child.” Likewise, Pukui related several ‘ōlelo noʻeau that liken the demeanor of the hilu to that of a quiet child: CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 65 3. Culture-Historical Context He hilu na ke aliʻi. A hilu belonging to a chief When a pregnant woman longed for a hilu fsh, the child born to her would be a very quiet, wellbehaved person. Because chiefs liked reserved, well-mannered people, such persons were often found in the royal courts and were referred to as the chief’s hilu fish. (Pukui 1983:67) Hilu ka iʻa, he iʻa noʻenoʻe. The fish is the hilu, an attractive one. A quiet, well-behaved person. When a pregnant woman longed for hilu fish, the child born to her would be well-mannered, quiet, and unobtrusive. (ibid.:108) Another ‘ōlelo noʻeau that mentions hilu is given in references to a story known as “Ka hilu pani wai o Hauʻula,” literally translated as “The water-damming hilu fish of Hauʻula.” (Pukui 1983:143). The version of the story related by Titcomb (1972) is taken from an article titled, “Ka Huakaʻi Pokole i Koʻolauloa” (The short trip to Koʻolauloa), which appeared in the September 25, 1896 issue of the Hawaiian language newspaper, Ka Nūpepa Kū‘oko‘a. The story relates that the hilu was a kinolau (physical embodiment) of two supernatural brothers, Kaululena and Maʻiʻo, and an event that resulted in fish acquiring its distinct stripes. Kaululena and Maʻiʻo were able to assume various forms but they traveled frequently in their hilu form. Kaululena had the ability to become either a hilu, manō (shark) or kanaka (human) while Maʻiʻo could transform into a hilu or kanaka. The two brothers traveled to Oʻahu as hilu and as they neared Kawaihoa, Oʻahu they separated. Maʻiʻo headed towards the Koʻolau (windward) region and Kaululena, towards the Kona (leeward) region. While traveling through the Ko‘olau region, Maʻiʻo came upon an area named Hauʻula where a fisherman and the chief of Hauʻula, Makaliʻi, caught a glimpse of Maʻiʻo swimming along the shore. Enthralled by his size, the men quickly cast their nets and ensnared him. As they pulled Maʻiʻo on shore the people of the village watched in amazement, excited to reap their share of the days catch. The fisherman and the Hauʻula chief quickly collected their catch and cut Maʻiʻo into pieces to divide him amongst the people. While they relentlessly worked to divvy the cut pieces, the blood of Maʻiʻo spilled slowly into the ocean. It spread so far that the sky reflected its redness. Meanwhile, Kaululena reached Kaʻena when he saw the red sky. He immediately knew his brother had been killed. Woeful for his brother’s unfortunate fate, Kaululena took his human form and walked to Hauʻula to confirm his brother’s death. As Kaululena arrived at Hauʻula, he came upon a house that was broiling a piece of hilu and very discreetly, picked it up and threw it back into the sea. He continued to do this at every home that he encountered until he came upon the house of an elderly man. There Kaululena witnessed the elder performing a ceremony for him and his brother before drinking his ‘awa. When the elderly man finished his prayer, Kaululena was certain this man was their kahu, or mortal guardian. Kaululena then approached the man and asked him if he knew of Kaululena and Maʻiʻo to whom he prayed, to which the man replied that he had never seen Kaululena and Maʻiʻo, but that he was raised by his parents and grandparents to place a kapu (sacred oath) on himself pertaining to the matter of eating hilu. He continued to explain that he performed the ceremony because when the chief, Makaliʻi and his fishermen caught a large fish he did not accept the bounties of the catch, for hilu was sacred and forbidden to him. After explaining his customs, Kaululena revealed himself to the man and provided him with strict orders. He advised him to place lepa (sacred flags) around his home and when he was done he was to gather his family and keep them safe within those boundaries. Kaululena counseled the man to ensure his survival, for the land and its people who ate the flesh of the hilu would be severely punished by a great flood. Kaululena left these instructions with the man and continued on his quest to find the remaining pieces of his brother’s body. After locating all the remains of Maʻiʻo, Kaululena then traveled upland to Kipapaʻu stream, where he prayed for the rains to pour down onto the homes of those who had his brother’s remains. The heavens responded to Kaululena’s prayer and the water continued to rise in a hollow area surrounded by the hills. He then transformed into his hilu form and as the rain and water hit his body, he grew bigger and bigger until he created a barrier that prevented the water from flowing out. When the water finally filled up to the top of the basin, Kaululena quickly leaped out of the way of the gushing water and sought shelter in a cave within one of the surrounding hills. The waters raged down the stream bed and destroyed everyone and everything in its path except where the lepa were placed. Following the advice of Kaululena, the elderly man and his family were spared. It is said that Maʻiʻo regained his life and did so in the form of a striped hilu fish. The stripes, a dominant trait seen on the majority of hilu today, symbolize the parts of Maʻiʻo’s body that were seared by fire or sliced for salting (Titcomb 1972). 66 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Pseudanthias hawaiiensis The brightly colored Hawaiian longfin Anthias is distinguished by its hues of pink, yellow, and orange. Males are characterized by their yellow heads and reddish-orange bodies, lavender-hued tails, and long wispy pectoral fins. Females are mostly yellow on the head and back with a pinkish body (Hoover 2007). Although endemic to the islands, the review of culture-historical literature conducted for this study did not identify any Hawaiian name or traditional cultural uses. Zebrasoma flavescens (lā‘ī pala, lauʻīpala) The fish commonly known as yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) is known in Hawaiian as lauʻīpala or lāʻī pala. It is an inshore fish that grows up to approximately seven inches. A bright-colored yellow, the lāʻī pala has no scales with a combination of rough and soft skin. This fish although small was a delicacy and was preferred to be broiled. The skin was edible when cooked but was removed if eaten raw. This reef fish is known to school and are be beautiful in numbers (Titcomb 1972). They are common in most coastal regions, particularly in Kealakekua Bay (ibid.). In The Epic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, Hiʻiaka spoke of a healing ritual that includes the consumption of the lauʻīpala (bolded for emphasis): Listen to me, this grandchild of ours will be troubled no more. When we depart, you fetch the blossoms of the maʻo in abundance, then mash them soft, make a ball of it, and affix it to the soft spot on the head of our grandchild. Before high noon, he will awaken, and will be healed. And if he hungers for food, then feed him warm potato, along with lauʻipala, the fish called the yellow tang. That fish will make for abundance of food, like the bounty of Makaʻukiu. This grandchild of ours is no longer ill. (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006b:131–132) It is evident from the information presented above that a large majority of these species were utilized throughout the Precontact and Historic era as they are mentioned in traditional legendary narratives and a variety of historical accounts. Collectively, these narratives provide at the very least, a baseline understanding of the ways in which these fish have been utilized in Hawaiian culture. THE ARRIVAL OF WESTERNERS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN HAWAIʻI By the mid-18th century, the young and determined Kamehameha had directed his efforts towards consolidating Hawai‘i Island under his rule. To accomplish this feat, Kamehameha continued to train under his more experienced kin, namely Kalani‘ōpuʻu, who held the title of ali‘i nui of Hawai‘i Island (‘Ī‘ī 1959). During Kalani‘ōpu‘u’s reign, the first foreign vessels captained by the British explorer, James Cook arrived in Hawaiian waters. Cook first landed at Waimea, Kaua‘i in 1778 and on January 17, 1779, he anchored in Ka‘awaloa Bay, Kona within the study area (Kamakau 1992). Aboard these foreign ships were innovative technologies and diseases unknown to the original inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands. Items such as metal, nails, guns, canons, and the large foreign vessels themselves, stirred the interest of the Kānaka Maoli. Acquisition of these technological advancements came through barter. This ultimately resulted in the ali‘i gaining possession of foreign items that ultimately set traditional Hawaiian warfare in new trajectory, one forged by Kamehameha himself. By the late 18th century, wars were occurring regularly between intra-island and inter-island polities, and by 1810, Kamehameha had unified all of the Hawaiian Islands under his rule. Following this unification, Kamakahonu in Kailua, Kona became his seat of government until his death in 1819 (Kamakau 1992). The year 1778 marks the end of what is often referred to as Hawai‘i’s Precontact Period and the beginning of the Historic Period. While 1778 signifies an important date in Hawaiian history, it is vital to note that throughout the Early Historic Period, even with Western influences, the Hawaiian chiefs still held outright rule over the land and its resources, and that they maintained strict adherence to the kapu system—the very system from which their power was derived. At the outset of the Historic Period, there was a continued trend toward craft and status specialization, intensification of agriculture, ali‘i controlled aquaculture, the establishment of upland residential sites, and the enhancement of traditional oral history. The veneration of traditional gods and the strict observation of the kapu system were also at their peaks (Kent 1983; Kirch 1985). The abrogation of the kapu system in 1819, under the rule of Kamehameha’s son, ‘Iolani Liholiho (Kamehameha II) also marks significant date of socio-religious change in the Hawaiian Islands. Some researchers have argued that the abolishment of the kapu system undermined the very foundation upon which traditional Hawaiian society was built, thereby altering the relationship between the chiefs and the people, as well as their relationship to the land (Else CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 67 3. Culture-Historical Context 2004; Kame‘eleihiwa 1992). Such cultural changes were further endorsed by early Missionaries who arrived in March of 1820 off the coast of Kawaihae, and anchored in Kailua Bay a month later. These early missionaries introduced monotheistic Christian beliefs, established Hawaiian orthography, and generally promoted a Euro-American lifestyle and political system of governance. During this same time period, the first commercial fishing ventures were underway in the islands as British and American whaling fleets began to arrive in Hawaiian waters. These early whalers established Hawai‘i as the provisioning and trading headquarters (Schug 2001). The whaling industry lasted for several decades, and by the 1850s had reached its peak, with some five hundred whaling vessels operating out of the various island ports. Many Kānaka Maoli men, who were skillful on the ocean, had become employed in this industry. With the influx of foreigners, many of whom were quick to introduce the idea of trade for profit and later fee simple ownership of land, Hawai‘i’s traditional culture, and the sociopolitical economy began to shift to meet the growing demands of the foreign populations. As early as 1832, fish markets had become formally established, which were supplied with various marine products caught by Kānaka Maoli (Schug 2001). As Schug (ibid.:17) explains, “commercial fishing provided Hawaiians an early opportunity to participate in the new island economy with a relatively small capital outlay and without abandoning their own customs and skills.” In describing their adaption to newly introduced Western materials, Schug (2001:17) writes: As new goods and materials became available, Hawaiian fishermen modified their fishing accoutrements. Steel hooks, for example, replaced those carved from pearl-shell, and wooden spears were tipped with iron. But the Hawaiian retained many of the long-established fishing techniques that were so well adapted to Hawai‘i’s marine environment. Also retained were various ancient rituals to ensure safety at sea and a bountiful catch. Fishermen continued to pray to the traditional deities for success and appease them with offerings of fish. In 1839, under the administration of Kamehameha III (Kauikeaouli) a set of laws were drafted that were known as Ke Kumukānāwai, a me Nā Kānāwai O Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina (The Constitution and Laws of the Hawaiian Islands). These laws proclaimed the rights of the people, and ensured equitable protection for the people and chiefs (Achiu 2002). By October 8th, 1840, Kamehameha III and Kekāuluohi, the Kuhina Nui (Premier), had enacted the 1840 constitution that “…organized the parts and the functions of government at that time,” and included the creation of the ‘Aha‘ōlelo (House of Representatives) as part of the legislative body, thereby allowing the voice of the people to be heard in governmental matters (ibid.:35). Fishing Rights Codified in the Hawaiian Kingdom Government Constitutional Laws of 1839 and 1840 Traditionally, Hawaiian land stewardship practices and philosophies were centered around the natural resources that extended from the mountain tops to the deep ocean, which were held in “trust” by the mōʻī (King) and his ali‘i (Maly and Maly 2003). Under the ancient system, land use rights included access to fisheries and natural resources that were within the lands, which were then given to the hoaʻāina (native tenants). Kamehameha III officially defined the ancient fishing rights and practices of the people in the Constitution and Laws of 1839 and reconfirmed them in 1840 (ibid:26). With respect to the fisheries, these laws permitted Kamehameha III to distribute the fishing grounds and resources between the aliʻi and the people of the land. Maly and Maly (2003:243), further emphasizes that “fisheries on coral reefs fronting various lands were for the landlords (konohiki) and the people who lived on their given lands (ahupuaʻa) under the konohiki.” The laws were established to identify traditional fishing values and practices, while acknowledging the influences of western property rights. Maly and Maly (ibid.) have compiled the Hawaiian laws enacted between the years of 1833-1842 from archival records located at the Hawai‘i State Archives. Extracted from Maly and Maly (ibid.:244-246), those laws pertaining to fishing rights are detailed below: No na Kai noa, a me na Kai kapu. (Of free and prohibited fishing grounds) (1839-1841) I. —Of free fishing grounds. (No ka noa ana o ke kai) His majesty the King hereby takes the fishing grounds from those who now possess them, from Hawaii to Kauai, and gives one portion of them to the common people, another portion to the landlords, and a portion he reserves to himself. These are the fishing grounds which his Majesty the King takes and gives to the people; the fishing grounds without the coral reef. viz. the Kilohee grounds, the Luhee ground, the Malolo ground, together with the ocean beyond. But the fishing grounds from the coral reefs to the sea beach are for the landlords, and for the tenants of their several lands, but not for others. But if that species of fish which the landlord selects as his own personal portion, should go onto the grounds which are given to the common people, then that 68 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context species of fish and that only is taboo. If the squid, then the squid only; or if some other species of fish, that only and [1842:36] not the squid. And thus it shall be in all places all over the islands; if the squid, that only; and if in some other place it be another fish, then that only and not the squid. If any of the people take the fish which the landlord taboos for himself, this is the penalty, for two years he shall not fish at all on any fishing ground. And the several landlords shall give immediate notice respecting said fisherman, that the landlords may protect their fishing grounds, lest he go and take fish on other grounds. If there be a variety of fish on the ground where the landlord taboos his particular fish, then the tenants of his own land may take them, but not the tenants of other lands, lest they take also the fish tabooed by the landlord. The people shall give to the landlord one third of the fish thus taken. Furthermore, there shall no duty whatever be laid on the fish taken by the people on grounds given to them, nor shall any canoe be taxed or taboo’d. If a landlord having fishing grounds lay any duty on the fish taken by the people on their own fishing grounds, the penalty shall be as follows: for one full year his own fish shall be taboo’d for the tenants of his own particular land, and notice shall be given of the same, so that a landlord who lays a duty on the fish of the people may be known. If any of the landlords lay a protective taboo on their fish, when the proper fishing season arrives all the people may take fish, and when the fish are collected, they shall be divided—one third to the fishermen, and two thirds to the landlord. If there is a canoe full, one third part shall belong to the fishermen, and two [1842:37] thirds to the landlord. If the landlord seize all the fish and leave none for the fishermen, the punishment is the same as that of the landlords who lay a duty on the fish of the people. If, however, there is any plantation having fishing grounds belonging to it, but no reef, the sea being deep, it shall be proper for the landlord to lay a taboo on one species of fish for himself, but one species only. If the parrot fish, then the parrot fish only; but if some other fish, then that only and not the parrot fish. These are the enactments respecting the free fishing grounds, and respecting the taking of fish. 2.—Respecting the taboo’d fishing grounds. (No na kai kapu) Those fishing grounds which are known by the people to have shoals of fish remaining upon them, shall at the proper season for fishing be placed under the protective taboo of the tax officers, for the King. The fishing grounds on Oahu thus protected, are 1, Kalia; 2, Keehi; 3, Kapapa; 4, Malaeakuli; 5, Pahihi. On Molokai, as follows: I, Punalau; 2, Ooia; 3, Kawai; 4, Koholanui; 5, Kaonini; 6, Aikoolua; 7, Waiokama; 8, Heleiki. On Lanai the Bonito and the Parrot fish. On Maui, the Kuleku of Honuaula and other places. On Hawaii, the Albicore. On Kauai, the Mullet of Huleia, Anehola [Anahola], Kahili and Hanalei, and the squid and fresh water fish of Mana, the permanent shoal fish of Niihau, and all the transient shoal fish from Hawaii to Niihau, if in sufficient quantity to fill two or more canoes, but not so small a quantity as to fill one canoe only. But if the fishermen go and borrow a large canoe, that all the fish may be put into one, then there shall be a duty upon them. [1842:38] On the above conditions there shall be a government duty on all the transient shoal fish of the islands. The tax officer shall lay a protective taboo on these fish for his Majesty the King, and when the proper time for taking the fish arrives, then the fish shall be divided in the same manner as those which are under the protective taboo of the landlords. If the tax officer seize all the fish of the fisherman, and leave none for those who take them, then he shall pay a fine of ten dollars, and shall have nothing more to say respecting the royal taxes. But if the order for seizing all the fish of the fishermen was from the Governor, then he shall no longer be Governor, though he may hold his own lands, and the tax officer shall not be turned out of office. At the proper time the tax officer may lay a protective taboo on all the King’s fish, and the landlords’ all around the island. But it is not proper that the officer should lay the taboo for a long time. The CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 69 3. Culture-Historical Context best course is for the officer to give previous notice to the fishermen, and then the common people and the landlords to fish on the same day. Thus the rights of all will be protected. But no restrictions whatever shall by any means be laid on the sea without the reef even to the deepest ocean. Though the particular fish which the general tax officer prohibits, and those of the landlords which swim into those seas, are taboo. The fine of those who take prohibited fish is specified above. [1842:39] Maly and Maly (2003) also report that on May 31st, 1841, several changes were made and signed into the law on fisheries by the King and aliʻi. One such section revised the punishment of a fisherman to state, “for two years he shall not fish at all on any fishing ground” and “if he take one fish criminally he shall pay five, and always at that rate. And if a canoe full be taken then five canoes full shall [1842:85] be paid, according to the amount taken, even to the farthest extent [1842:86]” (ibid.:245-246). In 1846, Article V of the “Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III” was published. These laws identified the responsibilities and rights of the konohiki and the people pertaining to various types of fishing grounds and resources. As can be seen below, the laws also acknowledged the practice of kapu, or restrictions, with respect to fishing customs and specific fisheries: ARTICLE V.—OF THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS OF PISCARY (1846) SECTION I. The entire marine space, without and seaward of the reefs, upon the coasts of the several islands, comprising the several fishing grounds commonly known as the Kilohee grounds— the Luhee grounds—the Malolo ground, and the fishery of the ocean, from said reefs to the limit of the marine jurisdiction in the first article of this chapter defined, shall be free to the people of these islands. The people shall not be molested in the enjoyment thereof except as hereinafter provided. SECTION II. The fishing grounds from the reefs, and where there happen to be no reefs from the distance of one geographical mile seaward to the beach at low water mark, shall in law be considered the private property of the landlords whose lands, by ancient regulation, belong to the same; in the possession of which private fisheries, the said landholders shall not be molested except to the extent of the reservations and prohibitions hereinafter set forth. SECTION III. The landholders shall be considered in law to hold said private fisheries for the equal use of themselves and the [1846:90] tenants on their respective lands; and the tenants shall be at liberty to use the fisheries of their landlords, subject to the restrictions in this article imposed. SECTION IV. The landlords shall have power, each year, to set apart for themselves one given species or variety of fish natural to their respective fisheries, giving public notice by viva voce proclamation to their tenants and others residing on their lands, and signifying to the minister of the interior, in writing, through his agents in their districts, the kind and description of fish which they have chosen to set apart for themselves. The landlords shall respectively pay for such notification, the fees prescribed by the third part of this act; and it shall be the duty of the minister of the interior yearly to furnish the director of the government press with a list of said landlords, the districts and island of their residence, and the kind of fish specially set apart by each, in the form of a catalogue; which catalogue the said director shall cause to be once inserted in Hawaiian and English languages, in the Polynesian newspaper, for public information, at the expense of said minister to be included by him, according to a fixed rate, in the fees to be received at his department from the respective landlords. SECTION V. The specific fish so set apart shall be exclusively for use of the landlords, if caught within the bounds of his fishery, and neither his tenants nor others shall be at liberty to appropriate such reserved fish to their private use; but when caught, such reserved fish shall be the property of the landlord, for which he shall be at liberty to sue and recover the value from any fisherman appropriating the same; and more over, if he take one fish criminally he shall pay five, and in the proportion shall he pay to the full amount of what he may have taken wrongfully. Whoever may have taken fish in violation of this law, without paying as about, shall be fined fifty dollars for each offence. SECTION VI. The landlords shall not have power to lay any tax or impose any other restriction upon their tenants regarding the private fisheries that is in the preceding section prescribed, neither shall such further restrictions be valid. [1846:91] 70 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context SECTION VII. It shall be competent to the landlords, on consultation with the tenants of their lands, in lieu of setting apart some peculiar fish to their exclusive use, as hereinbefore allowed, to prohibit during certain indicated months of the year, all fishing of every description upon their fisheries; and, during the fishing season to exact of each fisherman among their tenants, one thirds part of all the fish taken upon their private fishing grounds. In every such case it shall be incumbent on the landlords to comply in like manner with the requirements of the fourth section of this article. SECTION VIII. The royal fish shall appertain to the Hawaiian government, and shall be the following, viz: 1st. The bonito when off any part of the coast of Lanai. 2nd. The albicore of Hawaii. 3rd. The mullet of Huleia, Anehola [Anahola], and Hanalei; the squid and freshwater fish of Mana on Kauai. 4th. The shoal fish taken at the following places, noted for the abundance of fish frequenting them; off Oahu: 1, Kalia; 2, Keehi; 3, Kapapa; 4, Malaeakuli, and 5, Pahihi. 5th. Off Molokai: 1, Punalau; 2, Ooia; 3, Kawai; 4, Koholanui; 5, Kaonini; 6, Aikoolua; 7, Waiokama, and 8, Heleiki. 6th. And off Maui; the kuleku of Honuaula; and the same whenever found off said island. 7th. All the following transient fish, viz:—1, the kule; 2, the anaeholo; 3, the alalauwa; 4, the uhukai; 5, the kawelea; 6, the kawakawa; 7, the kalaku. These shall be divided equally between the king and fishermen. But on all the prohibited fishing grounds the landlords shall be entitled to one species of fish, and those who have walled fish ponds shall be allowed to scoop up small fish to replenish their ponds. If the prohibited fish of the landlord be mingled with the royal fish, then the landlord shall be entitled to one third of the whole of the fish taken, though this applies only to Molokai, Oahu and the rivers of Kauai. All which shall be yearly protected by the king's taboo, to be imposed by the minister of the interior, by means of circular from his department, as prescribed in the act to organize the executive ministry; and during the specified season of taboo they shall not be subject to be taken by the people. [1846:92] SECTION IX. At the expiration of the taboo seasons, all persons inhabiting these islands shall be at liberty to take the protected fish, accounting to the fishery agents of the respective districts off which the same shall have been caught, for the half or portion, so taken; and the minister of the interior shall make known through his agents by viva voce proclamation, the respective months or seasons of the year during which the said royal fisheries may be used and the said protected fish taken. SECTION X. The minister of the interior shall appoint suitable and proper fishing agents in the several coast districts of the respective islands, to superintend the fisheries aforesaid, to whom he shall from time to time give directions through the respective governors, in regard to the sale or other disposition of the share of fish accruing to the government. SECTION XI. It shall be the duty of the agents appointed, to exact and receive of all fishermen, for the use of the royal exchequer, during the legalized fishing seasons the one half part, or portion of all protected fish taken without the reefs, whether at the respective places in the eighth section of this article indicated, or in the channels and enclosed seas dividing these islands, or upon the high seas within the marine jurisdiction of this country. And if any officer or agent of this government shall exact more fish of the people than is in and by this section expressly allowed, he shall on conviction, forfeit his office, and be liable to pecuniary fine, in the discretion of the court, before which he shall have been convicted. SECTION XII. It shall be competent for His Majesty, by an order in council, from time to time, to set apart any given portion, or any definite kind of the said protected fish, or any proportional part of the avails therefrom arising, for the use of the royal palace, to be delivered or paid over to the chamberlain of his household, created by the third part of this act. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 71 3. Culture-Historical Context SECTION XIII. It shall be incumbent on the minister of the interior to provide, by instructions to the respective governors, for the sale and disposal of all fish received by the said fishing agents, and to pay the avails thereof to the minister of finance. [1846:93] SECTION XIV. If any person shall, in violation of this article, take out of season the fish protected by the king’s taboo, or if any person shall, within the free fishing seasons, take any of the protected fish, without delivering to the agent appointed for that purpose the proportion accruing to the royal exchequer, he shall, on conviction, forfeit all fish found in his possession, and shall, in addition, pay fivefold for all fish thus taken, or he may be put in confinement, at the discretion of the court condemning him. [1846:94; HSA collection KFH 25 .A24 1825/46] (Maly and Maly 2003:246-248) THE LEGACY OF THE MĀHELE ‘ĀINA OF 1848 By the mid-19th century, the ever-growing population of Westerners in the Hawaiian Islands forced socioeconomic and demographic changes that promoted the establishment of a Euro-American style of land ownership. By 1840 the first Hawaiian constitution had been drafted and the Hawaiian Kingdom shifted from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional government. Convinced that the feudal system of land tenure previously practiced was not compatible with a constitutional government, the King (Kamehameha III/Kauikeaouli) and his high-ranking chiefs decided to separate and define the ownership of all lands in the Kingdom (King n.d.). This period of land tenure transformation is known as the Māhele ‘Āina. The change in land tenure was further promoted by missionaries and Western businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that could be taken from them at any time. After much consideration, it was decided that three classes of people each had one-third vested rights to the lands of Hawai‘i: the King, the chiefs and konohiki, and their tenants (the maka‘āinana or common people) (Chinen 1958). Prior to the 1848 Māhele ‘Āina, in 1845 the legislature created the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (more commonly known as the Land Commission), first to adopt guiding principles and procedures for dividing the lands and granting land titles, and then to act as a court of record to investigate and ultimately award or reject all claims of private individuals brought before them (Cannelora 1974). All land claims, whether by chiefs for entire ahupua‘a or by tenants for their house lots and gardens, had to be filed with the Land Commission within two years of the effective date of the Act (February 14, 1846) to be considered. All of the land claimants were required to provide proof of land use and occupation, which took the form of volumes of native registry and testimony. The work of hearing, adjudicating, and surveying the claims required more time than was prescribed by the two-year term, and the deadline was extended several times, not for new claims, but for the Land Commission to finish its work (Alexander 1920). This deadline was also extended several times for chiefs and konohiki, but not for commoners (Soehren 2004) The Mō‘ī (King) and some 245 ali‘i (Kuykendall 1938) spent nearly two years trying unsuccessfully to divide all the lands of Hawai‘i amongst themselves before the whole matter was referred to the Privy Council on December 18, 1847 (King n.d.). Once the Mō‘ī and his ali‘i accepted the principles of the Privy Council, the Māhele ‘Āina was completed in just forty days (on March 7, 1848), and the names of all of the ahupua‘a and ‘ili kūpono (nearly independent ʻili land division within an ahupuaʻa) of the Hawaiian Islands and the ali‘i who claimed them, were recorded in the Buke Māhele (1848) (also known as the Māhele Book) (Soehren 2005b). As this process unfolded the Mō‘ī, Kamehameha III, who received roughly one-third of the lands of Hawai‘i, realized the importance of setting aside public lands that could be sold to raise money for the government and also purchased by his subjects to live on. Accordingly, the day after the division when the name the last chief was recorded in the Buke Māhele, the Mō‘ī, Kamehameha III commuted about two-thirds of the lands awarded to him to the Hawaiian Kingdom Government (King n.d.). Unlike the Mō‘ī, the ali‘i and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive their land awards (known as Land Commission Awards or LCAw). The chiefs who participated in the Māhele were also required to provide to the government commutations of a portion of their lands in order to receive a Royal Patent giving them title to their remaining lands. The lands surrendered to the government by the Mō‘ī and ali‘i became known as “Government Land,” while the lands retained by Kamehameha III became known as “Crown Land,” and the lands received by the chiefs became known as “Konohiki Land” (Chinen 1958:vii, 1961:13). To expedite the work of the Land Commission, all lands awarded during the Māhele were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be formally surveyed. During the Māhele, native tenants residing on the lands that were divided up among the Crown, Konohiki, and Government could claim, and acquire title to, kuleana parcels that they actively lived on or farmed. The Board of Commissioners oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as Land Commission Awards (LCAw.). Claims for kuleana had to be submitted during a two-year period that expired on February 14, 1848 to be considered. All of the land claimants were required to provide proof of land use and occupation, which took the form of volumes of native registry and testimony. The claims and awards were numbered, and the LCAw. numbers, in conjunction with 72 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context the volumes of documentation, remain in use today to identify the original owners and their use of the kuleana lands. The work of hearing, adjudicating, and surveying the claims required more than the two-year term, and the deadline was extended several times for the Land Commission to finish its work. In the meantime, as the new owners of the lands on which the kuleana were located began selling parcels to foreigners, questions arose concerning the rights of the native tenants and their ability to access and collect the resources necessary for sustaining life. The “Enabling” or “Kuleana Act,” passed by the King and Privy Council on December 21, 1849, clarified the native tenants’ rights to the land and resources, and the process by which they could apply for fee-simple interest in their kuleana. Early in this process, questions concerning the rights of the konohiki and their imposing of restrictions upon the hoa‘āina in the matters of fisheries arose. Maly and Maly (2003:250) relate that “a number of communications clarifying the Laws cited above, were published.” Among the communications was an Interior Department document (detailed below), which sought to resolve the issue: FISHING RIGHTS, RESTRICTIONS AND LIBERATION Interior Department Document Number 148 That, to whomsoever it may concern, the catching with hands of fishes and shrimps, etc., from the specified seas call, “Fishing grounds”, for human consumption only are hereby liberated. That, is the King or the Konohiki are lack in having the catch of a certain fish and wish to prohibit some of these fishes (unspecified fish: but freely given to citizens), it is well in doing so. That, the Konohiki is hereby ordered to take only one fish; and that the main coral fishing grounds, or other coral fishing grounds are under the jurisdiction of the government. That, the Konohiki is hereby allowed to take only one fish from these coral fishing grounds; and that he is not to take two or three; not that much. If the overseer or the Konohiki who is in charge of a fishing right knows that he is out of fish, and wishes to have some by sending his brother out to fish, it is at his discretion in doing so; but, not to accuse him after the fish is caught. (Maly and Maly 2003:250–251) As a result of the Māhele ‘Āina, all lands (specifically ahupua‘a and ‘ili kūpono) within Hawai‘i were placed into one of three categories: Crown lands, Government lands, and Ali‘i-Konohiki lands. With respect to those lands within the current study area, Kamehameha III retained for himself (Crown lands) eight lands, three of which are within Kohala District (Kawaihae Komohana, Pu‘ukapu, and Waimea), and the remaining five are within the Kona District (Hale‘ōhiu, Honomalino, Onouli 2, Pua‘a 2, and Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a). A total of 185 lands eventually became a part of the Government land holdings with 105 of those located in the Kona District, 69 lands in the Kohala District, and the remaining 11 situated in the Ka‘ū District. A total of 111 lands were claimed by the ali‘i-konohiki, with 71 located in the Kona District, 37 in the Kohala District, and the remaining 3 in the Ka‘ū District. In all, some 302 lands located within the study area were claimed during the Māhele ‘Āina of 1848 (Soehren 2004, 2005b, 2005a). Fisheries and Fishing Rights Recorded During the Māhele ‘Āina The plethora of documents that were generated as a result of the Māhele ‘Āina contain vital information pertaining not only to land use and practices, but fisheries and fishing rights that extended out to sea as well. In gathering information on fishery rights, Maly and Maly (2003) summarized the claims made by the ali‘i-konohiki, and hoa‘āina. While they compiled the fishery rights information for all of the major Hawaiian Islands, only those specific to the current study area are presented below. Given that many of the ali‘i-konohiki land claims encompassed lands on multiple islands, it is difficult to ascertain those claims specific to the current study area. Many of these claims make broad references to fisheries and do not give specific details regarding fishery types. Nonetheless, the information presented below provides an overview of claims made by the ali‘i-konohiki, and demonstrates the abundance and importance applied by Kānaka Maoli to maintaining traditional fishing rights following the Māhele ‘Āina of 1848. With respect to the ali‘i-konohiki claims, Maly and Maly (2003:253-254) write: Helu [LCAw.] Claimant; Location; and Resource Claimed H. Kalama (wife of Kamehameha III). Fourteen lands and fisheries 4452 on Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. 5368 Akahi (w.) Land and fisheries of: Kealia, Makalawena and Keei iki, Kona, Hawaii; and Puuepa and Ulupaalua, Kohala, Hawaii; and Kaaipu, Waikiki, Oahu. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 73 3. Culture-Historical Context 5525 7712 7713 7714 B 7715 7716 8452 8515 8516 B 8518 B 8519 B 8520 8520 B 8521 B 8522 B 8559 8559 B 9971 10474 10613 10806 11215 11216 74 L. Konia (w). Ten lands and fisheries at: Keei, Kona, Hawaii; Lumahai, Kauai; Napili, Honokeana, Alaeloa, and Mailepai, Kaanapali, Maui; and Kalauao, Oahu. M. Kekuanaoa. Six lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, and Oahu. Victoria Kamamalu. Fifty-three lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Moses Kekuaiwa. Twelve lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, and Oahu. Lot Kapuaiwa Kamehameha. Sixteen lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. R. Keelikolani (w.). Twelve lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Maui and Oahu. A. Keohokalole (w.). Thirty-seven lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. Keoni Ana. Lands and fisheries of: Kawaihae, Kohala, Hawaii; Kukuau, Hilo, Hawaii; and Halehaku, Maui. Kamaikui (w.). Lands and fisheries at: Waiaka 1st, Kohala Hawaii; Kalama, Kona, Hawaii; Kahului, Kona, Hawaii; Halawa, Ewa, Oahu. James Young Kanehoa. Lands and fisheries at: Ouli, Kohala, Hawaii; Ulaino, Maui; and Lawai, Kauai. Fanny Young (w.) Kiiokalani, Kohala; and Pahoehoe, Kona, Hawaii; Maunalei, Lanai; and Haleu, Lahaina, Maui. Iosua Kaeo. Five lands and fisheries on Hawai‘i; Kealia, Lanai; Maui, and Oahu. Gini Lahilahi (w.) Lands and fisheries at: Waiaka 2nd and Waika, Kohala, Hawaii; Pahoehoe, Hawai‘i; Waikahekahe, Hawaii; and Puunoa, Lahaina, Maui. G. Davis Hueu. Lands and fisheries of: Kukuau 2, Hilo, Hawaii; and Kiilae, Kona, Hawaii. Kale Davis (w.). Lands and fisheries at: Honokahua, Maui; Kapaa, Kohala, Hawaii; and Waikahekahe, Puna, Hawaii. C. Kanaina. Thirteen lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Maui and Oahu. Wm. Lunalilo. Sixty-three lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Wm. P. Leleiohoku. Thirty-five lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai and Oahu. N. Namauu for M. Kekuanaoa. Twelve lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. A. Paki. Six lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu. Iona Piikoi for Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha III; and unnumbered lands described in Buke Mahele (1848). At least 159 Crown Lands covering Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and Kauai, with fisheries rights on all island. Kealiiahonui. Three lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, and Oahu. M. Kekauonohi (w). Fifty-seven lands and fisheries on Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context In summarizing the land claims made by the hoa‘āina (native tenants), Maly and Maly (2003) clarify that there were some seventy-six claims that made explicit reference to fishery-related activities for the entirety of Hawai‘i Island, of which twenty-three are specific to the current study area. Unlike the claims made by the ali‘i-konohiki, which are far more vague (described in the previous section), the claims made by the hoa‘āina provide a little more detail on the the fisheries within the current study area during the mid-19th century. These claims include references to fishponds, anchialine ponds, salt production areas, umu ‘ōhua (stone mound fry fisheries), anchialine shrimp ponds, as well as general references to coastal fisheries. Several land claims make explicit reference to the fish that were reserved for the konohiki of specific lands. While the claims presented below do not reflect all possible fishery-related activities that were occurring during the mid-19th century, they do provide a glimpse into nature and location in which such activities occurred. Those fishing rights claimed by the native tenants along the coast of Hawaii Island during the Māhele ʻĀina of 1848 have been extracted from Maly and Maly (2003:254-256) and are presented below: Helu [LCAw.] Claimant; Location; and Resource Claimed 817 Heirs of George Beckley at Kealahewa, Kohala, Hawaii. A farm and fishing grounds, given by Kamehameha I about 1811. 3480 Kauwe at Kauhako, Kapalilua, Kona, Hawaii. A kupono ocean fishery, like a pond. 4012 Thomas Hopu (Hooper) at Kailua, Kona, Hawaii. “Seashore kihapai, it is a salt pond, 17 fathoms by 27 fathoms.” Keawekuloa at Puako, Waimea, Hawaii. Five kaheka 4099 loko (anchialine fishponds). 4140 Kamanawa at Kaloko, Kona, Hawaii. A lot bounded on side by Kaloko pond. 4452 Hazaleleponi Kalama at Kalahuipuaa and Anaehoomalu, ili of Waimea, Kohala, Hawaii. Lands including approximately twelve fish ponds. 5317 Kaawa at Lanihau, Hawaii. A lot in the ili of Kaluaolike, bounded on Kau side by pond of Alanaio. 5759 Kapule at Pahoehoe, North Kona. Kala is the fish to be taken by konohiki. Kapule at Pahoehoe, North Kona, Hawaii. “…Here is a 5759 second thought, about the fish of the konohiki, it is the kala in the fishery; and the ulu is the tree on the land...” 5778 Kaai at Pakini, Kau. A protected fish. 5874 Keohokalole at Kaawaloa, Kona, Hawaii. Fisheries and ponds at Hanapahoehoe, Awili, Kalaemamo, and Haliilua. 5874 Keohokalole at Kealakekua, Kona, Hawaii. Fish pond of Wailokoalii. 6230 J. A. Kuakini at Puuanahulu, Hawaii. Fifteen salt ponds and three fish ponds. Kapaakea at Kaapuna, Kona, Hawaii. Some protected 6235 fish. 7277 Kaieie at Keei, Hawaii. One pond at Kalaeohia. 7702 Kooka at Kealia, Kona, Hawaii. An umu ohua (stone mound fry fishery). 8773 B Haumea at Kahuku, Kau, Hawaii. The protected fish of the Konohiki is the opelu, the tree is the mamaki. 9251 Kaea at Lanihau, Kona, Hawaii. Seven wai opae (anchialine shrimp ponds) at shore. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 75 3. Culture-Historical Context 10000 10264 10340 10527 10913 Lukehiwa at Honomalino, Hawaii. “…An ahupuaa, received from Unualoha, from the sea to the upland koa forest. The opelu is its fish which is taken, and the koko is its wood which is taken…” Mahi at Hoopuloa, Hawaii. The ocean fishery of Kipehu. Namalo at Kamaoa, Kau, Hawaii. “…A fishing right is at the sea in Kawela, Puueo and Waiopua…” Namaielua at Kapua, Hawaii. A fish pond in the ili of Kailiohia. Uahine at Kamaoa, Kau, Hawaii. A salt land; and fishing rights in Kawela, Waiopua and Mohoae. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION: AHUPUAʻA BOUNDARIES AND FISHING RIGHTS ALONG THE WESTERN COAST OF HAWAIʻI ISLAND Although the entwined relationship of terrestrial and oceanic resources within the ahupua‘a system were traditionally recognized by Kānaka Maoli, who considered the sea an extension of land, differing perceptions and realities of the ocean as it pertained to the ahupua‘a unit began to arise during the mid-nineteenth century. With the establishment of the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i in 1862, boundaries of all ahupua‘a that were awarded as part of the Māhele ‘Āina were legally set. The boundaries of the lands were subsequently certified by the Commissioners of Boundaries in 1874. The primary informants for the boundary descriptions were old native residents of the lands, many of whom had also been claimants for kuleana during the Māhele. This information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and transcribed into English as it occurred. Hearings for most ahupua‘a boundaries were brought before the Boundary Commission and later surveyed by Government employed surveyors, many of whom were accompanied and guided by Kānaka who related the boundaries as passed down to them through their kupuna. Conversely, in some instances, ahupua‘a boundaries were established through a combination of other methods such as conducting surveys on adjacent ahupua‘a. Or in cases where the entire ahupua‘a was divided and awarded as Land Claim Awards (LCAw.), and or Government issued Land Grants (both which required formal surveys), the Boundary Commission relied on those surveys to establish the boundaries for that ahupua‘a. Surveying land boundaries was a tough and methodical task, centered primarily around the accurate location, recordation, and triangulation of prominent geographic and cultural features, however it “was not merely a matter of measuring angles and lines, it involved listening to people about their use of land and making judgements that would affect the quality of their lives” (Moffat and Fitzpatrick 1995:60). Therefore, in order to accurately ascertain the boundaries of the ahupua‘a, it was crucial to combine scientific concepts and procedures with generational knowledge held by the Kānaka Maoli. Some of the Kānaka Maoli who accompanied foreign surveyors even took up the practice of surveying themselves. Although these surveys aided in establishing the ahupuaʻa boundaries, the maps produced present only a basic outline of the land divisions, and they lack the cultural knowledge of the landscape presented during the Boundary Commission hearings. Generally, there was great emphasis placed on the identification of terrestrial features along, and adjacent to, ahupua‘a boundaries that demarcated them from the next. However, many ahupua‘a boundaries traditionally extended offshore into the kai. The tightly woven interconnection between mauka and makai resources, spanning from the uplands to the sea, was largely overlooked by the surveyors who sought primarily to record the boundaries of ahupua‘a based upon physical features of the land. These differing perceptions of ahupua‘a boundaries and resource procurement areas, whether marine or terrestrial-based, are evident in the Boundary Commission testimonies, most notably in those provided by land surveyors, rather than kama‘āina informants, where intangible oceanic boundaries are disregarded. While rare, testimonies presented by surveyors in lieu of kama‘āina informants (e.g. ‘Upolu Ahupua‘a in North Kohala) were markedly fixated on discerning boundaries based on earthly attributes, and were non-inclusive of information pertaining to intangible ahupua‘a boundaries that extended past the shoreline and into the sea. Alternatively, Boundary Commission testimonies provided by natives were infused with meticulous recollections of not only tangible earthly features, but also those which were imperceptible except to those who had intimate knowledge of the land, sea, and customary practices that occurred in these places. Native testimonies often preserve crucial culture-historical information related whether or not ahupua‘a boundaries extended out to the sea, the distance to which they extended, and the fishing rights of the people therein. 76 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context The analysis of 107 ahupua‘a—extending from Kahei in North Kohala to Kamāʻoa in Ka‘ū—that were surveyed and testified about as part of the Boundary Commission process, reveals that seventy-four of these land divisions had boundaries extending out into sea, sixty-seven of which claimed fishing rights to those waters. The disparity between the amount of surveyed ahupua‘a and those that claimed fishing rights (roughly 63%) is not necessarily an accurate representation of the general scope of traditional ahupua‘a boundaries or access to fishing rights along the western coast of Hawai‘i Island, nor is it indicative of patterns island-wide. In some cases (thirty-one total ahupua‘a, roughly 29%), the extent of an ahupua‘a boundary into the sea was simply not specified or discussed. It is also imperative to note that Boundary Commission testimony was not presented for every ahupua‘a that claimed traditional fishing rights, and that ambiguity regarding the details of the rights of an ahupua‘a often arose from the fact that the boundaries could not be clarified, either because of a total lack of testimony or because of the omission of crucial detail within existing testimonies. The Boundary Commission information for the study area ahupuaʻa within North Kohala, South Kohala, North Kona, South Kona, and Ka‘ū presented below provides a glimpse into how the traditional ahupua‘a system operated with respect to intangible seaward boundaries and access to the fishing access rights therein. North Kohala District Twenty ahupua‘a in North Kohala stretching southward from Kahei to Waikā, the southernmost limit of the district, were surveyed for their boundaries (Table 4 and Figure 25). Of these, fourteen had boundaries that extended out to sea, and eleven were identified as having ancient fishing rights. The particulars of the extent of the fishing grounds of five of the ahupua‘a (Kaiholena 1st and 2nd, Kamano, Pua‘a 1st, and Pu‘uepa 1st) were elaborated upon by those who provided Boundary Commission testimony, and testimony provided for two additional ahupua‘a (Ki‘iokalani and Kehena 2nd) related that fishing rights and resources were reserved for the konohiki or that the konohiki had right to collect monetary taxes for the aquatic resources obtained. The testimonies given for ahupua‘a in North Kohala with more detailed explanations of fishing rights varied in extent. In one case, fishing privileges were only permitted to as far as the bottom of the ocean that could be seen, or to indeterminable depths that were not elaborated upon, while other ahupua‘a retained a broader expanse from which to gather resources, extending from near shore out into deep water. For some ahupuaʻa the boundaries were delineated by traditional fishing grounds, like in the case of Pua‘a 1st whose fishing rights terminated at the place where squid could be caught. In another case, the fishing rights were limited to roughly 5/8 of a mile offshore in the deep sea. Excerpts of Boundary Commission testimonies for the ahupua‘a of North Kohala that discuss ancient fishing rights and boundaries are presented below (underlining and italicization added for emphasis and clarity). Kaiholena 1st and 2nd Kama, sworn: . . . My parents now dead, were kamaaina of Kohala, and pointed out the boundaries of the lands to me. The sea bounds these two lands on the makai side. These lands had ancient fishing rights extending out to the deep sea. The land Makeanehu 1st bounds Kaiholena 2nd on the south side. The lands Kaiholena 1st and 2nd lay side and side from the shore to the end of both lands. The boundary between Kaiholena 2nd and Makeanehu 1st at the sea shore is a long rocky point, narrow near the main land and growing wider a little way from the shore called Honoaumi. . . (Volume A No. 1:80) Hauli, sworn: . . . The sea bounds Kaiholena 1st and 2nd on the makai side. The fisheries belonging to these lands used to extend out to sea as far as from here to Kama's house (about 5/8 of a mile). A point at the sea shore on south side of land is the boundary between Kaiholena 2d and Makeanehu 1. There is a pali called Nohonaumi just mauka of this point. . . (Volume A No. 1:81) Kamano Palua, sworn: . . . Thence makai to Puopahoaakahi, a resting place. From thence to Kaaka, a place where the natives tied their ropes when they were fishing. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out as far as you can see bottom. (Volume B:143) Kehena 2nd Kikalaeka, sworn: . . . Hauli, now present in Court, showed me the makai boundaries of Kehena 2nd. I went with Wiltse several years ago when he was surveying on the sea shore. I do not know the boundaries. Do not know whether Kehena 2nd had any fishing rights or not. . . [Volume A No. 1:75] Hauli, sworn: . . .A water spring named Maue on the north side of Keawanui is the boundary at the shore between Kehena 1st and Kehena 2d. The sea bounds Kehena 2d on the makai side. I have CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 77 3. Culture-Historical Context always heard that Kehena 2d had ancient fishing rights extending out a good way into the sea. Nakapauluhua, father of Pohakuuli, was Konohiki of Kehena, and always charged people for fishing on the sea belonging to Kehena and collected the pay. . . (Volume A No. 1:75) Ki‘iokalani Kekuaaea, sworn. . . thence to Ahuliilii, a resting place. The compass was put here to sight to Puulepo; thence makai to Pukoae, a resting place; thence to Malae, a point at the shore; Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:276) Pohakuauli, sworn. . . Bounded makai by the sea, where we went fishing; we had to give fish to the Konohiki. . . (Volume B:277) Kukuipahu Ku, sworn. . . From the shore to Kepioholowai is as far as I know the boundaries. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:135) Kaneihalau, sworn. . . I have heard that Kaauhuhu and Kukuipahu join. Bounded on the makai side by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. This is all I know of the boundaries of Kukuipahu. . . (Volume B:137) Māhukona 2nd Palua, sworn: . . Poupou is the point at shore between Mahukona 1st and Mahukona 2nd. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Kaheana’s kuleana joins Mahukona 1st at the sea shore. (Volume B:141) Pua‘a 1st Kauua, sworn. . . I was born at Puaa, North Kona Hawaii, at the time of Keoua, and have always lived there, and am acquainted with the boundaries of the land. . . Puaa is bounded makai by the sea and the land has ancient fishing rights near the shore but not extending out to sea. . . Puaa has ancient fishing rights extending to the squid grounds. (Volume A No 1:376) Puanui Kanaha, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:130) Paahao, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:130) Pu‘uepa 1st Pahiha, sworn: . . . Hukiaa 3d bounds Puuepa 1st on the east side; Kukuipahu mauka and Puuepa 2d on the north side and makai by the sea. Puuepa 1st always had a fishing right, extending out into deep water. A long rock in the sea called Pohakuloa is the boundary at shore between Puuepa 1st, Hukiaa 3d there is a large rock on shore marked P & H; thence the boundary runs up iwi aina (a ridge of small stones which the natives formed in clearing their potato and kalo patches) to stones set in the ground and marked P. . . (Volume A No. 1:163-164) Waikā Puhi, sworn: . . . A rocky point, named Oneloa, is the boundary of Waika where Kawaihae joins it. I do not know about fishing rights. . . (Volume A No. 1:171) Kaohia, sworn: . . . The sea is the makai boundary, and the land had an ancient fishing right extending out to sea. Oneloa is the boundary between Kawaihae and Waika; thence up a small awaawa to a point makai of Maaukaa. . . (Volume A No. 1:172) 78 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 4. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the North Kohala District. Boundary Testimony Boundary Extends to Sea Fishing Rights Awalua Hāʻena Honoipu Kāhei, Hualua Kahuā Li‘ili‘i (1st) Kahuā Nui (2nd) Kaiholena 1st and 2nd Kaihoʻonā Kaipuhaʻa, Lamaloloa Kalala 1st and 2nd, Kokiʻo Kamano Kapaʻa Kapa‘a Iki Kapaʻa Nui Kapunapuna Kaupalaoa Kealahewa 1st Kealahewa 3rd Kehena, Kipi Kehena 2nd No No No No Yes Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Yes Not specified Not specified Yes No No - - Roughly 5/8 of a mile into the deep sea - No - - - Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Yes Kiʻiokalani Kokoiki Kou Kukuipahu Māhukona 1st Māhukona 2nd Makeanehu Makiloa, Pahinahina Opihipau, Hukiaʻa Pōhakulua, Ahulua Pua‘a 1st Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Puaiki Puakea Puanui Puʻuepa 1st Pu‘uepa 2nd Puʻukole, Koea, Lapakahi ʻUpolu 1st and 2nd No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Not specified - As far as can see bottom No testimony given Extended out to undetermined depth, Konohiki collected money from those who fished there Konohiki fishing rights No testimony given Near shore fishing only extending to squid grounds To deep water - Yes Not specified Not specified Waikā Yes Yes Yes Ahupuaʻa CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA Notes Testimony given by surveyors only 79 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 25. Ahupua‘a of the North Kohala District. 80 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context South Kohala District Ten ahupua‘a of south Kohala were surveyed for their boundaries, seven of which had boundaries that extended out to sea and claimed ancient fishing rights (Table 5 and Figure 26). Of these, details are presented for only two of the ahupua‘a (Kawaihae Akau [1st] and Hikina [2nd]). Fishing grounds for Kawaihae Akau extended from Pōki‘i‘āhua to Kawaihae Hikina, and the grounds for Kawaihae Hikina extended from the shore to the Kona side of Kauhuhu and Pokiiahua, although the testimony reveals that part of the catch from Kawaihae Hikina was to be given to John Young and the konohiki for Kawaihae Akau. Both ahupua‘a also had rights to poho pa‘akai (salt collection areas), particularly Kawaihae Akau, which according to the testimony had the rights to the majority of the salt. While fishing rights were also claimed by Lālāmilo, the testimony for that ahupua‘a does not elaborate on specifics. Information presented for Puakō, however, relates that Lālāmilo had rights over Puakō’s waters. The excerpts of Boundary Commission testimonies for the ahupua‘a of South Kohala that discussed ancient fishing rights and boundaries are presented below (underlining and italicization added for emphasis and clarity). ‘Anaeho‘omalu George Kaukuna, sworn: . . . Know the land of Anaehoomalu in South Kohala. Puanahulu, a land in North Kona bounds it on the Southwest side; this land used to bound it on the mauka side also, but I am told that Waikoloa now bounds it from the South corner, bounded on the North side by Kalahuipuaa; and by the sea on the makai side. The land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:386) Naauhau, sworn: . . . Waikoloa is said to bound Anaehoomalu mauka to Kepani; just before you can see the trees at the shore, on Kalahuipuaa, coming towards Kawaihae. There turn makai along Kalahuipuaa to lliilinehe at Pohakuloa, on the sea shore. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:387) Kalāhuipua‘a George Kaukuna, sworn: . . . a place called Milokukahi; a grove of Milo trees, where the boundary turns makai, along Waimea to seashore. Between the seashore and Milokukahi there is a place on the boundary called Keahaaha on aa. Pohakupuka, a rock in the sea, is the boundary at shore. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:384) Naauhau, sworn: . . . thence to Pohakupuka, a large rock in the sea with holes through it. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:385) Kawaihae Akau (1st) Kalua, sworn: . . . The boundary runs down Keawewai gulch to Keanakawaha; thence down the gulch to Pohakuloa and thence follows the gulch to the sea. Kawaihae 1st is bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . . (Volume B:148) Kawaihae Hikina (2nd) Kahiahikela, sworn: . . . Kawaihae is bounded makai by the sea, and has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea; bounded on the Kona side by the Ahupuaa of Waimea. In Kamehameha I time, I heard from my parents that he gave the land adjoining Kawaihae at the sea shore to Ouli; thereby making that land extend to the sea, before that time, Ouli stopped at Puuiki. Davis and John Young were great favorites of Kamehameha I and he gave them the land, thereby making Ouli (ili of Waimea) bound Kawaihae at the sea shore... [Volume B:74] Kaneahiku, sworn: . . . I have been away from here 40 or 50 years, and have forgotten the boundaries. John Young was alive when I moved away. The beach and sea on the Kona side of Kauhuhu belonged to Kawaihae Hikina [Kawaihae 2]. When we came from the other Kawaihae on to this place to fish, we had to give part of our fish to Olohana [John Young]. . . (Volume B:390) Kamoehau, sworn: . . . The sea from Pokiiahua to Kauhuhu belonged to Kawaihae Akau [Kawaihae 1], and the sea on the Kona side of Pokiiahua to Kawaihae Hikina. Mahi lived on the tract of land between Pokiiahua and Kauhuhu, but was Konohiki under Kalaimoku, and not under Olohana. He used to divide the fish and give part to Olohana. Olohana and Kalaimoku were noho like [lived under same privileges], so they used to give him part of the fish. . . CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 81 3. Culture-Historical Context Part of the poho paakai [salt pans] belong to Kawaihae Hikina, but most of them belong to Kawaihae 1st. The boundary between the two lands is where I stated before. The folks living mauka on Kawaihae 2d used to go after salt at the shore to the salt works near Kauhuhu. The poho paakai Pohakuloa, Kaholei, Piipepii, Nupaa belong to Kawaihae Hikina, the other poho paakai to Kawaihae 1st. They are lele of Kawaihae Hikina. Kaneloa is on Kawaihae Hikina, and I know of poho paakai called Kaneloa. Know of place of Kawaihae Hikina called Makela, but do not know of salt piece of that name. Malahuehue is an ili of Kawaihae Hikina, and I know of salt place at shore by that name, and it belongs to Kawaihae Hikina. Kukui is an ili aina of Kawaihae Hikina; I do not know of any salt place of that name. Kapahukapu is an ili of Kawaihae Hikina, I do not know of any poho paakai of that name. The places I have mentioned are ili aina of Kawaihae Hikina, and the poho paakai of the same names belong to it also. . . (Volume B:391-392) J.P. Parker, Jr., sworn: . . . I know the lands of Kawaihae 1st and Kawaihae 2d, and have heard where the boundary is between them from Hueu, Kini Keoke and Kauwe. They told me that the fishing rights belong to the King's Kawaihae and that the gulch between my house at the shore and John Young's old house was the boundary. The gulch is on the Kona side of my house. . . (Volume B:392) S.P. Wahinenui, sworn: . . . When we used to catch fish Olohana’s man used to take part, and the Konohiki of Kawaihae 1st a part. I do not know why. I have always heard from Hueu (George Davis) that the fishing rights belonged to Kawaihae 1st. I have heard that the places for making salt belonged to both lands. The poho paakai have the same names as the ili aina to which they belong on both Kawaihae. The makaha of the fish pond is called Kukui and belonged to Kawaihae 2nd. I never heard any dispute about the poho paakai, but the dispute was about the land on the Kona side of them to Pokiahua gulch. (Volume B:393) Lālāmilo Kauuewahine, sworn. . . C. Kanaina only claims the beach and fishing rights. Lalamilo had ancient fishing rights, extending out to sea. . . ‘Ōuli Pupuka, sworn: . . . I was born on Ouli, and was quite large at the building of Kiholo [ca. 1812], but do not know the date of my birth. I have lived on Ouli and adjoining lands. I know all the boundaries of said land, used to mahiai on the makai portion of it. Ouli is bounded makai by the sea, and has ancient fishing rights; it is bounded on the Kona side by Waimea. The boundary at seashore is at Kaihumoku, a point of stones in the sea, or the middle of the sand beach; thence direct to Ahuahaloo, the boundary following an old trail to this place. . . (Volume B:64) Kalua, sworn. . . I was born in Waimea, South Kohala Hawaii at the time of the plague (1804), and have lived in Waimea and Kapia, a land near Ouli. I am a kamaaina and know the boundaries of Ouli. Kauhinek a konohiki (now dead) showed them to me. The sea bounds it makai and the land has ancient fishing rights. . . (Volume 1:120) Puakō Kauwewahine, sworn: . . . Lalamilo bounds Puako on the Kawaihae side (or North side) a wall at the dam of a fishing pond at a place called Makaha is the boundary. Thence along the stream from the pond to a place called Kaekuakapuaa, a wall at the shore; Thence along shore towards Kona to a large rock on the sand beach called Kapelekaaha. The sea belongs to Lalamilo. Thence mauka along Lalamilo to Puapuaa passing from the Kona side to the mauka side of the pond. Thence towards Kohala hills to Piikoele, an old pond now filled with sand, on the mauka side of the present pond; thence to the Makaha. These are the boundaries of Puako as told me by my parents. . . (Volume B:296) 82 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 5. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the South Kohala District. Ala‘ōhi‘a ‘Ānaeho‘omalu Hale‘aha Hale‘aha Kalāhuipua‘a Kanakanaka Kapia Kauniho Kaupo Kawaihae Akau Boundary Testimony No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Yes Yes Yes Fishing Rights Yes Yes Yes Kawaihae Hikina Yes Yes Yes Keoniki Lālāmilo Lanikepu Momoualoa ʻŌuli Pahipa Panoluukia Pauahi Paulama Puakō Pu‘ukalani (Pukalani) Pu‘ukapu Puu Kawaiwai Pu‘u Ki Waawaa Wai‘aka Waikōloa Waima‘a Waiauia Waiauia No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No - Yes Yes No - From Pokiiahua to Kawaihae Hikina or to Kauhuhu. Had poho pa‘akai rights Beach and Kona side of Kauhuhu/Pokiiahua. Had poho pa‘akai rights in ‘ili of Pohakuloa, Kaholei, Kaneloa, Malahuehue, Pi‘ipepi‘i, Nupa‘a. Part of fish catch went to John Young and to konohiki of Kawaihae Akau Sea belonged to Lālāmilo - No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Not specified No Yes - Not specified No Yes - - Ahupuaʻa Notes CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 83 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 26. Ahupua‘a of the South Kohala District. 84 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Waikōloa Mi, sworn: . . . Waimea is a Kalana. – which is the same as an island divided in to districts. – there are eight Okana in Waimea. In those Okana are those lands said to extend out (hele mawaho). These lands came in to the possession of Kamehameha I who said to Kupapaulu, go and look out to of the large lands running to the sea, for John Young and Isaac Davis. Kupapaulu went to Keawekuloa, the haku aina, who said if we give Waikoloa to the foreigners they will get Kalahuipua [Kalāhuipua‘a] and Anaiomalu [Anaehoomalu] (two lands at the beach) then your master will have no fish. So they kept the sea lands and gave Waikoloa to Isaac Davis. John Young asked my parents if it was a large land they said, the black aa was Napuu, and the good land Waimea. . . (Volume A No. 1:7) Moolau, sworn: . . . all the plain was given to Waikoloa, and Keanakaloa secured the fish lands at the shore. All the pili from Ouli to the aa of Kona belonged to Waikoloa. . . (Volume A No. 1:8) Waima‘a Kaahumoku, sworn. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. (Volume B:298) North Kona District In North Kona, forth-five ahupua‘a were surveyed for their boundaries as a result of the Boundary Commission proceedings (Table 6 and Figure 27). Of these, twenty-seven had boundaries that extended out to sea, and all of those were identified in the testimony as retaining ancient fishing rights. There were twelve total ahupua‘a whose specific fishing rights were described in detail as part of the testimony including Hale‘ōhi‘u, Hāmanamana, Hōlualoa 4th, Honokōhau Iki (1st), Honokōhau Nui (2nd), Kaloko, Ka‘ūpūlehu, Keahuolū, Keauhou 1st, Keauhou 2nd, Keōpū 3rd, and Pua‘a 1st. Within North Kona there were several ahupua‘a that either had fishing rights to waters in a neighboring ahupua‘a, or shared fishing rights with another ahupua‘a. With respect to the fishing rights of Honokōhau Nui and Keauhou 2nd, testimonies did not specify whether the boundaries of the former extended out to sea nor whether there were any ancient fishing rights belonging to its inhabitants. However, testimony relates that residents of Honokōhau Nui did have permission to fish within the waters of Honokōhau Iki, and that the fishing rights within Honokōhau Iki were small, extending only from Maliu to Kananaka, where they were truncated by the seas belonging to Kealakehe and Honokōhau. While Honokōhau Iki held these shared fishing rights with Honokōhau Nui, there was some controversy over a ko‘a ‘ōpelu which was claimed and fished by the people belonging to Kaloko Ahupua‘a. Also of note in the testimony are the chronological limitations of akule fishing rights as they pertain to Keauhou 1st and 2nd, as the latter possessed fishing rights to akule during the reign of Ke‘eaumoku, but following the end of his reign (and the marital union of chiefs belonging to both Keauhou ahupuaʻa), rights to the akule (and ‘ahi) transferred to Keauhou 1st, and Keauhou 2nd only retained rights to bird hunting in the mauka lands. In the case of Hale‘ōhi‘u Ahupua‘a, fishing encompassed the waters of neighboring Hāmanamana Ahupuaʻa, where residents were restricted to shoreline fishing only. Table 6. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the North Kona District. Ahupuaʻa Boundary Testimony ‘Auhaukea‘ē 1st Awake‘e Awalua Elepaio Haleki‘i Yes No No No Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Yes Not specified Hale‘ōhi‘u Yes Yes Fishing Rights Yes Not specified Yes Notes No testimony given Also held fishing rights to Hāmanamana Table 6 continued on next page. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 85 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 6.continued. Ahupuaʻa Boundary Testimony Hāmanamana Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Yes Haukalua 2nd Hienaloli 1st Yes Yes Yes Not specified Hienaloli 2nd Yes Not specified Hienaloli 3rd Hienaloli 4th Hōlualoa 1st Hōlualoa 2nd No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Hōlualoa 3rd Hōlualoa 4th Yes Yes Not located Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Not specified Yes Honalo Hōnauau Honokōhau Iki No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Honokōhau Nui Yes Not specified Not specified Honua‘ino 1st Yes Not specified Honua‘ula Hokukano, Kalukalu Kahalu‘u Kahului 1st No Yes Not specified Yes Yes Yes Not specified Kahului 2nd Kalaoa 1st - 5th Kaloko Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Yes Not specified Yes Yes Kanaueue Kapalaaea 1st No Yes Not specified Kau No - Fishing Rights Yes Not specified - Notes Rights belonged to Hale‘ōhi‘u, fishing confined to rocks on shore No testimony given Only out until one couldn’t see the sea floor Small fishing rights extending from Maliu to Kananaka limited by the sea belonging to Kealakehe and Honokohau. May have jurisdiction over a ko‘a ‘ōpelu which was also fished and claimed by natives of Kaloko. Fishing also allowed here by natives of Honokōhau Nui. Testimony for Honokōhau Iki relates Honokōhau Nui had fishing rights there No testimony given No testimony given Claimed fishing rights to the ko‘a ‘ōpelu in Honokōhau Iki No testimony given Table 6 continued on next page. 86 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 6. continued. Kaulana, Awalua, ‘Ōhiki Kaulehua Kawanui Iki No Boundary Extends to Sea - No Yes Not specified Keahuolū Kealakehe Keauhou 1st Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Keauhou 2nd Yes Not specified Yes Keōpū 1st Yes Not specified Keōpū 2nd Keōpū 3rd No Yes Yes Not specified Yes Kohanaiki Kuamo‘o Kūki‘o, Manini‘ōwali La‘aloa 1st Lanihau Iki (1st) Lanihau Nui (2nd) Laula Lehuula Iki No No No - - Small fishing rights cut off by Honua‘ula, limited to Okolepohopohu - Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - No Yes Not specified No testimony given Lehuula Nui Mahai‘ula Mā‘ihi 1st Makalawena Makaʻula Maniniowali Moeauoa 2nd Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Ohiki ‘Oʻoma 1st and 2nd Onouli Iki (1st) No No - Not specified Yes Yes Yes Not specified - Yes Not specified Not specified No testimony given Ahupuaʻa Boundary Testimony Fishing Rights Notes - No testimony given Keahuolū claimed the ‘ōpelu Akule and ‘ahi belonged to Keauhou 1st after Ke‘eaumoku’s reign Akule belonged to Keauhou 2nd during Ke‘eaumoku’s reign. No fishing rights after his reign following the marriage of two chiefs of Keauhou 1st and 2nd No testimony given - Table 6 continued on next page. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 87 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 6. continued. Ahupuaʻa Onouli Nui (2nd) Pāhoehoe 2nd Pua‘a 1st Pua‘a 2nd and 3rd Puapua‘a 2nd Puapua‘a Nui Puʻu Anahulu Pu‘u Kala Puʻu Waʻawaʻa Wai‘aha 1st Wai‘aha 2nd Boundary Testimony Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Fishing Rights Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes No testimony given Near shore and possibly to squid grounds End of Table 6. Collectively, the testimonies provided for the remaining ahupua‘a of North Kona relay little detail, particularly with regard to distance offshore. The fishing rights of Ka‘ūpūlehu were spatially restricted between Keawaiki and Popo‘omino. Similarly, the fishing rights of Keōpū 3rd were cut off by the waters of Honua‘ula, seemingly limited to the a stone on the shoreline called Okolepohopohu. The fishing grounds for Pua‘a 1st expanded out a bit further to encompass the near shore fisheryand the squid fishing grounds, while the rights of Hōlualoa 4th extended out as far as the ocean floor was visible from land. Excerpts of Boundary Commission testimonies for the ahupua‘a of North Kona that discussed ancient fishing rights and boundaries are presented below (underlining and italicization added for emphasis and clarity). ‘Auhaukea‘ē 1st Kekoanui, sworn: . . . Kailianu w. was the kamaaina at the shore; she lived near the land; she pointed out the boundaries on both sides of the land at the shore; I marked the corner of the land on the South side, cut into a large rock X; on the North side is a ridge of rock in the sea by a sand beach; did not mark that. That land always had undisputed fishing right in the sea. . . (Volume B:450) Hale‘ōhi‘u Kanehailua, sworn: [near the southern boundary, makai] . . . thence to Kuula [a near shore hill], a puu pohaku, where we used to worship. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:266) Hāmanamana Kaukaliinea, sworn: . . . thence to Kahua, a lae at the seashore. Bounded makai by the sea. I have heard that the Ancient fishing rights belonged to Haleohiu. The people from Hamanamana had their fishing confined to the rocks. . . (Volume B:264) Kanehailua, sworn: thence makai to Kahua at the seashore. Bounded makai by the sea. The ancient fishing rights was limited to the rocks at shore. The sea belonging to Haleohiu. . . (Volume B:264) Haukalua 2nd Hoolau, sworn: . . . Bounded on the makai side by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:214) Hienaloli 4th Haleokane, sworn: I was born at Hianaloli, North Kona, Hawaii and have lived here ever since. I was quite large when Mr. Thurston arrived [1820], know the boundaries of the land, my makua (now dead) pointed them out to me. The sea is the makai boundary and the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:346) 88 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 27. Ahupua‘a of the North Kona District. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 89 3. Culture-Historical Context Hōlualoa 1st Keliikanakaole, sworn: . . . thence makai following an iwi aina to a place at shore called Kuapae, a rocky point in the sea, with sand each side of it. The boundary at shore between Puapuaa and Holualoa 1st. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:337) lhihi, sworn: . . . thence makai to Puuopelu, an oioina kukui [trail side resting place, shade by kukui trees]; thence makai along the iwi aina to Kuapae, a puu pahoehoe with sand on Kailua side and sea on the makai side. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:338) Hōlualoa 4th Kea, sworn: ...My parents (now dead) who were also kamaainas, pointed out the boundaries to me. At that time all lands had different Konohiki. Kaumalumalu bounds Holualoa 4th on the South side; the sea on the makai side. Ancient fishing rights extending out to where it is hard to see bottom. . . (Volume A No. 1: 343) Haleokane, sworn: . . . The sea is the makai boundary and the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Hienaloli 5th is on the South side, the boundary at shore between Hianaloli 4th and Hianaloli 5th is Okikau, a water hole and bathing place. . . (Volume A No. 1: 346) Hōnaunau Kila, sworn: . . . Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:282) Kuiline, sworn: . . . Know a place called Anapuka; it is way on Honaunau. The boundary as it was told to me runs from Anapukalua to Puulehu, and then to Mahana. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:223) Honokōhau Iki (1st) Hoohio, sworn: . . . Thence makai to Maliu a lae, the sea bounds the land makai; and there is a very small fishing right cut off by the sea of Kealakehe and Honokohaunui. . . (Volume A No. 1:364) Kamohai, sworn: . . . Thence to a heiau named Halekuo thence to Maliu a lae in the sea; on the North side of the point. Ancient fishing rights extend from Maliu to Kananaka; a ledge of rocks in the sea, which looks red from the water is next to Honokohaunui. . . (Volume A No. 1:365) Kekoanui, sworn: I am a kamaaina of Honokohau, and live there. I went with Mr. Hitchcock to survey the land. We commenced at the corner marked by Brown, at the seashore. Kaloko, said to be Keelikolani’s land, is on the North side of the land. Kaohi w. and Kailioha kane were our kamaainas in the surveying; they pointed out the boundaries, a large rock in the sea, over which the waves break; it is quite a little distance off from the shore. There is a “Koa Opelu” in the sea, the kamaainas say it belongs to this land. Kaohi is a very old woman and is feeble, as is the man; they said that the people of Kaloko fish in the Koa Opelu, as formerly the Konohiki of Honokohau was a woman, who married a man who was the Konohiki of Kaloko, and allowed him to fish on her grounds. . . Honokohau nui has fishing right in the sea. . . (Volume B:452-453) D.H. Hitchcock, sworn: I marked the North mauka corner by the aa, as near as I could tell from what the natives told me of the boundary. . . According to the boundaries of Honokohau the “Koa Opelu” is entirely within the land, as the old woman said it belonged. . . From the beach up the North side of the land, the boundary line strikes up onto the aa to an Ahu, and on to a stone wall, said to be the boundary. The South side was surveyed by J.F. Brown, as far up as Honokohau iki extends, and we found his corner… The only disputed point was about the “Koa Opelu,” which the Kaloko people claim. . . (Volume B:453) Kahalu‘u Papa, sworn: . . . The sea bounds it makai, and it has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Keauhou bounds Kahaluu on the Southern side; at the sea shore the boundary between these two places is at Ohiki, a point on the South side of Paaniau, and near to it. . . (Volume A No. 1:321) Kaahuna, sworn: . . . Keauhou bounds Kahaluu on the South side; sea makai; and the land has fishing rights. The boundary at shore is Ohiki, a pile of stones on the South side of Paaniau. . . (Volume A No. 1:322) 90 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Kahului 2nd Niniha, sworn: . . . I pointed out the boundaries of Kahului 1st when it was surveyed; thence along the land sold, to Kalalii, a pulu lepo at seashore. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:328) Makuakane, sworn: . . . Thence the boundary runs along land sold, to the sea, and the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:329) Kaloko Nahuina, sworn: . . . thence makai to Keawewai, an awaawa, with water near the shore road thence to Okuhi, an awaawa in the sea with a point on each side of it. On the makai side Kaloko is bounded by the sea; and the land had ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. The koa is on Kaloko and the olona on Honokohaunui. . . (Volume A No. 1:371) Kaumalumalu, Pāhoehoe Kamakahoohia, sworn: . . . Kaleiahana (now dead) pointed out the boundaries to me; they used to go into the mountain after uwau. I went with them after sandalwood. The sea bounds this land makai and it has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Pahoehoe 1st is on the South side; the boundary at shore between these two lands is Manawai, a water hole on the North side of the landing. . . thence to Kui, a pali in the woods where canoe makers used to worship; here the boundary strikes the Judd road. . . (Volume A No. 1:324-325) Palauolelo, sworn: . . . (The boundary at seashore between Holualoa and Kaumalumalu is at Kuula opelu, a heiau [an ʻōpelu fisherman's temple] The Kaheka [near shore pond—anchialine pond] is on Kaumalumalu . . . (Volume A No. 1:325) Ka‘ūpūlehu Keliihanapule, sworn: . . . Bounded on the South side by Kukio owned by Pupule, the boundary at shore is in the middle of a place called Keawaiki. The land had ancient fishing rights extending out to sea from Keawaiki to Popoomino, a pile of stones at the corner of Pupule's land. . . The place where they make salt at the seashore is on the Puna side of the lava flow. . . (Volume B:247-248) Kahueai, sworn: . . . The boundary on Kohala side at shore is a spot of sand called Kolomuo on the south side of Kalaemano. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:249-250) Keahuolū J.Z. Waiau, sworn: . . . thence to Puunahaha, a large red hill on the mauka side of the makai Government road, thence to Puuokaloa, an oioina or small hill; thence to Kaiwi, a lae pohaku on the middle of point. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:354-355) Kealakai, sworn: . . . thence to Puunahaha; the boundary passing on the North side; from thence to Puuokaloa; thence makai to Kaiwi, the kula in middle of point and lae pohaku on the point at sea shore. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea and claiming the opelu. . . (Volume A No. 1:356) Keauhou 1st Lono, sworn: . . . The boundary at the shore between Keauhou1st and Keauhou 2nd is at Kamauae, a heiau for fishermen situated above the beach, on the hill where the houses stand; thence mauka to a breadfruit tree; thence to the head of Holua. . . Keauhou is bounded by the sea and the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:319) Keauhou 2nd Kakio, sworn: . . . The boundary at shore between the two Keauhous is at a place called Kamauae at the beach; Thence it runs mauka to the head of Holua (an old sliding place). . . They say in the days of Keeaumoku the Akule used to belong to Keauhou 2d and the birds to Keauhou 1st, but the Chief of Keauhou 2 married a chief of Keauhou 1st and after that all the fish were given to Keauhou 1st and the birds and land mauka to Keauhou 2nd. . . (Volume A No. 1:267) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 91 3. Culture-Historical Context Keōpū 3rd Kaleiheana, sworn: . . . John Ii (now dead) pointed out the makai boundaries to me. The land has very small fishing rights, which are cut off by Honuaula. The sand in the sea is on Honuaula, and the aa is on Keopu. The boundary at shore between these two lands is at Puukoa, a noted place for surf riding. There is a wall here called Papaula, and the boundary comes to the middle of said wall. . . Bounded makai by the sea. . . Commencing on the other side at seashore at a large stone called Okolepohupohu makai of the Governor's stone house Hulihee. . . (Volume A No. 1: 302) Kauakahi, sworn: . . . Papaula is the boundary at the shore between Keopu and Honuaula; The land had ancient fishing rights at Okolepohopohu, and from there the boundary runs mauka to Makakauahi, an oioina. . . (Volume A No. 1: 303) La‘aloa 1st Nahina, sworn: . . . Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1: 331) Lanihau Nui (2nd) J.Z. Waiau, sworn: . . . It is bounded on the North side by Keahuolu and on the South side by Lanihauiki, the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. The boundary at shore between Lanihaunui and Lanihauiki is Kukanapaio, an awaawa kai in the rocks; thence mauka to Kuaaona between the fish ponds, outside of the fort [at Ahuena]. I think one good sized fish pond is on Lanihauiki, called Waikauila; Waihonu is on Lanihaunui ; thence to a cocoanut tree on the inside of the old fort; thence to a long stone above the fort, buried in sand, some of the kamaaina say it used to reach wet sand. . . (Volume A No. 1:305-306) Lehuula Nui Hapuku, sworn: . . . I only know the boundaries of Lehuulanui below the great walled lot. Sea bounds this land on the makai and it has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . Paaaoao is the boundary at sea shore between Kawanui and Lehuulanui; there is a wall and landing there. . . (Volume A No. 1:315) Mā‘ihi 1st Ehu, sworn: . . . Honalo bounds it on the north side. Maihi 2nd on the south side. Leinakaloa is the boundary at shore between Maihi I and Maihi 2nd. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. The Opelu belonged to Maihi and the Ahi to Keauhou; bounded makai by the sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:311 ) Kailikini, sworn: . . . Leinakaloa, a canoe landing is the boundary between Maihi 1st and Maihi 2nd. A pali between Koa Opelu [a heiau] belongs to Maihi 1st. The sea bounds it makai. The boundary at shore between Maihi 1st and Honalo is at Keawakui running along the south side of it. . . (Volume A No. 1:312) Makalawena Kahailii, sworn: . . . Commencing at the seashore, the boundary between the land of Makalawena and Mahaiula is a kaheka [tidal pool], called Kaelemiha. . . thence to Mokupohaku, or Kaiwikohola, a large rock in the surf. Makalawena is bounded makai by the sea, and the land has ancient fishing rights, extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:373-374) Mamae, sworn: . . . The boundary at shore between Makalawena and Mahaiula is Nahaleoahumakaike, a kaheka; thence to an ahu called Kaelemiiha. . . Thence to Pohakuanaeapoapu, a large rock at the seashore, and from thence to a large rock in the surf called Kaiwi Kohola. . . (Volume A No. 1:374-375) Pua‘a 1st Kauwa w., sworn: . . . Puaa is bounded makai by the sea and the land has ancient fishing rights near the shore, but not extending out to sea. Thence commencing at a punawai by the seashore called Holoke, between the lands of Puaa and Auhaukeae and running mauka to Poholua, a huli pali near the shore and just above a house. . . makai to Hiilia, a punawai; thence to Kekawa, at the seashore. 92 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Hiilia is mauka of Governor Adam's wall, and Kekawa is the awaawa kai [an ocean inlet], with points each side. The boundary is between the two. Puaa has ancient fishing rights extending to the squid grounds. . . (Volume A No. 1:376-378) Kahueai, sworn: . . . The boundary at shore on the Kau side is Nakakai, owned by Pupule, the mauka corner of Pupule's land on Puaa 2nd is at Kaopapa. . . thence makai along Hauanio's land and thence along Ukumea's land and then along Kole to the sea shore. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:244-245) Puapua‘a Nui Ukumea, sworn: . . . Bounded on the North side by Piki, the boundary at shore between these two lands is Keawapuapua on the south side of the awa [landing]. . . thence to Huloa, a resting place above Governor Adams wall; thence to seashore. I do not know the name of this makai point. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:260-261) Mahalo, sworn: . . . Commencing at the seashore on the Kau side of the Awaawa Puhiuhiu, the awaawa being on the Kau side of the canoe landing; thence to Pakuhano, aa mauka of the wall. . . thence makai to Ahuloa; thence to Puuopelu; thence to Kuapae at the seashore. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:261) Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Aea, sworn: . . . Ono, an older cousin of mine, now dead, pointed out the boundaries to me; as the different lands had different Konohiki and different koele [planting areas worked for the chiefs] &c. The land of Puawaa is bounded on the South side by Kaupulehu and mauka by the same. On the North by the land of Puanahulu, and makai by the sea. The ancient fishing rights of the land extend out to sea. The boundary at sea shore between this land and Kaupulehu, is at Pohakuokahai, a rocky point in the aa on the lava flow of 1801, the flow from Hualalai to sea. I think it is the third point from Kiholo, in the flow, as you go toward Kona; thence the boundary between these lands runs mauka on aa to Keahupuaa. . . (Volume A No. 1:253) Wai‘aha 2nd Peahi, sworn: . . . A water hole called Waialipi is on the boundary between the two Waiahas. Waiaha 2d is bounded by Waiaha 1st to a banana grove at the edge of the woods. . . Waiaha 2d is bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:269) South Kona District There were twenty-nine ahupua‘a in South Kona whose boundaries were surveyed (Table 7 and Figure 28). Of these, twenty had boundaries that extended out into the sea, and nineteen of those were identified as having ancient fishing rights. Boundary Commission testimony that included detailed accounts regarding these fishing rights were provided only for seven of these ahupua‘a (Ka‘apuna, Kahauloa 2nd, Kalamakowali, Kalamakumu, Ke‘ei 1st, Ki‘ilae, and Pāpā 2nd),while the testimony for ‘Ōlelomoana Nui related that fishing rights and resources belonged to the konohiki. With respect to Ki‘ilae and Pāpā 2nd, fishing rights only extended out to where the bottom of the sea was no longer visible. Several other ahupua‘a, including Kahauloa 2nd, Kalamakumu, and Ke‘ei 1st, likely held rights only in shallow water, with Kalamakumu being cut off by the fishing grounds of Kealakekua. Similarly, the fishing grounds of Ka‘apuna, although they extended out further out into the deep sea, were truncated by Honomalino. The rights of Kalamakowali were geographically restricted to a fishing place known as Mokunui. Excerpts of Boundary Commission testimonies for the ahupua‘a of South Kona that discussed ancient fishing rights and boundaries are presented below (underlining and italicization added for emphasis and clarity). ‘Alikā Kahinalua, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by the sea. Pali called Kahoolewlewa is the boundary at shore between Alika and Kipahoehoe. There is a rock marked K. I think by land surveyed by Wiltse. (Volume B:322) Makia, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by sea. Kipahoehoe bounds it on Kona side from shore to mauka end. Boundary at shore is at Kahoolewalea a pali at shore. The rock is marked. (Volume B:322) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 93 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 7. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the South Kona District. Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Kahauloa 2nd Kalāhiki Kalamakowali Kalamaililoa Kalamakāpala Kalamakumu Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Kalamaumi Kalamawaiawaawa Kalihi Kalukalu, Hokukano Kamakaolohe Kanakau Kaʻohe 1-3 Kaʻohe 4th Kaʻohe 5th Kapuʻa Kapuai Kauahia Kauhakō Kaulanamauna Kauleolī 1st and 2nd Kealakekua, Ka‘awaloa Keālia 1st Keālia 2nd Ke‘ei 1st No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes Not specified Yes Yes Not specified Not specified Yes Yes Not specified Extending into deep sea until it became jurisdiction of Honomalino Only shallow water Only at Mokunui Only to short distance out, truncated by Kealakekua’s fishing rights No testimony given No testimony given Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Yes Yes Not specified Yes No testimony given Possibly only in shallow water Ahupuaʻa Boundary Testimony Ala‘ē 1st Ala‘ē 2nd ‘Alikā Anapuka, Ho‘opūloa Haleili Haukālua 1st Haukālua 2nd Hōnaunau Honokua Honomalino Ho‘okena Ho‘opūloa Ilikahi Kaʻapuna Fishing Rights Notes Table 7 continued on next page. 94 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Table 7. continued. Ke‘ei 2nd Ke‘eke‘e 1st2nd, Kanakau Keōkea Keopuka Kiʻilae Yes No Boundary Extends to Sea Not specified - Yes No Yes Not specified Yes Not specified Yes Kiloa Kīpāhoehoe Kipu Kolo Kukuiopaʻe 1-2 Maku‘u Maunaoni 1-6 Miloli‘i Okoe 1-2 ‘Ōlelomoana Iki ‘Ōlelomoana Nui No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Omoka‘a ‘Ōpihihale Pāhoehoe 1st Pāhoehoe 2nd Pāpā 1st Pāpā 2nd No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Waiea Waipunaula Waikākuʻu No No No - - Ahupuaʻa Boundary Testimony Fishing Rights Notes Not specified - Only as far as can see bottom of sea Fishing rights belonged to konohiki Fishing rights extend out to where bottom is no longer visible End of Table 7. Haukalua 2nd Hoolau, sworn: . . .Bounded on the makai side by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:214) Hōnaunau Kila, sworn: . . . Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:282) Kuiline, sworn: . . . Know a place called Anapuka; it is way on Honaunau. The boundary as it was told to me runs from Anapukalua to Puulehu, and then to Mahana. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:223) Honokua Kaleikoa, sworn: . . . The sea bounds it makai. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:211) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 95 3. Culture-Historical Context Figure 28. Ahupua‘a of the South Kona District. 96 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Honomalino Kuakahela, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by the sea, ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Kalipo is the boundary at shore between this land and Kalihi. Kalihi has been sold by Government from shore to the Government road. . . (Volume B:190) Ho‘okena Kekuhaulua, sworn: . . . Hookena had ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:275) Kamaka, sworn: . . . Hookena had ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:277) Ka‘apuna Kama, sworn: …Commencing at ahupuaa on the South side of Kipahoehoe bounded at the shore by Kaleokane, a point extending into the sea, boundary in the middle of the point… running mauka, then returning on southern boundary to makai. . . Thence along land sold to Kapunanaka, a puu pahoehoe all cracked up, at the shore, bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to the sea. . . (Volume B: 198-200) Kahauloa 2nd Kahula, sworn: . . . From Kaneaa the boundary runs makai along an iwi aina to Kahuamoa, a pile of stones; thence makai to Mahana, a pile of stones; thence to Kaneahuea, the pahoehoe at the foot of the pali being on Keei and the pali on Kahauloa. Fishing rights in shallow water only. . . (Volume A No. 1:297) Kalāhiki Palea, sworn: . . . Pohokinikini is the name of two water holes on Waiea, where Cummings' land ends and my lands bound Kalahiki from there to the seashore. The sea bounds it on the makai side and the land has Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:291) Kalamakowali Naili, sworn: . . . Kaaemoku's land on Kalama 4th bounds Kalama 3rd at seashore on the South side; and the place called Mokunui is said to be the only fishing place belonging to Kalama 3rd [Kalamakowali] From the seashore the boundary runs mauka, along kuleanas, and lands sold, and along remnants, belonging to Government. . . (Volume A No. 1:310) Kalamakumu Kamauoha, sworn: . . . Kalamakumu is bounded makai by the sea and it has ancient fishing rights extending out a short distance; the outside sea belonging to Kealakekua. My father-in-law, who was Konohiki, pointed out the boundaries to me. I am Konohiki now. The boundary at sea shore between this land and Kalama Ililoa is at a landing on Kalama Ililoa, at the south side of Kaiwikahua; Kapahukula’s kuleana; thence the boundary runs mauka along a stone wall. . . (Volume A No. 1:300) Kaʻohe 4th Palea, sworn: . . . Pohokinikini is the name of two water holes on Waiea, where Cummings’ land ends and my lands bound Kalahiki from there to the seashore. The sea bounds it on the makai side and the land has Ancient fishing rights extending out to the sea. . . (Volume B:219) Huakano, sworn: . . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to the sea. . . (Volume B: 219) Kapu‘a Nakai w., sworn: . . . In old times they were very particular about the boundaries of lands. Kaulanamauna bounds it on the Kau side, Okoe on the Kona side, I do not know the mauka boundary. The boundary at the sea shore on the Kau side is at a fishing place called Ahuloa, there is a large rock there called by that name; thence mauka to Kaanamalu, a cave. . . (Volume B:185) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 97 3. Culture-Historical Context Makea, sworn: . . . I lived at Manuka for a while. The last witness is my wife and she was the cause of my going there. I know the boundary of Kapua at the shore. Keau, my father (now dead) told me that Ahuloa was the boundary between Kapua and Kaulanamauna . . . From the shore to the Government road I do not know the boundaries, the boundary there is the pa heiau [temple wall] makai of the road. . . (Volume B:186) Kuakahela, sworn: . . . Ahuloa is at the sea shore, the sand is on Kaulanamauna ; thence along the aa to Kahepapa where the boundary leaves the aa and runs up a short distance...across the aa to koa woods, to a place called Kawiliwahine where they make canoes for both lands, thence to Koolau where Kapua ends, it is here cut off by Kaulanamauna and Honomalino, this is where Kokoolau grows, in the koa. . . thence along Okoe along the awaawa to Makalei, at the sea shore. I can go and point out all the places I have been to and I can tell the marks the kamaaina showed me. Bounded makai by the sea, ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:189) Keālia 1st Kekuhaulua, sworn: . . . the boundary turns toward Kona, to Keawe o Kini the makai boundary at seashore. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea . . . (Volume A No. 1:274) Ke‘ei 1st Kaluna, sworn: . . . Mokuape, a rock in the sea, is the boundary at shore between Keei 1st iki and Kahauloa it is on the North side of a place called Kaneahuea. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea . . . (Volume B:225) Kahula, sworn: . . . Fishing rights in shallow water only. . . (Volume B:226) Ki‘ilae Kila, sworn: . . . Kuwaia, a water spring, under the pali, at the seashore, is the boundary between Kiilae and Keokea; the land has ancient fishing rights extending out, as far as you can see bottom; Commencing at the spring at the sea shore, the boundary runs mauka along Keokea to a kahawai (gulch) called Keokea. . . (Volume A No. 1:292) ‘Ōlelomoana-Iki (1st) Kimo, sworn: . . . Commencing at a large rock in the sea called Kaluahee; thence mauka to Kapulehu. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. The boundary at shore between Kolo and Olelomoana 1st iki is a large hill, as large as this house, called Kaluaolapauila… (Volume B:206-207) Kapule w., sworn: . . . Commencing at the seashore, the boundary between Olelomaoana 2d nui and Olelomoana 1st iki is at Kaluahee; the boundary line running in an awaawa to the right of it… The boundary I have testified to is the boundary of Olelomoana 1st iki from the shore to Papai. . . Bounded on the North by Kolo Kapuaau, or Kaleiulala is the boundary at shore. . . Puaau is a moku in the sea. Bounded on the makai side by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:208) ‘Ōlelomoana Nui (2nd) Kamaka, sworn: . . . The boundary at the shore is in an awaawa on the North side of Kaluahee; thence mauka up the pali to the North side Kauhiuli, a kauhale. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Fishing rights belonging to Konohiki; bounded on the South side by Opihale… (Volume B:204) Kapule w., sworn: …Opihale 1st bounds it on the South side. The boundary at shore between Olelomoana 2d nui and Olelomana 1st iki is Kaluahee; there is an awaawa at the right side of it; thence up the awaawa to Kauhiuhi. . . The boundary at shore between Opihale and Olelomoana 2d nui is at Kukulu; thence mauka to Kapakoholua. . . I can point out the boundaries from woods to shore. Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. (Volume B:205) Pāhoehoe 2nd Kuaimoku, sworn: …Bounded makai by the sea and I have always been told that the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. I was born here. . . (Volume B:196) 98 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Papa 2nd Kuakahela, sworn: The boundary at shore between the two Papas is at Keawemoku. . . There is koa on this land fit to make canoes, but the most of the koa is on Honomalino. Anapuka bounds it on the South side of a point called Namakahiki. . . Bounded makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume B:193-194) Makia, sworn: . . . Anapuka bounds it on the South side at a large puka on the South side of Namakahiki; thence mauka along a line of craters or holes, to the woods. . . Sea bounds it on the makai side. Ancient fishing rights as far out as you can see bottom. . . [Volume B:194] Ka‘ū District Of the six ahupua‘a in Ka‘ū that extend southward from Kaulanamauna in South Kona to Ka Lae, Puʻuʻeo within the study area (Table 8 and Figure 29), one (Kī‘ao) is landlocked, and five extended from mauka to makai. The significance of landlocked ahupua‘a such as Kī‘ao, represented “a very significant anomaly, since this means inhabitants of these ahupua‘a were either not using any marine resources, which seems unlikely, or they needed to trade them from outside communities” (Gonschor and Beamer 2014:69). The boundaries of three of the five remaining ahupua‘a (Kahuku, Pākini-iki, and Pākini-nui/Pu‘u Lena) were brought before the Boundary Commission in 1873. With respect to these ahupua‘a, the testimonies collectively relate that all three extended out to sea and retained fishing rights. However, in the case of Kahuku, it appears that although the ahupua‘a indeed had ancient fishing rights, it was said in the testimony the inhabitants preferred hunting birds to fishing. Excerpts of Boundary Commission testimonies for the ahupua‘a of Ka‘ū that discussed ancient fishing rights and boundaries, are presented below (underlining and italicization added for emphasis and clarity). Table 8. Oceanic boundaries and fishing rights in the Kaʻū District. Ahupuaʻa BoundaryTestimony Fishing Rights Notes Yes Boundary Extends to Sea Yes Kahuku Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natives did not fish, they hunted birds Landlocked - Kamāʻoa, Puʻuʻeo, Ke Kī‘ao Manukā Pākini-iki Pākini-nui, Puʻu Lena Kahuku, Kau District Kumauna, sworn: The sea bounds Kahuku on the makai side and the land had ancient fishing rights. The cave Kanupa is between Puulonolono, Puukeokeo and Pohaha on the aa; a hill called Hapaimamo is on Kahuku and the boundary between kapuhonu and Puuohia runs makai of this hill. I am an old canoe maker. . . In ancient days the people of Kahuku did not go fishing, but were after birds of all kinds to eat and this is the reason all the land on the mountain belonged to Kahuku. My makuahonowai and others always took their weapons with them as they used to have fights when they found people from other lands catching birds. . . (Volume A No. 1:141-142) Pākini-iki Puhi, sworn: . . . I was born at Kawela, Kau three months before the Okuu and have always lived at same place near there. I am a kamaaina and know the boundaries of Pakiniiki. I used to go with my parents, cultivating and fishing and they showed me boundaries of the lands. . . (Volume A No. 1:391) Kuehu, sworn: . . . thence to Pohakukulua, two rocks in the sea on the boundary between Pakini iki and Kamaoa; thence along shore to Pakini nui. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:392) CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 99 3. Culture-Historical Context Pākini-nui, Pu‘u Lena Puhi, sworn: . . . thence to Kanikaula a heiau; thence to Pouli, a kauhale and canoe landing; thence to Mokuhonu, a rock in the sea. The sea bounds it on the makai side, and the land has ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. . . (Volume A No. 1:395) Figure 29. Ahupua‘a of the Ka‘ū District. 100 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context POST-MĀHELE TO EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY COMMERCIAL FISHING In the decades following the Māhele ‘Āina, Kānaka Maoli sought to navigate their way through a major land and political transitions, moving from a time when fisheries were strictly managed by appointed ali‘i and konohiki, to one where fee-simple interest and broader public rights existed (Maly and Maly 2003). While the Māhele ‘Āina enabled foreigners to own property in fee-simple, it simultaneously resulted in the displacement of many Kānaka Maoli from their ancestral lands, which severely disrupted the ancient system of land management (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992). Galzier (2007:66) suggests that during these challenging times, subsistence fishing remained an important part of the Kānaka Maoli lifestyle. He points out that during this time “certain beliefs and ways of living were not abandoned in full, but rather subverted” (ibid.). The years following the Māhele of 1848 were filled with difficulties for Kānaka Maoli fishers, as fishing laws continued to be redefined as a means to address a wide range of fishery-related issues including access rights, konohiki rights, and taxation. Maly and Maly (2003:312) report that by 1850, the traditional method of using plant-based poisons, specifically ‘auhuhu “or other substance deleterious to fish” was made illegal. Regardless of these changes, for close to 100 years— through the whaling era (1820-1865) and well into the 20th century—Kānaka Maoli continued to play the leading role in Hawai‘i’s commercial fishing industry (Cobb 1905; Glazier 2007; Schug 2001). Despite the vast socio-political and economic changes that occurred in the islands during this time period, Kānaka Maoli managed to adapt their subsistence lifestyle and culture to meet the demands brought about by a market economy. The shift to fee-simple ownership of land ultimately paved the way for large scale commercial agriculture, which led to successive waves of migrant contract laborers, including those of American, Chinese, Portuguese, Filipino, and Japanese descent. Schug (2001:17), who conducted historical research on Hawai‘i’s commercial fishing industry, reports that in 1872 “Hawai‘i’s non-indigenous population” numbered around 5,366, but that by the turn of the 20th century, that number had increased to some 114,345 individuals of foreign descent. Of all of the ethnic groups to arrive in Hawai‘i to support the burgeoning sugar industry, the Japanese had become the most heavily involved in Hawai‘i’s commercial fishing industry. Schug explains: When their plantation contracts expired many Japanese who had previously been skilled commercial fishermen in the coastal areas of Wakayama, Shizuoka, and Yamaguchi Perfectures remained in Hawai‘i and turned to the sea for a living. The earnings of these fishermen were on average higher than those of plantation workers. (ibid.:17) Many of the issei (first generation Japanese migrant laborers) become deeply invested in Hawai‘i’s commercial fishing sector. Gradually, these Japanese fishers introduced fishing gear and methods that were well suited for deepsea and some nearshore fishing. Some of the more popular technological introductions included long line fishing and the sampan fishing vessel, originally propelled by oar or sail (Glazier 2007; Schug 2001). Sampan fishing vessels were later outfitted with an engine which gave access to previously unexploited deep-sea fisheries (ibid.). Additionally, the introduction of the Japanese cast net sometime around 1890, which was well-suited for near-shore fishing, was quickly adopted by Kānaka Maoli fishers, who then later dubbed it the ‘upena ho‘olei, or throw net (Figure 30) (Mitchell 2001; Pukui and Elbert 1986). During the late 19th century, Hawai‘i’s political system underwent a series of monumental changes as the Island Kingdom shifted to an American Territory. In summarizing the political climate of the islands during this time, and its impact on local fisheries, Maly and Maly (2003:viii) write: This system was radically altered in 1893, when the Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown by foreign residents and American forces. Subsequently, the leaders of the parties responsible for the overthrow, made a steady move towards annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States, which occurred in 1898. Then in 1900, the Hawaiian Islands became a “Territory” of the United States, and the resulting “Organic Act” set in place the legal parameters for freeing up the fisheries of Hawai‘i. In 1901, John N. Cobb, Agent of the United State Fish Commission visited the islands to investigate the condition of the islands’ commercial fisheries. Cobb (1905) compiled his findings in his 1903 report titled, The Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, which provided details about fishing practices of this time, as well as the changing cultural tapestry of the islands. In relating what he observed during his visit, Cobb (ibid.:718) wrote: In numbers the native Hawaiian fishermen surpass all others combined, but this is partly because so many women and children engage in the hand fishery for octopus, algae, etc., and these have been counted in total. Some of the natives are at the head of quite important fisheries, and for many years held a monopoly of the industry, but more recently the Japanese have been engaging in it in large numbers and now occupy second place. The native fish spasmodically, as a rule, while the Japanese give to it their whole time and attention, and as a result are profiting much more. They are especially CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 101 3. Culture-Historical Context numerous on Oahu and Hawaii, most of them being engaged in deep-sea line fishing, which they virtually monopolize. They have several companies at Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo, and in this way control certain features of the fishing industry, thus enhancing the cost of the products to the general public. Furthermore, Cobb (ibid.) reported that much of the same fishing methods and apparatuses used in early times were still being employed by Kānaka Maoli fishers. These technologies included fishing from canoes and from the shore using nets of various types, spears, basket traps, lures, hand lines, snares, and poles, all of which have been previously described in this study (see Traditional Hawaiian Nearshore Fishing Techniques section). While Cobb provides a variety of statistical information on Hawaiian fisheries during the turn of the 20th century, most interesting is perhaps his detailed list of catch yields sorted by island. His detailed list indicates that near-shore reef species, particularly on Hawai‘i Island, constituted a significant portion of the catch yields during 1900. Throughout the early part of the 20th century, the participation of Japanese in Hawai‘i’s commercial fishing continued to increase, while Kānaka Maoli participation gradually waned (Glazier 2007). As the commercial fishing industry continually expanded to meet the demands of the growing consumer population in the islands, the fish and other marine resources became more scarce. With the shift to a market economy and a commercial fishery these marine resources were valued mostly for their economic potential, and little to no regard was paid to the myriad of traditional values and more that emphasized the spiritual, cultural, familial, and ecological importance of the fish and other marine species. Maly and Maly (2003:ix) contend that “this trend has continued through the present-day and fostered the decline in health and well-being of the broad range and diversity of Hawaiian fisheries.” Figure 30. Fisherman using the ‘upena ho‘olei (throw net) ca. 19th century (Hawai‘i State Archives Call No. PP-22-8-003). 102 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 3. Culture-Historical Context Commercial Aquarium Fishing in Hawai‘i After the turn of the 20th century, on March 19, 1904, the Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company established the first public aquarium in Waikīkī, O‘ahu. Known then as the Honolulu Aquarium, Frederick A. Potter (for whom the Potter’s Angelfish; Centropyge potteri is named after), who worked as a clerk for the Honolulu Rapid Transit Company became the aquarium’s first Director. During its early years, the Honolulu Aquarium showcased various marine animals that were collected by local fishermen (University of Hawai‘i n.d.; Wiegel 2008). By the 1940s the collection of reef fish and other marine species to be used in aquariums had developed into a commercial industry. Throughout the mid-20th century, the aquarium fish industry went through a period of expansion, moving from O‘ahu to the outer islands. In 1953, the territorial government of Hawai‘i enacted Act 154, which authorized the Board of Agriculture and Forestry to establish a permit system for the use of fine-mesh nets and traps for the taking of aquarium fish (Walsh 2000). The history of the aquarium fishery in West Hawai‘i has been detailed by Dr. William J. Walsh, of the Division of Aquatic Resources. The following section presents a brief history of aquarium fishing leading up to the creation of the WHRFMA, as described in Walsh’s (2000) report, Aquarium Collecting in West Hawaii: A Historical Overview. By the early 1970s, growing public concern over the take of fish in West Hawai‘i prompted the Division of Fish and Game to temporarily suspend the issuance of additional aquarium fish permits. A week later, the Division of Fish and Game resumed issuing aquarium fish permits, but stipulated that permittees submit monthly catch reports—a process that by 1983, was called into question by Fish and Game biologist. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as the number of permits continued to increase so did the conflict between different marine user groups, but most notably, dive tour operators. In July of 1987, as a means to deescalate the mounting conflict, DAR (formerly the Division of Fish and Game) in conjunction with Sea Grant helped to establish a “Gentleperson’s Agreement” between the two groups “whereby aquarium collectors agreed to refrain from collecting in certain areas,” and in return, dive tour operators “agreed to not initiate legislative-opposition collecting and to cease harassment” (ibid.:1). This agreement had only short-lived success, however, as conflict continued to mount following the expiration of the agreement a year later, when it was reported that aquarium collectors had resumed operations is the previously closed areas. Over the next decade, a series of legislative actions were undertaken to establish areas that would prohibit the removal of fish for aquarium purposes. In 1991, the areas previously defined under the “Gentleperson’s Agreement,” were incorporated into the Kona Coast Fisheries Management Areas (FMA), and a year later the Old Kona Airport Marine Life Conservation District was established. In May of 1996, House Resolution (HCR 184) established rules that required DLNR to work in conjunction with a task force in order to develop a comprehensive management plan that would regulate the collection of aquarium fish. In May of 1993, the task force was formed and duly named the West Hawai‘i Reef Fish Working Group (WHRFWG). The roughly seventy member working group met over a period of fifteen months to gather the information that would assist in the management efforts. The working group helped to identify areas where user conflict was most intense, and proposed various management recommendations, which were later included in DAR’s 1997, legislative package. During this time, DAR staff worked with groups from Ho‘okena and Miloli‘i, Kūki‘o, and Ka‘ūpūlehu—where there was a native Hawaiian presence and participation in fisheries management, and also strong opposition to the take of reef fish for the aquarium industry (Brandt personal communication 2019)—to develop FMA rules for these communities. To improve understanding of the biological impact of aquarium collecting, DAR also established a joint research project with the University of Hawaii at Hilo. These efforts, however, did not come to fruition during the following legislative session. In response to this outcome, several members from the WHRFWG branched out and created the Lost Fish Coalition, who pushed for a complete ban on aquarium collecting in West Hawai‘i. House Bill 3349 was introduced in January 1997 by Republican Paul Whalen, a Representative for the Kona and Ka‘ū Districts. This bill sought to ban aquarium collecting between Kawaihae and Miloli‘i. House Bill 3349 was killed in the following legislative session. House Bill 3457, which eventually established the WHRFMA, and included a provision to set aside 50% of the FMA as FRAs where aquarium collecting would be prohibited, was also introduced in 1997 by Democratic Representative, David Tarnas (North Kona and South Kohala). Following the committee hearings on House Bill 3457, the 50% provision was reduced to 30%, but the bill was ultimately approved by the Hawai‘i State Legislature, where it became Act 306, and thereby established the WHRFMA extending from ‘Upolu Point in Kohala to Ka Lae in Ka‘ū. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 103 4. Consultation 4. CONSULTATION Gathering input from community members with genealogical ties and long-standing residency or relationships to the study area is vital to the process of assessing potential cultural impacts to resources, practices, and beliefs. It is precisely these individuals that ascribe meaning and value to traditional resources and practices. Community members often possess traditional knowledge and in-depth understandings that are unavailable elsewhere in the culturehistorical record of a place. As stated in the OEQC Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, the goal of the oral interview process is to identify information “relating to the practices and beliefs of a particular cultural or ethnic group or groups” (State of Hawai’i, Office of Environmental Quality Control 2012:11). It is our contention that, in addition to assessing the significance of any identified traditional cultural properties, oral interviews should also be used to augment the process of identifying traditional cultural properties. Thus, it is the researcher’s responsibility to utilize the gathered cultural-historical background information, as well as the information collected through the consultation process, to identify and describe potential cultural impacts to resources, practices, and beliefs, and to propose appropriate mitigative measures for those impacts as necessary. In an effort to identify individuals knowledgeable about traditional cultural properties, practices, beliefs, and/or uses associated with the entire WHRFMA, a public notice was submitted to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) for publication in their monthly newspaper, Ka Wai Ola. The notice was submitted via email on February 14, 2019, and was subsequently published in the March 2019 issue. A copy of the public notice is included as Appendix A of this report. As of the date of this publication, one individual, Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i responded to the public notice. Mrs. Kaneali‘i invited ASM staff to the Kailapa Hawaiian Homestead Community located in Kawaihae 1st Ahupua‘a, as well as to the April 2019 Kai Kuleana Network quarterly meeting held at Manini Beach in Nāpo‘opo‘o. The summaries from these consultation efforts are detailed below. Sixteen individuals participated in the Kailapa Hawaiian Homestead Community interview all of whom reviewed and approved their interview summaries; another thirteen individuals participated in the Kai Kuleana Network interview, of which ten individuals responded with approval to include their thoughts in this study. In addition to the responses received from the March Ka Wai Ola publication, ASM staff contacted an additional thirty-eight individuals (via email and/or telephone) with requests for consultation. Table 9 (presented below) lists all the individuals and/or organizations contacted for consultation and presents brief comments concerning the outcome of the consultation effort. In addition to the thirty-eight individuals contacted by ASM directly, another twenty-five individuals also participated in the consultation process (either through recommendation or invitation of those contacted). In all, a total of fifty-five individuals, representing various communities within the WHRFMA and various user groups (including cultural practitioners, aquarium collectors, subsistence and commercial fishers, dive tour operators, and researchers), participated in the consultation process. The consultation process commenced in March of 2019, and the interviews were conducted between April and September of 2019. Table 9. Persons/organization contacted for consultation. Bimo Akiona Henry Cho III Makani Christensen Initial Contact Date 3/13/2019 3/13/2019 6/6/2019 Date of Interview 4/2/2019 n/a n/a Kevin Awa Chelsea Faavesi Elena Waiwaiole Kela Pule Adrian Kuauhia 5/21/2019 5/21/2019 5/20/2019 5/20/2019 5/20/2019 9/7/2019 9/23/2019 n/a n/a n/a Name 104 Comments Summary below No response Makani called on 6/6, spoke with Aoloa. Lokelani called on 6/7, left message with request for interview. Aoloa called 6/10 with request for interview. Did not receive a call back. Summary below Summary below No response. No response. Number was disconnected. Table 9 continued on next page. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation Table 9. continued. Initial Contact Date 5/20/2019 Date of Interview n/a Henani Enos Kamehameha Schools, Jason Jeremiah Kehau Springer 3/28/2019 3/28/2019 5/5/2019 n/a 3/28/2019 4/29/2019 U‘ilani Macabio Pelika Andrade Milton “Shorty” Bertlemann Randy Vitousek Mele McPherson 3/28/2019 3/28/2019 3/28/2019 n/a 4/12/2019 n/a 3/28/2019 3/28/2019 4/2/2019 n/a Leina‘ala Lightner Leivallyn Ka‘upu 3/28/2019 5/15/2019 n/a n/a Ka‘imi Kaupiko 5/15/2019 6/28/2019 Laila Ka‘upu 5/15/2019 n/a Wilfred Kaupiko 5/15/2019 6/28/2019 Bobo Lopez 5/15/2019 n/a Limah Lopez 5/15/2019 n/a Greg Asner n/a 6/28/2019 Gail Garoutte n/a 6/28/2019 Alan Holokai Brown Akoni Palacat-Nelson Charles Young Damien Kenison Joe Balsimo 3/28/2019 6/21/2019 3/28/2019 6/25/2019 n/a n/a 6/28/2019 n/a 8/1/2019 8/1/2019 Stanford Cho n/a 8/1/2019 Hawila Alani n/a 8/1/2019 Nohea Ka‘awa Mel Johansen 3/28/2019 n/a 6/12/2019 6/12/2019 Name Nicki Kohia Comments Aoloa spoke with Nicki. Nicki stated she would call back to set up a time to meet. Aoloa followed up but no response was received. Interview not approved as of 9/26/2019 No response See summary below. Recommended we speak to the ‘ohana at Miloli‘i No response Summary below No response Summary below Responded via email. Declined to comment and recommended ASM staff speak to Pelika Andrade. No response Contacted 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up on 5/16 to schedule interview. Was interested in participating but was not able to secure a date. Followed up again 6/14. No response Contacted 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up with Ka‘imi. Summary below. Contacted 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up with Laila. No response Contacted 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up. Summary below. Contacted 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up. No response. Contact 5/15 by Kehau Springer. ASM staff followed up. No response. Was invited by Ka‘imi Kaupiko to the interview. Summary below. Was invited by Ka‘imi Kaupiko to the interview. Participated in the interview but did not approve her portion of the summary. No response. Summary below. No response. Summary below. Invited by Damien Kenison to the interview. Summary below Invited by Damien Kenison to the interview. Summary below. Invited by Damien Kenison to the interview. Interview not approved as of 9/29/2019 Summary below. Invited by Nohea Ka‘awa to the interview. Summary below. Table 9 continued on next page. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 105 4. Consultation Table 9. continued. John Replogle Initial Contact Date n/a Date of Interview 6/12/2019 Meghan Lamson n/a 6/12/2019 Shaylan Crysdale n/a 6/12/2019 Lester Gebin n/a 6/12/2019 Kala Mossman 3/28/2019 n/a James Manoha Luka Mossman Diane Maka‘aka Kaneali‘i 5/20/2019 3/28/2019 3/14/2019 5/23/2019 n/a 4/16/2019 Cindy Sharp n/a 4/16/2019 Jordan Hollister n/a 4/16/2019 Kaena Peterson n/a 4/16/2019 Justin P. Asing n/a 4/16/2019 Jonah Yardley n/a 4/16/2019 Robin Yardley n/a 4/16/2019 Ted Angelo n/a 4/16/2019 Jimmy Bouncs n/a 4/16/2019 Pualani Lincoln Maielua n/a 4/16/2019 Tani Waipa n/a 4/16/2019 Keali‘i Maielua n/a 4/16/2019 Name Comments Invited by Nohea Ka‘awa to the interview. Summary below. Invited by Nohea Ka‘awa to the interview. Summary below. Invited by Nohea Ka‘awa to the interview. Summary below. Invited by Nohea Ka‘awa to the interview. Summary below. Recommended ASM staff speak with James Mahona and Luka Mossman. Summary below. No response. Responded to OHA public notice. Requested that ASM staff meet with members of the Hawaiian Homestead community at Kailapa, Kawaihae as well as the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Table 9 continued on next page. 106 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation Table 9. continued. Mark Keali‘i Freitas Initial Contact Date n/a Date of Interview 4/16/2019 Roger Kaneali‘i n/a 4/16/2019 Susan Fischer n/a 4/16/2019 Paul Fischer n/a 4/16/2019 Chad Wiggins 4/2/2019 4/16/2019 Cecile Walsh 4/12/2019 4/16/2019 Hannah Kihalani Springer n/a 4/16/2019 Kalani Hamm n/a 4/16/2019 Reggie Lee n/a 4/16/2019 George Fry III n/a 4/16/2019 Pi‘i Laeha n/a 4/16/2019 Aric Arakaki n/a 4/16/2019 Ku‘ulei Keakealani n/a 4/16/2019 Krista Johnson n/a 4/16/2019 Chuck Leslie n/a 4/16/2019 Francis Ruddle n/a 4/16/2019 George Roberson n/a 4/16/2019 Mike Nakachi Ling Nakachi 6/21/2019 n/a 6/26/2019 6/26/2019 Kaiakea Nakachi n/a 6/26/2019 KAHEA Hawaiian Environmental Alliance 6/21/2019 n/a Kealoha Pisciotta 6/25/2019 7/5/2019 Name Comments Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Invited by Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i to Kaipala Hawaiian Homestead Community interview. Summary below. Arranged for ASM staff to meet with the Kai Kuleana Network. Arranged for ASM staff to meet with the Kai Kuleana Network. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. See summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Summary below. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Did not approve summary. Member of the Kai Kuleana Network. Did not approve summary. Summary below. Invited by Mike Nakachi to interview. Summary below. Invited by Mike Nakachi to interview. Summary below. Called on 6/21, left message. Sent interview request to Jon Osorio on 6/25 and to Bianca Isaki on 7/2. Corresponded with Bianca but was not able to secure a date for an interview. Summary below. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA Table 9 continued on next page. 107 4. Consultation Table 9. continued. Name Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL), William Aila Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Joseph “McGee” Akiu, Jr. Initial Contact Date 6/25/2019 Date of Interview n/a n/a 6/29/2019 9/10/2019 9/10/2019 Comments No response. Request for consultation forwarded from Shane Palacat Nelson, OHA Outreach Coordinator for West Hawai‘i to Kamakana Ferreira, OHA’s Lead Compliance officer. Summary below End of Table 9 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY ASM staff utilized a combination of informal one-on-one interviews as well as informal group interviews. The locations at which the interviews took place were determined by the individual, or the point of contact for the group interviews. While one-on-one interviews afford the researcher the opportunity to gather more detailed personal history, the group interviews (which ranged from five or six to more than sixteen participants) allowed for more nuanced discussions about the topic, but limited the researcher’s ability to gather detailed personal history. As a result, most of the group interviews focused more on knowledge of past, and/or ongoing cultural practices, general thoughts on the proposed action, and recommendations, rather than personal recollections. All of the interviews were conducted in person with the exception of the interviews conducted with Pelika Andrade, Kevin Awa, Joseph Akiu, Jr., and Chelsey Faavesi, which were conducted by phone. Prior to the interview, ASM staff provided a written description of the proposed action, its location—which included maps showing all current marine managed areas in the WHRFMA (see Figure 1)—and the “white-list” species that included any known Hawaiian names, scientific name, and common names (see Table 3). The interviewees were asked five primary questions about: 1) their personal background and connection to the study area; 2) their knowledge of any past and or ongoing customary cultural uses, beliefs, traditions, and practices within the proposed project area; 3) any traditional cultural knowledge, beliefs, and uses of the forty “white-list” species; 4) their thoughts on whether the proposed action would result in any impact on traditional cultural practices, beliefs, and uses associated with the study area or the “white-list” species; and 5) their recommendations to mitigate any identified cultural impacts as well as share any additional through about the proposed action. Some of the interviews, with the consent of the interviewees, were audio recorded for note taking purposes only (audio files are not available). Where audio recordings were not permitted, ASM staff recorded hand-written notes throughout the interview process. Upon completion of the interview, ASM staff prepared an interview summary, which was later emailed to the interviewees for review. To ensure that the summaries prepared by ASM staff accurately reflected the thoughts, feelings, and information shared by the interviewees themselves, ASM staff afforded the interviewees the opportunity to review the summary and revise, edit, or delete any information as they saw fit. Where revisions were requested, ASM staff continued to work with the interviewees, making all requested changes. The approval to publish the summaries was obtained by ASM staff via email or phone. The final interview summaries are presented below, these summaries were all reviewed and approved by the interviewees prior to the publication of this CIA. BIMO AKIONA On April 2, 2019, Lokelani Brandt interviewed Mr. Edward “Bimo” Akiona, a retired firefighter for the County of Hawaiʻi and a former aquarium fish collector. Born in Hilo, Hawaiʻi in 1954, Bimo shared fond memories of spending the entire summer at his uncle’s home in Kahaluʻu, Kona, where he gained his love and respect for the ocean. At the age of eight, Bimo recalled being given a pair of bamboo goggles by his uncle Jimmy, with instruction to peer under the water. Bimo remembered peering under the water and was amazed by the active reef and ocean life below. It was this childhood experience that established his deep connection to the ocean, leading him to become an expert diver 108 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation and fisherman. Bimo shared that one of the most important traits of being a diver or fisherman is their observation skills, which includes understanding changes in the tide, the moon cycle, the time of day that was most ideal for fishing, fish habits, and conservation practices. From a very young age, fishing and diving was simply a way of life for Bimo. Bimo’s involvement with aquarium collecting began when he returned to Hawai‘i Island and later joined the Hawaiʻi Police Department. Bimo shared that his very first case as a police officer involved a dive shop, which eventually led to his involvement in the aquarium collection industry. In 1985, Bimo started his own aquarium fish collection company, which he operated for eight years. He shared that growing up and learning about the ocean from his family helped to guide much of his business practices. Bimo recalled his primary collection areas extending from Kulaimano to Hōnaunau as well as from Kawaihae Harbor to ‘Anaeho‘omalu as well as Ka Lae. His experience in diving and fishing in these areas and observing fish behavior and cycles had led him to believe that certain areas should be restricted from all forms of commercial activities, namely Puakō, Kaiwi Point (from Honokōhau to Kailua Bay) as well as Ka Lae. Bimo stated that the aforementioned areas are where breeding groups congregate and for this reason, should be protected. He also stated that at Ka Lae in the district of Ka‘ū, the ocean conditions in this area can be treacherous to novice fishers and divers. When asked if he knew of any traditional practices within the region, he shared that he would see people gathering ‘ōpihi or laying net but believes the lack and difficulty in coastal access have limited the number of practitioners. Bimo believes that over time these families that no longer have access to these areas have lost their connection and as a result no longer possess the traditional knowledge and practice of these places. He believes it is important for families and people with ties to the area to be given access. However, although Bimo is in favor of giving access to families and communities he recommends that certain areas should be restricted from commercial use in order to improve and restore the ocean resources. When asked if the proposed project could result in any potential cultural impacts, Bimo did mention that aquarium collecting methods can have a damaging effect on the reef, which in itself, is considered a valued cultural resource. He spoke specifically about the method used to capture and remove Potter’s Angelfish (Centropyge potteri), Hawaiian Flame Angel (Cirrhilabrus jordani), Hawaiian Saddleback Butterfly (Chaetodon ephippium), and Angler fish (Antennarius sp.) and all eels. Bimo explained that these species often conceal themselves deep within the coral reefs and that removing them requires significant damage to the reefs. He believes that the economic value of these fish does not justify the environmental damaged required to catch them. Because of the damaging effects, he strongly recommends that these fish not be caught and removed from Hawaiʻi. However, Bimo shared that the collection and removal of invasive species would yield long-term benefits to Hawai‘i’s reef systems. He has witnessed firsthand the dramatic impacts of introduced species such as the Bluestripe Snapper (Lutjanus kasmira), also known as Taʻape, that has contributed to a decline in reef fish population. Bimo noted additional impacts to Hawai‘i’s reef system which includes runoff and pollution. Following major storms, he has witnessed drastic changes that have completely devastated ocean wildlife and reef systems, which has adversely impacted many subsistence fishers. Mr. Akiona shared that the business of fish collection requires a great deal of “self-management” and should always include conservation practices. He further explained that policies and restrictions did not exist when he was involved in the industry, but managed to heed the teachings of his elders to “mālama your resources.” He strongly feels that these businesses should have a “connection to place” and be respectful of the resources, particularly in Hawaiʻi, where cultural values and traditions continue to thrive. In his experience, Bimo was involved and witnessed many disputes between “shop divers” and “dive operators.” Dive operators have argued that aquarium collectors were “raping the ocean,” implying that they were taking all the fish from certain areas. Disturbed by the untrue statements, Bimo began attending public meetings to stay informed and remain involved in the process when policies and restrictions were being written. Bimo also spoke about the safety issues of the business, having been put in a hyperbaric chamber several times due to having the bends, or decompression sickness. The demand of the business may affect “self-management” practices and suggests that divers take caution not just from a cultural standpoint but also for a person’s health as the industry require divers to spend a substantial amount of time in the ocean. RANDY VITOUSEK On April 2, 2019, Lokelani Brandt interviewed Randy Vitousek, a third-generation fisherman and long-time resident of Waimea on Hawaiʻi Island. Randy frequents the coastal fisheries in West Hawaiʻi, primarily in the areas between Kīholo in North Kona and ‘Upolu in Kohala. He is experienced in shoreline fishing and diving but now prefers deepsea vessel fishing. He has held a commercial fishing license for the past twenty-five years. Randy shared that he comes from a family of fishermen and learned how to fish from his father at a very young age. His grandfather owned a boat and his grandfather and father would bring the boat from Kewalo to Kailua-Kona or Kawaihae to fish. Randy stated CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 109 4. Consultation that he learned about the ocean from his father and from other men and women of his father’s generation, and this accumulation of knowledge is something he has passed on to his children and grandchildren. When asked if he was aware of any ongoing traditional cultural practices along the West Hawai‘i coastline, Randy stated that “modern fishing is a continuation of cultural practices, but with more durable gear.” He describes that fishing practices are based upon a person’s awareness of the ocean and marine life patterns, such as understanding what areas are abundant with a certain species of fish and the reasons they are so abundant in these specific areas. Randy added that these basic observations are considered traditional knowledge, the difference being that kupuna (ancestors) depended on this intimate knowledge much more than we do today. He noted that the advancement of fishing technology and equipment has altered our dependency on the ocean and our understanding of marine life patterns. Randy, however, emphasized that the activity is the same, more so for those fishing for subsistence purposes. He noted that subsistence fishing and even some commercial fishers help to provide food for family and friends, which continues the practice of connecting with the ocean environment. Randy believes that living on an island is a remarkable experience as it forces people to take care of their resources and each other. Randy noted that this same kind of behavior that is seen in other island communities around the world who depend on the ocean. This involves developing common practices and beliefs based on environmental conditions and understanding the limitations of the land, which necessitates harvesting resources from the ocean. Randy opined that there is something important to be said for people who make a living on the ocean. He went on to explain that when we lose the ability to make a living on the ocean or from the ocean resources, we also lose important knowledge about the ocean. He believes that having vibrant marine employment is this is an important part of living on an island and that all people have a unique place in our communities. He emphasized that markets are ever-changing and noted some of the historical changes in Hawai‘i’s fishing industries. Randy pointed out that at one time there was a big market for aku (Katsuwonus pelamis) and now economically the aquarium fishing is or can be a big component of this ever-changing market. When asked if there were any potential cultural impacts associated with the proposed action, Randy stated that he has witnessed many changes in fishing in Hawaiʻi, particularly along the West Hawai‘i region. Although Randy is not against aquarium fishing, he stated that easily accessible areas like Puakō, NELHA, and Kawaihae Harbor should be temporarily closed, have restrictions, or have bag limits, as he has seen a major decline in reef population in these areas, which he believes is associated with “catch and kill” fishing. Although seasonal changes pose some difficulty in determining an overall trend and knowing the catch statistics, he has personally not seen any significant changes in off-shore and in deeper waters. He recommends and advocates for easily accessible areas to be a preserve as a “notake, catch and release” or limit fishing to families and children so they can stay connected or reconnect to the ocean. Randy emphasized that these simple fishing practices teach basic skills and knowledge in fishing and the practice of observation, which are vital for our future generations. Despite this, he believes that there should be an appropriate and regulated amount collected for all fishing, commercial and non-commercial that is based on reliable scientific evidence. He explained that there should be “controls based on sustainable yields of different species” as well as having certain areas restricted and catch areas rotated. He believes aquarium fishing is a good thing for the communities because it allows for the “continuation of the tradition to harvest the sea” and further added that aquarium collection “is not culturally inappropriate as long as the practice is done with respect for the ocean and its resources.” Randy also spoke about ko‘a (traditional fishing grounds) and when asked if the tradition of fishing at the ko‘a in West Hawai‘i would be impacted by the proposed action, Randy spoke specifically of ‘ōpelu (Decapterus pinnulatus and D. maruadsi). He has seen about four or five ‘ōpelu koʻa situated between Kawaihae and ‘Upolu and added that it tends to be associated with a hale waʻa (canoe house) on land. These highly concentrated areas of ‘ōpelu have a thriving ecosystem that builds up around them. He mentioned that off-shore fishing koʻa is not fixed to a particular spot rather it shifts in a known area and its location is determined by where the fish congregate. Randy expressed that aquarium fishers will not likely affect these traditional fishing koʻa because aquarium fishers often fish close to the shore. Randy believes that Native Hawaiians should be allowed to continue their practice and hopes that the proposed action does not adversely affect Native Hawaiians communities who rely on the ocean. Randy’s understanding of the aquarium industry is that they try to limit the destruction to the reef and to the fish. He explained that using a finer mesh net instead of a gill net would allow for the proper handling of the fish and limit any damage to the fish. Based on his knowledge of the industry and if the proper measures based on valid science are taken to ensure sustainable harvesting of aquarium fish, Randy does not anticipate any major cultural or environmental impacts. 110 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation Randy believes that regulatory efforts should focus on enforcing existing fishing laws, developing science-based quotas, size limits and fishing areas, and improving parks, harbors and public marine and coastal facilities to encourage residents and visitors to have easy, authentic connection to the ocean around us. PELIKA ANDRADE Pelika Andrade, an Extension Agent for the Hawaiʻi Sea Grant was interviewed via phone by Lokelani Brandt on April 12, 2019. Born on the island of Kaua‘i, to a family adept at the cultural and physical aspects of the ocean, Pelika recalled spending most of her childhood on and in the ocean. Her upbringing and later experiences led her to the field of marine resource management, where she has earned a degree in Hawaiian Studies and certificates in Marine Science and Pacific Island Studies. Currently residing in Waimea on Hawai‘i Island, Pelika continues to develop educational programs that integrate traditional knowledge and science to address issues facing marine resource management in Hawai‘i. When asked if she knew or witnessed any traditional fishing practices occurring within the West Hawai‘i region, Pelika offered an in-depth perspective on the “traditional” practice of lawaiʻa (fishing). She described the kai as inseparable from the ‘āina (land), literally translated as “the thing that feeds (us),” and just as a farmer would tend to their fields to ensure its productivity, the lawai‘a (fisher) did the same. In describing how the Hawaiian fisher tended to the ocean, she explained that the people fed the ocean with food that they grew and noted the ko‘a as an example of this feeding practice. She highlighted that the practice of kilo (astute observation) played an important role for the fisher that allowed them to understand the nuances of the ocean environment as well as any seasonal correlations. Kilo provided the lawai‘a with an in-depth understanding of natural fish cycles and its relationship to its ecosystem and the greater ocean. Pelika stated that in some areas, the lawai‘a (fishers) role in a community was so valued that the chiefs often relied on the po‘o lawai‘a (head fisher) to determine what and when certain practices were to take place— a role that was often delegated to the konohiki or headman of an ahupua‘a. She explained that the lawaiʻa (fisher) spent a large majority of their time “tending to the ocean garden,” and that the act of lawe iʻa (taking fish from the ocean) constituted a very small component of this tradition. She noted that when large communal fishing was performed, it was done at the order of the po‘o lawai‘a or the konohiki and the collected resources benefitted the whole community, providing both a short and long-term supply of food. Adding to this, she explained that traditionally, when decisions were made, an individual was held accountable to that community. Pelika edified that fishing is a practice that is found around the world, but in Hawai‘i the traditional practice of fishing encompassed caring for one’s equipment and gear, understanding the natural cycles, seasonality, and productivity; but most importantly, traditional lawai‘a in Hawai‘i is fully engaging in the practices of managing marine resources, and being an active contributor to its productivity and its ecosystems. She expressed that lawaiʻa are acts of sustainability, which in her view is the balance of sustainable marine resources and thriving and productive communities. When asked if the proposed project would lend to any potential cultural impacts, Pelika compared the practice of lawai‘a to aquarium fish collection as it is practiced in Hawai‘i today. She evaluated that lawai‘a—the reciprocal relationship between man and the environment—and aquarium collection, which focuses on the act of lawe i‘a, removing fish from the ocean does not align with the Hawaiian worldview of caring for the ocean and its resources. She stated that aquarium fishing is not about feeding those at your table, but a business that impacts that larger community. She feels that there is no accountability to the communities that are impacted by this industry, which was a fundamental aspect of traditional fishing practices. Based on this, Pelika believes that the proposed project would lend to adverse impacts to the community and is not aligned with traditional fishing practices. She went on to explain that with aquarium collection, “there’s no tending process, only lawe iʻa.” She argued that modern aquarium collection practices negatively impact fisheries and disrupts traditional knowledge systems, because there is no input or contribution to maintaining the very resource that the industry is dependent upon. She emphasized that the practice of kupuna (Hawaiian elders) was not based exclusively on lawe iʻa (taking fish), rather the act of lawe i‘a was carried out after a fisher understood all of the other components that allowed for healthy marine resources. She argued that identifying oneself to the act of lawe iʻa (taking fish) with no forms self-management, severely limits the individual from fully embracing the traditional practice of lawaiʻa, which emphasized caring for the resources. Pelika opined that the act and the sense of entitlement associated with lawe i‘a (taking fish) can be applied to other fishing industries, from commercial to subsistence fishing. She explained that this mindset shift from caring for our resources, to entitlement to our resources, is a result of a lifestyle change. For these reasons, Pelika does not support aquarium fishing and other fishing practices or industries that make no effort towards contributing to maintaining the resources or encourages self-management. While Pelika was not against utilizing our resources to support our families and communities, she strongly advocated for changing the current mindset and practice of lawe i‘a (taking fish). She argued that Hawai‘i’s current CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 111 4. Consultation system of marine management, which is comprised of western concepts and rules, is set up in such a manner that accepts the mindset and practices of lawe i‘a—a causal element that has led to the decline of our marine resources along with other important factors such as water diversions (affecting estuary and nursery habitat), development (increasing nitrification and affecting water quality), and management rules/regulations that work against productive fisheries. She opined that the contemporary practice of establishing marine preserve areas, rest zones, and conservation areas, have also impacted the traditional practice of lawaiʻa, because it disrupts people’s ability to interact with and understand the productivity of the resource in an area. She noted that there are conservation models that are trying to counter western system of marine resource management. Despite these efforts, she explained that these models often fall short, because they do not support caring for the resources nor do they foster developing a relationship to place, both of which were crucial to sustaining traditional lawai‘a practices. Pelika also questioned the industry’s techniques and methods to harvest fish, noting that some methods are known to be destructive to coral heads and general productivity of targeted species. She also questioned the quantity of fish that are being harvested from Hawai‘i’s reefs for the aquarium industry. When asked for recommendations on how we can improve the current state of aquarium fish collecting in Hawai‘i, Pelika commented that anyone choosing to utilize our marine resources whether for subsistence or commercial use should have a more holistic understanding of the resources. She believes that these individuals and industries should sustainably interact with our marine systems and make more than financial contributions to ensuring Hawai‘i’s marine resources are thriving and productive. She noted that most people seem to be aware of the industry’s failures and drawbacks rather than its benefits. She expressed that all aspects of this industry have remained shrouded in mystery resulting in a poor public perception and understanding. While Pelika felt that she did not know a significant amount about the aquarium industry or how to resolve the contentious relationships, she does know that the conservation proponents are at one end of the spectrum and noted that “rarely is the loudest voice, the one in the middle or the voice of reason.” She expressed that many who are screaming “conservation” rarely are attached to the lifestyle that is dependent upon fishing. She opined that this is also true for those proponents advocating for aquarium fishing. She believes that this is not a fair representation and what has resulted is an emphasis on “bad practices” of the industry. Pelika also explained the importance of having a proper balance of small and large fish in Hawai‘i’s reefs to ensure minimal disruption to natural fish cycles. She believes that the aquarium industry as well as others that remove fish from the ocean should have export limits that are reasonable and are based on the percentage of local fish stocks. Hypothetically, Pelika explained that if the amount allowed to be collected is based on the percentage of local fish stocks, when the number reaches below a certain percent, then the industry needs to advocate for management and better fishing practices and only then will we all benefit. She believes that as a part of their responsibilities to their industry and to Hawai‘i’s fisheries, the aquarium industry should invest in aquaculture, which would teach them how to grow and spawn their own supply and make contributions to replenishing the fish removed from our waters. Pelika believes that if the aquarium industry and fishers want to continue to reap the benefits of removing fish from the sea, it needs to be a shared initiative and there must be a shift towards a more reciprocal relationship. KAI KULEANA NETWORK: ARIC ARAKAKI, GEORGE FRY III, KALANI HAMM, PI‘I LAEHA, REGGIE LEE, MAKA‘ALA KANEALI‘I, HANNAH KIHALANI SPRINGER, KU‘ULEI KEAKEALANI, KRISTA JOHNSON, AND CHUCK LESLIE. In response to the OHA public notice published in February 2019, Lokelani Brandt was invited to the April 16, 2019, Kai Kuleana Network quarterly meeting held at Manini Beach in Nāpo‘opo‘o, Kealakekua, Hawai‘i. Kai Kuleana Network is comprised of multiple members representing various ahupua‘a communities from Kohala to South Kona on Hawai‘i Island. A total of fifteen individuals were in attendance of which twelve participated in the talk-story, sharing their knowledge of traditional cultural practices associated with their respective areas throughout West Hawai‘i as well as their knowledge of some of the fish species listed on the “white-list.” Participants included, Aric Arakaki of Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, George Fry III of Puakō, Kalani Ham of Keauhou-Kahalu‘u and La‘aloa, Pi‘i Laeha of Kalāhuipua‘a, Reggie Lee of Kaloko-Kohanaiki, Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i of Kawaihae, Hannah Kihalani Springer and Ku‘ulei Keakealani of Ka‘ūpūlehu, and Krista Johnson and Chuck Leslie of Nāpo‘opo‘o. While the individuals spoke at various points throughout the interview, for readability, their individual thoughts and insights have been compiled into paragraph form and are presented below. Kalani Hamm: Kalani noted that her family often used the beach as part of their cleansing ceremonies. She also recalled one of the last hukilau taking place in Kailua-Kona in 1948. She described that in the past, these large communal fishing efforts provided food for multiple communities. Kalani recalled going to kū‘ula to pule (pray). She remembered going to the ocean while the fish were sleeping to catch them and using them as offerings. 112 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation Reggie Lee: Reggie spoke about the importance of mālama, caring for our resources, a practice that was handed down to him by his mother tūtū Malu‘ihi. He shared that knowledge of different fishing spots was handed down in families. He added that the aquarium industry should consider raising their own fish to supply its industry. And if fish are to be taken out of the ocean, the industry should assist with supplementing the fish stock by investing in hatcheries. Reggie also emphasized the importance of having adequate enforcement, noting that there are very few DOCARE officers that patrol this region. With the aquarium industry potentially adding to the workload, he recommended that the aquarium industry should help to supplement DOCARE’s efforts so they can be productive in enforcing the rules and regulations. Hannah Kihalani Springer: Hannah explained that in the past, people delighted in eating a wide variety of reef fish, but today, peoples preferences are more limited and fewer varieties of fish are eaten. She spoke of encouraging each other to develop an ʻono for different kinds of fish. She also emphasized the importance of restoring our food producing capability and capacity. In reviewing the “white-list” species, Hannah remarked that the wrasse, the hīnālea fish, is a kinolau or physical embodiment of the god Kanaloa. She described another wrasse, the hilu, as being representative of positive attributes and that in traditional times it was venerated and that its importance is recorded in several traditional accounts. Hannah stressed the ecological importance of reef fish, describing them as cleaners and rehabilitators of reef ecosystems. She questioned what the aquarium fish industry’s contribution to the public trust, that includes the aquatic resources of Hawaiʻi is. She questioned the sustainable yield quotas for the aquarium fish industry and stressed the importance of them. Maka‘aka Kaneali‘i: Maka‘ala highlighted the extent of the traditional ahupua‘a boundaries. In her community in Kawaihae, she explained that the traditional ahupua‘a rights extended three miles out into the ocean. She explained that in her community, they are working towards restoring their traditional fishing rights and practices so that families can once again utilize the ocean for sustenance. She strongly opposed the proposed issuance of commercial aquarium collection permits because this action is not aligned with the current efforts to restore physical and cultural aspects of the fisheries in West Hawai‘i. She commented that aquarium collection is disrespectful to the fish and that when we capture fish without having the intent to consume them, then we lose the function of the fish. Maka‘ala added that what are the fines and repercussions for aquarium collectors that do not comply with the laws. She hopes that DLNR considers having more rigid fines and serious repercussions to those who violate the law. George Fry III: George spoke of many subsistence fishermen who access the Puakō area to gather fish and ‘opihi. He described this area as once having an abundance of fish but noted that today the fish stock has been seriously depleted, which he attributes to overfishing, warming waters, and poor water quality. Pi‘i Laeha: Pi‘i opposed the proposed action and stated that there should absolutely no collection of fish for the aquarium industry outside of Hawai’i, especially any endemic fish that is listed on the “white-list.” Pi‘i emphasized that having fish in the ocean is important for educational purposes but also with the education and awareness process, it should allow established institutions in Hawai’i, those that show a perpetual responsibility for fish sustainability, the opportunity to responsibly collect fish under a Special Activity Permit. Pi‘i described the near-shore zones as the place where it is the safest for keiki (children) to learn about marine life and added that…‘a‘ohe pau ka ‘ike i ka hālau ho‘okahi (all knowledge is not taught in a single school). Aric Arakaki: Aric spoke about coral bleaching in West Hawai‘i and asked if coral bleaching is being accounted for in the scientific studies that are being done for the EIS? Ku‘ulei Keakealani: Ku‘ulei emphasized that culturally fish are connected to humans and that this connection is well recorded in the Hawaiian cosmogony chant, Kumulipo. In referencing the Kumulipo, Ku‘ulei further explained that certain fish was paired with a land/forest counterpart. In Hawai‘i, certain fish often shared familial bonds with particular individuals and families who cared for them. In turn, these fish aided the fisher in their endeavor. She noted that within one generation in her family, their reliance on fish and some of the associated cultural practices such as praying to kū‘ula, a Hawaiian fishing deity, has changed significantly. Despite these changes, she stood firm in her belief that Hawaiian today must continue to maintain our traditions. She stressed that familial bonds to our oceans must be considered as an important cultural tradition. Ku‘ulei also spoke of the ceremonial aspects of fish, noting that some fish were desirable for certain cultural practices. She stated that these aspects of Hawaiian culture are still being practiced. Adding to this Ku‘ulei stated that “the kai is medicine for us, truly something or place that is sought for healing, a sense of well-being, a familiar part of the kanaka being. I‘a (fish) therefore, is looked at as lā‘au as well.” She expressed that she has family stories of kupuna (elders) requesting certain species of fish to treat particular CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 113 4. Consultation ailments. Ku‘ulei explained that whether it’s the fish name and or color, healing properties are held in fish species and this knowledge and practices are still in the living memory of folks and further applied in our lives. She added that the lack of fish necessary for these facets of our cultural ways has a direct impact on the health of our kanaka. In her closing remarks, Ku‘ulei stated, “truly, healthy land and sea, healthy people!” Krista Johnson: Krista commented that there is so much death with aquarium collection and spoke of instances when bags of dead fish were found in Kona. She questioned whether the industry is going to self-regulate? She worried that the current enforcement is not adequate and hope that more enforcement officers will be added. Chuck Leslie: Check asked, “why should people take our fish just for pleasure?” He emphasized that we should be encouraging people to come to the ocean and view our marine life first hand. Chuck, who has fished at ko‘a was asked specifically whether the proposed action would impact the tradition of ko‘a fishing. He explained that ko‘a are typically located offshore and in deeper waters and that aquarium collectors fish closer to shore and are targeting different fish species. For these reasons, he didn’t anticipate the proposed action to have an impact on the traditional fishing ko‘a. He did, however, recall the tradition of imu, which involved the construction of stone houses on the reefs. He explained that stones were often stacked in the water on the reefs and that these houses would attract fish. After the fish had become accustomed to living in the imu, people would throw their net over the house and catch the fish. Ku‘ulei added that the imu was typically built so that kupuna (elders) and wahine (women) could fish easily and safely. Hannah noted that fish imu was known to exist at Ka‘awaloa and Kīholo. Chuck expressed that the imu fishing method is a dying art. KAILAPA HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY: CINDY SHARP, JORDAN HOLLISTER, KAENA PETERSON, JUSTIN P. ASING, JONAH YARDLEY, ROBIN YARDLEY, TED ANGELO, JIMMY BOUNCS, PUALANI LINCOLN MAIELUA, KEALII MAIELUA, TANI WAIPA, MARK KEALII FREITAS, MAKA‘ALA AND ROGER KANEALI‘I, AND SUSAN AND PAUL FISCHER In response to the OHA public notice published in February 2019, Lokelani Brandt was invited by Maka‘aka Kaneali‘i, (the President of the Kailapa Community Association) to the Kailapa Hawaiian Homestead Community in Kawaihae Ahupua‘a, Kohala. Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i organized a community meeting, which was held at the Kailapa Community Center and a total of sixteen individual representing two distinct communities (Kailapa Hawaiian Homestead community and the nearby Kohala Estates), were in attendance all of whom participated in the talk-story. The names of the participants from Kailapa are Cindy Sharp, Jordan Hollister, Kaena Peterson, Justin P. Asing, Jonah Yardley, Robin Yardley, Ted Angelo, Jimmy Bouncs, Pualani Lincoln Maielua, Kealii Maielua, Tani Waipa, Mark Kealii Freitas, Diane Maka‘ala Kaneali‘i and Roger Kaneali‘i. Representing Kohala Estates, were Susan and Paul Fischer. The community members expressed that they would like their mana‘o and concerns to be expressed as a unified voice instead of individually. When asked if they were aware of any ongoing traditional cultural practices, the community expressed that fishing from the reef is an ongoing traditional cultural practice. They emphasized the traditional practice of taking only what is needed is a practice that has been taught to them and is something they are passing down to their children. They stressed that culturally, fish that was caught was for eating and that the Hawaiian saying, “ka ‘ai a me ka i‘a” literally translated as “the vegetable and the fish” constituted a complete meal. In looking at the “white-list”, some individuals added that i‘a (fish) was and will always be an important part of the Hawaiian diet. They noted that many of the fish on the “white-list” are still caught for subsistence purposes and stressed that fishing is part of Hawai‘i’s subsistence economy. They also spoke about the Hawaiian cosmogony chant Kumulipo, and urged for the need to maintain balance in our marine ecosystems. Some members shared that pule (prayer) was integral to maintaining balance and to traditional fishing practices. Several community members spoke about the fishing ko‘a in their area and noted that some fishers continue to hānai (feed, care for) these ko‘a. They described that every family in an ahupua‘a had and maintained a ko‘a. They stated that everything in the ocean is a part of Hawaiian culture and that every species has a role in maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem. One community member noted that the Kohala shoreline was once considered a spawning ground and that the historical changes that have occurred on land have severely impacted the coral reefs in some areas. One community member recalled seeking a lot of black coral in the area and that today, it is almost impossible to find any. They noted 114 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation that during episodic rain events, the runoff from land clouds the ocean for weeks at a time, leaving the coral reef severely depleted. In their collective efforts to better steward their marine resources and the entire Kawaihae ahupua‘a, the Kailapa community has been active in maintaining the traditional practice of kilo or astute observation. One community member emphasized that kilo is one way they are improving their understanding of their resources so that they can properly manage these resources. This community member also emphasized that proper stewardship is “always about management” and “never about taking.” It was also stressed that Hawaiians continue to maintain and revive their traditions, practices, and beliefs. Also, highlighted was that the idea that society today requires the culture to evolve and naturally the practices, traditions, and beliefs coevolve with it. The Kailapa Community members and those from the Kohala Estates spoke openly against the collection of reef fish to supply the aquarium industry. Many stated that the practice of catching fish without intending to consume it goes against traditional belief and that this act is not pono (proper, morally fitting, beneficial). They expressed that all fish are part of the public trust and that removing fish to supply a “lucrative” industry undermines traditional practices and beliefs associated with the ocean. They urged people to view fish in their natural environment where their colors are bright and brilliant. Several community members expressed concern for the high mortality rates of aquarium fish. They believe that removing any part of the ecosystem alters the natural balance and that removing small fish disrupts the natural food chain. The members from Kohala Estates believe that the aquarium industry is unsustainable. They urged for more fish studies, and for establishing open and closed seasons that are based on fish stocks. They believe that if the permitting is approved then there should be more DOCARE officers and that the aquarium industry should help to offset the additional operating costs. The community did support the removal of those invasive species noted on the “white-list” and saw this as a benefit to restoring balance to the reef system in West Hawai‘i. JAMES MANOHA On May 23, 2019, Aoloa Santos conducted an interview with James Manoha, a kamaʻāina of Naʻalehu and retired fireman. James is also a recreational and commercial fisherman, which he has done for over thirty years. James frequents the coastal fisheries in West Hawaiʻi, primarily in the Ka Lae or South Point region in the Ka‘ū District. He is experienced in a range of fishing activities such as spearfishing, diving, pole fishing, throwing net, and boat fishing, and utilizes the ocean resources primarily for subsistence purposes. When asked if he was aware of any ongoing traditional cultural practices along the West Hawaiʻi coastline, James stated that traditional cultural practices have definitely evolved and fishing practices have changed, though the need to survive has remained. James shared that he has witnessed many native Hawaiians fishing, using various methods, for subsistence purposes. He identified species on the white-list that were traditionally and are still utilized as an important source of food. James noted that within his ‘ohana (family) the pākuʻikuʻi, lāʻī pala, and kole are amongst some of their favorite eating fish. When asked if there were any potential cultural impacts associated with the proposed action, he stated that the fish on the white-list are numerous and therefore feels aquarium collection of these species would not negatively impact fish population and subsistence practices. However, he strongly advocated, with respect to the general harvesting of resources for subsistence or commercial purposes, that any permitting process give preference to those of “Native Hawaiian blood.” James believes that the ocean is a resource that should be utilized to support families, whether for subsistence or financial and therefore, supports recreational or commercial fishing practices as long as it is done sustainably and responsibly. He further emphasized that “it is our responsibility to take care of our resources” and does not support the “abuse of resources,” or overfishing practices. James also spoke extensively about the implementation of “restricted areas” and explained that over the years, he has witnessed significant growth in fish populations which he credits to the implementation of “restricted areas.” He also added that the literature and research he has reviewed supports many of his observations. Argumentatively, James added that although “restricted area” designations have produced positive results for heavily impacted coastal fisheries, he, in turn, has witnessed unnecessary designations that negatively impact subsistence fishing practices. He stated that he is concerned about a recent “restricted area” designation from Kaʻaluʻalu to Kahuku, an area that is renowned for its “bottom-fishing” grounds. He argued that this new restricted area is “self-regulated” due to rough seas and numerous predators. He added that there is no scientific basis that supports the creation of this “restricted area” which has led him to believe that it was created due to federal demands and pressures to establish conservation areas. Additionally, he stated that with a small number of fishermen that frequent this region, implementation of this restricted area would be met with less resistance in comparison to other areas. As a result, the local fishermen have reverted to unsafe and expensive practices in order to continue fishing near these fishing grounds. James recommended CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 115 4. Consultation that these designations should only be considered if backed by extensive scientific data. He also stated that such studies should be conducted by a neutral third-party to ensure an unbiased representation of those fisheries so that rules and regulations can be formed that would benefit all parties and establish a “common ground.” James also added that areas have different resources and disapprove of the “blanket approach” for an entire region. He recommended that extensive research should be conducted to identify areas, its resources, and impacts in order to develop specific management practices. James concluded that from his experience and observations in fishing within the WHFMA, the designation of “restricted areas” has positively impacted these areas resulting in increased fish populations. However, in order to safeguard these outcomes, he recommended that substantial scientific data must be included when identifying areas proposed regulated areas. In addition to “restricted areas,” he also supports the idea of “residential only” areas, as demonstrated by the community of Kaimū, in which only the residents of the area are allowed to fish. He strongly believes this designation will encourage fishing communities to develop and implement sustainable management practices resulting in improved resources. Based on scientific data and from his personal observations, he firmly stated that he does not anticipate any major cultural impacts as a result of aquarium fish collection as long as collectors conduct sustainable and responsible practices. KEHAU SPRINGER On April 29, 2019, Aoloa Santos met with Kehau Springer of Volcano, Hawaiʻi. Born and raised on Oʻahu, Kehau always had a “love of the kai, growing up.” Her deep love of the ocean coupled with her academic career inevitably led her to the field of marine resource management, where she has earned degrees in both Marine Science and Hawaiian Studies and a master’s degree in Tropical Conservation Biology. As the Coastal Community Capacity Development Advisor for Conservation International Hawaiʻi, Kehau shared her knowledge and extensive experience in working within the West Hawaiʻi region but has declined to provide any recommendations. When asked if she is aware or has witnessed any ongoing traditional cultural practices along the West Hawaiʻi coastline, Kehau provided a candid perspective on some of the traditional and customary practices. She stated that traditional fishing is contingent upon access of kanaka (man) to places in order to maintain sustainable and “pono” relationships with the resources which then ensures the perpetuation of traditional harvesting practices. She also added that traditional customary practice is not one singular or specific practice, such as “paddling a canoe or using a specific type of net to catch a specific type of fish,” but in the actions of caring for and acknowledging the communities, we harvest from. Kehau provided examples of this which includes traditional practices such as offering an oli (chants) or hoʻokupu (offering) or mālama ‘āina, the acts of caring for the land. Through her work, Kehau has witnessed different communities along the West Hawaiʻi region that maintain specific cultural practices. In North and South Kohala, particularly in the Kawaihae area, she observed the use of waʻa (canoe) which are used to access adjacent fisheries. At Puakō, she has witnessed “lawaiʻa” (fishermen) catching heʻe or using a three-pronged spear for diving. At Kīholo, a place known for its freshwater and groundwater input, the community is knowledgeable in managing loko iʻa (fishponds). She has also seen salt gathering, diving, “throw net” and active use of ‘ōpelu koʻa, areas that mackerel scad (Decapterus pinnulatus and D. maruadsi) gather. Through her collaborations with the community, Kehau has seen the active use of the koʻa in various ways including education by teaching children to clean and prepare fish for consumption. In North Kona, Kehau observed a large number of anchialine pools, that are very healthy and continue to maintain ‘ōpae ‘ula (Halocaridina rubra), an endemic shrimp species known to be ideal ʻōpelu bait. Kehau has seen people still use ‘ōpae ‘ula as bait but due to the difficulty in collecting this shrimp the practice is not as common. However, she has seen these communities take on the initiative to maintain these anchialine pools with the intent to revive the practice of using ‘ōpae ‘ula. Additional practices she has observed in this district is salt gathering, diving, and pole fishing. In areas of South Kona, particularly at Nāpoʻopoʻo, Hōnaunau, Hoʻokena, Miloliʻi, the tradition of hānai koʻa continues. Kehau explained that hānai koʻa is the traditional practice of feeding and caring for a koʻa, which she described as “natural areas within the ocean where fish gather.” Kehau stated that this phenomenon is influenced by the mixing of currents and natural formations underwater that attract the fish to these areas. The tradition of hānai koʻa, is a method to gather the fish to eat. A bag or handkerchief is filled with cooked vegetables such as pumpkin, avocado, papaya, kalo (taro), or ‘uala (sweet potato) and with an attached lead weight, the bag is lowered down onto the koʻa. She explained that the use of pumpkin is popular because as it disperses into the water and that the color of the pumpkin resembles that of ‘ōpae ‘ula. The practice of hānai koʻa ran throughout the year but kapu (restrictions, 116 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation prohibitions), are enacted to restrict harvesting during the months of April through August, which coincides with the ‘ōpelu spawning period. Through her interactions with various communities in West Hawaiʻi, and in speaking with kamaʻāina of the areas, certain harvesting and fishing practices have changed due to a decrease in fish population and environmental changes as exemplified by the pākuikui (Achilles tang). Kehau shared that this is a favorite delicacy in South Kona. Elders of the area shared that this fish was highly favored for parties and gatherings. However, according to oral interviews with various community members, in the last decade, there has been a major population decline. As a researcher, she confirmed that she has observed a very small population of pākuikui in these areas and in comparing scientific monitoring data, statistics, and literature reviews, their numbers have decreased significantly over the years. She does contend that there are other factors that may affect the population, such as their monogamous behavior, urbanization, pollution, and overharvesting. Kehau shared from her experience and observation that the influx of ocean activities, including aquarium fishing, has caused a major disruption to fish behavior. With the increase in boat traffic and people, she has seen a change in fish aggregation patterns and thus has seen the differences in the natural patterns of ocean wildlife. These increased activities have not only affected ocean life behavior but have consequently altered human behavior and as a result, affected traditional and cultural practices. HENANI ENOS On May 5, 2019, Lokelani Brandt interviewed life-long fishermen and educator Henani Enos. Born in the Hawaiian Homestead community of Anahola, East Kaua‘i, Henani relocated to Hawai‘i Island and currently lives in ‘Ōla‘a, Puna District. With his experience and upbringing in Hawaiian fishing practices and beliefs, art, and traditional navigation and wayfinding, Henani has taught ethnozoology, Hawaiian lifestyle, and Hawaiian moon phases courses at Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elikōlani College of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo since 2001. He is also a high school math, science, and navigation teacher at Ke Kula ‘O Nāwahīokalani‘ōpu‘u, a Hawaiian immersion school. Early in the email correspondences, Henani explained that he was aware of how different Hawaiian fishes were used by kūpuna (ancestors) but added that he did not have much knowledge about any ongoing cultural practices in West Hawai‘i. Henani, however, provided a wealth of knowledge concerning the traditional aspects of certain fish including those listed on the “white-list.” The interview was conducted in ‘Ōlelo Hawai‘i (Hawaiian language) and what appears below is a translated summary. Henani stated that nearly all of the fish listed on the “white-list” are considered ‘ai (food). With the exception of butterfly fishes, puffers, and boxfishes, which were not considered safe to eat, Henani explained that traditionally any fish that could be consumed safely was eaten. He opined that today people are pailani (spoiled) and favor certain fish over others, which he believes is one of the reasons for the decline in the more popular fish species. With respect to traditional fish naming practices, Henani shared that sometimes fish were named based on their characteristics, body shape, behavior, or where they live, which differs from the classical scientific taxonomy. He shared that while some of the general names have been retained, many people today do not know the specific Hawaiian names that were given to distinct fish species. He also added that certain fish names changed based on their growth stages and including such names in the cultural impact study are important to understanding the Hawaiian cultural value of those fish. He believes that the names given during each growth stage attest to the cultural value of that fish and indicates that its life cycle was carefully observed by kūpuna. Henani described in detail the importance of certain fish in traditional house blessing ceremonies and described several occasions when friends have asked his help in obtaining certain fish for such ceremonies. He noted that the yellow ring around the eye of the kole was considered a sign of luck and that this fish was planted under the wall on the eastern side of the house where the sun rises. Henani noted that when the sun rises in the east, the belief is that it raises the luck for the occupants of the home. He expressed that there were other fish that were used in these types of ceremonies including āholehole, which is believed to hole (strip) a house of unwanted spiritual energy and therefore kept the occupants safe from harm. The weke was placed at the entrance of a new home when being blessed as a way to weke (open) the home. The ‘ama‘ama, which is associated with enlightenment and knowledge was also placed inside of a new house during the blessing so that the house would have light and the occupants will receive constant enlightenment and knowledge. The kūmū fish was used during ‘ūniki (graduation ceremonies) as its name means “master”. Henani emphasized that from a kuana‘ike Hawai‘i (Hawaiian perspective), fishes carry cultural connotations that are often articulated in their name and sometimes their behavior. If certain energies or beliefs were desired for a home, then the homeowner tried to obtain a fish that possessed those qualities. He added that while there were CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 117 4. Consultation prescribed fishes for certain ceremonies, there was flexibility and other fishes that shared similar qualities, whether behavioral, physical characteristics, or in name, could be substituted. With respect to the kīkākapu (butterfly fishes), Henani explained that these fish were considered extremely kapu (restricted) and were not caught because they were associated with kauwā, a menial class of people that lived apart from the general populace and were drawn upon for human sacrifices. Henani specified that the black band of color that marks the forehead of the fish was similar to the tattooed marking of the kauwā. Henani added that while growing up, kūpuna enforced the practice of releasing this type of fish back into the ocean because of its association with kauwā. He explained that if this fish was accidentally caught in a net, it was immediately released and as a child, he was not allowed to take this fish home. Henani described that traditionally each family had their respective fishing areas at the ocean and that growing up, they were not allowed to roam or fish in another family’s area. He laughingly explained that there were no signs to indicate whose fishing spot it was, rather, that knowledge was held within the families and passed on to the children while they were fishing with elder relatives. Henani stated that these areas were sometimes referred to by elder relatives as a family’s “icebox.” He believes that this practice followed the traditions associated with the ahupua‘a system and lamented that these traditions are no longer practiced. Henani expounded on this, noting that families tended to their fishing areas just as they did to their gardens. He added that growing up, they would prepare and cook vegetables such as kalo (taro) and pumpkin which they took to the ocean to feed the fish. He lightheartedly commented that it was a lot of work to prepare vegetables and to feed the fish. When asked if this practice of feeding the fish was associated with the ko‘a fishing, Henani clarified that the concept was the same but that feeding was done near the shore where other favored fish lived. Henani spoke at length about how this type of detailed cultural knowledge was a natural way of life. He stated that while growing up, what the kupuna shared was adhered to and that questions were not asked. He stated that these types of practices were “a mea ma‘amau, a hahai wale nō” (a customary thing, to which we just followed). He explained that people today want to know why certain traditions are followed and for these reasons, Henani stated that he takes the time to learn why certain traditions were practiced and now shares that information with his children and students. He believes that if we don’t take the time to understand why certain traditions were practiced, then we cannot convey its importance to the youth and to others who don’t understand. He opined that knowing why our kupuna did certain things is critical to the perpetuation of Hawaiian cultural practices and traditions. He emphasized that the detailed cultural knowledge associated with the seasonal changes in the ocean and its lifeforms were carefully developed by kupuna because of their ability to kilo (astutely observe) the subtle distinctions. He stressed that kilo is a skill that needs to be practiced all of the time and that it required a great deal of self-motivation and discipline. He expressed that kilo should allow one to observe and be able to convey the subtle distinctions in the natural environment. In describing how kilo can be practiced at the ocean, Henani explained that when you continuously observe your environment, you will be able to see things like the gradations of color and that over time, you will be able to observe and distinguish things in nature such as fish types. He emphasized that fishing and preparing and repairing equipment requires a lot of time and energy but if one is able to develop skills in kilo they can become more efficient at fishing. Henani also spoke about changes to the ocean environment that he has observed throughout his lifetime and questioned whether these changes are associated with environmental change or whether it was having a sort of limited understanding of the ocean. He described changes in fish habitat and noted seeing uhu (parrot fishes) in rocky areas devoid of coral and has observed ‘ō‘io (bonefish) in rock filled areas with no sand, which to his understanding are not their preferred habitats. He stated that these observations are unusual and is likely attributed to the changes in the environment and supposes that these are hō‘ailona maika‘i ‘ole (not good signs). He stated that today, fish habitats seem to be disrupted and recalled knowing where certain fish could be found. Henani added that today, fish seem to be moving into other areas outside of their preferred habitat and noted that this is cause for concern. When asked about his thoughts on the proposed action, Henani shared that he has always enjoyed observing fish and therefore, has an appreciation for aquariums. However, he explained that when fish are removed from their habitat, it severs the natural life cycle which is of no benefit to the overall health of the ocean. He believes that what is most important is that the proper studies be conducted, and that the aquarium industry and the public remain vigilant and watchful. Henani stated that what is most important is that aquarium collection is not “‘ae wale ‘ia” (freely allowed) and that too many fish are not taken because what we do not know now, are the long-term effects of taking too much fish from the ocean. Henani added that there is a reason these fish exist in the ocean and that these fish have been there since the beginning of time, so they are, therefore, an important component of the ecosystem. He emphasized that many people don’t realize this and added that this idea is not only applicable to the aquarium industry, but to all people 118 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation that harvest marine resources. Henani spoke about a mindset that causes people to take what they can, even if they don’t actually need it and the notion that if they don’t take it, someone else will. He stated that this is an unfortunate mindset. In light of these thoughts, Henani believes that aquariums can serve as an important educational tool. When asked if he had any recommendation, Henani stated that since they are extracting natural resources, the “hana kūpono” (proper things to do) would be to provide a give back. He added that if those within the industry have an understanding of how to properly care for a fish in a tank, he believes that some of the targeted fish species could be farm raised, which could be used to restock the ocean or to supply the industry. NOHEA KA‘AWA, MEL JOHANSEN, JOHN REPLOGLE, MEGHAN LAMSON, SHAYLAN CRYSDALE, AND LESTER GEBIN On March 28, 2019, ASM staff contacted Nohea Ka‘awa, a lawai‘a practitioner and educator from Wai‘ōhinu, Ka‘ū. Nohea invited five other community members to lend their mana‘o to this study and on June 12, 2019, Lokelani Brandt, Matt Clark, and Aoloa Santos conducted a group interview with six individuals representing several communities from the Ka‘ū and South Kona Districts. Participants included employees of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Nohea Kaʻawa (Hawai‘i Island Forest Program Coordinator), Mel Johansen (Kona Hema Field Coordinator), Shalan Crysdale (Hawai‘i Island Forest Program Coordinator) and Lester Gebin (Field Coordinator); Former TNC employee, John Replogle, and Megan Lamson, a coral reef fish biologist. While the individuals spoke at various points throughout the talk-story, for readability, their individual thoughts and insights have been compiled into paragraph form and are presented below. Nohealani Kaʻawa: Born and raised in Waiʻohinu, Kaʻū, Nohealani “Nohea” Kaʻawa currently resides with her family in the Palauhulu Ahupua‘a in Ka‘ū. She is the Hawaiʻi Island Forest Program Coordinator for TNC and has worked for the Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund. She serves in various capacities within her district including a volunteer and educational outreach teacher for the ‘Imi Pono No Ka ‘Āina program with the State of Hawaiʻi’s, Department of Forest and Wildlife in partnership with Three Mountain Alliance in addition to serving as a board member of Ka ‘Ohana O Honu‘apo. She is also working with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to develop a management plan for the South Point area. Nohea has long-standing genealogical ties to Kaʻū where she and her family continue to reside. She learned many of her cultural values and traditional practices from her ‘ohana, particularly her grandfather, which has been passed down in their family over the generations. When asked if she was aware of any traditional practices and beliefs within the WHRFMA and with any of the fish on the “white species” list, Nohea named the fish she was most familiar with and elaborated on some of her family’s traditions, customs, and beliefs. She also described fish characteristics and behaviors which she has observed as a fisher and diver that are important for certain traditional practices and customs. Nohea explained that many of these family traditions and beliefs were learned from direct experience. She emphasized that unless you ask the why questions, the elders will not openly disclose that kinds of information. Described below are some of the cultural practices and beliefs that were shared by Nohea. Nohea stated that the pākuʻikuʻi, is sometimes referred to as pākakui or pākukui. She explained that this fish is symbolically connected to the kukui, or the candlenut tree (Aleurites moluccana). Nohea described that when a family member passes away, it is customary to bring a lei made of kukui to the funeral as this plant is believed to bring enlightenment so that the ‘uhane (spirit) can transition into the afterlife. She shared that the beliefs and customary practices associated with the afterlife may differ between families but the practice of bringing a lei kukui to a funeral continues to be an important part of the funerary rituals maintained in her ‘ohana. Nohea added that if the deceased was “an ocean person,” then pākukui was gathered for the ‘aha ʻaina make, or funerary feast. She explained when this fish is cooked it produces a distinct bright yellow color, which is something that does not occur when cooking other fish. In explaining why the pākukui was consumed during the ‘aha ‘aina make, Nohea explained that to consume this fish during such an event “served as an added layer of protection.” Nohea elaborated on this practice, stating that: …so just as the pele, the sulphur, the yellow is a layer of protection or when you wear your kīhei (traditional garb), you dye your kīhei yellow with ‘ōlena, the pākukui kinda serves as that layer of bodily protection…your body possessed a lot of oils and so to um, consume the fish and to have that oil a part of the things running throughout the system of your body, all of the wai, all of that ‘au going on, the currents moving, the pākukui kind serves as that shield of protection. Nohea then pointed out the hilu and explained how this fish is utilized in the rituals associated with depositing a child’s piko (umbilical cord). Nohea explained that all fish, like humans, have personalities and the hilu is considered as an easy-going, “go with the flow” type of fish that is not fearful of human nor does it stick around during times of CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 119 4. Consultation danger. Nohea expressed that although there are different rituals that are used when depositing a child’s piko, she described that in her family, the piko was deliberately placed into the mouth of a hilu and the fish was allowed to swim away. The belief is that as the child grows it takes on the characteristics of the hilu, which was much desired by certain family members because “the piko is an extension of the physical person.” With respect to the hīnālea ‘akilolo, Nohea described how this fish was used medicinally to treat brain-related trauma or illness. She described how the hīnālea ‘akilolo was used to treat an uncle that had suffered a stroke. Nohea explained that when the family became aware of this person’s condition, some family members ordered the gathering of the hīnālea ‘akilolo. She explained that this fish is valued for its medicinal properties and is used specifically to treat brain-related trauma or illness. She described that there are differing opinions with the use of the hīnālea ‘akilolo, noting that some ‘ohana believe that it will improve brain function because it ‘aki (snip) at the lolo (brain) thereby removing those things that have brought confusion to the brain, while others contend that consuming the fish may worsen a person’s condition and make them more lōlō (feeble-minded). Nohea spoke about the cultural beliefs associated with the kīkākapu fish, noting that this fish along with other fish species are considered a kapu class of i‘a. She explained that just as the kauā was set aside as a kapu class of people, there was also a kapu class of fish which included the kīkākapu and other fish species that have a black marking on its forehead. Nohea expressed that the distinct black colored band or marking on the forehead of the fish resembled the tattoo that was inked onto the forehead of the kauā class of people and for this reason, this fish was not intentionally caught. In referencing the kala, Nohea shared that this fish is used in the rituals that accompany hoʻoponopono, a ceremonial process held to resolve disputes and restore peace between feuding family members. She emphasized that the kala, whose meaning translates to forgive is a part of the repertoire of rituals items that were utilized in this ceremony. Nohea expressed that the kūpuna of Ka‘ū fought hard to protect their area from overexploitation and development and that this sentiment and practice continues to be maintained by the people of Ka‘ū. She added that today, especially during large fishing tournaments, many people flock to Ka‘ū because they have fished out their areas. She described aquarium collectors as just another group that comes to Ka‘ū to take its resources and lamented that “it’s hard to watch.” Nohea added that many people come to Ka‘ū just to take its resources and that these people do nothing to give back to these resources. She expressed that seeing these kinds of extractive practices have significantly altered her family’s fishing practices to the point that today, she and her family “rarely go holoholo at the kai because there’s just too much taking and the balance is not in place anymore.” Nohea then reflected on the efforts at Ka‘ūpulehu in North Kona and noted that since the implementation of the fishing ban, they have seen a tremendous increase in the fish population. She noted that although there was protest regarding the creation and implementation of the fishing ban at Ka‘ūpulehu, it has, however, allowed the fish population to flourish. Nohea also expressed concern for the size of fish harvested by aquarium collectors and related memories from her childhood where she learned about the role of juvenile fish in the ecosystem. She described that as a child her family would cross-net at Ka‘alu‘alu Bay and that the grandchildren would help to paipai (the act of slapping and scooping the surface of the water to excite the fish into the net) and were responsible for sizing the fish, a method that was done using their hands. Nohea added that any fish that was smaller than the length of their hand was returned to the ocean. She stated that although her uncles would pull in a large catch, “not everything went home with us” and what was taken was just enough for the families to sustain themselves. She added that “when you start to take the keiki from the families, you’re not going to have future kupuna.” Nohea then reflected on some of the potential cultural impacts that could result from the proposed action and expressed that many of the fish species listed on the “white-list” are widely used in various traditional practices and for subsistence purposes. Nohea cautioned that if these fish continue to be adversely impacted or their numbers continue to decline, it will indisputably have an adverse impact on many traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. Nohea stressed that these fish play an integral role in these customary traditions and rituals and opined that these traditions are critical to maintaining the traditional Hawaiian family system. She also stated that “by taking away the fish, you take away certain traditional practices” and ‘ike kupuna (traditional knowledge), such as understanding the relationships between mauka (upland) and makai (ocean). Mel Johansen: Mel Johansen was born and raised in Pāpā Ahupua‘a and grew up in the areas of Manukā, Honomalino, Kapu‘a, and ‘Ālika—lands that are within a region known traditionally as Kapalilua in South Kona. He is an avid diver, pole and boat fisherman, and recalled spending many weekends and even weeklong expeditions where he camped and utilized the reef purely for subsistence purposes. Mel openly expressed that he is “totally against collecting fish that aren’t yet ready for harvest because that seems like a totally different, opposite concept” than what he grew 120 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation up with. Mel stated that he grew up with the understanding that when you took “resources from the reef it was for home use and to sustain yourself.” He added that all of the kūpuna he has ever encountered also shared in this same philosophy, which was “to take what you need and you take what’s ready...you don’t harvest small fish.” Mel stressed that taking small fish was never traditionally practiced and is an “odd concept” that he cannot relate to. Mel reflected on the changes to the reef that he has observed over the past sixty years. He recalled the first time he had jumped into the water with a dive mask as a child and recalled seeing the reef covered with all kinds of colors and different varieties of fish. He shared that today when he visits this same place, he no longer sees the diversity of fish he experienced as a child—a change that he believes is associated with the increase in people utilizing the reef and its resources. He believes that the overall decrease in reef species and abundance should be a motivating factor to revive the traditional beliefs and practices of taking only what is needed and what is ready for harvest. Mel stated that some of the fishing grounds he frequented as a child are now protected from aquarium collecting and since the implementation of these no-take areas, he described seeing some recovery to the reef ecosystems but added that “it is still not the same as before.” Mel also stated that many of these coastal areas are historically significant and shared that Kapu‘a Bay is known to be one of the training grounds for Kekūhaupi‘o, a famed lua fighter. Mel stressed that the current aquarium collection practice of taking small fish to be sold elsewhere is “a terrible concept.” He equated the current aquarium collection practice with going to the forest and pulling young native plant species and selling them to another place. In reviewing the “white-list” fish species and providing recommendations, Mel expressed that all fish have ecological value and that we do not know the impacts of removing too much of anyone species from the reef. Mel stated that for issues as important as the proposed action, he believes that the public and culture of the affected communities should be allowed to weigh-in on the issue and discuss the appropriateness of the fundamental concept of the industry—“is it a good concept or a bad one?” He stated that “what is important is the concept, not whether you can prove it scientifically.” He explained that culturally, everything he has ever learned about resource management stresses the importance of leaving juvenile fish so that they can mature, and taking only what is needed for subsistence purposes. Mel recommended that larger group interviews and public surveys should be included for issues that relate to the use of a public resource. He believes that the results from such interviews and surveys may offer a better understanding of the cultural appropriateness of the proposed action. John Replogle: Born in Laupāhoehoe, Hilo District, John Replogle at the age of three moved to the Kaʻū District and currently resides in the Ocean View subdivision. He is retired from TNC where he served as an environmental outreach educator. During his youth he spent a lot of time fishing from the lands of Ka‘ū. At age of twenty-three, around the same time John began his carrer as a cowboy, John began to notice the crisis of overfishing and made a personal decision to stop nearshore fishing. Although John no longer fishes regularly, he has, at times, accompanied his friends on subsistence focused fishing trips which has allowed him to witness the use and impacts of modern fishing equipment and technology, such as jet skis, scuba gear, and boats. John shared that while growing up, access to the Ka‘ū coast was often long and arduous and that the rough conditions severely limited human access to the coastal areas and its resources. He shared that at Waio‘ahukini—a place that was frequented by his father—a private access road was built and despite this road, access was still very limited. He added that the ulua fishermen that wanted to get to Waio‘ahukini had to hike down the pali (cliff) to get there. He noted that after his return from college, sometime shortly after 1974, his father informed him of a group of young fishermen that had come down to Waio‘ahukini to night dive. In explaining the story shared to him by his father, John stated that this group of fishermen would spear the sleeping ‘uhu. John shared that “these young people saw no harm in what they did; filling coolers of ‘uhu. He referenced several images that he saw on the web that showed fishermen standing over a plethora of reef fish that were laid out in their garage. John opined that it’s these kinds of fishing practices that “have brought us to where we are at.” John sees the aquarium industry as “adding to this crisis.” John explained that today, access to nearshore resources is no longer limited to roads or trails as fishers now utilize modern technologies such as boats and jet skis which makes everywhere accessible to them. He added in the past, to get to Waio‘ahukini took almost two hours by vehicle, but with boats and jet skis, people can access this area from South Point within minutes. In describing the importance of Waio‘ahikini, John shared that Mary Kawena Pukui described it as a very rich fishing ground. In describing what makes this area rich, John explained that the Hala‘ea current that sweeps around Ka Lae is nutrient-rich and as this current moves, it deposits a great deal of nutrients into the vicinity of Waio‘ahukini. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 121 4. Consultation In speaking about the history of aquarium fishing in West Hawai‘i, John shared that during the late 1980s, when aquarium fishing began to expand, there were huge public rallies where people paraded through the streets of Kona to stop the taking of fish for the aquarium industry. He added that although there was tremendous public opposition, the State of Hawai‘i continued to allow aquarium collecting because of the tax revenue. John also raised concern for the mortality rate of the fish and noted that there have been several instances when bags of dead aquarium fish were dumped and “thrown out like garbage.” He described that culturally when something of value needs to be disposed of, it is done so properly and cited the example of a lei, where once it is no longer needed, it is returned to the land. John contends that although only a few cases of dumped aquarium fish have made public headlines, he believes that such cases may be more common. In describing some of his concern about the proposed action, John exclaimed that in fifty years from now, what will those people think of the culture that would allow this type of activity to happen. He stated that these marine resources are a part of a living culture and are a part of a living ecosystem that is intimately connected to the land. John stressed that currently, Hawai‘i’s reefs are under severe stress brought about by things like introduced toxins from sunscreen, overfishing, rising ocean temperatures, pollution, and unregulated fishing. He made reference to the hunting of the Pacific Sea Otter to near extinction, which led to an explosion of sea urchins that in turn created ocean floor deserts. John expressed that “man has no brakes” when it comes to the take of natural resources. He opined that we are surrounded by water and that in Hawai‘i you don’t need to have any license or education to use this resource. He exclaimed that today, all people need to do is go down to their local fishing store and “buy the stuff and catch um…catch as many as you can.” John believes that this current mindset is tied to proving one’s masculinity and dominance over Nature which he described as a “western civilization mindset. In reflecting on the current state of land and marine resource management, John stated that “we can’t even take care of where we are, what we have, and what we have been given responsibility for, yet we want to go and take more!” John added that “these reefs existed just fine without us and now it’s a race to catch the next fish with no regard for the whole reef.” John stated that “the State of Hawai‘i is incapable of managing such an industry” as the State does not have the funding or the enforcement to regulate this industry. John stated that in Ka‘ū and because of the way the management boundaries were drawn, DOCARE officers from both east and west Hawai‘i have to patrol this district. He stated that this is problematic because depending on where the infraction occurred will determine what region will respond. He expressed that DOCARE on Hawai‘i Island is under staffed and related a saying from a former DOFAW manager who exclaimed “I would rather poke my eye with a sharp stick than work in Ka‘ū.” John shared that this statement is not just about Ka‘ū but is a reflection of the entire state and the “need to stop prostituting Hawai‘i for personal gain.” John shared that there is a hand full of people collecting and about three million dollars in tax revenue is generated by the aquarium industry. John stated that the ecological value of Hawai‘i’s marine ecosystem to the islands and to the planet should supersede any dollar amount. He advocated, at the very least, for an ecosystems services fees and believes that we should not be freely giving away our natural resources. He argued that the state and county agencies are so “focused on visitors and pleasing the outside world” that we have overlooked proper management of our island resources. John shared that once a place is depleted of fish, fishers will just move to the next location. He expressed that this is one of the reasons why people come to Ka‘ū, because they have fished out their areas and that it will only be a matter of time before Ka‘ū is depleted of its marine resources. He also added that the rough ocean conditions in Ka‘ū have helped to protect the area’s resources because it limits accessibility. John does not support the taking of reef fish for the aquarium industry and believes that reef fish should only be collected for educational purposes within the State of Hawai‘i. While he does support the taking of fish for subsistence purposes, he believes that even recreational fishing should be regulated because most fishers don’t know the damage they are doing to the marine ecosystem. He reflected on the current hunting license fees and noted that if the fees were higher, it would generate more income that could be used to improve management of the resources and that people would be more invested in protecting their resources. He stated, “it cost money to take care of our resources.” John shared that even in Pre-contact times, people had to learn about the ocean first before they caught their first fish. He would much rather see people visit the island and view fish in their natural habitat accompanied by knowledgeable practitioners. John stated that “we cannot take care of what we have and we want to give more…enough already! It’s well past time to turn this trend around within the whole state, not just West Hawai‘i.” Megan Lamson: Born and raised in California, Megan Lamson moved to Hawaiʻi and currently resides in Honalo Ahupua‘a, South Kona. She has earned degrees in marine biology and tropical conservation biology and has a background in coral reef fish ecology and community-based resource management. She is a Board member for Ka 122 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation ʻOhana O Honu‘apo, a community organization based in Kaʻū. She also works for Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund and the Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit for the Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources in Kona. With respect to the role of technology in altering traditional fishing practices, Megan shared that access to the coast coupled with the advancement in technology has drastically altered traditional fishing practices. Additionally, Megan pointed out that changes to Hawai‘i’s commercial jetliners have aided in the transportation of aquarium fish, the bulk of which are shipped to offshore locations. She added that improved scuba technology now makes it possible for divers to go deeper and for longer periods of time. Megan also spoke about the invasive species that are listed on the “white-list” (roi and ta‘ape) and noted that while most people believe removing these fish are good for the reef ecosystems, she shared that more recent scientific research is dispelling the anecdotal myths that associate declining reef health with roi (Cephalopholis argus). She stated that it is really easy to point to any one aspect as the leading cause of declining reef health, but she stressed that declining reef health is a consequence of multiple stressors. Megan pointed to the 2015 coral bleaching event that resulted in the loss of close to fifty percent of live coral covers in West Hawai‘i. She added that the drastic reduction in coral has severely altered the very foundation upon which reef fish and other marine life need to survive. She emphasized that although some fish listed on the “white-list” are highly valued in Hawaiian culture, she explained that all fish have a role in maintaining the necessary balance of the ecosystem. She stressed that we don’t fully understand the ecological relationships that exist between the different species. Megan explained that the forty species listed on the “white-list” was passed in 2012 when Governor Neil Abercrombie signed and approved it along with the “rules package” and noted that prior to this, people “could essentially take whatever.” Megan clarified that it took years and the effort of many people and organization to get these rules approved. She added that these rules apply only to the WHRFMA and believes that all fisheries in the State of Hawai‘i are deserving of such stricter legislative protection. Megan also pointed to the endemic species on the “white-list” and stated that there should be no taking of any endemic species because these species are found only here in Hawai‘i and should be protected. With respect to her personal thoughts on aquarium collecting, Megan shared that unless these fish are being used as an instructional tool to teach the current and next-generation about fish and marine ecosystem or environmental education (such as in public aquariums and schools/university classrooms), she stated that she cannot fully support the take of fish for the aquarium industry. Megan added that from a scientific perspective, she would like “to support sustainable harvest of any species as long as it is not detrimental to native wildlife.” Reflecting on the data that has been analyzed for the no-aquarium take areas in the WHRFMA that goes back to 1998, Megan stated that there has been an overall increase in fish abundance, but noted that when analyzing specific species, the population of pākukui has been decimated. For this reason, Megan strongly opposes the take of pākukui. Megan further explained that pākukui is one of the top three fish species that is collected within the WHRFMA. Megan added that despite the WHRFMA being one of the best-managed fisheries in the state, the State of Hawai‘i still does not have the capacity to manage all of the aquatic resources on its own, and needs continued support from communities and other partner agencies. She added that historically for West Hawai‘i, the State of Hawai‘i relies heavily on funding from partner agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to monitor the effectiveness of the aquarium fishery within the WHRFMA to help best manage the fishery. She believes that every fishery in the State of Hawai‘i deserves to have environmental and cultural impact assessment study because even one fish taken from the reef, whether for home consumption or for an aquarium, has the same impact to the reef. She explained that there are, however, different ethical and cultural concerns with respect to collecting fish for subsistence purposes and for the aquarium industry. Megan also contends that the State should look into options to charge marine usage fees for anyone who utilizes the ocean resources, which could then go towards improving the management of Hawai‘i’s fisheries. Shalan Crysdale: Shalan Crysdale is the Hawaiʻi Island Forest Program Coordinator for TNC and has worked in the conservation field for over fifteen years, with some five years in dryland forest management. Born in California, Shalan currently resides in Wai‘ōhinu with his family and has spent much of his time during the 1980s in the coast of South Kona. When asked if he had any cultural knowledge of the “white-species” list or knew of any traditional practices and beliefs associated with these fish or in the region, he stated that he was unaware of any specific cultural practices. However, Shalan offered his perspective on “protected areas” stating that “when you assign protection to some area, you are necessarily diminishing the status of the areas that are not protected…if you have protection in one area, well, you can assume next door is getting pounded.” Shalan also spoke about the ecological connection between species and noted that we do not fully understand the ecological relationship between different species. Shalan added that from his experience, a large amount of research has focused on species that threaten the broader ecosystem but has CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 123 4. Consultation seen limited information on the positive relationships between species. He believes that understanding both positive and negative relationships between species may result in better management practices and regulation policies. Shalan concluded that the recognition to protect Hawaiʻi’s resources is a common thread between different agencies, however, varying political agendas inhibit the development of necessary policies and regulations for the best interests of each region. Lester Gebin: Born and raised in Kona, Lester now lives in Ocean View in Ka‘ū and has been employed with TNC for the past thirteen years. Lester asked, “how many of fish they [aquarium collectors] catch survive?” He noted that depending on the depths at which these fish are caught, may require the air bladders to be manually punctured before they can be brought to the surface. Lester advocated for people to view fish in their natural habitat. MIKE NAKACHI, LING NAKACHI, AND KAIAKEA NAKACHI Mike Nakachi accompanied by his father and life-long fisher and waterman Ling Nakachi and his son Kaiakea Nakachi, currently a graduate student in the Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science program at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo met with Lokelani Brandt on June 26, 2019, to share their insights about traditional cultural uses and knowledge with respect to the WHRFMA. Mike is a fisherman and owner of ‘Ohana Moana, a Konabased fishing and dive tour company. Mike has also served as a member of the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Council and has on multiple occasions spoke publicly against the illegal take of fish for the aquarium industry. Mike shared that his family has always had a profound respect for the ocean and all of its life forms and that on his father’s side, where his Hawaiian lineage comes from, they were kahu manō (caretakers of sharks). Because of years of daily interaction with the ocean in West Hawai‘i, Mike has developed astute observation skills and can detect subtle color gradations, name ocean currents and its characteristics amongst many other attributes of the ocean environment. When asked about any ongoing traditional cultural practices within the WHRFMA, Mike explained that women have always been the keepers of the cultural knowledge and traditions and that men are often tasked with some of the more physical aspects of these traditions. He spoke of several occasions when he was asked by certain respected women to gather specific fishes that were used ceremonially. He explained that I never questioned why certain species were requested or how it was used, rather I just do as the aunties and kupuna ask of me. Kaiakea added to this discussion, explaining that it’s hard for some of the kupuna to gather certain resources. Mike also spoke of subsistence gathering of fish and other marine resources, which is used to supply food at traditional lū‘au celebrations and for household consumption. Mike also pointed out some of the cultural sites, such as fishponds and historically significant places (which are numerous) along the West Hawai‘i region. In describing another long-standing Hawaiian customary practice, Mike spoke about mālama ‘āina, a deeply-rooted belief that was translated into daily practices that made the land and ocean resources momona (fertile, fruitful). Mike described these practices which promoted fertility and richness of the land and ocean as mālama momona. He stated that the aquarium industry does not apply this cultural practice at all to any part of their industry. Mike spoke about the practice of showing respect while on the ocean, which includes providing a safe and respectful distance between others who are fishing or diving as well as showing respect for the resources. He described how this has changed over the years as more people that have no sense of the culture or the cultural significance of the ocean utilize it for various ocean activities. He described this new attitude and behavior as carrying an air of entitlement to the ocean resources and not having any sort of give-back to the resources. He noted that this change in attitude and behavior has at times led to intense conflicts between different ocean users. He described during his younger years while fishing with older fishermen, they would encounter collectors and described shouting matches that would occur on the water between aquarium collectors, fishermen, and dive-tour operators. Mike made several references to the importance of having healthy coral and reef ecosystems explaining that many of the species found in West Hawai‘i are endemic. He noted that in other parts of the Hawaiian archipelago, some reef systems are comprised purely of endemic species. He stressed that this means that these species are not found anywhere else in the world and described how this has led to a highly conflicted values assessment. Mike opined that culturally, preserving and caring for these resources is often motivated by cultural/familial values, uses, and beliefs associated with these resources, whereas the State of Hawai‘i and others are solely motivated by the economic value of these resources. He noted that the Hawaiian cultural value of our reef resources as with other resources is never considered an integral component in management strategies, which as a result, continues to adversely impact Hawaiian cultural traditions, practices, and beliefs. Mike also shared that the reef system in West Hawai‘i have and continue to be impacted by other external stressors such as rising sea temperatures and remarked on the 2015 coral bleaching event that resulted in acres of dead coral. Mike referenced the Kumulipo and clarified that the process described in this chant is ongoing, not merely something of the past. He described how healthy fish populations repair damaged 124 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation coral reefs noting how certain fish like the uhu graze on dead coral thereby providing a clean foundation upon which new coral polyps can form. With respect to the aquarium industry, Mike disclosed that in the past, he has been approached by several individuals to participate in this industry, but affirmed that he has never participated in it because it never felt right in his na‘au (guts, moral nature). He expressed that the feelings that come with taking fish to be sold outside of Hawai‘i to be placed in someone’s tank never felt appropriate to him nor does it contribute to the health of the ocean. He acknowledged knowing several Native Hawaiians that have participated in this industry but stated that many of them have left after learning about the workings of the industry. Mike lamented that in some smaller Hawaiian communities, especially in South Kona where traditional methods of harvesting fish are still practiced, the aquarium industry has created serious discord and tension amongst its members, which he feels is very sad and unfortunate. Mike worries that since the banning of aquarium collecting in West Hawai‘i, many of the collectors have migrated and are now impacting other areas around the island, including eastern Ka‘ū and emphasized that the impacts to these areas are not being assessed in this process. Although aquarium collecting is prohibited within the WHRFMA, it is still occurring in other parts of the island, which is worrisome for Mike. He believes that an assessment should be conducted for all of the islands, not just West Hawai‘i. He described the aquarium industry as keeping a low-profile and working under the radar and noted that they are not active in any other community issues other than those that pose a direct threat to the viability of their industry. He believes that this type of veiled operation has not lent to the credibility of their industry. Additionally, Mike described several instances when collectors were caught illegally harvesting fish which he believes has led to a degraded public profile. Mike believes that it is important to give back to the communities and to the ecosystem which you depend upon. Mike also shared his thoughts on the regulatory component and lamented on the fact that there are very few DOCARE officers that patrol this massive region and its resources. He expressed that currently there is not enough enforcement to regulate all of the different kinds of activities that are occurring in West Hawai‘i, including the aquarium industry. He stated that the lack of enforcement has led communities to implement Makai Watch, where community members have taken on the responsibility of raising awareness about the resources and reporting illegal activities. Mike expressed that there is little reliance on the State to execute their fiduciary responsibilities to care for and properly manage our resources. In contrasting the past to the present and looking to the future, Mike strongly believes that we are now in a new time, where cultural traditions are being practiced and Hawaiian youth are actively engaged in their culture in innovative and meaningful ways. He described today, more people being culturally aware and that knowledge of our cultural places are being revitalized, preserved, and passed on to the next generation. Mike hopes that he can continue to pass on his love and knowledge of the ocean to his grandchildren as has been done in his family for generations. He hopes this tradition can be carried on. He described the knowledge of the ocean as understood by kupuna as being profound and is still highly applicable to us today. Mike was very earnest in his feelings regarding the capture and selling of Hawai‘i’s reef fish to places outside of Hawai‘i and believes this is not pono. WILFRED KAUPIKO, KA‘IMI KAUPIKO, AND GREG ASNER Lokelani Brandt contacted Ka‘imi Kaupiko, a Hawaiian fishing practitioner and educator with long-standing genealogical ties to the Hawaiian fishing village of Miloli‘i in South Kona. Ka‘imi extended the invitation to other family and community members, to which his father Wilfred “Uncle Willy” Kaupiko, and Greg Asner with the latter residing in the adjacent Miloli‘i beach lot subdivision responded to Ka‘imi’s request. On June 28, 2019, Lokelani Brandt met with these individuals at Miloli‘i to discuss past and ongoing traditional cultural practices and beliefs associated with Miloli‘i and the adjacent coastal areas including Papa Bay and to get their general thoughts on the proposed action. All of the community members openly expressed that they were not aware that an EIS was being prepared and were disappointed that no community meetings had been held by the applicant to discuss their proposed action. Both Ka‘imi and Uncle Willy spoke about their involvement with the 2017 Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruling that invalidated all permits issued pursuant to HRS §188-31 until compliance with the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) is met. When asked about their knowledge of any past and or ongoing traditional cultural practices, Uncle Willy shared that he comes from a long line of Hawaiianʻōpelu fishers, and noted that his father was a ʻōpelu fisherman and that his uncles were master fishers, having in-depth knowledge of the ocean, fish behavior and habitat, and fishing techniques. He described spending a lot of time with his uncles where he learned how to fish according to the practices of his kupuna. He informed that they spoke ‘Ōlelo (Hawaiian language), often times speaking only Hawaiian amongst CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 125 4. Consultation each other. He described that while growing up, men were the primary ‘ōpelu fishers but that women would often accompany the men. He also expressed that some women, particularly those that were skilled and strong ʻōpelu fishers would go out on the ocean alone. Uncle Willy recalled memories of his youth where the reef at Miloli‘i Bay was teeming with fish. He reminisced that when the church bell rang, it would cause the fish to flutter on the surface of the sea. Uncle Willy described in detail how many of the old practices including the enforcement of certain kapu were still practiced well into the 20th century and stated that on Sundays, “fishing was kapu” and people were encouraged to rest. Uncle Willy described the process of ka ‘ai, which he described as the feeding and taming of fish. He detailed the preparation of vegetable chum which included locally grown vegetable such as pumpkin and kalo that was used to hānai (feed) the ‘ōpelu. Uncle Willy explained how the fishers would load the prepared vegetables on the canoe and take it to the ko‘a where it was released. He described how each fisher would tap on their canoe in a certain manner to call the fish up from the depths of the ocean. Uncle Willy recalled watching the dark-colored ball of ‘ōpelu dance in the sea and the efforts of the fishermen to move swiftly to lower the nets, herd the ‘ōpelu, and raise the nets. He stated that much of the fishing that was done during his youth was for commercial and recalled a time when‘ōpelu was sold at ten cents per pound. He stated that any excess fish was cleaned, salted, sun-dried and later sold to customers across the island. Uncle Willy also expressed that women were particularly adept at cleaning and preparing fish. He stated that despite the adoption of more modern fishing technology, one “still needs to know the secrets of the ocean,” including the winds and currents. Uncle Willy referred to the ocean current that runs south just outside of Miloli‘i as the kama‘āina current or the Ka‘ū current. He stated that when fishing for ‘ōpelu, one needs to be very aware of the current and winds as certain types create challenges for the ‘ōpelu fishers. When asked about cultural uses, traditions, and beliefs associated with any of the “white-list” species, Uncle Willy stated that many of the fish are used for subsistence purposes. Ka‘imi noted the use of pākuikui and kole in certain ceremonies and that red fish is used in their Makahiki ceremonies. Uncle Willy added that yellow tang was and still is used as an important indicator species because it attracts other valued fish such as maiko, manini, and uhu. Ka‘imi added that each fish has a role in the ecosystem and stated that the “white-list” is not pono. Uncle Willy described that in West Hawai‘i, the reefs are short and steep which transition abruptly into very deep water and that this unique environment provided an abundance and diversity of marine resources. With respect to the adoption and use of fishing technology, Uncle Willy recalled being told by his father to “work smart, not hard” and noted that when gas-powered engines and other fishing devices were introduced to Miloli‘i, the fishermen, including himself adopted some of these technologies which they incorporated into their traditional fishing practices. While ‘ōpelu fishing occurs in deeper waters, Uncle Willy described several near shore fishing techniques including the use of a crossnet to catch akule, lay nets, throw nets, poles, and spears to catch other reef fish. He also spoke about using homemade wire baskets which were used to remove the spines from wana. He also noted the use of fishing imu which was constructed by each family in the nearshore reefs. He explained that the stones were piled on the reef and that fish like manini would dwell in the imu. Uncle Willy described the use of a throw net which was placed over the imu while the stones were dismantled resulting in the entanglement of the fleeing fish in the net. Of the fishing techniques described by Uncle Willy, he indicated that only the latter is no longer practiced. Uncle Willy stated that although many new technologies have made their way into this fishing village, they still depend heavily on the land and ocean and laughingly stated: “we still use kukui hele pō (lanterns) at night.” Uncle Willy also spoke about their use of certain plants such as lehua piha (fully blossomed lehua) and hala (pandanus) as indicators for when certain marine species were ready to harvest. In contrasting the practices he learned as a child to today, Uncle Willy expressed that a lot has changed and stated that in the past things were “real strict.” Both Ka‘imi and Uncle Willy described changes to peoples’ behavior and attitude towards the ocean resources and noted the gradual changes to the ocean environment and decline in fish abundance at Miloli‘i. Uncle Willy pointed out that while growing up, they were always taught to mālama and stay in their respective ahupua‘a and not to maha‘oi (intrude) in other people’s places. He stated that today, people fish wherever they can access and take everything they can. He reflected on the traditional preparation of vegetable chum and stated that some people began using meat and noted that meat chum disrupts the fishes’ diet. Both Uncle Willy and Ka‘imi expressed that community members who acted out of the cultural norms in the fishing village were held accountable for their actions and were punished by the community. Ka‘imi added that Miloli‘i was always known for its abundance and is one of the last places to maintain traditional Hawaiian fishing practices, which is why Ka‘imi and his father have played a key role in developing educational programs for the ‘ohana and youth of Miloli‘i. When asked about the types of educational programs they offer, Ka‘imi stated that they focus on teaching the keiki about traditional ʻōpelu feeding, net making, developing fluency in traditional Hawaiian fishing related terminology, seasonal changes, Hawaiian moon calendar, and other pono ways of 126 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation fishing. Uncle Willy and Ka‘imi expressed that many of the kupuna and fishing practitioner have passed away but there are “plenty kamali‘i” in the village. They described a pressing need to teach the next generation about the cultural traditions unique to Miloli‘i so that they can maka‘ala (remain watchful) and mālama (care for) these traditions, place, and resources into the future. Ka‘imi stated that today, the Miloli‘i community and its ocean resources are in a “vulnerable state” and expressed that the seasonal patterns are off, which creates challenges for their subsistence lifestyle. While all four interview participants were aware of the Miloli‘i FRA, which prohibits that taking of reef fish for the aquarium industry, they noted that in the adjacent Pāpā Bay, aquarium collection is allowed. Uncle Willy stated that while growing up, he learned that Pāpā Bay is where the fish are born. Greg Asner, who has been diving and conducting coral and fish surveys at Pāpā Bay for the past twenty-three years highlighted some of his research findings. Greg explained that the science he has been conducting puts numbers to what people like Uncle Willy grew up learning and knowing. Greg described a phenomenon known as “bio slicks” which are visible from land as glass-like, meandering streaks that appear on the ocean surface. Greg explained that these drifting slicks contain larvae fish and invertebrates, algae, and debris and serve as an important habitat during the early growth stages of these organisms. Greg stated that these slicks are common in and near Pāpā Bay but are not generated within Miloli‘i Bay. He emphasized that coastal areas share important biological connections and from his research, he has learned that fish migrate to different areas to live out their life cycle. He went on to explain that Pāpā Bay and Miloli‘i share important biological connections because some of the larvae fish that are carried on these slicks are deposited into adjacent bays. Greg stressed that what happens at Pāpā Bay impacts Miloli‘i and other areas. Both Greg and Gail confirmed fish population crashes at Pāpā Bay and have recorded collectors walking on and damaging coral, which they expressed is key to maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem. The group stated that they have seen aquarium collectors day after day collecting fish from the same areas and feels that this intensive harvesting does not give the fish and the ecosystem a chance to recouperate from previous biological removals. Greg believes that the destructive methods used by certain aquarium collectors are dismantling this integrated system. Additionally, Ka‘imi and Greg described other events, one of which included the 2015 mass coral bleaching which devastated the corals in West Hawai‘i. Uncle Willy recalled that after this bleaching event, the ‘ōpelu were missing. When asked about their thoughts on the proposed action, they explained some of the reasons why they were not in support of the proposed action. The four individuals explained that while aquarium collection is not permitted within Miloli‘i Bay, they noted that aquarium collectors often launch their boats and utilize water at the Miloli‘i dock to fill their tanks. Ka‘imi and Uncle Willy described several instances when they have caught aquarium collectors illegally harvesting fish within the FRA which they reported to DLNR. Uncle Willy stated that for the past ten years and because the State cannot fulfill its duties, the Miloli‘i community has been implementing Makai Watch, a communitybased watch and outreach program promoted by DLNR. Despite numerous complaints and reports to DLNR about the illegal taking of fish by collectors, Ka‘imi and Uncle Willy opined that DLNR has failed in their responsibility as they do not follow up or issue citations to violators. For these reasons and many others, Uncle Willy feels that the “State cannot take care of our resources.” Greg questioned, how does the “aquarium industry fit into the State’s 30x30 initiative” which promotes effective management of 30% of nearshore marine areas by the year 2030? Uncle Willy stated that tropical fish divers hana‘ino (cause trouble) in Kona. Uncle Willy added that aquarium collectors take small fish and that this kind of practice is not good for the ocean. He explained that they have wiped out areas in North Kona and have made their way to South Kona. Additionally, Ka‘imi described aquarium collectors driving over the ‘ōpelu ko‘a with their boats which he stated disrupts the fish and the ʻōpelu fishing process. Ka‘imi expressed that there are virtually no rules for aquarium collectors and believes that the industry is unsustainable. He also spoke about the mortality rate of aquarium fish and believes that this kind of practice is not pono. Because of such events, practices, and interactions, they explained that their relationship with the collectors has been contentious. They believe that these sorts of interactions have ultimately ruined the communities interest and trust in the industry. Ka‘imi described scuba certifications classes taking place at Miloli‘i, which attracted many local people including family members. He stated that these certification classes were used to simultaneously recruit community members into the industry. He has been saddened by the conflict that the aquarium industry has brought into their community and family. Ka‘imi expressed that while some family members participate in the industry as a way to support their family, many of them struggle with the internal conflict because the practices of the industry run counter to their familial and cultural practices and beliefs. Ka‘imi expressed that some of them have left the industry because of the internal conflict. Ka‘imi and Uncle Willy shared their future hopes and vision for Miloli‘i. They spoke about their current initiative to develop a Community Based Management Plan for Miloli‘i and the steps they have taken to develop a more indepth understanding of the breeding and spawning cycles for various marine species. They have partnered with several CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 127 4. Consultation scientists and research groups to help establish baseline data which will help with their management plan. Ka‘imi stated that they have a passion to protect their cultural ways so that they and the future generation can fish for the rest of their lives. He expressed that for them, fish are next to kin and is a staple of their diet. Uncle Willy stated that native rights have always been overlooked and that native rights always have to be negotiated. Uncle Willy advocated for the creation of protected areas that are built around the traditional Hawaiian pu‘uhonua (places of refuge) concept. Uncle Willy would like to see stiffer fines as a way for people to take more seriously their actions and impacts to Hawai‘i’s marine resources. He expressed that many of the current laws are obsolete and need to be revised and that in future management efforts, all parties need to hana like (work together). SHANE PALACAT-NELSON Shane Palacat-Nelson, who traces his family lineage to the lands of Kealakekua, South Kona for more than 500 years was interviewed by Lokelani Brandt on June 28, 2019. In discussing the potential cultural impacts that may result from the proposed action, Shane emphasized that Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA’s), can provide crucial information that can help determine an approach on how to moving forward on controversial issues. In referencing Kealakekua Bay, Shane stated that the current state of the bay is unknown because there is not enough fish count, water quality, or reef health data to provide feedback on the potential impacts to the area. He further related that schools of fish can be depleted in one season, but if there is no data to detect these depletions then communities witnessing the depletion of their own resources are left with no support or evidence to resolve these on-going problems. He believes that restricted areas “are not working properly” and therefore declined to comment until there is a thorough study done within these areas. With the lack of data, he is unable to accept the commercialization of aquatic fisheries until these issues are addressed. With regard to areas where aquarium collecting is allowed, Shane believes that fishery inventory studies need to be updated and assessed more frequently. Shane voiced that he is not against aquarium collecting and shared that “everyone has a place in community,” but there needs to be thorough research and community engagement. He added that it has to be more than just developing a set of rules and regulations, rather creating a lifestyle. KEALOHA PISCIOTTA On July 5, 2019, Lokelani Brandt met with Kealoha Pisciotta, a Hawaiian practitioner to discuss the proposed action and to identify any past or ongoing cultural practices and belief associated with the WHRFMA as well as any cultural uses and beliefs associated with the forty “white-list” species. Kealoha shared that her family, the Oneha and Ka‘anape‘a’s come from the Island of Kaua‘i and that they were kahu (guardians) of Mauna Kea through their worship of the gods ‘Io and Kāne. Kealoha fondly recalled memories of her childhood, where she walked the shores of Waikīkī and developed her knowledge and interest in Hawai‘i’s reef fish and other intertidal species. She vividly recalled her grandmother giving her “pū‘olu” (bundle) containing offerings that were used to feed and acknowledge the akua as kinolau and to acknowledge ‘aumākua. She had become so well-acquainted with these species that as a child she became involved with the Waikīkī Aquarium where she was responsible for taking care of the intertidal species and monk seals. Her involvement with the Waikīkī Aquarium began when she was invited by her friend’s mama to collect specimens for her reef teaching class. Kealoha playfully recalled gathering different species, delivering and caring for them, then returning them to the ocean after the class. She did this for a number of years before working at Sea Life Park where she helped with taking care of the reef fish tank. Kealoha’s family later relocated to Volcano on Hawai‘i Island at which time she began to develop a personal relationship with the ocean in West Hawai‘i. In conveying her cultural connection to the West Hawai‘i region, Kealoha referenced the Kumulipo and noted that upon moving to Hawai‘i Island as a child, she gave her first ho‘okupu (offering) at Kahalu‘u. She explained that because her family lived in Volcano, it was easy for them to travel to the Kona side and for her, the ocean there “felt more like home.” Kealoha continued to visit the Kahalu‘u area and noted that she has had bad experiences, particularly with people “who don’t understand practitioner use” of the ocean. She described being invited to the ReefTeach program at Kahalu‘u where she educated the volunteers about Article XII of the Hawai‘i Constitution. She explained that while she supported the ReefTeach initiative of protecting coral reefs, she noted that many of the workers did not have an understanding of the unique cultural environment in which they worked. She related that Article XII codified native rights and that these laws are “about us being able to continue our practice.” Kealoha added that while the law spells out the right for Hawaiians, she acknowledged that though she is not a kama‘āina (native-born resident) of Kahalu‘u she is kama‘āina (acquainted) with the ‘ohana of Kahalu‘u, meaning that she shares a kinship connection to the marine life at Kahalu‘u. She described instances when she was conducting ceremonies in the ocean at Kahalu‘u and being approached and apprehended by people who blatantly stated that she cannot give ho‘okupu. Kealoha 128 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation emphasized that when people abruptly approach you during a ceremony, it immediately shifts the mental and physical aspects of the ceremony. With respect to traditional cultural knowledge and practices, Kealoha related that Kūkahau‘ula, an akua who is associated with Mauka Kea and is one of the lovers of the goddess Poli‘ahu “is also an akua for the fishermen.” She explained that the blue rock used to make lūhe‘e (octopus lure) was sourced from an area near the summit of Mauna Kea and brought down near Hale Pōhaku where it was refined. Kealoha elaborated on this practice, stating that for this reason, Kūkahau‘ula was worshipped by fishermen and is associated with the he‘e (octopus) and mūhe‘e (squid). She explained: The rosy hue that he [Kūkahau‘ula] is also I think is a signal for the fishers outside. Because where the sun hits on the opposite side is the shadow… so the great shadow of Mauna Kea becomes its own kind of sacred feature that traverses these certain things that make our kilo of timing… Kealoha related that the only time when Kūkahau‘ula and Poli‘ahu meet is during sunrise and sunset and it is during these times that Kūkahau‘ula’s great light reaches the low-lying clouds on the Kona coast—clouds that were also favored by the fishermen of Kona. Kealoha also spoke about her experience with watching Hokule‘a depart from the Kona coast during sunset and how the shadow from Mauna Kea created a unique light formation on the ocean. Kealoha also spoke about the relationships of animals and ‘aumakua (family guardian or god) and the deeper connections between ‘aumakua and their interactions with kanaka, ‘ohana and communities they care for. She connected this traditional belief to a moʻolelo concerning the hīhīmanu (stingray) of Māhukona that were fed by the people during times of famine and in return, the hīhīmanu drove heaps of fish to the shore to feed the people. Kealoha stated that each species has key characteristics that associate them with certain akua. She spoke particularly of the “animals with spots or that are spiny,” such as hīhīmanu, the Hawaiian whitespotted puffer (Canthigaster jactator), kala (Naso lituratus), puhi (Gymnothorax ruepelliae), and their relationship to the akua Kāne. She also shared that fish with “pokey” tails or bodies, such as kala and pufferfish, are protected under Kāne and are considered kapu. These fish were most often avoided but if they were accidentally caught, fishermen immediately asked for forgiveness because they did not want any bad omens to befall upon them or their families and to maintain their relationship with their akua. She also shared that species whose bodies resemble a kite are associated with Kanaloa and added that the common fish shape bears this kite-like characteristic and are therefore connected to Kanaloa. Hīnālea, or specifically the “rock mover” wrasse were known to be ‘aumakua and connected to Pele. When asked about the use of fish for traditional cultural practices or ceremonies, Kealoha shared that red-colored fish were commonly reserved for ali‘i. She shared that her ‘ohana witnessed and participated in a funeral procession of the queen in which red fish were included in the ceremony. She also shared that fish were placed on a lele, or fishing altar, to perpetuate the practice of ‘āina momona—traditional practices that promote abundance and fertility of both the land and sea. Kealoha also added that kala along with limu kala was placed on the altar when asking for forgiveness, as kala means to forgive. She also witnessed the use of fish in ceremonies to re-consecrate sacred places including chiefly heiau in the Kona region. With respect to the cultural uses of the nearshore areas, Kealoha explained that traditionally, women were the caretakers of this part of the ocean. She stated that today, this traditional practiced is not acknowledge. She described how the women would create hīnālea houses to attract this fish. She described that in areas with heavy reef cover, it was a common practice of the ancient people to carve out trails in the reef. Kealoha opined that “our people did a lot of engineering, but engineering that’s different from modern engineering.” She stressed that traditional engineering focused on increasing the abundance of a resource and cited the example of the traditional fishpond. In reflecting on the differences between traditional and modern concepts of engineering, Kealoha stated that the current practice of the aquarium industry is purely extractive and added that if they were helping to grow the abundance of Hawai‘i’s marine resources, it would be an entirely different situation. She referenced a recent Stanford University report that provided suggestions on how to improve the fisheries in Hawai‘i, which explicitly stated the importance of following traditional Hawaiian ocean resource management strategies. Kealoha emphasized that in Precontact times, people who stole resources were severely punished and that these sorts of acts were socially unacceptable. She pointed out that while Hawaiians today no longer follow some of the ancient practices, such as punishable by death, she stressed that there are traditional management strategies that are still highly relevant and applicable. Kealoha mentioned that fish names serve as indicators of the physical or behavioral attributes of a fish as well as its spiritual or sacred function. The yellow tang, or as her tūtū taught her lauʻīkapu, were considered fish that were off-limits, made evident from the word “kapu” rooted within the name. She added that lauʻīkapu are major contributors to the marine eco-system in that it maintains diversity and abundance of the reef thus serving as a key indicator of ‘āina momona. Therefore, the cultural perspective surrounding this fish correlates to its significant ecological CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 129 4. Consultation relationship and contribution to the reef and the ocean. She also shared that although some Hawaiian fish names have been lost over time, the correlations of modern classification and Hawaiian taxonomy demonstrates that connections between fish were well understood through “thousands of years of observations.” Kealoha expressed that all ocean life were kinolau, or bodily forms, of kupuna, ‘aumakua or akua. She stated that the presence of manini or āholehole in the vicinity indicates that Kanaloa, the deity of the ocean, is present and so one must always be cognizant of these fish and then conduct themselves accordingly to respect this akua. She explicated that the Kumulipo provides a catalog of life forms that are interconnected with each other and within those listings are kaona, or hidden meanings, identifying connections that were both physical and sacred. She added that in the first line of the Kumulipo, the papa (reef) is acknowledged thus emphasizing the value of the reef to all ocean life. Kealoha identified kala as popular eating fish and kole, which she described as a “serious food fish that is very much eaten here on this island [Hawaiʻi Island] more than other places.” She also referenced the hīnālea, stating that although not a personal favorite, it is a fish regularly caught and consumed by fishermen. Kealoha duly noted lauwiliwili nukunuku ‘oiʻoi, although a very beautiful fish, she expressed that it should not be collected at all. She shared that reef fish, despite the threat of diseases such as ciguatera, are still caught for subsistence by fishermen. Kealoha spoke candidly about her thoughts on the aquarium industry and exclaimed that “it is non-sustainable and it can’t be sustained and that it needs to be shut down.” While she understands that people are making a living from this industry, she believes that “we can do better” and that “we can figure out better ways of living that don’t frustrate our cultural or traditional ways or disrupt the healing of the ‘āina.” She stressed that “right now, that’s [healing the ‘āina] the priority and anything that would frustrate the reef recovery on any level…we can’t accept.” Kealoha explained that systemically, the ocean depends on all of these species. She worries that if we continue to piecemeal management of the ocean, it will no longer be able to provide for us. She stated that the ocean has different ecosystem levels, but it does not have boundaries. She imparts that the industry has detrimental effects on the health and well-being of our ocean environment and as a consequence, instigates mental and traumatic stress on living communities that are witnessing the desecration of their “sacred houses.” Kealoha found that issues surrounding the responsibility of caring for these resources often burden folks standing on both ends of the issue, primarily those of Hawaiian descent. She edified that the health of the land is intrinsically tied to the collective health of communities and thus stated within the United States Public Law 103-150, informally known as the Apology Resolution or Bill, she described “that Native Hawaiians are inherently tied to the land. So, what happens to the land, happens to us and what happens to us, happens to the land.” She added that by “recovering,” or rebuilding the symbiotic relationship between kanaka and ‘āina is congruent to the health and existence of all living species. Kealoha emphasizes that we need to acknowledge and honor these relationships that clearly outlines the impacts, not only to the environment but to the health and well-being of kanaka. Additionally, Kealoha expressed that she is aware that many of the fish on the “white-list” are being removed from the reef in large numbers. She expressed concern for the lack of enforcement by DLNR of these unsustainable fishing practices. She also acknowledged that the lack of enforcement is due mainly in part by not having the capacity to conduct such regulations, such as not having an adequate amount of DOCARE officers. Her concern is also that the aquarium fishing industry is “self-reporting and self-regulating” and modern concepts of “if I don’t get mine then someone else going get em,” are notions far removed from traditional perspectives. To further explain she shared that her tūtū always scolded them about wasting water and wisely explained that “we don’t waste the akua’s gift.” She added that these resources are a valuable gift that requires a reciprocated relationship to maintain the health and well-being of the environment, not only for kanaka but for all living forms thus arguing that the industry is: Extractive and it’s frustrating our ability to heal the ocean but more than heal, but make it ‘āina momona. You know, ‘fat the land’ and that is the point where our rights are being affected because if it is our tradition to make ‘fat the land,’ when we can’t make ‘fat the land’ its all wrong and it takes us out of our natural way of being and then into a way that’s foreign to us and then forces us to possibly have to act in ways against our own cultural beliefs. Kealoha contends that although there are fish on the “white-list” that may not necessarily be consumed, these fish are still an important component to reef health. Kealoha’s observations and interactions with fish and sea animals over the years helped cultivate much of her knowledge of ocean wildlife. These interactions aided her understanding of the various functions within the ecosystem and the connections between all living forms that are directly related to the concept of ‘āina momona. Consequently, Kealoha strongly advocates that these relationships need to be protected and that while there are competing interests for these resources, the interest in the “protection of ‘āina” should take precedence. Kealoha shared her frustrations with the current environmental review process and stated that “if the process has integrity, so will the outcome.” She added that: 130 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 4. Consultation I don’t know, I’m very frustrated because my feeling is though, there are pukas that people are swimming through…that make it so that it shifting the burden onto the public to regulate, and that, that I think is not fair. When asked if she had any recommendations to address her concerns, Kealoha expressed that “they need to really work with us to do better.” She strongly believes that if businesses are basing their motive on profit margins it will inevitably fail and campaigns that “profits are not a right, it’s a privilege.” She stated that “if they need us to advocate for them, they need to let us know and stop treating us like we’re enemies,” because the “rights of the reef precede profit.” She also suggested developing a hybrid system that implements traditional kapu practices that are established by communities and with the state to assist in regulating those policies. Kealoha believes that in order to move forward genuine conversations need to take place and creating spaces to “maximize our communities’ ability to share the impacts.” She expressed that through dialogue it can increases awareness, strengthens individual perspectives, and develop respect between opposing views. Kealoha concluded that this process if done correctly and with good intention, will help to overcome cognitive dissonance for all involved. KUPA O HO‘OKENA: DAMIEN KENISON, JOE BALSIMO, STANFORD CHO, AND HAWILA ALANI On August 1, 2018, Lokelani Brandt was invited by Damien Kenison to conduct a group interview with members of the non-profit community-based organization Kama‘āina United to Protect the ‘Āina (KUPA), which consists of roughly ten board members and officers. Participants in this interview were Damien Kenison, Joe Balsimo, Standford Cho, and Hawila Alani, all of whom share genealogical ties to the Ho‘okena and or the greater South Kona District. Damien shared that KUPA was created in 1996 in response to the growing number of aquarium fish collectors who were conducting their operations in the waters fronting Ho‘okena village. Despite the growing conflict between local fishermen and aquarium fish collectors, Damien shared that this conflict prompted the community to get organized. For them, establishing KUPA has resulted in a strong push to improve management of their area in addition to garnering support to ensure the perpetuation of their living cultural practices. Damien Kenison: When asked about any past or ongoing cultural practices, Damien explained that for them, the ocean and all of its living lifeforms therein are an important part of their Hawaiian cultural identity. He added that fishing and caring for the nearshore waters has always been an important part of their lifeways. Damien exclaimed that coming onshore with fish in their canoes is what makes them feel Hawaiian and he noted that his sense of cultural identity is strongest when he is on his canoe fishing. Damien expressed that fishing is part of a process that maintains and strengthens their family bonds. He explained that catching, cleaning, and eating fish are activities that bring people together and being able to maintain this cultural custom well into the future is important to him. Damien also related that “all fish are part of the ecosystem” and when parts of that ecosystem are removed, it will have an impact on the ecosystem. Additionally, he shared that when that ecosystem is disrupted, it has a direct impact on their cultural practices. He stressed that reef fish, in particular, play a vital role in maintaining healthy reefs because these fish keep limu populations in check. He added that too much limu on the reef will overtime, smother and kill the reef altogether. He emphasized that being able to harvest fish from the ocean is highly dependent upon a healthy reef and if the reef life continues to be degraded it will impact their ability to provide for their families in addition to perpetuating their cultural traditions. Damien stressed that traditionally the values were based on respect for the laws, the resources, and the communities. DLNR does not have the resources to enforce fishing rules. He added that for many years, the aquarium industry had gone unregulated and noted that any “unregulated commercial venture will wipe out the fish.” Damien shared that for him, he feels that the take of fish for aquarium purposes is a “wasteful practice” and expressed that it is a cultural value not to waste fish. He opined that this practice from a Hawaiian perspective is maha‘oi (rude and impudent). He feels that “tropical fish collectors have no respect for the resource and the communities” and described instances when coolers of dead tropical fish were found. He stated that the aquarium industry does not have a stake in the local communities. He expressed that dealing with this growing conflict has been stressful for the community. Stanford Cho: Stanford explained that caring for natural resources is something that is not unique to Hawai‘i, but is a common practice seen in many cultures around the world, especially those who rely on such resources. He drew parallels between other parts of the world where sport and commercial fishing has resulted in a serious decline of marine resources. Stanford contends that such examples should prompt us to be more careful in managing fish take from different user groups. In looking at the “white-list” species, Stanford explained that he has grown up having seen all of these fish in the ocean and whether they were eaten or not, seeing them in their natural habitat is something he CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 131 4. Consultation is accustomed to. He added that things change and evolve naturally in nature, but when people begin to impact these resources and when there are indicators that show adverse impacts caused by humans, this is concerning to him. Stanford emphasized that these fish have been on this earth longer than we have and we must show respect to these creatures Stanford also shared his thoughts on the take of fish for the aquarium industry and shared that there’s a long history of mistrust and no openness between local fishers and aquarium collectors. He noted that this has escalated the conflict between different user groups. He explained that native Hawaiians are often viewed as hostile and aggressive but clarified that such a view is often a direct result of either not being included in important decision-making processes that directly impact native Hawaiians or their concerns are disregarded. He also spoke about a mentality change and noted that there are people that come here to exploit the resources. Stanford exclaimed that for such people who share the “take mentality,” cultural impacts are not of value to them because they have no investment in the communities they take from. Joe Balsimo: Joe explained that all fish play a role in maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem and that for native Hawaiians the ocean is often referred to as their “refrigerator.” Joe does not support the take of fish for aquarium purposes and stated that he “doesn’t agree with raiding the refrigerator.” He stressed that caring for and improving the state of our marine resources is vital if we hope to have healthy reefs in the future so that they may be enjoyed by future generations. He explained that many Americans today are “apathetic to global and community issues” and that the “take mentality” is resulting in a degraded marine environment and more conflict between those who are trying to improve the state of our resources and those who want to take from it. Joe also raised concerns over the number of casualties associated with the collection of aquarium fish. Joe also spoke about the lack of DOCARE enforcement officers because of their limited resources and stated that ensuring compliance with all laws pertaining to the aquarium industry is a difficult thing to enforce. He added that the lack of enforcement means that the state relies on the “trust system,” which for him is unacceptable. KEVIN AWA Over the phone, on September 7, 2019, Robert Rechtman interviewed Kevin Awa, a multi-generational fisherman and long-time resident of the South Kona area on Hawaiʻi Island. Although born in Germany, Kevin moved to Kona at age 9, and his ties to the South Kona area are through his father and grandfather, both of whom were fisherman. His grandfather worked on fishing sampans operating out of Keauhou Bay. Kevin is employed at Kona Coast Marine and provides repair and upgrade work for many of the fishing vessels operating within the WHRFMA. He is a fishing practitioner who is actively engaged in ʻōpelu, ahi, and bottom fishing, making his own ʻōpelu nets; and recognizes these activities as traditional practices. Kevin has also worked under contract with NOAA, providing local knowledge to scientific researchers with respect to local fishing practices, fish habitat, and environmental factors that affect both practices and habitat. When asked if there were any potential cultural impacts associated with the proposed action, Kevin stated that generally he foresees “no problems” with issuing aquarium fishing permits, but added that cautions should be taken to not overly impact the edible species on the White List, such as pākukui and kole, which are also target species of subsistence fishing. JOSEPH “MCGEE” AKIU, JR. In a brief phone conversation on September 10, 2019, Robert Rechtman interviewed McGee Akiu, a multigenerational fisherman and life-long (42 years) resident of the South Point area. McGee considers himself a “jack of all trades” fisherman. When asked about cultural practices and any potential cultural impacts associated with the proposed action, he was emphatic that there was “nothing bad” about aquarium fishing, and he believed that it could help the environment by controlling the amount of fish that in his view are too abundant. He also suggested that aquarium fishing could help get rid of invasive species such as ta‘ape. McGee insisted that regulators should let the aquarium fishers be as they have always done a good job, and rather focus on the problem of plastic in the nearshore waters as that is killing more fish than anything else. CHELSEY FAAVESI Over the phone, on September 23, 2019, Robert Rechtman interviewed Chelsey Faavesi, who was born (in 1989) and raised, and still resides in the South Kona fishing village of Miloli‘i. Chelsey’s maternal family is generationally tied to Miloli‘i, and her father is of Samoan ancestry. Chelsey described her family as closely tied to the ocean, as fishing is a way of life for them. They are multigenerational commercial fishers and her grandparents procured fish for both 132 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 5. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts food and to sell to provide for their family. These traditions continue as the family is still involved in commercial fishing and Chelsey has been involved with the aquarium fishing industry for four years as a diver/collector working for a third party business owner. Chelsey insisted that her practice is an extension of the traditions that her family has practiced for generations—making their livelihood from procuring ocean resources. She uses protocols for access to, and takes care of, the collection locations, which she noted are typically not accessed by subsistence collectors. She also suggested that during the winter months, when the sea is rougher and collecting is less frequent, the decreased pressure on the fish leads to increased fish populations. When asked if there were any potential cultural impacts associated with the proposed action, Chelsey indicated that she does not see any impacts as long as the potential permit holders treat the resource habitat respectfully and act responsibly by not overfishing and depleting the resource. 5. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS The OEQC guidelines identify several possible types of cultural practices and beliefs that are subject to assessment. These include subsistence, commercial, residential, agricultural, access-related, recreational, and religious and spiritual customs. The guidelines also identify the types of potential cultural resources, associated with cultural practices and beliefs that are subject to assessment. Essentially, these are natural features of the landscape and historic sites, including traditional cultural properties. A working definition of traditional cultural property is present here: “Traditional cultural property” means any historic property associated with the traditional practices and beliefs of an ethnic community or members of that community for more than fifty years. These traditions shall be founded in an ethnic community’s history and contribute to maintaining the ethnic community’s cultural identity. Traditional associations are those demonstrating a continuity of practice or belief until present or those documented in historical source materials, or both. The origin of the concept of traditional cultural property is found in National Register Bulletin 38 published by the U.S. Department of Interior-National Park Service. “Traditional” as it is used, implies a time depth of at least 50 years, and a generalized mode of transmission of information from one generation to the next, either orally or by act. “Cultural” refers to the beliefs, practices, lifeways, and social institutions of a given community. The use of the term “Property” defines this category of resource as an identifiable place. Traditional cultural properties are not intangible, they must have some kind of boundary; and are subject to the same kind of evaluation as any other historic resource, with one very important exception. By definition, the significance of traditional cultural properties should be determined by the community that values them. It is however with the definition of “Property” wherein there lies an inherent contradiction, and corresponding difficulty in the process of identification and evaluation of potential Hawaiian traditional cultural properties, because it is precisely the concept of boundaries that runs counter to the traditional Hawaiian belief system. The sacredness of a particular landscape feature is often cosmologically tied to the rest of the landscape, as well as to other features on it. To limit a property to a specifically defined area may actually partition it from what makes it significant in the first place. However offensive the concept of boundaries may be, it is nonetheless the regulatory benchmark for defining and assessing traditional cultural properties. As the OEQC guidelines do not contain criteria for assessing the significance for traditional cultural properties, this study will adopt the state criteria for evaluating the significance of historic properties, of which traditional cultural properties are a subset. To be significant the potential historic property, or traditional cultural property, must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: a Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; d Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; e Have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 133 5. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts While it is the practice of the DLNR-SHPD to consider most historic properties significant under Criterion d at a minimum, it is clear that traditional cultural properties by definition would also be significant under Criterion e. A further analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional native practices specific to Hawaiian communities resulted from the Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v Land Use Commission court case. The court decision established a three-part process relative to evaluating such potential impacts: first, to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present, and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised; second, to identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired; and third, specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. Based on a review of the culture-historical background material presented above, and as indicated by many of the consulted parties, the nearshore waters of the WHRFMA have, since Precontact times, served as the foundation for the subsistence lifestyle of the Kānaka Maoli. While the deeper marine environment provided a wealth of pelagic resources, the nearshore waters have and continue to be the primary place where Kānaka Maoli of all ages and genders engage in the long-standing traditional practice of lawai‘a. Within the nearshore waters, Kānaka Maoli—since their initial arrival to the west coast of Hawaiʻi Island to the present day—have always utilized an array of harvesting methods and apparatuses to gather a wide variety of nearshore marine resources, including, but not limited to, reeffish, seaweed, urchin, shellfish, crab, octopus, shrimp, and salt. Although many of the harvesting apparatuses and means of transportation have adapted to the changing times and technologies, the act of fishing, whether for subsistence or commercial use (some of those interviewed for this study place aquarium fishing into this latter category) is an ongoing and ever-evolving cultural practice. Another more specific traditional fishing practice that was identified through the background research, and was discussed by several of the consulted parties, includes the use and maintenance of traditional fishing ko‘a that are designed to gather certain pelagic species, most notably ‘ōpelu. While the above described practices focus on the tangible elements of past and ongoing traditional fishing practices, the ocean is also culturally valued for its spiritual significance. As identified during the interview process, and supported by the culture-historical background, the ocean is considered the pathway of the ancient people and gods who, through their episodic migrations from Kahiki, came to settle these islands. In Kānaka Maoli cosmology, the ocean is an embodiment of the male deity Kanaloa, who also assumes other body forms including, but not limited to, certain marine species such as the hīnālea, he‘e, palaoa, and others large marine mammals. The nearshore waters are also associated with a number of additional significant deities in the Hawaiian pantheon including Hina (Hinapukui‘a), Kū‘ula, and their son ‘Ai‘ai, all of whom figure prominently in the spiritual aspect of Hawaiian fishing practices and the creation of loko i‘a. Likewise, the ‘āko‘ako‘a (coral head), as identified in the Kumulipo, and as articulated by several consulted parties, is the foundation from which all life is derived. Several of the consulted parties also spoke about the use of the ocean for certain healing and cleansing rituals. Additionally, the nearshore waters of West Hawai‘i Island are associated with several significant Historic Period events, including the arrival of the first Europeans and American missionaries, that forever changed the trajectory of Hawaiian culture. The interactions with these early Euro-American arrivals, and with subsequent migrant populations (and their introduced technologies), resulted in opportunistic adaptions of traditional Kānaka Maoli culture and fishing practices; adaptations that allowed them to maintain a leading role in the island’s commercial fishing industry into the early 20th century. It is clear that the nearshore waters of West Hawai‘i Island, along with all of its contributing tangible and intangible elements and associations, could be considered a traditional cultural property significant under Criteria a, b, and e. Having a comprehension of the traditional cultural significance of nearshore waters of West Hawai‘i Island by all of its user constituencies, is a first step in ensuring that the activities of any one user group does not in any significant way conflict with the activities of another user group. As part of any future permitting processes associated with the WHRFMA, it is recommended that DLNR-DAR provide to potential permit issuees a document that provides a synopsis of the traditional cultural significance of the fishery. Another significant component of this study focused on the cultural uses of the forty white-list species. A review of the culture-historical background material, coupled with the information discussed by multiple consulted parties, resulted in the identification of traditional names, and/or past and/or ongoing cultural uses for thirty-three of the forty fish species. Types of identified cultural uses included subsistence, medicinal, ritual, and ceremonial. The cultural knowledge associated with these fish varies, however, as some are extensively referenced in traditional accounts and ethnographic literature, while others are mentioned only in passing with no additional descriptive details. While all of the thirty-three fish species for which traditional cultural information was found appear to have been eaten, some species, particularly wrasses, tangs, surgeonfishes, and triggerfish were, and still are, more commonly consumed. The hīnālea ‘akilolo (Coris gaimard) and the lau‘īpala (Zebrasoma flavescens), on the other hand, were noted in the culture-historical literature, as well as in the consultation, for their medicinal value. One category of white-list species 134 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 5. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts in particular, the butterflyfishes (Chaetodon sp.), appears to primarily have been used for rituals and ceremonial purposes. Several consulted parties expressed that these fishes was never intentionally caught for subsistence purposes because of their association with the kauwā class of people. Given that these particular white-list species are important for sustaining the above-described cultural practices, if the issuance of commercial aquarium permits leads to a significant depletion of the populations of the above mentioned species (either directly or indirectly through habitat disruption), then the result would be a cultural impact. Conversely, if the biological assessments (conducted by others) indicate that the issuance of the fourteen commercial aquarium permits will have no significant effect on either the fishes or their habitat, then the issuance of the permits would not result in a cultural impact. Additionally, the background information gathered for two of the white-list species—the Cephalopholis argus (peacock grouper or roi) and the Lutjanus kasmira (bluestripe snapper or ta‘ape)—indicates that these fishes are found in great numbers within the nearshore waters of West Hawaiʻi Island, and that reducing the overall population of these two species could improve reef-health and potentially yield long-term positive impacts. Although these fish were introduced during the mid-20th century to fill a fishery niche, there has been little success marketing them commercially, which has resulted in steady population growth. Many of the consulted parties saw a reduction in the population of these two species, which can out complete other species, as potentially beneficial for improving the overall health of the reef and fishery. As part of this CIA, extensive oral interviews were conducted with numerous individuals from multiple user groups (including cultural practitioners, aquarium collectors, subsistence and commercial fishers, charter boat operators, and researchers) who represent various communities within the WHRFMA. While it is often difficult to disentangle each of these user groups from one another (because many, if not all, of the consulted individuals selfidentify, or can be placed, with more than one of the groups), all of those interviewed expressed some degree of ongoing cultural attachment to the ocean. For many, their introduction to the nearshore waters of West Hawai‘i Island stems from long-standing familial ties to the land and the ocean. While some of the consulted individuals expressed specific cultural concerns with respect to the white-list species, others stressed the ecological importance of the fish, and the need for them to live out their life cycles in their natural habitats. As evident in the statements made by multiple individuals, the take of fishes for commercial aquarium purposes within the WHRFMA has a long and contentious history, and it remains a point of conflict. Despite efforts to address these issues, the conflict has diffused into different communities and even caused rifts within some families. While it is not the prerogative of the authors to attempt to explain or resolve these long-standing issues, they are nonetheless, very apparent. Addressing such issues necessitates developing, at a minimum, mutual respect and open dialogue between the different user groups, and amongst different government and private sector agencies who oversee the management of the WHRFMA. Addressing and mitigating potential impacts is one means of bringing diverse groups together in a way that promotes understanding and opens productive dialogues. With that said, if the analyses in the EIS determine that the conditions of effect are met with respect to the potential cultural impacts described above, then the following recommendations for mitigation are offered. As echoed in the statements made by multiple individuals, extracting marine resources needs to be done with integrity and sensitivity, as the reef-fish and the habitat in which they are found are both ecologically and culturally valued. No matter how or why these fish are extracted, their removal constitutes an irrevocable loss of bio-cultural resources that could potentially have an adverse effect on the overall health and sustainability of the fishery. In light of this, the authors recommend that PIJAC, and any commercial aquarium fishers who intend to conduct their operations within the WHRFMA, consider developing or partnering with governmental and/or local organizations to help improve the management and sustainability of the nearshore fishery as a means to not only sustain, but actually improve reef-fish populations in the take areas. Such marine management practices should be a part of all commercial marine endeavors, and not exclusively imposed on any one user group. To further limit the potential for cultural impacts (through the depletion of culturally significant fish species), it is recommended that the existing bag limits and no-take areas within the WHRFMA remain in-place, but be monitored and adjusted periodically in order to account for fluctuations in the local fish stocks. Furthermore, it is recommended that the applicant (PIJAC) continue to work with the approving agency (DLNR), and the various other user groups within the WHRFMA, to help improve the transparency of the accounting methods for fish takes, and the enforcement of the existing rules and regulations that govern those takes. With respect to limiting the potential for cultural impacts, DLNR-DAR plays a significant role in managing and enforcing the rules and regulations that are intended to support the sustainability, viability, and fecundity of the WHRFMA. As voiced by many of the consulted parties, the lack of support and funding have hampered DNLRDAR’s ability to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility, namely to enhance, protect, conserve, and manage Hawaiʻi’s unique and limited resources, which are supposed to be held in public trust for the current and future generations of the people of Hawaiʻi nei, and visitors alike. While achieving this goal is not an easy task, and it certainly cannot be achieved by CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 135 5. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts any single means, DLNR-DAR should be proactive in seeking additional funding sources, and work with the various user groups who are most familiar with the WHRFMA, including the commercial aquarium fishers, to improve its enforcement capacity. As expressed by multiple community members, the lack of enforcement by DLNR-DAR has resulted in community members feeling the need to police their respective areas themselves, which ultimately diverts time and energy from their desire to educate the next generation of Hawaiʻi fishers and to perpetuate their own cultural practices. As part of improving enforcement, as expressed by some of the consulted parties, the DLNR-DAR should consider incorporating more traditional Hawaiian fishery resource management practices (as detailed above) into the management of the WHRFMA, and representatives from the aquarium fishing industry should continue to work with the other user constituencies (i.e., Native Hawaiian organizations) that maintain an interest in the WHRFMA. In summary, the recommendations provided here are intended to help ensure that the proposed issuance of fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA considers the knowledge, concerns, and thoughts shared by the consulted parties. While most people do not, in general, disagree with the practice of making a living from the ocean, these recommendations are also intended to remind those who may receive commercial aquarium fishing permits within the WHFRMA to be mindful of the unique cultural, historical, social, and ecological setting in which they earn their living. If commercial aquarium fishers assume ownership of their kuleana—privileges and responsibilities—to utilize the marine resources in a sustainable way, and take into consideration the broader sociocultural efforts that are underway across the state to mālama and hoʻomomona—care for and increase abundance of— the marine resources, then any potential for cultural impacts will be lessened. Understanding the cultural resources, cultural practices and cultural beliefs associated with the nearshore waters of West Hawaiʻi Island, and implementation of the recommendations presented above with respect to the identified issues, will ultimately help to ensure that no such resources, practices, or beliefs are adversely affected by the proposed issuance of the fourteen commercial aquarium permits within the WHRFMA. 136 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA References Cited REFERENCES CITED Abbott, I. 1992 Achiu, J. K. 2002 LāʻauHawai‘i, Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Ke Kumukānāwai o ka Makahiki 1839 a me ka 1840. Ka Ho‘oilina: Jounal of Hawaiian Language Sources 1(1): 30–59. Alexander, A. C. 1920 Land Titles and Surveys in Hawaii. Paper read before the Honolulu Social Science Association, March 1, 1920. https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Land-Titles-and-Survey.pdf, accessed March 7, 2017. Apple, R., and W. Kikuchi 1975 Ancient Hawaii Shore Zone Fishponds: An Evaluation of Survivors For Historical Preservation. Office of the State Director, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, Honolulu. Athens, J. S., T. Rieth, and T. Dye 2014 A Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Model-Based Age Estimate for the Colonization of Hawai’i. American Antiquity 79(1): 144–155. Beamer, K. 2014 Beckley, E. 1883 Beckwith, M. 1970 No Mākou Ka Mana: Liberating the Nation. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Hawaiian Fisheries and Methods of Fishing with an Account of the Fishing Implements Used By the Natives of the Hawaiian Islands. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honolulu. Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. Beckwith, M. W. 1951 The Kumulipo A Hawaiian Creation Chant. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Beckwith, Martha Warren (editor). 1932 Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 95. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Brigham, W. 1902 Buck, E. 1993 Buke Mahele 1848 Stone Implements and Stone Work of the Ancient Hawaiians. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume I, Number 4. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Paradise remade: The politics of culture and history in Hawai’i. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i Hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha III a me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana. Hale Alii Honolulu. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 137 References Cited Campbell, A. 1967 Cannelora, L. 1974 Chinen, J. J. 1958 1961 Cobb, J. 1902 1905 Cordy, R. 1994 A Voyage Around the World from 1806 to 1812. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. The origin of Hawaii land titles and of the rights of native tenants. Security Title Corporation, Honolulu. The Great Mahele: Hawaii’s Land Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published. Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. In U.S. Fish Commission Report for 1901. Department of Commerce and Labor Bureau of Fisheries, Washington. ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/cof/COF_1901.PDF, accessed January 15, 2019. Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands in 1903. Department of Commerce and Labor Bureau of Fisheries. Government Printing Office, Washington. http://www.ahamoku.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/Cobb-John-N-The_Commercial_Fisheries_of_the_Hawaiian-Islands-in1903-Government-Printing-Office-Washington-DC-1905.pdf. A Regional Synthesis of Hamakua District, Hawai‘i Island. Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. State Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawaii. Prepared for the Planning Department, County of Hawaii. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief, The Ancient History of Hawai‘i Island. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Crabbe, K., K. Fox, and H. K. Coleman 2017 Mana Lāhui Kānaka Mai nā kupuna kahiko mai a hiki i kēia wā. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu. Dierking, J. 2007 Effects of the Introduced Predatory Fish Cephalophlis argus on Native Reef Fish Populations in Hawaii. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, University of Hawaiia at Mānoa, Honolulu. DLNR 1999 [1999] Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13. December 31. Ellis, W. 1831 Polynesian Researches During a Residence of Nearly Eight Years in the Society and Sandwich Islands. Vol. IV. Fisher, Son, & Jackson, Newgate Street, London. Ellis, W. 1917 [1827] Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with remarks on the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. The Advertiser Historical Series No. 2. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Ltd., Honolulu. Else, I. 2004 138 The Breakdown of the Kapu System and Its Effect on Native Hawaiian Health and Diet. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being 1(1): 241–255. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA References Cited Fornander, A. 1880 An Account of the Polynesian Race. Vol. II. Three volumes vols. Trübner & Co., London. 1916–1917 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume IV. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1919–1920 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume VI. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1920 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume VI. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1969 An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Ed. John F. G. Stokes. Charles Tuttle & Co., Inc., Tokyo. Glazier, E. W. 2007 Hawaiian Fishermen. Case Sstudies in Cultural Anthropology. Thomas Wadsworth, Belmont. Gonschor, L., and K. Beamer 2014 Toward an Inventory of Ahupua’a in the Hawaiian Kingdom: A survey of Nineteenth- and early Twentieth-Century Cartographic and Archival Records of the Island of Hawai’i. The Hawaiian Journal of History 48: 53–87. Grosvenor 1909 Gutmanis, J. 1991 Scenes From Every Land: A Collection of 250 Illustrations Picturing the People, Natural Phenomena, and Animal Life in All Parts of the World with One Map and a Bibliography of Gazetteers, Atlases, and Books Descriptive of Foreign Countries and Natural Histories 2. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Pohaku Hawaiian Stones. Brigham Young University, La‘ie. Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. With the collaboration of Mary Kawena Pukui. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Handy, E. S. C., and M. K. Pukui 1998 The Polynesian Family System in Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Handy, E. S., K. Emory, and Bryan 1981 Ancient Hawaiian Civilization: A Series of Lectures Delivered at the Kamehameha Schools. Revised. Hapai, C. 1920 Hommon, R. 1976 1986 Legends of Wailuku. Paradise of the Pacific Print, Honolulu. The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-Contact Hawaii. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai‘i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by Patrick Kirch, pp. 55–88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 139 References Cited Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1931 Natives Here Fished Under Strict Tabus. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 12, 1931, p. 9. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006a Ka Mo’olelo o Hi’iakaikapoliopele. Translated by M. Puakea Nogelmeier. Awaiaulu, Honolulu. 2006b Hoover, J. P. 2007 Hopkins, J. U. 2012 ‘Ī‘ī, J. P. 1959 The Epic tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. Translated by M. Puakea Nogelmeier. Awaiaulu, Honolulu. Hawai‘i’s Fishes: A Guide for Snorkelers and Divers. Second. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Hānau Ma Ka Lolo, For the Benefit of Her Race: A Portrait of Emma Ka‘ilikapuolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina. M.A. Thesis, Department of Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Fragments of Hawaiian History. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. Johnson, K., and T. Wolforth 2006 Inventory Survey for 125 Acres in Keopu 3rd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaiʻi: Investigations into the Kula and Kaluʻulu Zones of the Kona Field System Near Kailua [TMK: (3) 7-5-003:-23]. Scientific Consultant Services Report number 601-2. Prepared for SCD Keōpū, Honululu, Hawaiʻi. Jokiel, P., K. Rodgers, W. Walsh, D. Polhemus, and T. Wilhelm 2011 Marine Resource Management in the Hawaiian Archipelago: The Traditional Hawaiian System in Relation to the Western Approach. Journal of Marine Biology 2011: 1–16. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1867 Ke Emi Ana O Na Kanaka O Hawaii Nei. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (Honolulu), November 30, 1867, vol. VI, no. 48, p. 1. Kahā‘uelio, D. 2006 Ka ’Oihana Lawai’a. Hawaiian Fishing Traditions. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. Kalaaukumuole, S. Z. 1866 Hoomana i ka Ia. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (Honolulu), November 24, 1866, vol. V, no. 47, p. 4. Kamakau, S. 1964 Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The People of Old. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. 1968 Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The People of Old. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Revised edition. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. 1976 The Works of the People of Old, Na Hana a ka Po‘e Kahiko. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. 1979 Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The People of Old. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Translator Mary Kawena Pukui. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised edition. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kame‘eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: How Shall We Live in Harmony? = Ko Hawaii Aina a Me Na Koi Puumake a Ka Poe Haole. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 140 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA References Cited Kanaka‘ole Kanahele, P., H. Kanahele-Mossman, A. K. Nu‘uhiwa, and K. Keli‘ikanaka‘ole 2009 Kūkulu Ke Ea A Kanaloa: The Culture Plan for Kanaloa Kaho’olawe. Prepared for the Kaho‘olawe Island Reserved Commission. Keala, G., J. Hollyer, and L. Castro 2007 Loko I‘a, A Manual on Hawaiian Fishpond Restoration and Management. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Keliipio, L., and M. Nakuina 1900 Hawaiian Fish Stories and Superstitions. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1900: A Handbook of Information and Statistics Relating to the Hawaiian Islands, of Value to Merchants Tourists and Others.. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1956 Kent, H. W. 1986 Changes in Land Tenure in Hawaii, 1778-1850. Manuscript. Hawaiian-Pacific Collection, Master’s thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Treasury of Hawaiian Words in One Hundred and One Categories. Masonic Public Libarary of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. Kent, N. 1983 Hawaii: Islands Under the Influence. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Kihe, I. W. H. 1923 Na Hoonanea O Ka Manawa. Ka Hoku O Hawaii (Hilo), October 11, 1923, vol. XVII, no. 20, p. 1. 1924 Na Hoonanea O Ka Manawa. Ka Hoku O Hawaii (Hilo), January 24, 1924, vol. XVII, no. 35, p. 4. King, R. n.d. Kirch, P. 1985 2011 Hawaiian Land Titles. Manuscript. https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. When did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer. Hawaiian Archaeology 12: 3–26. Kuhelemai Jr., M. K. 1907 Haiona O Ka Lei O Liliu. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (Honolulu), May 10, 1907, vol. XLII, no. 19, p. 8. Kuykendall, R. 1938 Lam, M. 1985 Langlas, C. 2003 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778–1854. Foundation and Transformation. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. The Imposition of Anglo-American Land Tenure Law On Hawaiians. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 23: 104–128. Kau Lā‘au and Ma‘ama‘a: Traditional Hawaiian Ulua Fishing. Video. Pili Productions. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 141 References Cited Liliuokalani 1978 Lyons, C. J. 1875 An Account of the Creation of the World According to Hawaiian Tradition, Translated from Original Manuscript Preserved Exclusively in Her Majesty’s Family. Pueo Press, Kentfield. Land Matters in Hawaii--No. 2.. The Islander, July 9, 1875. MacKenzie, M. K. 1991 Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Honolulu. MacKenzie, M., Melody Kapilialoha 2015 Native Hawaiian Law, A Treatise. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Maguire, E. 1926 Malo, D. 1951 Maly, K. 2001 Kona Legends. Paradise of the Pacific Press, Honolulu. Hawaiian Antiquities. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2. Second edition. Translator Nathaniel B. Emerson. B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Mālama Pono I Ka ‘Āina—An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape. Kumu Pono Associates. Maly, K., and O. Maly 2003 Volume I: Ka Hana Lawai‘a A Me Nā Ko‘a O Na Kai ‘Ewalu, A History Of Fishing Practices of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled From: Native Hawaiian Traditions, Historical Accounts, Government Communications, Kama‘āina Testimony And Ethnography. Kumu Pono Associates, LLC Report HiPae74 (080103). Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Manu, M., S. M. Kamakau, and E. M. Nakuina 2006 Hawaiian Fishing Traditions. Kalamaku Press, Honolulu, HI. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei, 128 Years Ago. Honolulu, T.H. Mitchell, D. 2001 Resource Units in Hawaiian Culture. Revised. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Moffat, R., and G. Fitzpatrick 1995 Surveying the Mahele: Mapping the Hawaiian Land Revolution. Editions Limited, Honolulu. Nakuina, M. 2005 The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao (translated by Esther T. Mookini & Sarah Nākoa). University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. National Park Service Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail 2007 Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail. Hawaii. 142 CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA References Cited Newman, T. S. 1970 Makai—Mauka: Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) 1997 Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, as Adopted by the State of Hawaii Environmental Council in 1997 and amdeded in 2000. http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/OEQC_Guidance/1997Cultural-Impacts-Guidance.pdf, accessed May 21, 2019. Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 2018 Final Environmental Assessment Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai‘i. KL Gates LLP. Prepared for the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. Pogue, J. F. 1978 Moolelo of Ancient Hawaii. Translator Charles W. Kenn. Topgallant Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., and S. H. Elbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Rev. and enl. ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., E. W. Haertig, and C. A. Lee 1972 Nānā I Ke Kumu (Look to the Source). Vol. 1. Hui Hānai, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary Kawena (editor). 1983 ʻOlelo Noʻeau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Rosendahl, P. 1972 Schug, D. M. 2001 Archaeological Salvage of the Hapuna-Anaehoomalu Section of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Queen Kahumanu Highway), Island of Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 72–5. Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Hawai‘i’s Commercial Fishing Industry: 1820-1945. The Hawaiian Journal of History 35: 15–34. Smith, L. V., A. McMinn, A. Martin, S. Nicol, A. Bowie, D. Lannuzel, and P. van der Merwe 2013 Preliminary investigation into the stimulation of phytoplankton photophysiology and growht by whale faeces. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 446: 1–9. Soehren, L. 2004 A Catalog of Hawai‘i Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part 3: Kona. http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn, accessed September 14, 2016. 2005a A Catalog of Hawai‘i Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part 2: Hāmākua and Kohala. http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?, accessed September 14, 2016. 2005b A Catalog of Hawai‘i Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part 4: Ka‘ū. http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?, accessed September 14, 2016. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 143 References Cited State of Hawai’i, Office of Environmental Quality Control 2012 Guide to the Implementation and Practice of the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act. Office of Environmental Quality Control, Honolulu. Tatar, E. 1982 Titcomb, M. 1972 Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant. Pacific Anthropological Records. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. University of Hawai‘i n.d History of the Waikīkī Aquarium. Waikīkī Aquarium. https://www.waikikiaquarium.org/, accessed August 9, 2019. Unknown 1923 Valeri, V. 1985 Ka Ho’opakele Ana I Na I’a. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (Honolulu, HI), March 8, 1923. https://www.papakilodatabase.com/pdnupepa/?a=d&d=KNK1923030801.2.22&srpos=&dliv=none&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN%7ctxNU%7ctxTRKa+Hoopakele+Ana+i+Na+Ia------. Kingship and sacrifice: ritual and society in ancient Hawaii. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Walsh, Dr. W. J. 2000 Aquarium Collecting in West Hawaii: A Historical Overview. State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Island of Hawaii. Walsh, W. J. 2013 2014 Westervelt, W. 1910 Wiegel, R. L. 2008 Background Paper on West Hawai‘i Aquarium “White List.” Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Report on the Findings and Recommendation of Effectiveness of the West Hawaiʻi Regional Fishery Management Area. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii Report of the Thirtieth Legislature 2015 Regular Session. Legends of Ma-ui—A Demi God of Polynesia and of His Mother Hina. The Hawaiian Gazett Co., Ltd., Honolulu. Waikiki Beach, Oahu, Hawaii: History of its transformation from a natural to an urban shore. Shore & Beach 76(2): 3–30. Wilmshurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating Shows Recent and Rapid Colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 1815–1820. Wise, J. H. 1911 144 He Moolelo No Ka Hookumuia Ana o na Paemoku o Hawaii Nei ame Ka Hoolaukanaka Ana i Hoikeia ma na Mele Hawaii Kahiko. Ka I’a Puku. Ke Au Hou, February 8, 1911. https://www.papakilodatabase.com/pdnupepa/?a=d&d=KAH19110208-01.2.16&e=-------en-20-1--txt-txIN%7ctxNU%7ctxTR-------. CIA for the Issuance of Fourteen Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA Appendix A APPENDIX A. KA WAI OLA PUBLIC NOTICE CIA for the Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits within the WHRFMA 145 Appendix A PUBLIC ASM Af?liates is preparing a Cultural Impact Asmsn'lenl (CIA) in advance of the preparation of an Environmental Impact State- ment for the proposed issuance of commercial aquarium permits for areas within the West Hawai?i Regional Fishery MamgementArea extending along the west coast of Hawai?i Island from 'Upolu PoirL North Kohala to Ka Lac (South Point). Ka?t'i. exclud- ing the following areas: lapaltahi Marine Life Conservation Dis- trict (MLCD). North Kohala l-?ish Repkrushmem Area (FM). Pinko Bay and Puak? Reef Fisheries Management Area (FMA). Puako- ?Anaeho?omalu ERA. Ka?t'ipt?tlehu FRA. Wiwt'lloli FMA. Kaloko? Honokohau FHA. Papawai Bay FMA. Old Kona Airport MLCD. Kailua Bay FMA. Kailua-Keauhou FHA. Kcauhou Bay FMA. Red Hill Kcalakekua Bay MLCD. Napo?opo?o-H?naunau FRA. Ho?okena FRA. Ka?ohc HM. and the Miloli?i Hm. We are seeking mnsultation with any community members [hm might have knowledge. or who are involved in. any ongoing cultural practices that may be occurring in any oi the places tmtside of the restricted areas listed above. If you have and can share any such infor- mation please contact Lokelani Brandt com. phone (808) 969-6066. mail- ing mickess ASM Af?liates 507A Ii. lanikaula Street. Hilo. HI AIS for for the Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits within the 146 APPENDIX B—COMMENTS AND APPLICANT RESPONSES DLNR NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FEA-EISPN 30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD CONSULTED PARTIES COMMENT PERIOD B DLNR Notice of Determination (NOD) on FEA and Applicant Responses DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR or HAWAII SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY JEFFREY T. PEARSON, RE. DEPUTY DIRECTOR AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCFS COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMET CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT STATE OF HAWAII mm?gm?i'?gmm DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES moom?Tg%%?g3g?gMMESION LAND POST OFFICE BOX 621 STATEPARKS HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 July 26, 2018 Mr. Scott Glenn Of?ce of Environmental Quality Control State of Hawai?i 235 S. Beretania Street, Room 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 968 3 Re: HRS Chapter 343, Final Environmental Assessment, Notice of Determination Project: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai?i Applicant: Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJ AC) Applicant Contact: Jim KL Gates LLP, 206-370-6587 Approving Agency: Department of Land and Natural Resources Location: Throughout the near shore region (to depths of 100 fathoms) of the island of Hawai?i except in those areas already designated as no collection areas such as Fish Replenishment Areas. Proposal: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits ensuring lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various aquarium ?sh species from nearshore habitats pursuant to Aquarium Fishing Permits issued under HRS ?188-3l Dear Mr. Glenn, Attached and incorporated by reference is the Final Environmental Assessment prepared by the Applicant for the Project. Based on the signi?cance criteria outlined in Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawaii Administrative Rules, we have determined that the project may have a signi?cant impact on the environment and therefore the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Further analysis is necessary on the following signi?cance criteria under HAR ?11- 200-12 for the issuance of Hawai?i aquarium permits: (1) The take of aquarium ?sh as an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of natural or cultural resources. The take of individual ?sh itself is loss or destruction of natural resources; the sustainability question is whether the annual take of cumulative numbers of ?sh as a percentage of estimated population results in irrevocable loss or destruction of populations of ?sh; Mr. Scott Glenn Of?ce of Environmental Quality Control July 26, 2018 Page 2 of 4 (2) The manner in which the take of aquarium ?sh curtails the uses of the environment, including aquatic invasive algae control, the tourism industry, and the overall integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems; (3) The extent to which the take of aquarium ?sh con?icts with the state?s long-term environmental goals; (4) The impact of the take of aquarium ?sh on cultural practices in the state; and (8) The cumulative effect of the commercial take of aquarium ?sh using ?ne mesh nets when combined with the effects of: the commercial take of aquarium ?sh by other legal methods; the take of aquarium ?sh for recreational purposes; and the commercial and non?commercial take of aquarium ?sh species for consumption as food, particularly including Achilles Tang and kole. It is also necessary to analyze the potential impacts under the no action alternative resulting from non-issuance of aquarium permits, including the increased take of larger, reproductively mature aquarium ?sh in East Hawai?i using legal mesh nets. The FEA identi?es the scope of analysis as one year and states that an BA with updated data and analysis would need to be completed on an annual basis. This improperly segments the analysis which must include the long-term and cumulative impacts over time of aquarium collection. There is no statistical analysis of population growth compared to the life span of each ?sh and the number of years to and size of ?rst reproduction against which this annual proposed take can be measured for purposes of estimating sustainable take. With regard to proposed levels of sustainable catch, using to 25%? annual take of estimated populations as proposed in several research papers, we note that 5% to 25% is a wide range, and the precautionary principle calls for applying the lowest estimated percentage of sustainable take in the absence of scienti?c certainty. We also note that there are no bag limits for most species, and that the ?shery as currently regulated does not limit the number of permits, so that the annual take as a percentage of estimated population could rise signi?cantly. Alternatives of overall annual take limits, a limited entry aquarium ?shery program, and restrictions including full moratoria on the take of herbivores, species of special concern, and species evidencing severe population declines have not been proposed or analyzed. The FEA asserts that certain types of ?sh such as Wrasse, Tinker?s Butter?y?sh, and Fisher?s Angel?sh inhabit waters deeper than the CREP monitoring studied, resulting in Mr. Scott Glenn Of?ce of Environmental Quality Control July 26, 2018 Page 3 of 4 populations being underestimated and thus the annual take as a percentage of estimated population being overestimated. In addition, we note the proposed alternatives for reduction in bag limits for Achilles Tang, but do not see a scienti?c basis for concluding that the proposed reduction would be suf?cient to sustain the population. Cultural impacts of aquarium ?shing need signi?cantly more analysis than provided in the FEA. The OEQC guidelines should be followed for assessing cultural impacts, including consulting with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action's potential impacts. Traditional Hawaiian practices and subsistence uses, local place-based and life-cycle knowledge, and traditional Hawaiian cultural signi?cance of each type of aquarium ?sh taken should be reviewed. The indirect impact of modern technologies for highly ef?cient catch methods on traditional harvest capabilities should be included in the analysis. Enforcement and compliance needs and challenges are key factors in the effectiveness of ?sheries management, and should be analyzed as part of the environmental impact statement. We appreciate that as an applicant action, the applicant can propose but not ensure regulations aimed at protecting and restoring populations of aquarium ?sh. We are interested in proposals for self-regulation by aquarium permit holders which could be incorporated into permit conditions even in the absence of or prior to establishing other regulations to accomplish the same purposes. Overall, we appreciate that certain alternatives have been proposed, but believe they are more appropriately proposed as mitigation measures in an environmental impact statement to mitigate potential environmental impacts, rather than as alternatives in an environmental assessment which, if implemented, might result in a ?nding of no signi?cant impact. The Department of Land and Natural Resources is obligated to ensure full analysis under HRS Chapter 343 of potential environmental impacts of its actions in issuing aquarium permits. We believe this is most appropriate in an environmental impact statement. Based on the signi?cance criteria outlined in Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawai?i Administrative Rules, we have determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Please publish this FEA-EISPN in the next issue of the Of?ce of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) ?Environmental Notice?. We understand that publication in the Environmental Notice will initiate a 30-day public consultation period for parties to comment on the action and to request to become consulted parties in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Mr. Scott Glenn Of?ce of Environmental Quality Control July 26, 2013 Page 4 of 4 We have enclosed one hard copy of the as well as three Adobe Acrobat PDF copies on compact disc. We have also attached a completed OEQC publication form and Project summary, and we will submit the same publication form and Project summary via electronic mail to your of?ce. Please contact David Sakoda, State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, at (808)587-0104, david.sakodatiilhawaiipov; with any questions. Sincerely, 4/5 440. 6:44,, Suzanne D. Case Chair Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai?i Responses to comments received from the DLNR’s Notice of Determination (NOD) on the Final EA NOD dated July 26, 2018 Comment Response Based on the significance criteria outlined in Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawaii Administrative Rules, we have determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and therefore the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Further analysis is necessary on the following significance criteria under HAR §11- 200-12 for the issuance of Hawai'i aquarium permits: Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. Responses to specific significance criteria are included in the DEIS and responded to below. (1) The take of aquarium fish as an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of natural or cultural resources. The take of individual fish itself is loss or destruction of natural resources; the sustainability question is whether the annual take of cumulative numbers of fish as a percentage of estimated population results in irrevocable loss or destruction of populations of fish; Comment noted. The impacts as they relate to this significance criteria have been summarized in Section 5.6 of the DEIS. (2) The manner in which the take of aquarium fish curtails the uses of the environment, including aquatic invasive algae control, the tourism industry, and the overall integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems; Comment noted. The impacts as they relate to this significance criteria have been summarized in Section 5.6 of the DEIS. (3) The extent to which the take of aquarium fish conflicts with the state's long-term environmental goals; Comment noted. The impacts as they relate to this significance criteria have been summarized in Section 5.6 of the DEIS. (4) The impact of the take of aquarium fish on cultural practices in the state; and Comment noted. The impacts as they relate to this significance criteria have been summarized in Section 5.6 of the DEIS. (8) The cumulative effect of the commercial take of aquarium fish using fine mesh nets when combined with the effects of: (a) the commercial take of aquarium fish by other legal methods; (b) the take of aquarium fish for recreational purposes; and (c) the commercial and non-commercial take of aquarium fish species for consumption as food, particularly including Achilles Tang and kole. Comment noted. The impacts as they relate to this significance criteria have been summarized in Section 5.6 of the DEIS. It is also necessary to analyze the potential impacts under the no action alternative resulting from non-issuance of aquarium permits, including the increased take of larger, reproductively mature aquarium fish in East Hawai 'i using legal mesh nets. Comment noted. The impacts of the No Action Alternative in the DEIS include an analysis of data on aquarium fish collection since the October 2017 ban on the use of fine mesh nets. Responses to comments received from the DLNR’s Notice of Determination (NOD) on the Final EA NOD dated July 26, 2018 Comment Response The FEA identifies the scope of analysis as one year and states that an EA with updated data and analysis would need to be completed on an annual basis. This improperly segments the analysis which must include the long-term and cumulative impacts over time of aquarium collection. Comment noted. The analysis period for the DEIS is five years, and cumulative impacts of commercial aquarium collection are also included in Section 5.4.3. Comment noted. The ecology of each White List Species is briefly described in Section 4.4. Impacts to populations, including available research on sustainable harvest, are included in Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS. There is no statistical analysis of population growth compared to the life span of each fish and the number of years to and size of first reproduction against which this annual proposed take can be measured for purposes of estimating sustainable take. With regard to proposed levels of sustainable catch, using "5% to 25%" annual take of estimated populations as proposed in several research papers, we note that 5% to 25% is a wide range, and the precautionary principle calls for applying the lowest estimated percentage of sustainable take in the absence of scientific certainty. In addition, data from the DAR (2019) show stable or increasing populations for 24 of the 40 White List Species. For the 12 species with documented declines, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives would collect less than 1% of the island-wide population estimates for 10 of the species. For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 4% of the island-wide population. Comment noted. As summarized in Section 5.5.1, under the Preferred Alternative, collection of any of the 40 White List Species is anticipated to be below 5% of the island-wide populations. Responses to comments received from the DLNR’s Notice of Determination (NOD) on the Final EA NOD dated July 26, 2018 Comment Response Comment noted. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS includes limited issuance of permits, with the number of permits requested being set at 14 permits per year for the five-year analysis period. In addition, a reduction in the bag limit for Achilles Tang is also proposed. We also note that there are no bag limits for most species, and that the fishery as currently regulated does not limit the number of permits, so that the annual take as a percentage of estimated population could rise significantly. Alternatives of overall annual take limits, a limited entry aquarium fishery program, and restrictions including full moratoria on the take of herbivores, species of special concern, and species evidencing severe population declines have not been proposed or analyzed. The FEA asserts that certain types of fish such as Psychedelic Wrasse, Tinker's Butterflyfish, and Fisher's Angelfish inhabit waters deeper than the CREP monitoring studied, resulting in populations being underestimated and thus the annual take as a percentage of estimated population being overestimated. As described in Section 5.4, no impacts to populations of herbivores or the functions they provide to the reef ecosystem are anticipated. As described in Section 5.4 and 5.6, for the 12 White List Species that have been experiencing declines, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. Therefore, no additional bag limits are proposed at this time. Comment noted. CREP (2018) population estimates are available for 38 of the 40 White List Species, though as noted, some species are not adequately surveyed. Nonetheless, impacts to populations are less than 5% for all species under the Preferred Alternative. For the two species which do not have population estimates, Flame Wrasse collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017 and Longfin Anthias collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. Responses to comments received from the DLNR’s Notice of Determination (NOD) on the Final EA NOD dated July 26, 2018 Comment Response In addition, we note the proposed alternatives for reduction in bag limits for Achilles Tang, but do not see a scientific basis for concluding that the proposed reduction would be sufficient to sustain the population. Comment noted. Commercial aquarium collection takes a relatively small proportion of the Achilles Tang population (<5% under the current 10/day bag limit), and it is anticipated that implementation of a reduced bag limit and limited issuance of permits to only 14 fishers will reduce this by over 50%. However, as noted in the DEIS, commercial aquarium collection is not the only stressor on this species, and therefore, it is anticipated that additional conservation measures designed to address the other stressors (e.g., commercial and recreational fisheries) will need to be implemented in order to sustain the population. The Applicant does not have any control over those measures. The DAR (2019) supports this conclusion, stating that conservative bag limits, as proposed in the Preferred Alternative for commercial aquarium collection, should be considered for other fisheries as well. There are currently no bag limits for the Achilles Tang applied to any other fishery. Cultural impacts of aquarium fishing need significantly more analysis than provided in the FEA. The OEQC guidelines should be followed for assessing cultural impacts, including consulting with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action's potential impacts. Traditional Hawaiian practices and subsistence uses, local place-based and life-cycle knowledge, and traditional Hawaiian cultural significance of each type of aquarium fish taken should be reviewed. The indirect impact of modem technologies for highly efficient catch methods on traditional harvest capabilities should be included in the analysis. Comment noted. Cultural impacts are analyzed in depth in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) and the DEIS addresses cultural impacts in Section 5.3. Enforcement and compliance needs and challenges are key factors in the effectiveness of fisheries management, and should be analyzed as part of the environmental impact statement. Comment noted. As noted in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR (2019) concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. Responses to comments received from the DLNR’s Notice of Determination (NOD) on the Final EA NOD dated July 26, 2018 Comment Response We appreciate that as an applicant action, the applicant can propose but not ensure regulations aimed at protecting and restoring populations of aquarium fish. We are interested in proposals for self-regulation by aquarium permit holders which could be incorporated into permit conditions even in the absence of or prior to establishing other regulations to accomplish the same purposes. Comment noted. As stated by the DLNR, the Applicant cannot ensure enforcement. The Applicant is proposing a limited issuance of permits, issuance of permits only for the WHRFMA, and a reduction in the Achilles Tang bag limit. The Applicant can only propose but not ensure regulations; therefore, it is up to the DLNR to make these binding (e.g., changing the law/regulation or including a a condition of the permit). Any permit issued would require the permit holder to abide by all conditions of the permit. Overall, we appreciate that certain alternatives have been proposed, but believe they are more appropriately proposed as mitigation measures in an environmental impact statement to mitigate potential environmental impacts, rather than as alternatives in an environmental assessment which, if implemented, might result in a finding of no significant impact. The Department of Land and Natural Resources is obligated to ensure full analysis under HRS Chapter 343 of potential environmental impacts of its actions in issuing aquarium permits. We believe this is most appropriate in an environmental impact statement. Based on the significance criteria outlined in Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawai'i Administrative Rules, we have determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. Mitigation is discussed in Sections 5.2.4, 5.3.3, and 5.4.4. As noted in Section 5.6, no significant adverse effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation for impacts is not warranted and no mitigation measures would be implemented. Nevertheless, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigative measures (see Section 5.0) such as a reduction in the number of aquarium permits that would be issued, limiting collection using fine mesh nets to the WHRFMA, and reducing the bag limit for the Achilles Tang, all of which would minimize impacts to biological resources. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. Comments Received During the 30-day Comment Period on the FEA EISPN and Applicant Responses From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Bob Flatt Sakoda, David jim.lynch@klgates.com; VanDeWalle, Terry Comment on the scope of HI Aquarium Fishing EIS Monday, August 13, 2018 4:57:03 PM The EIS needs to address the quality of current management data. The data quality is insufficient to make reliable management estimates of fish populations due to methodological bias, there is no basis for knowing if the harvest of uncounted species is sustainable. The current methodology estimates the aquarium fish abundance by determining the abundance of a subset of the species harvested. The assumption is that this subset abundance represents the abundance of most or all aquarium species. This assumption might be correct if the harvesting pressure were equal on all aquarium species, but it is not. Aquarium harvesting is an economic activity, between species the individual fish price varies 100 fold. The most common species have the lowest price, the least common species the highest price. Given a choice, a rational economic actor will choose to harvest the uncommon $50 fish over the common 50¢ fish. As a practical matter the management methodology samples the most common species. The sampled population data is not representative because the harvesting pressure on uncommon species is higher, this is the cause of the bias. The resulting data are thus unreliable because they do not include the effect of the price bias. Thus any environmental impact estimates are unreliable. The methodology from a statistical point of view does over-sample the common species. This oversampling does not address the cause of the price bias as it only increases the sample size of lower price fish species. The issue is addressable. For example, this bias could be removed by only harvesting counted species. There may be other ways to address the issue, but as it stands there is no basis for knowing if the harvest of uncounted species is sustainable. This should be addressed in the EIS. In summary (with apologies to Dr Seuss): Money leads us to prefer harvesting fish that are 'blue'. Managing by counting fish that are 'red' just wont do. Robert Flatt Captain Cook, HI -- ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...><((((º> . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...><((((º> Responses to comments received from Robert Flatt Comment dated August 13, 2018 Comment The EIS needs to address the quality of current management data. The data quality is insufficient to make reliable management estimates of fish populations due to methodological bias, there is no basis for knowing if the harvest of uncounted species is sustainable. The current methodology estimates the aquarium fish abundance by determining the abundance of a subset of the species harvested. The assumption is that this subset abundance represents the abundance of most or all aquarium species. This assumption might be correct if the harvesting pressure were equal on all aquarium species, but it is not. Aquarium harvesting is an economic activity, between species the individual fish price varies 100 fold. The most common species have the lowest price, the least common species the highest price. Given a choice, a rational economic actor will choose to harvest the uncommon $50 fish over the common 50¢ fish. As a practical matter the management methodology samples the most common species. The sampled population data is not representative because the harvesting pressure on uncommon species is higher, this is the cause of the bias. The resulting data are thus unreliable because they do not include the effect of the price bias. Thus any environmental impact estimates are unreliable. The methodology from a statistical point of view does over-sample the common species. This oversampling does not address the cause of the price bias as it only increases the sample size of lower price fish species. The issue is addressable. For example, this bias could be removed by only harvesting counted species. There may be other ways to address the issue, but as it stands there is no basis for knowing if the harvest of uncounted species is sustainable. This should be addressed in the EIS. Response Comment noted. Descriptions of fish population survey methods, including limitations, are discussed in Section 4.4.7. Confidence intervals are provided for CREP data, and population trend data from WHAP includes tests of statistical significance. This information is all included in Section 5.0 of the DEIS, including population estimates for 38 of the 40 White List Species. As noted in the DEIS, Flame Wrasse do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017. Longfin Anthias also do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. Comment noted. The DEIS uses the best available data for population estimates. Descriptions of fish population survey methods, including limitations, are discussed in Section 4.4.7. Final Environmental Assessment, Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Oahu The final environmental assessment (FEA) for the Oahu commercial aquarium fishery states a finding of no significant impact but the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has determined the need for a full environmental impact statement (EIS) instead. To initiate the EIS review, DLNR has announced the EIS preparation notice. The reasons why DLNR has determined the need for an EIS are listed in their letter dated July 26, 2018 to Mr. Scott Glenn, Office of Environmental Quality Control. The letter has two main sections: 1) a list of areas where the FEA needs further analysis and 2) a series of reasons for the determination. My comments will be in the form of, a general comments section, followed by my thoughts on each of the DLNRs two sections. Section 1: General Comments I find the DLNR comments full of assumptions and inaccuracies. I also find their reasoning for now requiring an EIS, illogical and not factually based. Given these observations, I am concerned that DLNR no longer has the technical expertise to adequately and objectively evaluate this document. It appears the DLNR doesn’t understand its own regulations. The aquarium permit is somewhat of a misnomer. The aquarium permit issued under Section 188-31, HRS, is a small mesh net exemption and not a general aquarium collecting permit. The legal minimum net mesh size is two inches stretched. An exemption to this minimum net mesh size is authorized by permit. This seeming small difference is important because the agency action is issuance of the permit that provides a small mesh net exemption (SMNE). The permit is not to collect aquarium fish, regardless of gear used. For purposes of clarity, I will use the term SMNE permit instead of aquarium permit in this document. The attempts to expand the analysis into non-permit activities are outside of the scope of the action. It sounds like DLNR response was written by someone obviously biased against aquarium collecting and could have been crafted by the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit against the DLNR. The thinking and the words chosen seem strangely familiar of the arguments made during the legal action. I also disagree with the Department’s reasons for requiring an EIS and continue to support the FEA determination of no significant impact. My arguments for my disagreement will be further explained later in this document. The DLNR appears to have completely changed its position that the aquarium fishery is sustainable to a position that it is now believes the fishery is unsustainable, despite the fact that collecting under permit has been stopped since the beginning of 2018, resulting in the impacts of collecting being drastically reduced. The DLNR does not explain why they have reversed their position. Regarding the areas where the FEA were lacking, I disagree with most of the points made. Even if, for discussion only, the FEA were lacking these points, this would not trigger the need for an EIS. A revised DEA, including all these points, could have adequately addressed these concerns. It was my understanding that DLNR intended to work with the applicant to address any deficiencies prior to acceptance of the FEA. This, apparently, did not happen. Section 2: My Comments on DLNR’s Identified Analysis Needs 1) The take of aquarium fish as an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of natural or cultural resources. The take of individual fish itself is loss or destruction of natural resources; the sustainability question is whether the annual take of cumulative numbers of fish as a percentage of estimated population results in irrevocable loss or destruction of populations of fish; DLNRs thinking seems to be that the loss of an individual fish constitutes a loss under Chapter 343, HRS, then all actions taken by anyone anywhere would similarly require an EA. Does DLNR also consider the take of living microscopic organisms should be included in its broad application of the view of loss of natural resources? Does DLNR also believe that a State camping permittee breathing the air at a designated camp site requires an EA/EIS? How does it conclude that a 5% to 25% take of a species to be a “destruction of populations of fish?” Chapter 343, HRS, focus is on the significant effect of use of the resources and not whether such use constitutes a loss. In many cases, the use of a resource results in its inevitable loss. To be relevant, the loss of a fish should to be viewed within the context of whether that use causes a significant effect. It’s obvious that the loss of one fish doesn’t mean the extinction of the species and doesn’t constitute a significant effect. As such, going down the “rabbit hole” of trying to identify and characterize each loss is irrelevant to the question of significant effect. It should therefore, also be considered irrelevant for the purposes of Chapter 343, HRS. Conclusion: By making Comment #1, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. 2) The manner in which the take of aquarium fish curtails the uses of the environment, including aquatic invasive algae control, the tourism industry, and the overall integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems; It is unclear how the collecting of aquarium fish is related to invasive algae control and the tourism industry. The causes of alien algae introductions are unrelated to aquarium collecting. The current regulatory measures include rules on ballast water and hull fouling. Once alien species are found in Hawaii, control methods include, among others, physical removal and urchin plantings. The premise that aquarium fish collecting is a controlling factor for alien algae growth and spread is wildly speculative. No scientific evidence supports this contention. As noted in my comments on Comment #1, the permit impacts to tourism are outside of the environmental impacts requirement of Chapter 343, HRS, and outside of the scope of the agency action. Tourism is man-made, not part of the natural environment, and is irrelevant to this analysis. It would be an analysis of permit impacts on tourism’s impacts on the environment. It is unclear what the term “overall integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems” means. It is a popular term and non-scientific. Biologically, ecosystems are dynamic and ever changing. Because natural conditions are always changing, the ecosystem constantly adjusts to these changes. If one component of the system no longer functions, the system compensates for this and creates a different function. This is the nature of living systems. It is unclear what “overall integrity” of an ever-changing system means. If integrity of the ecosystem functions is what is intended, then any change to the system that doesn’t cease the system’s ability to function, does not cease its integrity. Ecosystems are also viewed relative to scale. The ecosystem within a drop of water is different from the ecosystem within the region of the Hawaiian Islands is different from the ecosystem of the Pacific basin. It is unclear which ecosystem Comment #2 is referring to. Lastly, I am assuming “aquatic” should be limited to “marine” instead. Conclusion: By making Comment #2, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. 3) The extent to which the take of aquarium fish conflicts with the state's long-term environmental goals; Governor Ige’s 30 by 30 Sustainability Plan calls for the effective management of at least 30% of the State’s shorelines by the year 2030. The fishery does not conflict with, and would actively support, the plan. The DLNR has obviously taken the position that the fishery is unsustainable and in conflict with the plan. The requirement to have an SMNE permit and the issuance of those permits is a form of effective management of the shoreline and consistent with the plan. It is unclear how having the permit isn’t in support of plan. Conclusion: By making Comment #3, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. 4) The impact of the take of aquarium fish on cultural practices in the state; and Conclusion: By making Comment #4, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. For further comments, see Section 3, Reason #7. 5) The cumulative effect of the commercial take of aquarium fish using fine mesh nets when combined with the effects of: (a) the commercial take of aquarium fish by other legal methods; (b) the take of aquarium fish for recreational purposes; and (c) the commercial and non-commercial take of aquarium fish species for consumption as food, particularly including Achilles Tang and kole; Conclusion: Comment #5 appears to include non-permit actions. Such an analysis would be outside of the scope of the EA and should not be included. See my further discussions under Comment #6 immediately following this discussion. 6) It is also necessary to analyze the potential impacts under the no action alternative resulting from non-issuance of aquarium permits, including the increased take of larger, reproductively mature aquarium fish using legal mesh nets. Comment #6 is an interesting take on the no action alternative. It is unclear whether the no action alternative is required as part of the Chapter 343, HRS, analysis. If it is not required, then Comment #6 would be discretionary. For the sake of discussion only, if the no action alternative is included, what is the no action alternative being taken? Section 188-31, HRS, authorizes the Department to issue aquarium permits. It has done so since the 1970s. The government action then is clearly the issuance of aquarium permits. As the Legislature authorized the Department to require and issue SMNE permits, the Department doesn’t have the legal option to issue or not issue SMNE permits, it must issue the permits. The Supreme Court did not invalidate the authority of the State to require SMNE permits, but that the process of permit issuance was subject to Chapter 343, HRS. The issuance of permits is on hold, until the Chapter 343, HRS, review is completed. In my view, there is no actual no action alternative. The agency action, then, is to issue SMNE permits or not. Since not issuing permits is not a legal option, the DLNR must issue small mesh net exemption permits. Conclusion: Since the agency action is the issuance of permits, activities not requiring a small mesh net exemption permit, should not be considered within the scope of the EA. Section 3: My Comments on DLNR’s Reasons for EIS Requirement DLNR has issued a previous FONSI determination for a “programmatic” EA for the Fish Aggregating Device System and did not require an EIS. I’ve listed all of the stated DLNR reasons and will provide my specific responses/comments to each reason as follows. 1) The FEA identifies the scope of analysis as one year and states that an EA with updated data and analysis would need to be completed on an annual basis. This improperly segments the analysis which must include the long-term and cumulative impacts over time of aquarium collection. Disagree: The FEA provided a detailed analysis of commercial aquarium landings over a broad number of years to document patterns of collections that would be used to further determine “impacts” at the species level for those species most often collected. This long term review of the data is in response to the need for the analysis of potential long term impacts and is not an annual determination as reason #1 seems to imply. The draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) suggested annual reviews, which I noted in my previous comments as inappropriate for EAs, as a follow up measure for future EAs. This suggestion did not limit the analysis to only a one year time period and should not be assumed to be an annual analysis. As such, the document does not support the contention that the EA “segments the analysis” into solely an annual analysis. The document uses multiple years of historical data to provide a long-term analysis to come to a current determination. The document also provides a methodology for future reviews but should not be viewed as a predictor of events that have not yet occurred. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of a long term analysis provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. 2) There is no statistical analysis of population growth compared to the life span of each fish and the number of years to and size of first reproduction against which this annual proposed take can be measured for purposes of estimating sustainable take. Agree: There is no analysis of population growth because such an analysis would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources. My reasons why this is unnecessary are many. The data needed to conduct a population analysis, as implied by reason #2, does not currently exist. I am assuming that reason #2 should actually read each fish species and not each fish as currently worded. To attempt to determine this information at the individual fish level would increase the cost over a million fold, assuming that each species has more than a million individuals. One estimate of the number of individual fish in the aquarium fishery are likely over 10 million. Current scientific thinking suggests that roughly 99% of individuals born will not survive to adulthood. Even if such a study were initiated, most individuals would not survive long enough to provide information useful to this analysis. Current scientific approaches to determine sustainable take levels instead look at fishery wide data rather than species or individual level data. The most common and practical approach combines all species within the fishery into one combination species and to analyze this one species to look at this question. This approach would also be useful in determining a cumulative impact analysis. This enables at least a preliminary indicator of the sustainability of a fishery. Regardless of the method chosen, the eventual goal is to determine a sustainable take level. Disagree: A sustainable take level is required to manage this fishery. I would argue that a calculated or set take level is not necessary to manage a fishery. The sustainable take level is a man-made goal and a theoretical estimate of a biological threshold. Under the federal model, the overfishing limit is an estimate because the status of the resources is constantly changing. There is also an element of risk that the overfishing limit is inaccurate given scientific uncertainty. The level of risk one is willing to take is subjective. The base level of risk is 50%. At this risk level, there is a 50% chance that the overfishing limit will be reached. However, the less data there is to calculate the overfishing limit, the more uncertain that estimate. The DLNR has historically managed the State’s marine resources without a known sustainable take level. It appears that not having a take level does not prevent DLNR from managing those resources. The State was managing the take of its resources long before the concept of a sustainable take level was developed. Disagree: A sustainable take level is required to be in compliance with Chapter 343, HRS. Chapter 343, HRS, requires a review of action impacts on the environment. A sustainable take level is one of many ways to measure those impacts. It is not the only way and sometimes it is not the best way. A sustainable take level is only as good as the data used to calculate it. A better way is by monitoring fishing effort derived from commercial landings data and then to confirm any results with the fishers to verify if the data is an accurate reflection of their experiences in the fishery. The fishers can tell when something is wrong with the resources long before any data shows it. Fishing performance is arguably a better way to measure resource status in some cases. The model used to calculate sustainable take may be flawed. The model also is dependent on good data. If either the model or the data are flawed, then the take level is flawed. Conclusion: Given that the data needed to conduct an analysis on population growth does not currently exist and is not expected to exist within the next five years, no analysis could be done because the necessary information does not exist. The argument that an EIS should be done because there was no such analysis done in the EA is illogical since it could not be done for an EIS either. Requiring an EIS would not magically cause such an analysis to be possible. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that an EIS should include a statistical analysis of population growth is not supported. 3) With regard to proposed levels of sustainable catch, using "5% to 25%" annual take of estimated populations as proposed in several research papers, we note that 5% to 25% is a wide range, and the precautionary principle calls for applying the lowest estimated percentage of sustainable take in the absence of scientific certainty. Disagree: The precautionary principle “implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk (Wikipedia).” Some people might take the next step and state further that the principle also calls on decision makers to act, even when there is a lack of scientific information. The DLNR misrepresents that the principle calls for the lowest estimated percentage to be applied. This would be inconsistent with the tenets of the precautionary principle. Neither does the principle stipulate that the lowest percentage of sustainable take be applied to all species in the fishery. Either the DLNR is uninformed about what the precautionary principle actually says or they’re purposely trying to distort the principle to fit their needs. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the precautionary principle provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. 4) We note also that there are no bag limits for most species, and that the fishery as currently regulated does not limit the number of permits, so that the annual take as a percentage of estimated population could rise significantly. Alternatives of overall annual take limits, a limited entry aquarium fishery program, and restrictions including full moratoria on the take of herbivores, species of special concern, and species evidencing severe population declines have not been proposed or analyzed. Disagree: It is not within the scope of the FEA to place restrictions on the fishery. Such decisions are solely within the purview of the DLNR and it is their responsibility to propose restrictions it deems necessary. It is also not within the scope of the FEA to analyze imaginary regulatory restrictions that are DLNR purview and responsibility. It is the agency responsibility to explain why there are so few bag limits, not the applicant. Disagree: No bag limits for most species. Bag limits are a common fishery management tool used worldwide but the DLNR does not appear to understand this basic fishery management tool and what it is used for. Bag limits are a way to distribute or allocate effort in a fishery. Its purpose is to maximize the number of fishers who can participate in the fishery and prevents the fishery from being captured by only a few fishers. The aquarium fishery is already subject to bag limits in excess of those placed on any other type of fishery. For example, non-commercial SMNE permittees are limited to five organisms per person per day. No other person is limited in the same way. The reason this bag limit was implemented for SMNE permittees was not because of a concern of “overfishing” but that the non-commercial SMNE permittee did not have a need to take more than this daily number to supply their personal aquariums. Those who did have such a need could apply for a commercial SMNE permit and not be subject to this restriction. Oahu commercial SMNE permittees are under existing bag limit restrictions for those species that would normally be taken in larger numbers. No other person is limited in the same way. Again, the purpose of these restrictions was not because of a concern for overfishing but to reduce the potential for waste in the fishery resulting when new entrants in the fishery, who do not have the experience to know the carrying capacity of their vessels, overcrowd their holding facilities onboard. Overcrowding of onboard holding facilities causes unnecessary damage to fish as they suffer split fins, body cuts, and other injuries that would render the animal unsuitable for commercial sale. Disagree: Limit the number of aquarium permits. Limited entry (LE) is a common fishery management tool used worldwide but the DLNR does not appear to understand this basic fishery management tool and what it is used for. LE is an economic tool and not a biological one. The main purpose for LE systems is to prevent overcapitalization in the fishery. Overcapitalization occurs when there are too many fishers in a fishery to economically support all fishers. Those fishers who are marginally operating in the fishery will fish harder, which produces more fish but reduces fish prices, thereby exacerbating their financial problems. They end up fishing harder but making less money. Lower fish prices hurt everyone in the fishery as all fishers try to recover this revenue drop. The resources suffer in this scenario and LE artificially limits the number of fishers that potentially harm the fishery. The number of commercial aquarium collectors on Oahu has decreased since 2008 so there is no evidence that there are too many fishers. With the fishery currently not experiencing overcapitalization, there would be no justification for a LE system for this fishery. The DLNR seems to think that aquarium take will rise significantly, but provides no evidence of such a contention. The reality is the opposite. Hawaii is losing market share to overseas suppliers and expansion in the Hawaii market does not appear imminent in the foreseeable future. It is unclear why DLNR is asking the applicant to consider additional restrictions on a fishery that is operating sustainably at its current level. There are a multitude of measures that could be analyzed but what would be the point? The DLNR has stated in its testimonies on several bills in 2017 (HB1457, SB 1240, and SB 220) that it believes that the fishery is operating sustainably. It is also unclear why the DLNR is requiring an EIS when the DEA and its own legislative testimony contend that the fishery is fine. The aquarium fishery has been essentially closed since the beginning of 2018 so there is likely no new information that would suggest that the fishery has suddenly changed from sustainable to unstainable, given the current situation. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of alternative analysis provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. 5) The FEA asserts that certain types of fish such as Flame Wrasse, Psychedelic Wrasse, and Fisher's Angelfish inhabit waters deeper than the CREP monitoring studied, resulting in populations being underestimated and thus the annual take as a percentage of estimated population being overestimated. In addition, we note the proposed alternatives for reduction in bag limits for Flame Wrasse, but do not see a scientific basis for concluding that the proposed reduction would be sufficient to sustain the population. Reason #5 seems to suggest that the DLNR is confused. Since the DLNR has not refuted the FEA findings that 1) the current Flame Wrasse population is being underestimated (there is a high likelihood that there are more individuals in the wild than the survey data indicate) and 2) that the current levels of take are sustainable (even with the population being underestimated), then there would be no scientific or biological evidence that suggests that further reductions are needed. Put simply, the current analysis should be biased towards showing a significant impact but it doesn’t. It shows that despite this bias, there still is no significant impact. What would be the point in doing an analysis of an additional reduction (bag limits) if there is no significant impact already? The Flame Wrasse bag limits are being suggested as a social remedy to the misguided perception that Flame Wrasses are being unsustainably fished. The DLNR seems to be asking the FEA to show that a proposed new bag limit for Flame Wrasses would be enough to sustain a population that is already being sustainably fished, without the new bag limit. If the Flame Wrasse is being sustainably fished without a bag limit, wouldn’t it be more sustainable with an additional bag limit? Why would you need to scientifically prove this? Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of an analysis for a proposed Flame Wrasse bag limit somehow provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. 6) We note the proposed alternative for an expansion of the Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District, but do not see a scientific review of the beneficial impact of Fishery Replenishment Areas on restoring populations, such as has been demonstrated in West Hawai'i, nor an analysis of the optimal placement of Fishery Replenishment Areas on O'ahu to protect and restore populations of aquarium fish. Reason #6 seems to imply that the DLNR is not convinced that there are benefits from marine managed areas (MMAs) and wants to see a review of these benefits in the EIS to justify this contention. If this is the case, then why is the DLNR promoting MMAs as a possible mechanism to manage fisheries. The DLNR should already have its own scientific review of the Waikiki MLCD since this is their facility. It is expected that the DLNR should already be fully aware of the pros and cons of MMAs and would not need to see such a review in the EIS. Ultimately, the DLNR should decide whether more MMAs are needed to increase fish populations, how many and how large these MMAs need to be, and most importantly, what would be the management goals for establishing or expanding such areas. Where would one place Oahu if there were no need to restore those populations? It would seem to me that the proposed MMA measures are an option for the DLNR to consider rather than the applicants responsibility to analyze all such options in an EIS. DLNR appears to be confused about the purposes of MMAs. MMAs are an ecosystem management tool, not a fishery management tool. Put simply, MMAs manage the area within their boundaries but do not manage the fishery beyond the boundaries. A fishery management tool manages the take of the fishery wherever it occurs. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of a scientific review of the benefits of the Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. 7) Cultural impacts of aquarium fishing need significantly more analysis than provided in the FEA. The OEQC guidelines should be followed for assessing cultural impacts, including consulting with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action's potential impacts. Traditional Hawaiian practices and subsistence uses, local place-based and life-cycle knowledge, and traditional Hawaiian cultural significance of each type of aquarium fish taken should be reviewed. The indirect impact of modem technologies for highly efficient catch methods on traditional harvest capabilities should be included in the analysis. It is my understanding that the Chapter 343, HRS, requirements regarding cultural impacts fall into the category of what impacts the aquarium fishery might have on traditional and cultural uses of the resources. As aquarium collecting was never part of a Hawaiian traditional or cultural use, it is unclear how such collecting might impact such uses. If the contention is that collecting removes those organisms that are also used by native Hawaiians, then provided the agency action still allows native Hawaiians to continue to practice their traditional and culture use, there would be no significant impact to those practices. Regarding the “modern technologies” contention, the equipment used to collect aquarium fish has not significantly changed since the mid-1950s when SCUBA was developed. Monofilament nets were developed many years before the 1950s and were in use before World War II. If over 70 years old technologies are what are being referred to here, these technologies have existed longer than the fishery itself. Even if DLNR believes that the cultural impacts analysis (CIA) were not adequately addressed in the FEA, why did DLNR accept the FEA and not instruct the applicant to expand on this small portion of the DEA prior to publishing the FEA? Revising the DEA to include the CIA would have precluded the need for an EIS. The cultural impacts analysis is required in both the EA and EIS so the same analysis would have been needed in both documents. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of an adequate CIA provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported in view of the availability of other options. 8) Enforcement and compliance needs and challenges are key factors in the effectiveness of fisheries management, and should be analyzed as part of the environmental analysis. Chapter 343, HRS, requires a written document that describes the potential environmental impacts and concerns of the aquarium fishery. It is my understanding that enforcement and compliance are state government functions and are not required as part of these environmental requirements. They should not be included in this EA nor an EIS. I have not seen any EA or EIS that includes such an analysis. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that an enforcement and compliance analysis should be included in the EA or EIS is not required under State law. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Alton Miyasaka September 3, 2018 Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment I find the DLNR comments full of assumptions and inaccuracies. I also find their reasoning for now requiring an EIS, illogical and not factually based. Given these observations, I am concerned that DLNR no longer has the technical expertise to adequately and objectively evaluate this document. It appears the DLNR doesn’t understand its own regulations. The aquarium permit is somewhat of a misnomer. The aquarium permit issued under Section 188-31, HRS, is a small mesh net exemption and not a general aquarium collecting permit. The legal minimum net mesh size is two inches stretched. An exemption to this minimum net mesh size is authorized by permit. This seeming small difference is important because the agency action is issuance of the permit that provides a small mesh net exemption (SMNE). The permit is not to collect aquarium fish, regardless of gear used. For purposes of clarity, I will use the term SMNE permit instead of aquarium permit in this document. The attempts to expand the analysis into non-permit activities are outside of the scope of the action. It sounds like DLNR response was written by someone obviously biased against aquarium collecting and could have been crafted by the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit against the DLNR. The thinking and the words chosen seem strangely familiar of the arguments made during the legal action. I also disagree with the Department’s reasons for requiring an EIS and continue to support the FEA determination of no significant impact. My arguments for my disagreement will be further explained later in this document. The DLNR appears to have completely changed its position that the aquarium fishery is sustainable to a position that it is now believes the fishery is unsustainable, despite the fact that collecting under permit has been stopped since the beginning of 2018, resulting in the impacts of collecting being drastically reduced. The DLNR does not explain why they have reversed their position. Regarding the areas where the FEA were lacking, I disagree with most of the points made. Even if, for discussion only, the FEA were lacking these points, this would not trigger the need for an EIS. A revised DEA, including all these points, could have adequately addressed these concerns. It was my understanding that DLNR intended to work with the applicant to address any deficiencies prior to acceptance of the FEA. This, apparently, did not happen. DLNRs thinking seems to be that the loss of an individual fish constitutes a loss under Chapter 343, HRS, then all actions taken by anyone anywhere would similarly require an EA. Does DLNR also consider the take of living microscopic organisms should be included in its broad application of the view of loss of natural resources? Does DLNR also believe that a State camping permittee breathing the air at a designated camp site requires an EA/EIS? How does it conclude that a 5% to 25% take of a species to be a “destruction of populations of fish?” Chapter 343, HRS, focus is on the significant effect of use of the resources and not whether such use constitutes a loss. In many cases, the use of a resource results in its inevitable loss. To be relevant, the loss of a fish should to be viewed within the context of whether that use causes a significant effect. It’s obvious that the loss of one fish doesn’t mean the extinction of the species and doesn’t constitute a significant effect. As such, going down the “rabbit hole” of Response Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. The proposed action is issuance of commercial aquarium permits in the WHRFMA; however, additional details have been added to the No Action Alternative to quantify the collection that would occur without issuance of these permits (in East Hawai’i). Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Section 2.5 of the DEIS defines the scope of analysis, including that the impact to the fish species is analyzed at the population level. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment trying to identify and characterize each loss is irrelevant to the question of significant effect. It should therefore, also be considered irrelevant for the purposes of Chapter 343, HRS. Conclusion: By making Comment #1, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. It is unclear how the collecting of aquarium fish is related to invasive algae control and the tourism industry. The causes of alien algae introductions are unrelated to aquarium collecting. The current regulatory measures include rules on ballast water and hull fouling. Once alien species are found in Hawaii, control methods include, among others, physical removal and urchin plantings. The premise that aquarium fish collecting is a controlling factor for alien algae growth and spread is wildly speculative. No scientific evidence supports this contention. As noted in my comments on Comment #1, the permit impacts to tourism are outside of the environmental impacts requirement of Chapter 343, HRS, and outside of the scope of the agency action. Tourism is man-made, not part of the natural environment, and is irrelevant to this analysis. It would be an analysis of permit impacts on tourism’s impacts on the environment. It is unclear what the term “overall integrity of diverse aquatic ecosystems” means. It is a popular term and non-scientific. Biologically, ecosystems are dynamic and ever changing. Because natural conditions are always changing, the ecosystem constantly adjusts to these changes. If one component of the system no longer functions, the system compensates for this and creates a different function. This is the nature of living systems. It is unclear what “overall integrity” of an ever-changing system means. If integrity of the ecosystem functions is what is intended, then any change to the system that doesn’t cease the system’s ability to function, does not cease its integrity. Ecosystems are also viewed relative to scale. The ecosystem within a drop of water is different from the ecosystem within the region of the Hawaiian Islands is different from the ecosystem of the Pacific basin. It is unclear which ecosystem Comment #2 is referring to. Lastly, I am assuming “aquatic” should be limited to “marine” instead. Conclusion: By making Comment #2, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. Response Comment noted. Comment noted. The impact of commercial aquarium collection on tourism and herbivores/algae control is discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. The impacts of commercial aquarium collection on the tourism industry is discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. The scope of analysis for the DEIS is the nearshore waters of the island of Hawai’i. Comment noted. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment Response Governor Ige’s 30 by 30 Sustainability Plan calls for the effective management of at least 30% of the State’s shorelines by the year 2030. The fishery does not conflict with, and would actively support, the plan. The DLNR has obviously taken the position that the fishery is unsustainable and in conflict with the plan. The requirement to have an SMNE permit and the issuance of those permits is a form of effective management of the shoreline and consistent with the plan. It is unclear how having the permit isn’t in support of plan. Comment noted. Conclusion: By making Comment #3, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. Comment noted. Conclusion: By making Comment #4, DLNR seems to have totally ignored the whole DEA/FEA. It should more clearly identify why it believes the FEA did not adequately address the question of impacts. The statement does not provide enough guidance on how the applicant should proceed. For further comments, see Section 3, Reason #7. Comment noted. Conclusion: Comment #5 appears to include non-permit actions. Such an analysis would be outside of the scope of the EA and should not be included. See my further discussions under Comment #6 immediately following this discussion. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared, and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment #6 is an interesting take on the no action alternative. It is unclear whether the no action alternative is required as part of the Chapter 343, HRS, analysis. If it is not required, then Comment #6 would be discretionary. For the sake of discussion only, if the no action alternative is included, what is the no action alternative being taken? Section 188-31, HRS, authorizes the Department to issue aquarium permits. It has done so since the 1970s. The government action then is clearly the issuance of aquarium permits. As the Legislature authorized the Department to require and issue SMNE permits, the Department doesn’t have the legal option to issue or not issue SMNE permits, it must issue the permits. The Supreme Court did not invalidate the authority of the State to require SMNE permits, but that the process of permit issuance was subject to Chapter 343, HRS. The issuance of permits is on hold, until the Chapter 343, HRS, review is completed. In my view, there is no actual no action alternative. The agency action, then, is to issue SMNE permits or not. Since not issuing permits is not a legal option, the DLNR must issue small mesh net exemption permits. Conclusion: Since the agency action is the issuance of permits, activities not requiring a small mesh net exemption permit, should not be considered within the scope of the EA. Comment noted. A No Action Alternative is included in the DEIS and includes commercial aquarium collection without the use of fine mesh nets. Since a fine mesh net permit is required to collect aquarium fish in the WHRFMA, no commercial aquarium collection would occur within the WHRFMA under the No Action Alternative, as outlined in the DEIS. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment Disagree: The FEA provided a detailed analysis of commercial aquarium landings over a broad number of years to document patterns of collections that would be used to further determine “impacts” at the species level for those species most often collected. This long term review of the data is in response to the need for the analysis of potential long term impacts and is not an annual determination as reason #1 seems to imply. The draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) suggested annual reviews, which I noted in my previous comments as inappropriate for EAs, as a follow up measure for future EAs. This suggestion did not limit the analysis to only a one year time period and should not be assumed to be an annual analysis. As such, the document does not support the contention that the EA “segments the analysis” into solely an annual analysis. The document uses multiple years of historical data to provide a long-term analysis to come to a current determination. The document also provides a methodology for future reviews but should not be viewed as a predictor of events that have not yet occurred. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of a long term analysis provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. Agree: There is no analysis of population growth because such an analysis would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources. My reasons why this is unnecessary are many. The data needed to conduct a population analysis, as implied by reason #2, does not currently exist. I am assuming that reason #2 should actually read each fish species and not each fish as currently worded. To attempt to determine this information at the individual fish level would increase the cost over a million fold, assuming that each species has more than a million individuals. One estimate of the number of individual fish in the aquarium fishery are likely over 10 million. Current scientific thinking suggests that roughly 99% of individuals born will not survive to adulthood. Even if such a study were initiated, most individuals would not survive long enough to provide information useful to this analysis. Current scientific approaches to determine sustainable take levels instead look at fishery wide data rather than species or individual level data. The most common and practical approach combines all species within the fishery into one combination species and to analyze this one species to look at this question. This approach would also be useful in determining a cumulative impact analysis. This enables at least a preliminary indicator of the sustainability of a fishery. Regardless of the method chosen, the eventual goal is to determine a sustainable take level. Disagree: A sustainable take level is required to manage this fishery. I would argue that a calculated or set take level is not necessary to manage a fishery. The sustainable take level is a man-made goal and a theoretical estimate of a biological threshold. Under the federal model, the overfishing limit is an estimate because the status of the resources is constantly changing. There is also an element of risk that the overfishing limit is inaccurate given scientific uncertainty. The level of risk one is willing to take is subjective. The base level of risk is 50%. At this risk level, there is a 50% chance that the overfishing limit will be reached. However, the less data there is to calculate the overfishing limit, the more Response Comment noted. The analysis period for the DEIS has been revised to 5 years. Comment noted. The DEIS uses the best available science, including recent data from the DAR (2019) on population trends of the 40 White List Species. Comment noted. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Additionally, population trend data from the most recent WHAP surveys have been added to the DEIS. DAR (2019) reported that total abundance of nearshore fishes has had a significant Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment uncertain that estimate. The DLNR has historically managed the State’s marine resources without a known sustainable take level. It appears that not having a take level does not prevent DLNR from managing those resources. The State was managing the take of its resources long before the concept of a sustainable take level was developed. Disagree: A sustainable take level is required to be in compliance with Chapter 343, HRS. Chapter 343, HRS, requires a review of action impacts on the environment. A sustainable take level is one of many ways to measure those impacts. It is not the only way and sometimes it is not the best way. A sustainable take level is only as good as the data used to calculate it. A better way is by monitoring fishing effort derived from commercial landings data and then to confirm any results with the fishers to verify if the data is an accurate reflection of their experiences in the fishery. The fishers can tell when something is wrong with the resources long before any data shows it. Fishing performance is arguably a better way to measure resource status in some cases. The model used to calculate sustainable take may be flawed. The model also is dependent on good data. If either the model or the data are flawed, then the take level is flawed. Conclusion: Given that the data needed to conduct an analysis on population growth does not currently exist and is not expected to exist within the next five years, no analysis could be done because the necessary information does not exist. The argument that an EIS should be done because there was no such analysis done in the EA is illogical since it could not be done for an EIS either. Requiring an EIS would not magically cause such an analysis to be possible. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that an EIS should include a statistical analysis of population growth is not supported. Disagree: The precautionary principle “implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk (Wikipedia).” Some people might take the next step and state further that the principle also calls on decision makers to act, even when there is a lack of scientific information. The DLNR misrepresents that the principle calls for the lowest estimated percentage to be applied. This would be inconsistent with the tenets of the precautionary principle. Neither does the principle stipulate that the lowest percentage of sustainable take be applied to all species in the fishery. Either the DLNR is uninformed about what the precautionary principle actually says or they’re purposely trying to distort the principle to fit their needs. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the precautionary principle provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. Response positive trend in all management areas (open areas, FRAs and MPAs) since 2003. As discussed in the DEIS, population trends for the two top collected species (Yellow Tang and Kole) show significantly increasing population trends. For the next eight most commonly collected species, six species have had long-term population increases. For the two species with long term declines, these declines were in both FRAs (where commercial aquarium collection is not allowed) and in Open Areas, with larger declines seen in FRAs than in Open Area, suggesting that some factor other than commercial aquarium collection is driving the decline. For one of these species, the Achilles Tang, a reduced bag limit is proposed in the Preferred Alternative to reduce impacts to this species. For the additional 10 White List Species with significant declines between 1999 and 2017, the DAR (2019) found that declines were occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating the aquarium collection is not driving the decline. While commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Additionally, measures included in the Preferred Alternative (e.g., limited permit issuance, reduced Achilles Tang bag limit) may mitigate potential impacts by limiting the number of aquarium permits issued as well as the number of Achilles Tang that can be collected by commercial aquarium collectors each day. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared using the best available science, including updated data from the DAR (2019). Comment noted. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment Disagree: It is not within the scope of the FEA to place restrictions on the fishery. Such decisions are solely within the purview of the DLNR and it is their responsibility to propose restrictions it deems necessary. It is also not within the scope of the FEA to analyze imaginary regulatory restrictions that are DLNR purview and responsibility. It is the agency responsibility to explain why there are so few bag limits, not the applicant. Disagree: No bag limits for most species. Bag limits are a common fishery management tool used worldwide but the DLNR does not appear to understand this basic fishery management tool and what it is used for. Bag limits are a way to distribute or allocate effort in a fishery. Its purpose is to maximize the number of fishers who can participate in the fishery and prevents the fishery from being captured by only a few fishers. The aquarium fishery is already subject to bag limits in excess of those placed on any other type of fishery. For example, non-commercial SMNE permittees are limited to five organisms per person per day. No other person is limited in the same way. The reason this bag limit was implemented for SMNE permittees was not because of a concern of “overfishing” but that the non-commercial SMNE permittee did not have a need to take more than this daily number to supply their personal aquariums. Those who did have such a need could apply for a commercial SMNE permit and not be subject to this restriction. Oahu commercial SMNE permittees are under existing bag limit restrictions for those species that would normally be taken in larger numbers. No other person is limited in the same way. Again, the purpose of these restrictions was not because of a concern for overfishing but to reduce the potential for waste in the fishery resulting when new entrants in the fishery, who do not have the experience to know the carrying capacity of their vessels, overcrowd their holding facilities onboard. Overcrowding of onboard holding facilities causes unnecessary damage to fish as they suffer split fins, body cuts, and other injuries that would render the animal unsuitable for commercial sale. Disagree: Limit the number of aquarium permits. Limited entry (LE) is a common fishery management tool used worldwide but the DLNR does not appear to understand this basic fishery management tool and what it is used for. LE is an economic tool and not a biological one. The main purpose for LE systems is to prevent overcapitalization in the fishery. Overcapitalization occurs when there are too many fishers in a fishery to economically support all fishers. Those fishers who are marginally operating in the fishery will fish harder, which produces more fish but reduces fish prices, thereby exacerbating their financial problems. They end up fishing harder but making less money. Lower fish prices hurt everyone in the fishery as all fishers try to recover this revenue drop. The resources suffer in this scenario and LE artificially limits the number of fishers that potentially harm the fishery. The number of commercial aquarium collectors on Oahu has decreased since 2008 so there is no evidence that there are too many fishers. With the fishery currently not experiencing overcapitalization, there would be no justification for a LE system for this fishery. The DLNR seems to think that aquarium take will rise significantly, but provides no evidence of such a contention. The reality Response Comment noted. Regulations and enforcement are within the purview of the State of Hawai’i. Nevertheless, the DEIS Preferred Action does include a new bag limit for the Achilles Tang and limits the issuance of permits to 14. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment is the opposite. Hawaii is losing market share to overseas suppliers and expansion in the Hawaii market does not appear imminent in the foreseeable future. Response It is unclear why DLNR is asking the applicant to consider additional restrictions on a fishery that is operating sustainably at its current level. There are a multitude of measures that could be analyzed but what would be the point? The DLNR has stated in its testimonies on several bills in 2017 (HB1457, SB 1240, and SB 220) that it believes that the fishery is operating sustainably. It is also unclear why the DLNR is requiring an EIS when the DEA and its own legislative testimony contend that the fishery is fine. The aquarium fishery has been essentially closed since the beginning of 2018 so there is likely no new information that would suggest that the fishery has suddenly changed from sustainable to unstainable, given the current situation. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of alternative analysis provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. Reason #5 seems to suggest that the DLNR is confused. Since the DLNR has not refuted the FEA findings that 1) the current Flame Wrasse population is being underestimated (there is a high likelihood that there are more individuals in the wild than the survey data indicate) and 2) that the current levels of take are sustainable (even with the population being underestimated), then there would be no scientific or biological evidence that suggests that further reductions are needed. Put simply, the current analysis should be biased towards showing a significant impact but it doesn’t. It shows that despite this bias, there still is no significant impact. What would be the point in doing an analysis of an additional reduction (bag limits) if there is no significant impact already? The Flame Wrasse bag limits are being suggested as a social remedy to the misguided perception that Flame Wrasses are being unsustainably fished. The DLNR seems to be asking the FEA to show that a proposed new bag limit for Flame Wrasses would be enough to sustain a population that is already being sustainably fished, without the new bag limit. If the Flame Wrasse is being sustainably fished without a bag limit, wouldn’t it be more sustainable with an additional bag limit? Why would you need to scientifically prove this? Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of an analysis for a proposed Flame Wrasse bag limit somehow provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. Reason #6 seems to imply that the DLNR is not convinced that there are benefits from marine managed areas (MMAs) and wants to see a review of these benefits in the EIS to justify this contention. If this is the case, then why is the DLNR promoting MMAs as a possible mechanism to manage fisheries. The DLNR should already have its own scientific review of the Waikiki MLCD since this is their facility. It is expected that the DLNR should already be fully aware of the pros and cons of MMAs and would not need to see such a review in the EIS. Ultimately, the DLNR should decide whether more MMAs are needed to increase fish populations, how many and how large these MMAs need to be, and most importantly, what would be the management goals for establishing or expanding such areas. Where would one place Oahu if Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai’i, which never proposed a bag limit for the Flame Wrasse. The DEIS includes population estimates for 38 of the 40 White List Species. As noted in the DEIS, Flame Wrasse do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 175 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i between 2000 and 2017. Longfin Anthias also do not have a CREP population estimate, but collection has been less than 150 individuals per year for the island of Hawai’i. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai’i and does not include Oahu where the additional protected area was proposed. Responses to comments received from Alton Miyasaka Comment dated September 3, 2018 Comment there were no need to restore those populations? It would seem to me that the proposed MMA measures are an option for the DLNR to consider rather than the applicants responsibility to analyze all such options in an EIS. Response DLNR appears to be confused about the purposes of MMAs. MMAs are an ecosystem management tool, not a fishery management tool. Put simply, MMAs manage the area within their boundaries but do not manage the fishery beyond the boundaries. A fishery management tool manages the take of the fishery wherever it occurs. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of a scientific review of the benefits of the Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported. It is my understanding that the Chapter 343, HRS, requirements regarding cultural impacts fall into the category of what impacts the aquarium fishery might have on traditional and cultural uses of the resources. As aquarium collecting was never part of a Hawaiian traditional or cultural use, it is unclear how such collecting might impact such uses. If the contention is that collecting removes those organisms that are also used by native Hawaiians, then provided the agency action still allows native Hawaiians to continue to practice their traditional and culture use, there would be no significant impact to those practices. Regarding the “modern technologies” contention, the equipment used to collect aquarium fish has not significantly changed since the mid-1950s when SCUBA was developed. Monofilament nets were developed many years before the 1950s and were in use before World War II. If over 70 years old technologies are what are being referred to here, these technologies have existed longer than the fishery itself. Even if DLNR believes that the cultural impacts analysis (CIA) were not adequately addressed in the FEA, why did DLNR accept the FEA and not instruct the applicant to expand on this small portion of the DEA prior to publishing the FEA? Revising the DEA to include the CIA would have precluded the need for an EIS. The cultural impacts analysis is required in both the EA and EIS so the same analysis would have been needed in both documents. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that the lack of an adequate CIA provides a valid reason for requiring an EIS is not supported in view of the availability of other options. Chapter 343, HRS, requires a written document that describes the potential environmental impacts and concerns of the aquarium fishery. It is my understanding that enforcement and compliance are state government functions and are not required as part of these environmental requirements. They should not be included in this EA nor an EIS. I have not seen any EA or EIS that includes such an analysis. Conclusion: The DLNR’s contention that an enforcement and compliance analysis should be included in the EA or EIS is not required under State law. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) has been developed and is included as Appendix A of the DEIS. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) has been developed and is included as Appendix A of the DEIS. Comment noted. PHONE (808) 594-1888 .% ‘5 FAX (808) 594-1865 STATE OF HAWAI’I OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS 560 N. NIMITZ HWY., SUITE 200 HONOLULU. HAWAII 96817 HRD 18-8560B August 30, 2018 Suzanne Case, Chair Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Re: Comments on Final Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai’i Aloha e Chair Case: The Administration of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is writing to comment on the final Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai’i (FEA), which was prepared by the applicant, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PTJAC). OHA previously commented on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) in a letter dated April 30, 2018. We appreciate that the DLNR has determined that the project may have a significant environmental impact, thus requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). OHA notes that the applicant has submitted an FEA with an anticipated finding of no significant impact, contrary to DLNR’s finding that the action may have a significant impact. OHA is concerned that several issued raised in our April 30, 2018 letter have not been addressed in the FEA but we are hopeful that through appropriate consultation, the DEIS will address these issues. OHA is the constitutionally established body responsible for protecting and promoting the rights of Native Hawaiians. Hawai’i law mandates OHA to “[s}erve as the principal public agency in the State of Hawai’i responsible for the performance. development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; . . . and [tb assess the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians.” Hawai’i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 10-3. Chair Suzanne Case, DLNR August 30, 2018 Page 2 Proposed Action and Scope of Analysis As stated in our April 30, 2018 letter, the proposed action remains unclear. According to the FEA’s title and throughout the FEA, the FEA identifies the proposed action as the issuance of permits.’ For example, the FEA states that the “DLNR’s issuance of Aquarium Permits is not anticipated to result in significant beneficial or adverse impacts.”2 The project summary also states that the proposed action is the issuance of permits “ensuring lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various aquarium fish species from nearshore habitats pursuant to Aquarium Fishing Permits issued under HRS § 188-31 It is OHA’s understanding that the action that requires compliance with the Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) is aquarium collection conducted under permits issued pursuant to HRS § 188-31. OHA recommends that the DEIS clarify the proposed action and that the applicant ensures that environmental impacts associated with the collection of commercial aquarium fish are analyzed. .“ As raised in OHA’s April 30, 2018 letter, the DLNR has determined that the one-year scope of analysis “improperly segments the analysis, which must include the long-term and cumulative impacts over time of aquarium collection.”5 OHA anticipates that the DEIS will include a broader scope of analysis and include a consideration of all consequences on the environment, including both direct and indirect effects, in accordance with Hawai’i Administrative Rules § 13-200-17(i). Alternatives Analysis The FEA considers three alternative actions, the proposed action (preferred alternative), issuance of commercial permits under existing regulations (identified as “status quo” in the PEA), and no action. The preferred alternative is the issuance of permits under existing regulations with a reduced bag limit within the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management for commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang from ten to five per day and bag limit of five per day for all other fisheries.6 OHA appreciates that the applicant has identified a new alternative in the FEA but recommends that the DEIS consider additional alternatives as suggested in our April 30, 3018 letter, and gives particular attention to “alternatives that might enhance environmental quality or avoid, reduce, or minimize some or all of the adverse environmental effects, costs, and risks.”7 Cultural Impacts OHA appreciates the DLNR has determined that the cultural impacts of the proposed action need significantly more analysis than provided in the FEA.8 The FEA maintains, however, that the proposed action “does not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource.”9 OHA reiterates its concerns about the FEA’s almost complete lack fj Environmental Assessment, Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai’i (June 201$) (FEA) at 1, 14, 15, 16. 2 FEA at 15. FEA at Project Summary. ‘See Umberrer v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Resources, SCWC-13-0002125 35 (September 6. 2017). Letter dated July 26, 2018, from Suzanne D. Case. Chair. DLNR. to Scott Glenn. OEQC. regarding Final Environmental Assessment, Notice of Determination (DLNR July 26. 2018 Letter). 6 FEA at 16. HAR 1 1-200-17(f). 8 DLNR July 26, 201$ Letter. 9fEAat 104. Chair Suzanne Case, DLNR August 30, 2018 Page 3 of analysis regarding the significant potential cultural impacts of the action. In our April 30, 2018 letter, we raised concerns that the cultural resource section of the DEA provided only limited, general information from two sources without addressing the potential impacts the proposed action may have on cultural resources and practices, including practices specific to both species and place. OHA appreciates that the applicant included one additional source, Volume 1: Ka Hana Lawai’a a me Na Ko’a o Na Kai ‘Ewalu: A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands (Maly and Maly 2003),b0 in the FEA and that the cultural resources section acknowledges that “the ocean, its ecosystem, and the practice of fishing were and continue to be important in Native Hawaiian culture and tradition.” 01-IA is concerned, however, that the applicant has determined that the preferred alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on cultural resources12 without conducting a cultural impact assessment in accordance with the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (guidelines). 13 Although the FEA’s discussion of cultural resources includes valuable information from Maly and Maly, the FEA fails to include other relevant information from this source that could have been useful in identifying cultural impacts. For example, the FEA states, In comments received from (OHA), OHA expressed a concern that traditional practices included gathering and consuming recently recruited juveniles. However, the source cited by OHA (Maly and Maly 2003) states that traditional practices included collecting smaller species of fish, but did not specifically state that subsistence fishers target juvenile fish of certain species.14 Contrary to this statement, Maly and Maly, does in fact, provide various examples of subsistence uses of juvenile fish species. For example, the source states, The following small-fry are seen along shore they are swift of motion: the young (ptt or flowers) of the mullet or anae (when of medium size it is called ama-ama), of the awa, aholehote, hinana, nehu, iao, R.jL, opuu-puu, ohua-palemo, paoa, otuhe-tuhe, ohune, moi-lii, and the akeke. All of these fish are used as food. Doubtless I have omitted the mention of some.15 — OHA again recommends that the applicant apply the guidelines for assessing cultural impacts and consult with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action’s potential impacts and include this information in the DEIS. In addition to conducting consultation, the guidelines recommend conducting ethnographic and other culturally related documentary research and lists m KEPA MALY & ONA0NA MALY, VOLUME 1: KA HANA LAWAUA A ME NA Ko’A 0 FISHING PRACTICES AND MARINE FISHERIES OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS (2003). II NA KAI ‘EWALU: A HISTORY OF FEA at 23. FEA at 73. 1 Office of Environmental Quality Control, Guide to the Implementation and Practice of the Hmiaii Environmental Policy Act (Guidelines) (2012). http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov!OEQC_Guidance/20 12-GUIDE-to-the-Implementationand-Practice-of-the-HEPA.pdf. ‘4FEAat72. ‘ MALY & MALY at 10. 12 Chair Suzanne Case, DLNR August 30, 2018 Page 4 various examples of research materials. OHA recommends that the applicant refer to these guidelines when conducting its cultural impacts assessment for the DEIS. OHA looks forward to participating in consultation for the development of the DEIS. Should you have any questions, please contact Teresa Kaneakua, OHA Lead Compliance Specialist, at (808) 594-0231 or teresak@oha.org, or Wayne Tanaka, Senior Public Policy Advocate at (808) 594-1945 or waynet@oha.org. ‘0 wau iho nO me ka ‘oia ‘i’o, Kamana’opono M. Crabbe, Ph.D. Ka Pouhana, Chief Executive Officer KC:tk C: David Sakoda, DLNR (via email: david.sakoda@hawaii.gov) Jim Lynch, Pet industry Joint Advisory Council (via email: jim.tynch@klgates.com) Terry VanDeWalle, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (via email: terry.vandewalle@stantec.com) Responses to comments received from State of Hawai’i Office of Hawaiian Affairs Comment dated August 30, 2018 Comment As stated in our April 30, 2018 letter, the proposed action remains unclear. According to the FEA’s title and throughout the FEA, the FEA identifies the proposed action as the issuance of permits.’ For example, the FEA states that the “DLNR’s issuance of Aquarium Permits is not anticipated to result in significant beneficial or adverse impacts.” The project summary also states that the proposed action is the issuance of permits “ensuring lawful, responsible, and sustainable commercial collection of various aquarium fish species from nearshore habitats pursuant to Aquarium Fishing Permits issued under HRS § 188-31 .“ It is OHA’s understanding that the action that requires compliance with the Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) is aquarium collection conducted under permits issued pursuant to HRS § 188-31. OHA recommends that the DEIS clarify the proposed action and that the applicant ensures that environmental impacts associated with the collection of commercial aquarium fish are analyzed. As raised in OHA’s April 30, 2018 letter, the DLNR has determined that the one-year scope of analysis “improperly segments the analysis, which must include the long-term and cumulative impacts over time of aquarium collection.” OHA anticipates that the DEIS will include a broader scope of analysis and include a consideration of all consequences on the environment, including both direct and indirect effects, in accordance with Hawai’i Administrative Rules § 13200-17(i). The FEA considers three alternative actions, the proposed action (preferred alternative), issuance of commercial permits under existing regulations (identified as “status quo” in the PEA), and no action. The preferred alternative is the issuance of permits under existing regulations with a reduced bag limit within the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management for commercial aquarium collection of Achilles Tang from ten to five per day and bag limit of five per day for all other fisheries. OHA appreciates that the applicant has identified a new alternative in the FEA but recommends that the DEIS consider additional alternatives as suggested in our April 30, 3018 letter, and gives particular attention to “alternatives that might enhance environmental quality or avoid, reduce, or minimize some or all of the adverse environmental effects, costs, and risks.” OHA appreciates the DLNR has determined that the cultural impacts of the proposed action need significantly more analysis than provided in the FEA. The FEA maintains, however, that the proposed action “does not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource.” OHA reiterates its concerns about the FEA’s almost complete lack of analysis regarding the significant potential cultural impacts of the action. In our April 30, 2018 letter, we raised concerns that the cultural resource section of the DEA provided only limited, general information from two sources without addressing the potential impacts the proposed action may have on cultural resources and practices, including practices specific to both species and place. OHA appreciates that the applicant included one additional source, Volume 1: Ka Hana Lawai’a a me Na Ko’a o Na Kai ‘Ewalu: A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands (Maly and Maly 2003), in the FEA and that the cultural resources section acknowledges that “the ocean, its ecosystem, and the practice of fishing were and continue to be important in Native Hawaiian culture and tradition.” OHA is Response Comment noted. As stated in the DEIS, the proposed action is issuance of 14 Aquarium Permits for the WHRFMA. The environmental consequences include the impacts of commercial aquarium collection that would occur if these 14 permits were issued. Comment noted. The DEIS includes a 5-year analysis period. Comment noted. Additional alternatives have been evaluated in the DEIS. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment has been developed and is included in Appendix A of the DEIS. Responses to comments received from State of Hawai’i Office of Hawaiian Affairs Comment dated August 30, 2018 Comment concerned, however, that the applicant has determined that the preferred alternative would have a less than significant direct impact on cultural resources without conducting a cultural impact assessment in accordance with the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (guidelines). Although the FEA’s discussion of cultural resources includes valuable information from Maly and Maly, the FEA fails to include other relevant information from this source that could have been useful in identifying cultural impacts. For example, the FEA states, “In comments received from (OHA), OHA expressed a concern that traditional practices included gathering and consuming recently recruited juveniles. However, the source cited by OHA (Maly and Maly 2003) states that traditional practices included collecting smaller species of fish, but did not specifically state that subsistence fishers target juvenile fish of certain species.” Contrary to this statement, Maly and Maly, does in fact, provide various examples of subsistence uses of juvenile fish species. For example, the source states, “The following small-fry are seen along shore — they are swift of motion: the young (pua or flowers) of the mullet or anae (when of medium size it is called ama-ama), of the awa, aholehole, hinana, nehu, iao, piha, opuu-puu, ohua-palemo, paoa, oluhe-luhe, ohune, moi-lii, and the akeke. All of these fish are used as food. Doubtless I have omitted the mention of some.” OHA again recommends that the applicant apply the guidelines for assessing cultural impacts and consult with traditional cultural practitioners and other knowledgeable informants and sources about cultural resources, cultural practices, and the proposed action’s potential impacts and include this information in the DEIS. In addition to conducting consultation, the guidelines recommend conducting ethnographic and other culturally related documentary research and lists various examples of research materials. OHA recommends that the applicant refer to these guidelines when conducting its cultural impacts assessment for the DEIS. Response Comment noted. Additional cultural information on the 40 White List Species has been added to the DEIS, and a Cultural Impact Assessment was developed and is included in Appendix A of the DEIS. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment has been developed and is included in Appendix A of the DEIS. From: To: Subject: Date: imagtek@imagtek.com Sakoda, David Issuance of Hawaii Island Commercial Aquarium Permits Friday, August 10, 2018 1:37:12 PM I stand firmly opposed to the issuance of commercial permits for the capture of reef dwelling fish for the aquarium trade. I am appalled by the idea that an industry advocacy group is considered reliable and competent to issue guidance on an environmental issue of such consequence and long lasting impact. I have snorkeled in the meager reefs of both East and West Hawaii Island, and even a non-specialist can easily see that the fish populations have been decimated. We are told that '50 jobs' are at stake by the aquarium industry. 50 jobs. And how many jobs are at stake of people who serve the tourist trade of those who come from all over the world to Hawaii to see... tropical fish? 500 jobs? And what is the impact on their jobs if what people come to see disappears? It is not a win/win situation. And what sort of jobs is the aquarium industry talking about? These are zero wage, 'gig jobs' with zero benefits where people are paid for something they go out and catch. In the process of capture, mortality of the fish being being hunted between capture and delivery is never zero. Natural systems exist in an extremely fragile state of balance between predation and breeding evolved over vast timescales. It is a verified fact that introduction of only a few humans to the predator mix can drastically upset an ecosystem and push it into undesirable states of decline that are difficult to reverse once they pass critical thresholds. The Hawaii Department of Natural Resources has indicated the opinion that existing populations of fish are already stressed and dangerously close to thresholds of precipitous decline. We need healthy reefs with thriving populations of fish more than we need 50 low paying gig jobs. Harvesting of reef fish in Hawaii should be banned. Period. An entire tourist industry employing hundreds of people  is already based on the presence of these fish. Jeopardizing this industry for a handful of gig jobs would be extraordinarily foolish for too many reasons to enumerate. John Powers PO Box 898 Pahoa, HI 96778 703-626-6265 Responses to comments received from John Powers Comment dated August 10, 2018 Comment I stand firmly opposed to the issuance of commercial permits for the capture of reef dwelling fish for the aquarium trade. I am appalled by the idea that an industry advocacy group is considered reliable and competent to issue guidance on an environmental issue of such consequence and long lasting impact. I have snorkeled in the meager reefs of both East and West Hawaii Island, and even a non-specialist can easily see that the fish populations have been decimated. We are told that '50 jobs' are at stake by the aquarium industry. 50 jobs. And how many jobs are at stake of people who serve the tourist trade of those who come from all over the world to Hawaii to see... tropical fish? 500 jobs? And what is the impact on their jobs if what people come to see disappears? It is not a win/win situation. And what sort of jobs is the aquarium industry talking about? These are zero wage, 'gig jobs' with zero benefits where people are paid for something they go out and catch. In the process of capture, mortality of the fish being being hunted between capture and delivery is never zero. Natural systems exist in an extremely fragile state of balance between predation and breeding evolved over vast timescales. It is a verified fact that introduction of only a few humans to the predator mix can drastically upset an ecosystem and push it into undesirable states of decline that are difficult to reverse once they pass critical thresholds. The Hawaii Department of Natural Resources has indicated the opinion that existing populations of fish are already stressed and dangerously close to thresholds of precipitous decline. We need healthy reefs with thriving populations of fish more than we need 50 low paying gig jobs. Harvesting of reef fish in Hawaii should be banned. Period. An entire tourist industry employing hundreds of people is already based on the presence of these fish. Jeopardizing this industry for a handful of gig jobs would be extraordinarily foolish for too many reasons to enumerate. Response Comment noted. Public support/opposition of commercial aquarium collection is discussed in Section 1.2.3 of the DEIS. Population trend data is discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. Impacts on socioeconomics, including jobs, are included in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. Existing population sizes and population trends are discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. Impacts on socioeconomics, including jobs and tourism, are included in Section 5.0 of the DEIS From: To: Subject: Date: Patty Shenker Sakoda, David; jim.lynch@klgates.com; VanDeWalle, Terry Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai’i--Final EA (EISPN) Friday, September 07, 2018 2:23:57 PM To All ConcernedEvery summer, my family and I vacation on the Big Island. We have for 26 years. We love Hawaii & love to enjoy the amazing natural environments there. At the Mauna Lani's bay, where we always stay, there are many coral fish babies who we delight in seeing. I call it the "Nursery". This summer, I did not see as many so I became concerned. Then I read in the West Hawaii Today paper about this debate between the aquarium industry & environmentalists. So we want to comment our concern. We feel very strongly that these fisheries be left alone and not depleted for captivity in aquariums. The capture of these sensitive fish often causes death itself & there are so many environmental issues facing our oceans and the marine & fish life who depend on it. They don't need this one too! We believe that this will definitely cause harm to the environment & lead to the depletion of these beautiful beings who depend on you to protect them and their Hawaiian waters. Please keep the ban on fine mesh nets & the ban on aquarium fishing in West Hawaii & do not issue any more permits. Thank you for your time & attention. Patty Shenker & Doug & Julia Stoll 5927 Cahill Ave. Tarzana, Ca. 91356 Responses to comments received from Patty Shenker & Doug and Julia Stoll Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment We feel very strongly that these fisheries be left alone and not depleted for captivity in aquariums. The capture of these sensitive fish often causes death itself & there are so many environmental issues facing our oceans and the marine & fish life who depend on it. They don't need this one too! We believe that this will definitely cause harm to the environment & lead to the depletion of these beautiful beings who depend on you to protect them and their Hawaiian waters. Please keep the ban on fine mesh nets & the ban on aquarium fishing in West Hawaii & do not issue any more permits. Response Comment noted. The impact of commercial aquarium collection on populations of reef fish are discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). As discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, the DEIS focuses primarily on the effects of aquarium fishing on wild populations of White List Species, as it is at the population level that DAR measures changes in White List Species and makes management decisions (e.g., issuance of harvest permits, implementation of bag limits). Therefore, because population effects have already occurred once an individual fish has been removed from the ocean, it is beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate effects on individual fish once they are removed from the population. From: To: Subject: Date: Robert Culbertson Sakoda, David AQ testimony - FEA Wednesday, September 05, 2018 8:41:06 PM I am filing these remarks in response to the recently issued Final Environmental Assessment on the application for issuance of commercial Aquarium permits. The logic of finding "No Significant Impact" and favoring the industry's "preferred alternative" belies the facts on the ground and dismisses the cogent testimony of local stakeholders, concerned visitors, the State Senate Committee on Water and Land, State Division of Aquatic Resources, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and most notably, the plethora of authentic conservation groups in Hawaii. Thankfully, an honorable rendering of its inadequacies has led the accepting authority to further require a more in depth study - a full Environmental Impact Statement. It is troubling that the documents proffered so far have failed to give any appreciation to the background of complaints and conflicts that led to the need for a change in policy in the first place. Despite unfounded assertions (and circular 'conclusions') that the current Aquarium activities and practices are having no "significant" impacts, the deficient records (only about 50% reporting compliance) and flawed studies (shining examples of sustainability from the Philippines?) and the historical accounts of user conflicts on every island begs to differ! This is a classic example that 'death by a thousand cuts' or in these cases 'flipper crunches' and other routine injuries to living coral colonies (including the symbiotic relationships with fish being extracted!) amounts to a considerable and undeniable impact as weighed against leaving the marine organisms unmolested. In a time when the mounting threats to the health of our reefs from unavoidable causes such as global warming loom large, having any impacts that are avoidable and gratuitous can certainly tip the balance to a point of no return sooner than we think! It is obvious that carefully crafted limiting alternatives were created to frame the industry's predilection for industrial proficiency and serving consumer demand rather than serving the public interest. As a former Department of Aquatic Resources administrator Frazer McGilvray noted in public testimony before the Board of Land and Natural Resources, "These rules, driven by the demands of the trade, are contrary to good natural resource management...There appears to be no scientific basis for the bag limits for each species. The majority of yellow tang allowed to be taken under this rule are immature and have not contributed to the future of the species." The applicant also fails to appreciate or detail among the various socioeconomic impacts, the immeasurable value of the marine ecosystem in aesthetic and culturally meaningful terms. The applicant's use of visitor arrival trends and statistics is a poor proxy for the importance of our near shore environment for visitors and residents. In fact, the authors of the document simply dismiss the aesthetic concerns by saying. "the FEAs conclude that the percent of each population collected would be imperceptible to observers." On the contrary! Both residents and long time repeat visitors have testified on being, in many cases, 'shocked' at the perceived deficit of fishes in many memorable places. Perhaps worst of all are the Hawaiian cultural values which are summarily dismissed through blatant disregard. Obviously, there is no "Aloha" in this business! And no Aloha means no Hawaii as it is known around the world! The drive for unregulated profits in this business over the last few decades has succeeded only in pauperizing our resources while for centuries they had been used for subsistence under wise guidance and management. But, as DLNR's management policies have evolved over time, they appear to have coincidentally begun to value and align more with traditional practices and philosophy again. Now, under the "hierarchy of uses" principle, that agency is required to preserve these 'public trust' resources first and foremost. Only a healthy ecosystem may admit to any other succeeding orders of human demands. Public use and recreation is the next step down to consider if no patterns of abuse and damage are resulting. Then, and only if and when the other priorities are met can some commercial interests be permitted under the most stringent oversight exactly because the lucrative and often insatiable demands of capitalism will tempt the participants to cut corners (exceed bag limits), to shirk responsibilities (fail to make required reports), and even try to 'capture' the regulating authorities with political and/or financial favors. This applicant must not attempt to contort this policy and the legal process, ethical norms and traditions in pursuit of profits for a few! I must also note for the record this report's socioeconomic analysis painstakingly skirts the public's interest in ending the trade as it has been measured numerous times; always overwhelmingly in opposition, and always progressing in that sentiment as more time passes. Finally, I conclude that this piece of busy work adds nothing constructive to the challenge of conserving Hawaii's environment and preserving its iconic sea creatures. After reading its voluminous repetitions of canned responses to hundreds of testimonies, this document has the appearance of having been delivered on order of an industry that knows its days, much like those in the past of the commercial whaling industry, the devastating Sandalwood trade, and the latest retreats from captive animal exhibits, are ending. Likewise, it is time to end this destructive trade now! Mahalo, Mark Tang Hilo, HI Responses to comments received from Mark Tang Comment dated September 5, 2018 Comment I am filing these remarks in response to the recently issued Final Environmental Assessment on the application for issuance of commercial Aquarium permits. The logic of finding "No Significant Impact" and favoring the industry's "preferred alternative" belies the facts on the ground and dismisses the cogent testimony of local stakeholders, concerned visitors, the State Senate Committee on Water and Land, State Division of Aquatic Resources, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and most notably, the plethora of authentic conservation groups in Hawaii. Thankfully, an honorable rendering of its inadequacies has led the accepting authority to further require a more in depth study - a full Environmental Impact Statement. It is troubling that the documents proffered so far have failed to give any appreciation to the background of complaints and conflicts that led to the need for a change in policy in the first place. Despite unfounded assertions (and circular 'conclusions') that the current Aquarium activities and practices are having no "significant" impacts, the deficient records (only about 50% reporting compliance) and flawed studies (shining examples of sustainability from the Philippines?) and the historical accounts of user conflicts on every island begs to differ! This is a classic example that 'death by a thousand cuts' or in these cases 'flipper crunches' and other routine injuries to living coral colonies (including the symbiotic relationships with fish being extracted!) amounts to a considerable and undeniable impact as weighed against leaving the marine organisms unmolested. In a time when the mounting threats to the health of our reefs from unavoidable causes such as global warming loom large, having any impacts that are avoidable and gratuitous can certainly tip the balance to a point of no return sooner than we think! It is obvious that carefully crafted limiting alternatives were created to frame the industry's predilection for industrial proficiency and serving consumer demand rather than serving the public interest. As a former Department of Aquatic Resources administrator Frazer McGilvray noted in public testimony before the Board of Land and Natural Resources, "These rules, driven by the demands of the trade, are contrary to good natural resource management...There appears to be no scientific basis for the bag limits for each species. The majority of yellow tang allowed to be taken under this rule are immature and have not contributed to the future of the species." The applicant also fails to appreciate or detail among the various socioeconomic impacts, the immeasurable value of the marine ecosystem in aesthetic and culturally meaningful terms. The applicant's use of visitor arrival trends and statistics is a poor proxy for the importance of our near shore environment for visitors and residents. In fact, the authors of the document simply dismiss the aesthetic concerns by saying. "the FEAs conclude that the percent of each population collected would be imperceptible to observers." On the contrary! Both residents and long time repeat visitors have testified on being, in many cases, 'shocked' at the perceived deficit of fishes in many memorable places. Perhaps worst of all are the Hawaiian cultural values which are summarily dismissed through blatant disregard. Obviously, there is no "Aloha" in this business! And no Aloha means no Hawaii as it is known around the world! Response Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. Comment noted. As noted in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR (2019) concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. The environmental consequences of commercial aquarium collection are discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. Additional alternatives have been added to the DEIS. Rulemaking is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. Comment noted. Impacts to socioeconomics and cultural resources are discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has also been conducted. Population trend data are included in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Responses to comments received from Mark Tang Comment dated September 5, 2018 Comment The drive for unregulated profits in this business over the last few decades has succeeded only in pauperizing our resources while for centuries they had been used for subsistence under wise guidance and management. But, as DLNR's management policies have evolved over time, they appear to have coincidentally begun to value and align more with traditional practices and philosophy again. Now, under the "hierarchy of uses" principle, that agency is required to preserve these 'public trust' resources first and foremost. Only a healthy ecosystem may admit to any other succeeding orders of human demands. Public use and recreation is the next step down to consider if no patterns of abuse and damage are resulting. Then, and only if and when the other priorities are met can some commercial interests be permitted under the most stringent oversight exactly because the lucrative and often insatiable demands of capitalism will tempt the participants to cut corners (exceed bag limits), to shirk responsibilities (fail to make required reports), and even try to 'capture' the regulating authorities with political and/or financial favors. This applicant must not attempt to contort this policy and the legal process, ethical norms and traditions in pursuit of profits for a few! Response Comment noted. As noted in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR (2019) concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. I must also note for the record this report's socioeconomic analysis painstakingly skirts the public's interest in ending the trade as it has been measured numerous times; always overwhelmingly in opposition, and always progressing in that sentiment as more time passes. Comment noted. Public support/opposition of commercial aquarium collection is discussed in Section 1.2.3 of the DEIS. In addition, during the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Assessment, a total of 836 responses were received: 435 supported the conclusions of the DEA and issuance of commercial aquarium permits; 398 did not support the conclusions of the DEA and opposed issuance of commercial aquarium permits; and 3 did not express support or opposition. These comments, and the FEA, can be found online here: http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08-HA-FEA-EISPN-Hawaii-IslandCommercial-Aquarium-Permits.pdf Finally, I conclude that this piece of busy work adds nothing constructive to the challenge of conserving Hawaii's environment and preserving its iconic sea creatures. After reading its voluminous repetitions of canned responses to hundreds of testimonies, this document has the appearance of having been delivered on order of an industry that knows its days, much like those in the past of the commercial whaling industry, the devastating Sandalwood trade, and the latest retreats from captive animal exhibits, are ending. Likewise, it is time to end this destructive trade now! Comment noted. MS. JOJO TANIMOTO P.O. BOX 44337 KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743 EMAIL: GUAVALAND622@GMAIL.COM TO: DAVID.E.SAKEDA@HAWAII.GOV JIM.LYNCH@KIGATES.COM TERRY.VANDERWELLE@STANTEC.COM SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 RE: OPPOSITION TO THE AQUARIUM COMMERCIAL FISHING PERMIT-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA). Dear Sirs: I am a member of the Hawaii Island Aha Moku Council. I would like to offer my views and perceptions. In 2012, the Hawaii State Legislature approved ACT 288, which created the Aha Moku Advisory Council (AMAC). This division is located within the Dept. Of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The AMAC is support by an island Council; the Hawaii Island Aha Moku Council (AMIC) has members from six traditional District boundaries (Moku)-Kohala, Kona, Kaʻu, Puna, Hilo, ad Hamakua. The EA does not recognize the efforts of the AMAC nor the AMIC; which reflect incorrectly the sentiments of those ahupuaʻa communities. Hawaii Constitution recognizes two languages: English and Hawaiian. This document heavily relies on the “White List” of fish species. However, this document provides only the scientific and common names of these fishes. The communities and fishing enthusiasts recognize the Hawaiian names of these fishes. This action dis-enfranchises many who are interested parties from participating in this process. The National Park Service has provided much assistance to the communities by protecting, preserving and restoring the Ala Kahakai Trail system. These historic trails provided important access to the shoreline to engage in fishing activities. Restoration of these trails in current terms once again provide access to the shoreline. This data and the Trail system are missing. Much is written about the West Hawaii Regional Fishing Management Areas (WHRFMA) and the on-going works of the West Hawaii Fishery Council (WHFC) with regard to sanctuary areas. A) DLNR has yet to research the impacts to neighboring communities in terms of the fishing communities who moved to new grounds to collect fish. This new data is essential in calculating whether fish population can sustain collection for aquarium uses. B) This new data should d determine whether more Kapu regulations are needed, and in what locations. DLNR also needs to review some of the Policies in place, to recognize the change in methodology for catching fish species. There is little change in protecting and preserving fish habitats from lack of buoys. However, comments to protecting and preserving historic sites (fish koʻa and fish spawning areas) are also lacking in this document. There is a need for added enforcement personnel for the increased volume of Permits and fish takes. This document offers no address to the issue. The Aha Moku recognizes that land pollution is a major problem in keeping the fish population in ancestral locations. Rain storms create erosion, cesspools in Naʻalehu and Puako are recognized by the County Environmental Divisions. There are non-descript address to this added conflict of travelling vessels vs shoreline collection, in this document. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. I and the Aha Moku await your reply. Mahalo Ms. Jojo Tanimoto Aha Moku Island Council, Vice-Chairperson Responses to comments received from Jojo Tanimoto, Aha Moku Island Council Comment dated September 1, 2018 Comment In 2012, the Hawaii State Legislature approved ACT 288, which created the Aha Moku Advisory Council (AMAC). This division is located within the Dept. Of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The AMAC is support by an island Council; the Hawaii Island Aha Moku Council (AMIC) has members from six traditional District boundaries (Moku)-Kohala, Kona, Kaʻu, Puna, Hilo, ad Hamakua. The EA does not recognize the efforts of the AMAC nor the AMIC; which reflect incorrectly the sentiments of those ahupuaʻa communities. Hawaii Constitution recognizes two languages: English and Hawaiian. This document heavily relies on the “White List” of fish species. However, this document provides only the scientific and common names of these fishes. The communities and fishing enthusiasts recognize the Hawaiian names of these fishes. This action dis-enfranchises many who are interested parties from participating in this process. Response The National Park Service has provided much assistance to the communities by protecting, preserving and restoring the Ala Kahakai Trail system. These historic trails provided important access to the shoreline to engage in fishing activities. Restoration of these trails in current terms once again provide access to the shoreline. This data and the Trail system are missing. Comment noted. The analysis area for the DEIS is the nearshore waters and does not include terrestrial lands as no impacts will occur as a result of the proposed action. The impact of commercial aquarium collection on tourism and cultural resources is discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Much is written about the West Hawaii Regional Fishing Management Areas (WHRFMA) and the on-going works of the West Hawaii Fishery Council (WHFC) with regard to sanctuary areas. A) DLNR has yet to research the impacts to neighboring communities in terms of the fishing communities who moved to new grounds to collect fish. This new data is essential in calculating whether fish population can sustain collection for aquarium uses. B) This new data should determine whether more Kapu regulations are needed, and in what locations. Comment noted. The DEIS uses the best available data, including recent population estimates for fish populations. DLNR also needs to review some of the Policies in place, to recognize the change in methodology for catching fish species. There is little change in protecting and preserving fish habitats from lack of buoys. However, comments to protecting and preserving historic sites (fish koʻa and fish spawning areas) are also lacking in this document. Comment noted. The Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) addresses cultural and historic resources. There is a need for added enforcement personnel for the increased volume of Permits and fish takes. This document offers no address to the issue. Comment noted. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS includes a limited number of permits issued. Enforcement is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. The Aha Moku recognizes that land pollution is a major problem in keeping the fish population in ancestral locations. Rain storms create erosion, cesspools in Naʻalehu and Puako are recognized by the County Environmental Divisions. There are non-descript address to this added conflict of travelling vessels vs shoreline collection, in this document. Comment noted. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comment noted. A member of this group was contacted as part of the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS). Comment noted. Hawaiian names of fish species (where applicable) have been added to the DEIS. A Cultural Impact Assessment has also been conducted (Appendix A of the DEIS). September 7, 2018 David Sakoda Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330 Honolulu, HI 96813-30813 Submitted via e-mail: david.sakoda@hawaii.gov Re: Final Environmental Assessments – Environmental Impact Study Preparation Notices: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu; Request for Consulted Party Status and Participation in Scoping Process Dear Mr. Sakoda: For the Fishes, the Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Council for Hawai’i, and the other undersigned individuals and organizations (collectively, “Commenters”), are conservation and animal protection organizations and individuals with strong interests in preserving the State of Hawai’i’s natural resources and protecting its delicate coral reefs. Commenters submit these comments on the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council’s (PIJAC’s, or “Applicant’s”) Final Environmental Assessments (FEAs) purporting to analyze the environmental impacts of commercial aquarium fish collection on both the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu and the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) submitted by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 1 We, the undersigned Commenters, request to be Consulted Parties on any Draft Environmental Impact Statements prepared to fulfill the requirements of the EISPN as a result of the determinations by the DLNR that environmental impact statements are required. Office of Environmental Quality and Control, The Environmental Notice at 3, 4 (Aug. 8, 2018), http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/The_Environmental_Notice/2018-08-08-TEN.pdf ; PIJAC, Final Environmental Assessment: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of Hawai’i (2018), http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08-HA-FEA-EISPN-Hawaii-Island-CommercialAquarium-Permits.pdf (“Hawai’i FEA”); PIJAC, Final Environmental Assessment: Issuance of Commercial Aquarium Permits for the Island of O’ahu (2018), http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08OA-FEA-EISPN-Oahu-Commercial-Aquarium-Permits.pdf (“O’ahu FEA”). 1 1 We concur with DLNR’s findings that the significance criteria in HAR § 11-200-12 have been met, and that the preparation of EISs is required to fully analyze the environmental impacts of commercial aquarium collection on both the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu. The proposed actions have a significant impact on the environment including, but not limited to: • • • • • • • • Involving an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource; Curtailing the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Conflicting with the state’s long-term environmental policies or goals and guidelines as expressed in Chapter 344, HRS, and any revisions thereof and amendments thereto, court decisions, or executive orders; Substantially affecting the economic or social welfare of the community or State; Involving a substantial degradation of environmental quality; Cumulatively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; Substantially affects a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat; Affects or is likely to suffer damage by the activity/activities being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a beach, erosion-prone area or coastal waters. To this end, we expect the Applicant endeavor to develop fully acceptable EISs prior to the time the EISs is filed with the office, through a full and complete consultation process, and that the Applicant shall not rely solely upon the review process to expose environmental concerns. We are also requesting to be parties to any public scoping meeting(s) convened to receive comments on the FEA-EISPNs and setting forth the scope of the draft EISs. 2 Further, we expect our substantive comments on the FEAs, discussed below, to be responded to in writing and incorporated into the draft EIS by the Applicant prior to the filing of the draft EISs with DLNR. We also expect that the responses shall not be merely self-serving recitations of benefits and/or rationalizations of the proposed actions. In addition, we expect the EIS’s to disclose any and all adverse effects on cultural resources and traditional cultural practices, which are set forth in HAR § 11-200-10 and discussed in more detail below. Finally we also expect the Draft EIS to include discussion and disclosure of climate change impacts, as envisioned by the proposed HAR § 11-200.1-13 Significance Criteria, Criterion 11 (based on the December 2017 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission report) to address concerns related to climate change adaptation, such as impacts from increased hurricane frequency and/or intensity, potential endangered species migration, impacts on areas likely to experience wave inundation, increased exposure to hurricanes, or flooding, and further impacts discussed below. 2 HAR §11-200-15 Consultation Prior to Filing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2 I. Introduction DLNR has the authority to issue permits for the taking of fish and other aquatic life for aquarium purposes. 3 While these permits are limited in duration to one year, DLNR has not put a limit on the number of animals that can be captured per commercial permit, nor on the number of permits the Agency issues. 4 In fact, in reality, DLNR automatically grants every commercial aquarium permit application, and allows the collection of unlimited numbers of animals under those permits. 5 DLNR also automatically grants every recreational permit application, and although recreational permits are limited to nearly 2,000 fish per year per permit, the automatic approval of every permit application effectively creates a system of unlimited recreational collection, as well. 6 Furthermore, while commercial collectors are required to report their collections (in practice, inaccurately), there is no similar requirement for recreational permits, 7 and therefore there is no definitive data on how many of each type of fish or other aquatic animal is taken from the State’s delicate coral reef ecosystem each year—nor what level of take would be sustainable. As earlier noted, the FEAs continue to be entirely inadequate under the Hawai’i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA, Haw. Rev. Chapter 343) and its implementing regulations. The environmental impact statements now required by DLNR must adequately address these and other notable flaws remaining in the FEAs: • • • • • • • • • • 3 4 5 6 7 The FEAs fail to analyze the impacts of collection beyond one year; The FEAs fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of unlimited collection of aquatic life; The FEAs fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of commercial collection on the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu along with collection in other parts of the State; The FEAs fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of commercial collection along with recreational collection; The FEAs fail to analyze impacts on cultural resources; The FEAs fail to analyze reasonable alternatives; The FEAs fail to analyze the impacts of harmful collection practices; The FEAs rely on inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete data; The FEAs fail to analyze mitigation measures; and The FEAs fail to incorporate input of Native Hawai’ian groups, experts, and affected citizens. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 188-31(a). Haw. Rev. Stat. § 188-31(a); Haw. Code R. § 13-75-14(4). See Umberger v. Dep’t of Land and Nat. Resources, 403 P.3d 225, 300, 304 (Haw. 2017). Haw. Code R. § 13-75-14(4); Umberger, 403 P.3d at 300, 304. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 189-3; Umberger, 403 P.3d at 283, 295. 3 The Applicant’s Preferred Alternatives do not ensure that commercial aquarium fish collection is lawful, responsible, and sustainable for any fish species from nearshore habitats on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu or elsewhere in the state where collection is allowed. The FEAs’ continued conclusions that the aquarium fisheries on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu have “no significant impact” on targeted reef fish species, coral reefs, and the human communities that rely on them is unsupportable. EISs are required in order to evaluate the true cumulative effects (both primary and secondary, and both short- and long-term) of the Preferred Alternatives and proper mitigation must be proposed. II. Cumulative and Long-Term Impacts Inadequately Analyzed Perhaps the most glaring inadequacy that both FEAs display is their failure to consider cumulative impacts, both short- and long-term. HEPA requires that “agencies shall consider the sum of effects on the quality of the environment and shall evaluate the overall and cumulative effects of an action.” 8 Furthermore, the Agency must consider “both primary and secondary” consequences, “and the cumulative as well as short-term and long-term effects of an action.” 9 Notably, “cumulative impact” is defined as the impact resulting from “the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,” and “[c]umulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 10 A. Failure to Analyze Long-Term Impacts The Applicant unlawfully limited its analyses to the time period of a single year. 11 PIJAC’s reasoning for this is that each permit only lasts one year, and therefore a new EA would need to be completed on an annual basis. 12 However, while Commenters agree that it is critical for the Agency to continue to monitor the impacts that aquarium collection is having over time, the relatively short time period of the activity itself does not nullify HEPA’s clear requirement for considering the long-term effects of that activity. 13 For example, a large excavation project could destroy habitat in an area of an island that takes decades to regrow—and even if the excavation itself was only for a year, HEPA would clearly require consideration of the impacts to the environment during the decades of regrowth. Similarly, the use of a pesticide could have known impacts on a species where serious or lethal effects are felt far beyond the time frame of the actual application of the pesticides—yet HEPA would clearly require consideration of those expected impacts. Thus, PIJAC’s logic simply does not hold up. Additionally, stating that the Agency can simply reevaluate the consequences of a year-long permit after that year is up entirely contradicts HEPA’s mandate to evaluate the potential consequences of an action before the Agency authorizes the action. 8 9 Haw. Code R. § 11-200-12. Haw. Code R. § 11-200-12. 10 Haw. Code R. § 11-200-2. 12 Hawai’i FEA at 14; O’ahu FEA at 10. 11 13 See Hawai’i FEA at 14; O’ahu FEA at 10. See Haw. Code R. § 11-200-12. 4 Additionally, a 12-month timeframe that analyzes impacts is inadequate because the impact of fish removal will accumulate over time. Studies show that catch numbers from the commercial aquarium fishery in Hawai’i have significantly increased over the last few decades and are likely to increase even more. The number of commercial aquarium permits issued per year has significantly increased over the last 18 years for the Island of Hawai’i (at ~35% per year, p=0.01) and for O’ahu (at ~29% per year, p=0.02) (see Fig. 1, see Appendix 1 for linear model results). In fact, these trends have been observed since the early 1980s. 14 It is likely that the number of commercial aquarium permits issued on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu will continue to increase in the coming years due to the high demand for aquarium reef fish and their increasing market value. 15 Fig. 1. Number of commercial aquarium permits issued annually for the Islands of Hawai’i (WHRFMA and East Hawai’i combined) and O’ahu from 2000 to 2017. Data from the O’ahu FEA (Table 2, p18) and Hawai’i FEA (Table 3, p21). In response to this comment, the Applicant claims that the number of permits issued is “[not] necessarily indicative of the number of fish collected,” however DLNR data shows a strong correlation between the number of permits issued and the level of catch (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the Hawai’i Supreme Court has made clear that the proper inquiry under HEPA is “the outer limits of what the permits allow . . . .” 16 14 15 16 Walsh et al. (2004); Friedlander et al. (2008); Walsh et al. (2014). Friedlander et al. (2008); Stevenson et al. (2011). Umberger, 403 P.3d at 294. 5 Fig. 2. Number of aquarium animals collected and number of commercial aquarium permits in West Hawai’i for Fiscal years 1976-2014. 17 The relationship between the number of participants in a fishery and impacts to fish populations is well-established in the literature. The importance of restricting access to fisheries has been acknowledged and used for thousands of years to conserve and help sustain fish populations. 18 The FEAs failed to take into account how increasing demand and increasing market value will affect already depleted targeted reef fish species in the coming years, thus result in significant environmental impact. For example, the market value of tropical reef fish (e.g., Yellow Tang) has increased and thus collection/fishing pressure is likely to increase in the near future. The commercial aquarium fishery in Hawai’i reports annual landings of over 579,000 organisms (fish and invertebrates combined). 19 The number of aquarium fish caught on the island of Hawai’i since 1976 has substantially increased by 645%. 20 Similarly, the adjusted value of the Hawai’i Island aquarium fishery increased by over 280% between 1976 and 2003. 21 This relationship must be analyzed in the EISs and permitting must be adjusted accordingly to account for populations declines. The FEAs’ claim that the high fecundity and long lifespans of reef fishes combined with the limited targeting of adult brood-stock by the trade removes the certainty that the losses will accumulate over time is false. Studies show that populations of heavily targeted species, such as Yellow Tangs, are neither annually replenished, nor restored over time to their natural levels of abundance. On the contrary, they have been severely depleted over time, especially in the areas where they are collected. While the Hawai’i FEA noted that for Yellow Tang and kole, which represent two of the top three collected species, population trends are stable or increasing, it failed DLNR (2014). Dewees and Weber (2001). 19 DLNR Catch Reports. 20 Walsh et al. (2004); Friedlander et al. (2008). 21 Walsh et al. (2004). 17 18 6 to acknowledge that the increase in fish abundance is due to an anomalous recruitment pulse that coincided with warming waters in 2014. 22 Typical recruitment pulses, such as those that occurred in 2002 and 2009, have resulted in short-lived increases in fish populations that were followed by prolonged or short and steep population declines. 23 The FEAs’ failure to discuss the effects of the aquarium fishing industry beyond a one-year period is not only a legal flaw but also one of the main reasons that the FEAs do not find a significant impact of the aquarium fishing industry on targeted species and their habitat. By limiting the timeframe of their analysis to a single year, the FEAs have entirely failed to consider the impacts of one-year collection permits cumulatively with other “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions” “over a period of time.” 24 B. Failure to Analyze Cumulative Impacts The FEAs also fail to consider other cumulative impacts. The Hawai’i FEA states that it only analyzes impacts that the aquarium permits issued for the island of Hawai’i will have; similarly, the O’ahu FEA states that it only analyzes the impacts that aquarium permits issued for O’ahu will have. 25 Neither FEA considers the cumulative impacts that permits issued for either island will have cumulatively with permits issued for the other island with a FEA—let alone cumulatively with permits issued for islands for which PIJAC conducted no FEA (e.g., Kauai and the islands that make up the County of Maui). Coral reefs in Hawai’i are connected by ocean currents. Carried within these currents are the larvae of Hawai’i’s reef fishes which typically settle downstream of the reefs where they originated. Most fishes on Hawai’i’s reefs are the result of other fishes upstream of that reef. 26 Fish removed from a reef can re-populate as long as the capacity of the upstream larval reservoir isn’t exceeded. 27 For example, the prevailing currents in Hawai’i mean that Hawai’i Island reefs “seed” the islands to the northwest—marine life spreads from the Hawai’i Island to the islands of Maui County and beyond. Reduced populations of reef fishes on Hawai’i Island can seriously impact reef fish abundance in the entire state. Additionally, the FEAs still fail to even properly address the true nature of what the Applicant is requesting in its Preferred Alternatives. Under the Preferred Alternatives for both FEAs, “DLNR would issue Aquarium Permits for the island of Hawai’i under existing regulation set forth in HRS 188-31,” and “DLNR would issue Aquarium Permits for the island of O’ahu under existing regulation set forth in HRS 188-31.” 28 In other words, PIJAC’s Preferred Alternative is collection of an unlimited number of fish and other coral reef inhabitants—the limits of what regulation allows. Additional bag limits, proposed only for Achilles Tangs in the Hawai’i FEA and Flame Wrasses in the Gove et al. (2016). Hawai’i FEA Fig. 5. 24 Haw. Code R. § 11-200-2. 25 Hawai’i DEA at 14; O’ahu EA at 10. 26 Noland (1978); Christie et al. (2010). 27 Noland (1978). 28 Hawai’i FEA at 34; O’ahu FEA at 30. 22 23 7 O’ahu FEA, fail to limit total catch because these daily catch limits apply to a limitless number of people. Yet, the FEAs still consider only very limited collection. HEPA requires that an EA assess the potential cumulative impacts of what State regulations allow, not just what some permittees may claim they intend to do with their permits. As the Hawai’i Supreme Court clearly stated, “the properly defined activity for the purposes of the HEPA analysis must encompass the outer limits of what the permits allow and not only the most restrictive hypothetical manner in which the permits may be used.” 29 The EISs must address this. Likewise, although the FEAs purport to analyze impacts cumulatively with those of recreational collection permits, the FEAs still do not account for the fact that the Agency issues a permit for every application that is submitted, and therefore the take under recreational permits is potentially unlimited as well. 30 And the FEAs admit that, as there is no required reporting for recreational permits, it is currently impossible to know how many of each species are taken under those permits, and therefore, the impact of collection under these permits on species collected under these permits cannot be quantified. 31 This lack of data must be addressed in the EISs. The analysis of cumulative impacts must include the impact of the commercial aquarium fishery, regardless of the gear used to capture the marine life, combined with non-aquarium commercial and recreational fisheries and other activities that impact population abundance. Commercial and recreational fishing combined with the aquarium fishery have a substantial impact on targeted species. The EISs must determine cumulative impact of all fishing on target species. In addition, the EISs must analyze indirect impacts from collection such as vessel traffic and accumulated reef damage due to vessel anchoring and collection practices. As noted earlier, the EISs must also evaluate the potential of cumulative impacts of climate change (warming, coral bleaching, and ocean acidification) on targeted fish species such as decline of coral coverage which have been demonstrated to influence reef fish species diversity and abundance. 32 The FEAs recognize that climate change poses serious threats to Hawai’i’s coral reefs and the species targeted by the Applicant, yet ironically claim that climate change impacts coupled with the impacts of implementing the three proposed alternatives are expected to be less than significant. These statements completely deny the research and data that demonstrate what is stated, that climate change impacts, specifically ocean warming, acidification and coral bleaching events will continue, thus further analysis of impacts and exacerbation of impacts due to climate change is required. 33 It is clear from an analysis of cumulative impacts that many of HEPA’s “significance criteria” apply. 34 Most directly, the proposed actions will likely have a significant effect on the environment due to at least: the loss or destruction of natural and cultural resources; curtailing the range of beneficial uses of the environment; substantial degradation of environmental quality; cumulative Umberger, 403 P.3d at 294. Hawai’i DEA at 88; O’ahu DEA at 60. 31 Hawai’i FEA at 98; O’ahu FEA at 73. 32 Jones et al. (2004); Friedlander et al. (2018). 33 Hawai’i FEA at 104; O’ahu FEA at 77. 34 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-200-12(b). 29 30 8 effects on the environment; and potentially substantially affecting rare, threatened or endangered species, or its habitat. 35 The scope of the EISs must address these effects. The scope must include a temporal baseline that captures the impacts of collection pressure over time, before the natural populations of targeted species were depleted by this activity. Proper examination of the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations and the coral reef ecosystem over time requires a look-back period that in the very least begins in 1953 when the aquarium permits were authorized by the state. III. Statewide Impacts Inadequately Analyzed Environmental impacts from aquarium trade activities have been documented for over forty years. Under the Preferred Alternatives, every fish and marine creature, other than corals and those associated with live rock, could be removed from one, or all, of the State of Hawai’i’s reefs—with catastrophic effects. This is not speculation: there is currently no law, regulation or enforcement capability that would prevent this from occurring. The potential for unlimited collection is a fact that encompasses the outer limits of what the aquarium permits allow, as was explained earlier. Collecting individual species in high numbers poses a significant threat to coral reef health. As explained herein, herbivorous species, such as Yellow Tangs and Goldring Surgeonfishes, are the most heavily targeted. 36 Herbivorous fish are essential to avoid algal overgrowth of corals and concomitant degradation of the reef. Hermit crabs are also collected in large numbers despite being essential to ecosystem health. Other important functional groups include: planktivores (e.g. Hawai’ian Dascyllus), corallivores (e.g. Fourspot Butterflyfish, Multiband Butterflyfish), fish predators (e.g. Hawkfishes, Hawai’ian Lionfish) and cleaner fishes (e.g. Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse). The collection of large numbers of invertebrates including hermit crabs and shrimps that are grazers, scavengers, or cleaners, could potentially have serious ecosystem impacts including reduced resiliency to other threats. The reduction of natural populations of species taken by the aquarium trade in any area (e.g. specific site, zone, coastline, island or statewide), and by any amount, whether one or one hundred percent, indicates an irrevocable commitment and loss of a natural and cultural resource. 37 This very loss curtails the range of beneficial uses that would otherwise be provided by the natural abundance of these populations. 38 As has been long recognized, The impact of commercial aquarium fish collecting is a complicated issue. The fish community members are highly dependent on one another. There is a constant interaction between predators and competitors, as well as other members of the food web. There is a lot of variability in the system, even when it is not disturbed by man. 35 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-200-12(b)(1), (2), (7), (8), (9). 37 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-200-12(b)(1). 36 38 DLNR Catch Reports. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-200-12(b)(2). 9 Reefs seem to undergo natural cycles. At times they may be very abundant. There is also natural variation in the fish community at different locations. 39 The EISs and any discussion of “sustainable” must include the high aesthetic value of this beautiful marine life as well as impacts to the complex relationships inherent in coral reef ecosystems and impacts to overall coral reef health. “Animal communities” are included in the rule definition for “environment,” however the FEAs still exclude any mention of the impact to fish and invertebrate communities. The Hawai’i State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) states that “Excessive extractive use constitutes a threat to wildlife. Certain reef fishes are harvested for sale in the aquarium trade . . . These activities are not sustainable on a large scale and impact native wildlife.” 40 A. General Impacts on Targeted Species The list of species of greatest conservation need includes at least 18 native fish species that are threatened by the aquarium trade and in need of conservation actions to reduce the risk of extinction (depicted in Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Native fish species threatened by the aquarium trade. 41 Butterflyfishes are among the most beautiful of coral reef fishes (see Fig. 4). Their bright yellow, white and black markings are especially striking against pale corals and deep blue waters. When encountered by snorkelers/divers the beauty of these species is often breath-taking. They are Noland (1978). DLNR, SWAP (2018). 41 DLNR, SWAP (2018). 39 40 10 heavily targeted by the aquarium trade in Hawai’i. In 1976 five of the top ten most collected species were butterflyfish (see Fig. 5). 42 Fig. 4. Most heavily targeted butterflyfishes on Hawai’i reefs, statewide: Fourspot Butterflyfish, Longnose Butterflyfish, Teardrop Butterflyfish, Forcepsfish, Multiband/Copperband Butterflyfish.43 Fig. 5. Five butterflyfish species were among the top ten marine aquarium fishes collected in 1976, statewide.44 Katekaru (1978). Katekaru (1978). 44 Katekaru (1978). 42 43 11 Reported aquarium harvest of those same five species has since plummeted (see Fig. 6). The same is true for other heavily targeted butterflyfish species that have been among the top twenty aquarium fishes collected by the trade since 1976. 45 Fig. 6. DLNR reported harvests of the five most heavily targeted butterflyfish species since 1976. Data represents statewide annual average catch over five-year periods. 46 This sharp decline in reported catch is not an indicator that these species are no longer in demand. Continuing demand is confirmed by several examples: • • These species’ inclusion in the West Hawai’i White List. Their exclusion from the O’ahu rules. o o • The O’ahu aquarium rule prohibits take of three butterflyfishes, citing their “coral diets” as the need for the restriction. 47 Since 1999 total reported take of those three species was 50 fish. 48 Zero restrictions were provided for three additional coral eating butterflyfishes, with total reported take of over 51,000 individuals since 1999. 49 The Fourspot Butterflyfish catch increase that followed the 2014/2015 warming event and unprecedented fish bloom. 50 Subsequently, catch of the Fourspot Butterflyfish declined to an all-time low. 51 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 47 DLNR (2012). 48 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 49 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 50 Talbot (2014). 51 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 45 46 12 The scope of the EISs must include a temporal baseline that captures the impacts of the heavy collection pressure on these species over time, before their natural populations were depleted by this activity. B. Damage to Reef Habitat In nearly every encounter with commercial aquarium collectors on West Hawai’i reefs, snorkelers and divers have witnessed and documented destructive practices that harm corals, with the most damage coming from vessel anchors and chains. Sticks, buckets, nets, underwater propulsion devices (scooters) are laid in the corals and the fins, knees and legs of collectors often come in contact with the reef—in fact, they are typically described as “crawling across” or “standing” on the corals. The results of these actions include abrasion and coral breakage. Both FEAs refer to a study that determined there was no evidence to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices (e.g. breaking apart corals to capture hiding fishes). 52 However, the abundance of photographic evidence documenting coral breakage from vessel anchoring and fish capture activities, these impacts cannot be dismissed and must be evaluated in the EISs. Photographs of these practices and their effects can be found at Appendix 2. Abundant coral reefs—put at risk by the Preferred Alternatives—have a range of beneficial uses. The EISs must adequately address the curtailment of “the range of beneficial uses of the environment.” 53 1. Aesthetic Value In addition to the impacts to biodiversity, ecosystem function, and other fisheries, aesthetic and other social values are also heavily impacted. 54 Species experiencing the heaviest collection pressure, with a corresponding reduction in natural abundance, are Hawai’i’s most beautiful, charismatic and iconic fishes. The diminished aesthetic value from the cumulative and substantial reductions in species such as Yellow Tangs, butterflyfishes and Moorish Idols, which are dominated by vibrant yellows and oranges and striking white and black patterns, cannot be overestimated (see Fig. 7). 52 Hawai’i FEA at 89; O’ahu FEA at 68. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-200-12(b)(2). 54 Walsh, Background on Proposed Hawai’i Administrative Rule 13-60.4 (2013). 53 13 Fig. 7. Reefs lacking yellow and orange fishes are greatly diminished in beauty. These colors are more than aesthetically pleasing, as our eyes are physiologically attuned to them. The frequencies and wavelengths of yellows, oranges and reds allow them to strike our eyes much faster than the other colors. 55 By removing the species with prominent yellow, orange, red or white coloration and markings, the palette and very essence of what makes a coral reef beautiful to the human eye is diminished and degraded. It is impossible to decrease populations of a coral reef’s beautiful wildlife without greatly decreasing the natural beauty of the place. Divers who have frequented these coral reefs, such as some of the Commenters, have noticed decreased abundance of colorful fish in recent years. The EISs must acknowledge and address these cumulative losses and propose proper mitigation measures. 2. Property/Amenity Value The EISs must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the amenity/property values and propose proper mitigation measures. Houses that are within a block or 100 meters of beautiful, clean and healthy coastlines, beaches and coral reefs are more valuable and sell for significantly higher prices than comparable properties elsewhere. The same is true for condos and hotels/hotel rooms which generally command higher room and occupancy rates. Healthy coral reefs are also more likely to prevent beach erosion and, therefore, add value as a form of coastal protection. One and a half percent of the sale price of these properties is attributable to the marine ecosystem. Hawai’i’s reef-related property value in 2001 was calculated at $40 million. 56 3. Recreational Value The EISs must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the recreational value of this marine life and their coral reef homes and propose proper mitigation measures. The annual estimated expenditures related to marine life viewing (i.e. snorkeling and scuba) in Hawai’i is $551 55 56 Slembrouck (2011). Cesar et al. (2002). 14 million. Reef-adjacent marine tourism expenditures (including hotel rooms) within 30 km of the coastline are an annual $680 million. 57 These amounts exclude the lost value from declining fish abundance which is captured in willingness to pay surveys and summarized below: • Healthier reefs lead to substantial economic gains. • • • Recreational users are willing to pay higher rates for a healthier marine environment. 58 Snorkel/dive businesses benefit when there are more fish for their clients to see. 59 One recent study showed divers were willing to pay $93 to $110 more to dive with abundant fish life. 60 Without new regulations the potential for increasing losses is real. • • • • Inability to stem declining reef fish numbers could cause significant losses to dive tourism industry (i.e. reductions in willingness to pay). 61 These consumer surplus losses could range from $1.2 million to $12.2 million annually. 62 Areas with degraded reefs and low fish populations could also see significant losses from a decrease in their share of the global dive market. 63 Anecdotal reports from long-time residents and visitors point to revenue loss already occurring from reduced abundance of beautiful fishes on Hawai’i reefs. 4. Passive Use Value The EISs must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the substantial non-use values of this marine life and their coral reef homes and propose proper mitigation measures. Intrinsic and social values associated with coral reefs are diminished by reduced fish populations. Concern for the marine environment has increased in recent years and people now place tremendous value on coral reef ecosystems. Many people value beautiful and healthy coral reef ecosystems as part of their legacy and responsibility to ensure future generations are able to experience them. A 2011 report for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated the passive use annual value of Hawai’i’s coral reef ecosystems through a willingness to pay survey of U.S. Spalding (2017). Davidson et al. (eds.) (2003); FORCE Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management (P7/20072013). 59 Davidson et al. (eds.) (2003). 60 FORCE Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management (P7/2007-2013). 61 FORCE Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management (P7/2007-2013). 62 FORCE Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management (P7/2007-2013). 63 FORCE Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management (P7/2007-2013). 57 58 15 households. The survey included a visual representation of an overfished and an abundant coral reef (see Fig. 8). Fig. 8. Survey excerpt: NOAA Economic Value for Protecting and Restoring Hawai’ian Coral Reef Ecosystems.64 The project determined that increased protections and restoration of degraded coral reefs in Hawai’i is worth about $288 to the average U.S. household which aggregated over all U.S. households amounts to a $34 billion annual passive use value for Hawai’i’s coral reefs. 65 This and other socio-economic values described here provide meaningful insights into the public’s concerns and should be addressed in a comprehensive EIS. C. Impacts to Cultural Resources As noted earlier and as set forth in HAR §§ 11-200-10 and -16 through -18, a complete analysis and discussion of impacts to cultural resources is required. 66 The EISs must acknowledge and address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on cultural resources. The loss and harm caused by the irrevocable commitment of natural resources equally applies to impacts to cultural resources, as well. The EISs must also acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on Native Hawai’ians traditional reliance on species targeted by the trade for subsistence, such as pāku‘iku‘i (Achilles Tang) and kole (Gold Ring Surgeonfish), and propose proper mitigation measures. 64 65 Bishop et al. (2011). Bishop et al. (2011). See also Office of Environmental Quality and Control, Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (1997), http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/OEQC_Guidance/1997-Cultural-Impacts-Guidance.pdf. 66 16 The EISs must also acknowledge and address the Native Hawai’ian cultural and spiritual connections to the reef. Examples include consideration of the reef ecosystem and its associated gods and goddesses and their many kinolau (divine bodily forms). These gods and goddesses include, but are not limited to, the Goddess Hina and her form as Hina ‘Opu Hala Ko’a who is the goddess of the coral and who gives birth to the reef itself; or, in her moon form which relates to coral spawning events. The Native Hawai’ian ceremonial practices associated with these types of cultural and religious beliefs must be included in the scope of the EISs. Likewise, many of the particular fish species favored by the aquarium trade also happen to be ‘aumakua (family guardians). The taking of these species obviously adversely impacts Native Hawai’ian cultural and religious beliefs and practices. These aspects must be addressed in the EISs. “Malama aina involves asking permission prior to fishing, taking only what you need, sharing your catch with your extended ‘ohana or community and having respect for the sacredness of the process. Clearly, harvesting live fish for economic gain and shipping them in a bag for a long, convoluted odyssey, potentially resulting in mortality and waste, violates the very core of these traditional values.” 67 The aforementioned examples were not adequately addressed in the FEAs and serve to highlight that where cultural impacts are concerned, the need for significant analysis remains. D. Premature Mortality in Captivity and Humaneness Concerns A major factor that drives the rates of collection is premature mortality rates in captivity. According to a long-time industry insider, most Yellow Tangs die with the first month in a hobbyist tank and fewer than 1% of those captured survive one year in captivity. 68 A 2012 study determined that mistreatment in capture, handling, transport, and holding plays a larger factor in these premature deaths than hobbyist inexperience. 69 Hawai’i’s Yellow Tang ranks among the top ten fish sold in the marine aquarium trade. 70 As such, it was prominently featured in the study, in both the consumer survey, as one of the nine fish species featured, and in the supply chain analysis, as one of the eighty-five species analyzed which included eleven other species that are captured both in Hawai’i and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. 71 The researchers also determined that each step in the supply chain significantly profits from customer purchases to replace fish that die prematurely, and that profits from replacement fish sales are so high, stores have no incentive to take action to reduce deaths. 72 A number of practices frequently utilized as cost saving measures by the aquarium trade in Hawai’i are inhumane and significantly contribute to the stressors that accumulate and ultimately lead to premature deaths of captive marine life. They include rapid surfacing and subsequent use of a technique known as “fizzing” to mitigate the resulting barotrauma injury to swim bladders; starving Tissot (2005). Fenner, FAQs About Yellow Tangs 4; Fenner. Marine Life Use in the Aquarium Hobby. 69 Cartwright et al. (2012). 70 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports; Rhyne et al. (2015). 71 Cartwright et al. (2012). 72 Cartwright et al. (2012). 67 68 17 fish for 2 – 10 days prior to transport and spine cutting. Alternatives to these practices include slow surfacing, transport in larger volumes of water to dilute any waste produced by fishes during transport, and transport in hard plastic containers that cannot be punctured by fish spines. Every fish that dies early puts extra pressure on natural resources because of the take of replacements. There is a general consensus in many countries that it is not ethical to trade in live animals, unless their health and welfare are ensured. These unnecessary and early deaths have given the trade a poor image. A $20 million, multi-stakeholder reform effort failed, in part, because of trade reluctance to address, and take steps to reduce, mortality rates. Fifty percent of species among Hawai’i’s historical top 20 fish list are either not guaranteed to arrive alive or stay alive longer than 7 – 14 days when purchased from online or “brick and mortar” retailers. Examples are found in Appendix 3. IV. Area-Specific Impacts Inadequately Analyzed A. Island of Hawai’i As mentioned above, reduced populations of reef fishes on Hawai’i Island can seriously impact reef fish abundance in the entire state, as the prevailing currents in Hawai’i mean that Hawai’i Island reefs “seed” the islands to the northwest. There have also been documented impacts of the aquarium trade on the Island of Hawai’i itself. 1. Examples of Impacts Documented in Various Hawai’i Island Regions Baseline fish population data from the 1970’s at Honaunau in West Hawai’i were compared to data gathered in surveys conducted 1998 – 2001. The results indicated that nearly all small bodied surgeonfish, butterflyfish and angelfish (i.e. species targeted by the aquarium trade) declined in abundance. Commercial aquarium collecting was implicated in the decline (see Fig. 9). 73 Similar results were found at Ke‘ei where the site had been intermittently surveyed since 1979. 74 73 74 Williams & Walsh (2007). Williams & Walsh (2007). 18 Fig. 9. Comparison of various fish functional groups at Honaunau over two survey periods. *=p<0.05,t-test. 75 “Of the 20 most collected aquarium species, 18 declined in abundance with the species facing the heaviest fishing pressure typically showing the greatest declines.” 76 In addition to documenting the impact of aquarium collecting in these areas, these studies also document baselines for abundance levels of aquarium targeted and other impacted species. Examinations of reported catch, as documented by DLNR, serve to further highlight the impacts of the trade. 77 The documentation shows that the initial surveys were conducted during a time when the aquarium trade reported taking fewer than 50,000 fish annually from West Hawai’i reefs. In subsequent years, from 1987 to the final surveys in 2001, reported aquarium fish catch in West Hawai’i ranged between 150,000 and 300,000 individuals taken. Since then the annual West Hawai’i aquarium fish catch has ranged between 250,00 and >450,000 fish. Additionally, with the closure of approximately 32% of the reefs in West Hawai’i with the implementation of the FRAs in 2000, this increased fishing pressure was focused in smaller areas with likely intensified results. Another long-term study looked at reefs in South Kohala and determined that reef fish abundance was in “drastic decline” and reefs were in “dire straits”. 78 Populations of all of the top five most abundant fish families had declined since the original surveys conducted in 1979-1981 (see Fig. 10). Thirty-one of the thirty-five most abundant fish species had declined, including 19 species targeted by the aquarium trade. Most of the aquarium targeted species had declined by more than 50% and many were down by more than 80%. 79 The extent to which the massive increase in reported take has contributed to this decline must be studied. 75 Williams & Walsh (2007). 77 DLNR (2014). 76 78 79 Williams & Walsh (2007). Walsh (2013). Walsh, unpublished data used as background in South Kohala Reefs in Walsh (2013). 19 As the Applicant noted in the FEAs’ responses to this comment, the “Dire Straits” report concluded that “the widespread declines in families of fish not typically targeted either for food use or for the aquarium fishery suggest that other, more widespread factors are additionally contributing to the overall long-term declines in fish abundance.” 80[emphasis added] Rather than rebutting the argument that further analysis is needed, this statement only serves to highlight why the EISs must also evaluate the potential of cumulative impacts of other factors (e.g. pollution, and sedimentation) on targeted fish species, such as decline of coral coverage, which have been demonstrated to influence reef fish species diversity and abundance. 81 Fig. 10. Drastic declines of the most abundant fish families at two South Kohala Reefs. 82 The areas south of these reefs are subject to some of the most intense aquarium collecting pressure in the state. Aquarium take between Keahole Point and these reefs in South Kohala, in one year alone, exceeds the aquarium take from the entire Great Barrier Reef in Australia, which has a reef area that is 300 times larger than Hawai’i’s. For example, in 2014 aquarium collectors reported taking 191,083 fish from this Hawai’i zone. 83 By comparison, 2014 reported aquarium take from the Great Barrier Reef was 112,000. 84 Abundant populations of herbivorous fishes are critically important to coral reefs. They keep algae from overgrowing corals or preventing new corals from starting. Important families of herbivorous fishes in Hawai’i include surgeonfishes, damselfishes and parrotfishes. The vast majority of fishes taken by the aquarium trade are surgeonfishes. Yellow Tangs are the dominant herbivore in West Hawaii. 85 They are also the most heavily collected species. The Dire Straits study documented a 90% decline in herbivorous surgeonfish and damselfish populations, while parrotfish populations had actually increased over time. 86 80 Hawai’i FEA at Comment No. 833-24 Jones et al. (2004); Friedlander et al. (2018). 82 Walsh (2013). 83 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 84 Queensland Summary Fishery Reports. 85 Toonen (2011). 86 Walsh (2013). 81 20 This aforementioned 90% decline in herbivores contributed to a 35% reduction in coral cover, a 64% reduction in coral building coralline algae, a 38% increase in algae at one site and a staggering 322% increase in algae at another. DLNR claims that parrotfishes are more important herbivores than surgeonfishes when it comes to keeping algae in check on coral reefs. 87 On these South Kohala reefs, the increased parrotfish populations were not enough to offset the loss of surgeonfishes and damselfishes, and the algae still outcompeted the corals. The notion that surgeonfishes taken by the aquarium trade are not an important component to coral reef health is challenged by this study. The FEAs attempt to downplay the importance of surgeonfishes and other herbivorous fishes taken by the trade by citing a 2003 study by Tissot and Hallacher (described more in the next section) that found no evidence of increased algal growth in areas of collection versus areas without collection, despite reduced fish abundance in the collected areas. 88 However, the authors concluded that the study may not be a good test of that hypothesis for several reasons and that further investigation is warranted. 89 Further, a more recent assessment of ecosystem trends in West Hawai’i includes, among other data, the differences in herbivore biomass and coral cover between reefs on the northern portion of the West Hawai’i coast (which encompasses the South Kohala area described above and extends from Keahole Point, northward) and reefs on the southern portion (from Keahole Point, southward). 90 The data shows that herbivore biomass in the north is significantly lower than that found on the south. 91 Additionally, while the northern reefs are now dominated by algae, and coral cover has declined by ~30%, the same not true for the southern reefs. 92 Notably, though the northern area is ~33% smaller than the area to the south, catch reports do not indicate a corresponding reduction in take. In fact, in 2014 take was higher in the north than in the south. 93 The extent to which heavy collection pressure in the north has contributed to this shift must be thoroughly addressed in the Hawai’i EIS. The FEAs also attempt to downplay the importance of herbivores taken by the trade by claiming that they target the smaller fish which are “the least effective sizes for cropping algae.” 94 A comparison of adult Yellow Tang densities in the West Hawai’i long-term protected areas (i.e. MPAs) vs. the Open Areas, shows that collection pressure on small, juvenile, Yellow Tangs has reduced the natural abundance of adults, which are 2 – 4 times larger than juveniles, by an average of 60%. 95 DLNR (2015); KHON TV (2015). Hawai’i FEA at 89; O’ahu FEA at 68 89 Tissot and Hallacher (2003). 90 Gove et al. (2016). 91 Gove et al. (2016). 92 Gove et al. (2016). 93 DLNR Catch Reports 94 Hawai’i FEA at 89; O’ahu FEA at 68 95 Hawai’i FEA at 77 (Table 9). 87 88 21 The fact remains that algae now dominates many West Hawaii reefs, making it essential that the EISs thoroughly evaluate and mitigate any Applicant impacts that occur as a result of reduced herbivory. 2. Examples of Impacts to Species Two peer reviewed studies documented the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations of heavily targeted species by the aquarium trade. One, published in 2003 by Tissot and Hallacher, was conducted the two years prior to the establishment of the West Hawai’i Fish Replenishment Areas (i.e. aquarium no-take zones). 96 The next study, by Tissot, et al., was conducted in 2000-2002, three years after those area closures. 97 The results of each study showed that aquarium collectors have a significant effect on the abundance of targeted aquarium fishes (see Fig. 11). Fig. 11. Effects of aquarium collecting on nine heavily collected aquarium species. Significant declines, ranging from 14% - 97%, were seen in 7 of 9 species. 98 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force described these results as follows: “Severe overfishing for aquarium trade occurs even in the United States: Aquarium fishes outside of reserves [in West Hawai’i] experience significant declines – from 14% to 97%.” 99 In a 2010 grant report to NOAA, DLNR documented that “a number of aquarium-targeted species have not responded to the increase in protected areas and have actually decreased in West Hawai’i Tissot & Hallacher (2003). Tissot et al. (2004). 98 Tissot et al. (2004). 99 U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, Trade Subgroup Report (2005). 96 97 22 since 1999” (see Fig. 12). 100 Per DLNR aquarium catch reports, these species are also among the top 20 most harvested fishes. Nonetheless, all but two species, the Moorish Idol and the Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse, were included in the West Hawai’i 40 Species White List adopted in 2014. DLNR therefore calls for the continued harvesting of these species, despite knowing that their populations are in decline. Fig. 12. Example of some targeted aquarium species that failed to respond to FRA’s and had decreased along the West Hawai’i coastline from 1999 - 2010 (x-axis = year; y-axis = # 100 sq. meters). 101 Three species identified in the SWAP, the Bandit Angelfish, Bluestripe Butterflyfish, and Hawai’ian Turkeyfish Figure 4 (in gold outline) were included in a DLNR presentation on West Hawai’i Species of Special Concern (Fig. 3) where two were described as routinely seen in the 1970’s and now very rare, and one was described as down by 99% in two different areas. 102 In West Hawai’i the decline of butterflyfishes has been well-documented in both population surveys and aquarium catch data. A 2008 presentation on West Hawai’i aquarium species of special concern reported declines in butterflyfish abundance and diversity. 103 Two species were particularly hard hit: the Bluestripe Butterflyfish and the Teardrop Butterflyfish, experienced population declines ranging from 89% - 100% in two West Hawai’i areas (see Fig. 13). 100 Walsh et al. (2013). 102 Williams & Walsh (2008). 101 103 Walsh et al. (2013). Williams & Walsh (2008). 23 Fig. 13. Aquarium trade impacts to heavily targeted butterflyfishes and other species in West Hawai’i. The Bluestripe Butterflyfish is a highly unique, endemic Hawai’ian species that, having no sister species elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific, is also known as a relic (see Fig. 14). 104 Until 1980, this species was among the top twenty fishes collected in West Hawai’i, with an annual average harvest of 347. 105 By 2012, the last year this species appeared on West Hawai’i catch reports, reported harvest had dropped to a total of nine. 106 This species was excluded from the West Hawai’i forty species White List which went into effect in 2014. 107 Fig. 14. Relic species, Bluestripe Butterflyfish (Photo courtesy of Lynn Allen). 104 Randall (1996). 106 DLNR Aquarium Catch Report for 2012. 105 107 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. See Haw. Code R. § 13-60.4-7. 24 The 2015 Hawai’i SWAP lists the Bluestripe Butterflyfish among the species of greatest conservation need. Threatened by the aquarium trade, conservation actions include to “protect current populations, but also to establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction.” 108 According to DLNR reef surveys and catch data, the Teardrop Butterflyfish has also experienced drastic declines on West Hawai’i reefs (see Fig. 13). This beautiful species is named for the striking upside-down black teardrop located mid-body (see Fig. 4). Until 1980, the Teardrop Butterflyfish was among the top ten fishes collected in West Hawai’i with an average annual harvest of 1,454 individuals (see Fig. 15). 109 During the following five years, the harvest rate dropped, but it was still among the top twenty species collected (see Fig. 15). 110 Though collection continued until at least 2013, by the late 1990’s DLNR considered Teardrop Butterflyfish as no longer targeted by the aquarium trade and excluded them a list of aquarium targeted species provided to researchers, Brian Tissot and Leon Hallacher, who were embarking on a project to document the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations. 111 They were, however, included in the surveys to test assumptions since they were similar to targeted species. 112 The researchers encountered just one individual Teardrop Butterflyfish during the entire study and so they were excluded from further analysis. 113 Taxa Bluestripe Butterflyfish Teardrop Butterflyfish 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 347 85 269 77 58 12 1,454 185 508 158 204 185 Fig. 15. Adapted from DLNR Hawai’i Island reported catch data for top 20 aquarium species. Data represents statewide annual average catch over five-year periods. In 2011 a group of divers encountered an aquarium collector at a popular North Kohala dive site. They watched in horror as the collector scooped up the first Teardrop Butterflyfish they had seen in that area in years along with a number of Yellow Tangs and other fishes (Fig. 16). 114 In 2013, the last year Teardrop Butterflyfish appeared on aquarium catch reports, reported take had dropped to 108 DLNR, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (2018). 110 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. 109 111 112 113 114 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. Brian Tissot 2010. Email communication with Rene Umberger Tissot & Hallacher (2003). Tissot & Hallacher (2003). Brooke Everett 2011. Pers. Communication with Rene Umberger 25 a total of ninety, reflecting a 99% drop in annual catch since 1980. 115 This species was excluded from the West Hawai’i forty species White List which went into effect in 2014. Fig. 16. Teardrop Butterflyfish captured by an aquarium collector on a North Kohala Reef (photo courtesy of Brooke Everett). The exclusion of any formerly collected species from the White List, such as the Bandit Angelfish, Bluestripe Butterflyfish, Hawai’ian Turkeyfish, Teardrop Butterflyfish, or Thornback Cowfish, is not an exemption for a thorough analysis of their current status within the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA) and elsewhere on Hawai’i Island, compared to the baseline (i.e. historic natural abundance), nor does it exempt the need for thorough analysis of impacts from collection efforts elsewhere in the state. The aquarium fishery in West Hawai’i takes 1.8X more reef fish than recreational and other commercial fishing combined. Most of these fish are Yellow Tangs. 116 “Overall Yellow Tang abundance in 30’-60’ hardbottom habitat in West Hawai’i increased by 355,758 individuals from 1999/2000 to 2010-2012 even though Yellow Tang abundance in the Open areas decreased by 21%. This decrease is attributable largely to an increase in the number of aquarium collectors and collected animals relative to the period when the FRAs were established.” 117 Over sixty percent of West Hawai’i reefs are open to the aquarium trade. On the reefs in those areas, the impact of the aquarium trade on natural populations of Yellow Tangs has been a significant reduction in the abundance. 118 For example, natural populations were reduced by over 75% in 115 DLNR Aquarium Catch Report for 2013. 117 Walsh et al. (2013). 116 118 DLNR (2014). Tissot & Hallacher (2003); Tissot et al. (2004); DLNR (2014). 26 2007-2009 and in recent years, by 60% (see Fig. 17). The increase in FRA Yellow Tang abundance that began in 2002, three years after establishment of these protected areas, is a clear example of the impact of the trade on natural populations: when collection pressure is removed, given enough time, populations may be able to rebound. As noted earlier, the overall increase in Yellow Tang abundance that has occurred since 2014 is due to an anomalous recruitment pulse that coincided with warming waters in 2014. 119 Typical recruitment pulses, such as those that occurred in 2002 and 2009, have resulted in short-lived increases in fish populations that were followed by prolonged or short and steep population declines (see Fig. 17). Fig. 17. Overall changes in Yellow Tang abundance 1999-2017. As shown by the large gap between the green line (areas open to the aquarium trade) and blue line (long term protected areas which serve as a proxy for natural abundance), millions of Yellow Tangs are missing from West Hawai’i reefs. 120 3. Achilles Tang Conservation Proposed Alternative We agree with DLNR that the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative does not provide a scientific basis for concluding that the proposed reduction would be sufficient to sustain the population. Further, in 2014 a bag limit of 10 Achilles Tang per day was imposed on the aquarium trade in an attempt to address declining populations in West Hawai’i. Since 2014, the price has increased, populations have decreased. The FEA proposes to reduce the daily bag limit to 5 per day for commercial aquarium purposes and create a 5 per day bag limit for all consumptive purposes, as well. As with other heavily targeted aquarium species, the natural abundance of Achilles Tangs, as 119 120 Gove et al. (2016). Hawai’i FEA at 79. 27 indicated by population densities in long-term protected areas such as MPAs, is substantially diminished by aquarium trade collection pressure. 121 Most importantly, a serious flaw in the DLNR data used by the Applicant to show Achilles Tang catch as a percentage of the Open Area population substantially underestimates the impact of collection pressure. DLNR compared Achilles Tang average reported catch over FY 2013 – 2014 to their CY 2012 – 2013 Achilles Tang Open Area population estimate and determined that catch as a percentage of Open Area population was 32.7%. 122 An examination of catch report data reveals that had they used reported catch from the same time period as the population estimate (i.e. CY 2012 – 2013), Achilles Tang catch as a percentage of Open Area population was substantially higher (see Fig. 18). 123 FY 2013 - 2014 Achilles Tang Reported Catch 7,073* CY 2013 9,623 Time Period CY 2012 * CY 2012 2013 Averaged 28,649 19,136* 30’ – 60’ Open Area Population 2012 - 2013 Catch as % of 30’ – 60’ Open Area Population 21,627 132.4% 21,627 88.5% 21,627 21,627 32.7% 44.5% Fig.18. West Hawai’i Open Area population estimate of Achilles Tang based on WHAP and DLNR data and percent of the population taken annually by the aquarium trade at the 30’ – 60’ depth over CY 2012 – 2013 (adapted from Table 6 in Hawai’i FEA). This exemplifies the potential for extreme over-collection by the trade; the need for a thorough review of annual reported catch numbers and their relationships to the populations of aquarium targeted species in the areas from which they taken; and, the need for mechanisms for real-time assessments and adjustments to protect these vulnerable species. B. Island of O’ahu 1. Examples of Impacts Documented in Various O’ahu Regions Unlike West Hawai’i, no aquarium fish population data was gathered during the early years of aquarium trade operations on O’ahu reefs. More recent data has been gathered in a yet to be published study by Dr. Gail Grabowsky of Chaminade University and is summarized below. Dr. Grabowsky reached the same conclusions reached by Williams and Walsh in a 2007 report documenting declines in populations of certain fishes on two Hawai’i Island reef areas: commercial 121 Hawai’i FEA at 77 (Table 9). 123 Hawai’i FEA at 74, 98, 104; DLNR (2014); DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 122 Hawai’i FEA at 58; DLNR (2014). 28 aquarium collecting is implicated in the declines; and, the greatest declines are seen in the species that have faced the heaviest fishing pressure. 124 • • • • • Using the same methods described in earlier research on Hawai’i Island documenting the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations of heavily targeted species, Dr. Grabowski and her team quantified the abundance of aquarium collected fish at over 20 sites around O’ahu from 2008- 2010. 125 Surveyed species included Yellow Tangs, Forcepsfish, the Hawai’ian “Domino” Damselfish, as well as additional butterflyfishes, surgeonfishes, and other fishes targeted by the aquarium trade. The fish population surveys showed that species targeted by the aquarium trade are ten times more abundant at Hanauma Bay, Hawai’i’s first marine life conservation district, protected since 1967, than they are on other O’ahu survey sites. 126 As with the Hawai’i Island studies conducted by Tissot and others, uncollected sites were selected as controls and served as a proxy for estimating natural abundance. 127 128 The data also showed that aquarium fish are rare at Pupukea and Coconut Island in Kaneohe Bay, both of which are protected similarly to Hanauma Bay, but unlike Hanauma Bay, are easily accessed by poachers. There were no juvenile fish smaller than a silver dollar at Hanauma Bay, which led Dr. Grabowsky to surmise that it may be “that the fish are so depleted on O’ahu that those we see are the “living dead” who cannot effectively maintain a population due to their rarity. This is called the Allee effect and has been documented in other rare species.” 129 In addition to population surveys, catch data can provide an important view into the status of populations of targeted fishes. As explained elsewhere in these comments, using catch data to estimate the proportion of fishing mortality to total population is highly problematic since catch reports are unverified and both underreporting and non-reporting are highly likely. However, where baseline population data are absent, and where consumer demand exists for a particular species or family group, it is highly likely that substantial declines of reported catch reflect reduced abundance of the target sizes—juveniles in most cases—of those species or families Hawai’i’s reefs. 130 In fact, historical catch reports have been used to document the collapse of the aquarium fishery on southwest O’ahu reefs after hurricane Iwa hit Hawai’i in 1982 and damaged many 124 Williams & Walsh (2007); Grabowsky (2011); Grabowsky (2014). 126 Grabowsky (2014). 125 127 128 129 130 Grabowsky (2011). Tissot & Hallacher (2003). Tissot et al. (2004). Grabowsky (2011). Walsh et al. (2004). 29 reefs. 131 Per anecdotal reports from a number of aquarium collectors, the storm destroyed important habitat for Yellow Tangs and other targeted species. This resulted in the migration of many fishes to undamaged coral reef areas. Aquarium collectors then concentrated their efforts on these sites and within a few short years, populations of species targeted by the trade completely collapsed. 132 Referring to these data, researchers noted that since Yellow Tangs are in high demand, these declines reflect the situation on these reefs (i.e. reduced abundance of the small Yellow Tangs targeted by the trade) (Walsh et al. 2004). Catch reports from 2016 confirm that Yellow Tang populations have yet to recover (see Fig. 19, 20). 133 Fig. 19. Catch reports document the collapse of Yellow Tang populations along O’ahu’s SW coastline.134 131 Walsh et al. (2004). 133 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 2017. 132 134 Walsh et al. (2004). Walsh et al. (2004). 30 Fig. 20. Map of area encompassed within aquarium catch reporting zones 401 - 413. 135 2. Examples of Impacts to Species As previously mentioned, the decline of butterflyfishes on O’ahu has also been documented in the aquarium fish population surveys conducted by Dr. Gail Grabowsky which showed a 90% decline in natural populations of butterflyfishes and other fish species heavily targeted by the aquarium trade. 136 The Bluestripe Butterflyfish (see Fig. 14) was among the top fifteen aquarium fishes captured on O’ahu through the five-year period that ended in 1995. 137 As of the five-year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 79% from the five-year period that ended in 1980. In 2016, reported catch dropped an additional 15% (see Fig. 21). 138 As previously noted, the Bluestripe Butterflyfish is listed among the species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 Hawai’i SWAP. Despite this listing and the alarming decline in reported catch, no take limits were placed on this species in the O’ahu Aquarium Rule. Reported catch of the Teardrop Butterflyfish has also experienced drastic declines on O’ahu reefs (see Fig. 19). During the ten-year period 1976-1985, the Teardrop Butterflyfish was among the top ten fishes collected on O’ahu with an average annual harvest of 2,558 individuals (see Fig. 21). 139 During the following five years, the harvest rate dropped, but it was still among the top twenty species collected. 140 As of the five-year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 135 Walsh et al. (2004). 137 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 136 138 139 140 Grabowsky (2014). DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. 31 94% from the five-year period that ended in 1980. In 2016, reported catch dropped an additional point (see Fig. 21). 141 The Bandit Angelfish is another beautiful and highly unique, endemic Hawai’ian species with a color pattern unlike that of any other angelfish on Earth (see Fig. 22). 142 The Bandit Angelfish has been among the top twenty aquarium fishes captured on O’ahu on and off since 1976, most recently in 2016. 143 During the five-year period 1976-1980, annual reported catch averaged 1,380 individuals (see Fig. 21). After that, annual reported catch rarely exceeded 600 individuals and from 1996-2005 the average was less than 100. 144 As of the five-year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 64% from the 1976-1980 high (see Fig. 21). 145 Average Annual Catch 5 YEAR PERIOD ENDING (except 2016) Taxa 1980 1985 1995 2000 2005 2015 2016 Bluestripe Butterflyfish 2,226 1,886 2,110 1,629 1,079 127 478 124 2,616 2,499 1,574 896 295 160 131 Teardrop Butterflyfish Bandit Angelfish 1,380 541 1990 154 485 152 77 70 491 559 Fig. 21. O’ahu Reported Aquarium Catch of the Bluestripe and Teardrop Butterflyfish and Bandit Angelfish.146 141 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports 1976 – 2005. 143 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 142 144 145 146 Hoover (1993). DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. 32 Fig. 22. Bandit Angelfish (By NOAA's National Ocean Service) Catch reports also indicate increasing consumer demand for this precious species in the landed value data. From 1976-2003 the average landed value for a Bandit Angelfish was $10. 147 By 2004 it had jumped to $54 and in recent years has skyrocketed to $137 each. 148 A similar pattern was noted for Bandit Angelfishes captured in West Hawai’i and prompted University of Hawai’i (UH) and DAR researchers to point out that decreasing catch combined with increasing value signals a real population decline. 149 Not surprisingly, the Bandit Angelfish is also listed among the species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 Hawai’i SWAP. Threatened by the aquarium trade, conservation actions include to “protect current populations, but also to establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction.” 150 The O’ahu aquarium rule established a daily bag limit of two Bandit Angelfishes greater than 5.5 inches in length. Commercial data does not capture fish sizes so the impact of this size limit cannot be determined. 3. O’ahu Aquarium Life Management Rules governing the take of certain aquarium species on O’ahu were adopted in 2014. 151 The development and adoption of these rules was highly controversial because they were not 147 Walsh et al. (2004). 149 Williams and Walsh (2008). 148 150 151 DLNR Aquarium Catch Reports. DLNR, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (2018). Haw. Code R. §§ 13-7-1 et seq. 33 scientifically sound and did not address the concerns of stakeholders outside the aquarium trade. 152 Over 4,000 testimonies were received by DAR, and 98% of the comments preferred that aquarium collecting should end altogether or in the very least should include limits on the number of permits issued, and scientific and community-based limits on species and take levels. Many comments noted that the so-called “limits” allowed take that far exceeded the number of animals historically taken by the trade, and in fact, allowed limitless catch because they included no restrictions on input (i.e. permit limits), and no meaningful restrictions on output (species or take limits). 153 Among those opposed to the rules was coral reef and marine fisheries biologist, Frazer McGilvray, who was the DAR Administrator at the time. Mr. McGilvray opposed the rules because they were neither based on science, nor were they developed under a multi-stakeholder approach. The written and oral testimony Mr. McGilvray presented to the board governing DLNR included the following: • • • • • • • • • • “All stakeholders should be consulted and everyone’s opinion should be taken into account.” “There appears to be no scientific basis for the proposed bag limits for each species.” “The proposed take limits were akin to setting a speed limit at 400 MPH.” “These rules do not address the take of undersize, sexually immature fish.” “The majority of Yellow Tang allowed to be taken under this rule are immature and have not contributed to the future of the species.” “These rules, driven by the demands of the trade, are contrary to good natural resource management.” “The take of juveniles is generally prohibited” in other fisheries, but not by the aquarium trade. “The take of adults is allowed, but only where good management practices govern the take” in other fisheries, but not by the aquarium trade. “The taking of 100 immature Yellow Tang per person per day is not consistent with good natural resource management when there are more than 50 licensed aquarium collectors on O’ahu.” “It is my belief that these rules require further work and are not yet ready for adoption.” 154 Board of Land and Natural Resources, Minutes (2014); Hawai’i Small Business Regulatory Review Board, Proposed O’ahu Regulations Analysis (2012); Hawai’i Small Business Regulatory Review Board, memo to DLNR (2012). 152 Hawai’i Small Business Regulatory Review Board, memo to DLNR (2012); Board of Land and Natural Resources, Item F-2 Submittal (2014). October 24, 2014. Item F-2 Submittal. 153 154 Board of Land and Natural Resources, Minutes (2014); McGilvray (2014). 34 The DLNR submittal to the board conceded that the proposed limits were not intended to reduce take, but were, instead, based on animal welfare. 155 This statement does not stand up to scrutiny since no animal welfare experts or groups familiar with the aquarium trade were consulted, and in fact, the concerns of several of these groups were dismissed outright. The 2014 O’ahu rules also imposed bag limits for certain sizes of three species: a minimum and maximum (i.e. slot) limit for Yellow Tangs and maximum size limits for kole (bag limits of two of each size) and Bandit Angelfishes (bag limit of two). While there has been some discussion of the poor survival rates of very small Yellow Tangs, no such discussion was documented for the larger sizes. Finally, because aquarium catch reports do not capture fish sizes, it is impossible to determine or even estimate the impact of a size limit in the aquarium fishery.” 156 However, catch reports do show that despite the combined catch, size and vessel limits, Yellow Tang catch in 2015 and 2016 exceeded historical reported catch. This was due to an unprecedented warm water event that bleached and killed many corals, but also brought large numbers of young fishes to Hawai’i’s reefs during 2014 and 2015. 4. Other O’ahu Regulated Species and Invertebrates The O’ahu FEA’s discussion of other regulated species describes the Achilles Tang, Bandit Angelfish, and Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse as “not collected to the level of the top twenty collected species.” 157 However, according to both historical and recent catch data, this is inaccurate. These three species have historically, and recently in one case, been among the top twenty collected species on O’ahu as follows: • • • Achilles Tang was among the top twenty during the five-year period that ended in 1985. Bandit Angelfish was among the top twenty during the five-year period that ended in 1980 and again in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse among the top twenty during the five-year period that ended in 1980. Bandit Angelfish have been described earlier, and Achilles Tangs are both a culturally important food source and an important herbivore on the reef. The Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse plays a particularly critical role in the reef ecosystem by feeding on parasites, dead tissue and mucus of reef and other fishes (see Fig. 23). In 2008 the West Hawai’i aquarium trade included the Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse in its list of Species of Special Concern that should not be captured, citing the key role the play in maintaining the “health of the reef population, as the doctors of the sea”. 158 Obviously this species plays a similar role on reefs throughout Hawai’i. This is another clear example of how the dictates of the North American aquarium trade are driving extremely poor management decisions. The cumulative impact of long term sustained heavy collecting pressure on 155 Aila (2014). 157 O’ahu FEA at 41; DLNR catch reports. 156 158 DLNR, Small Business Impacts Analysis (2012). Walsh, Background on Proposed Hawai’i Administrative Rule 13-60.4 (2013). 35 these and other species, and its effects on coral reef ecosystems must be fully evaluated and proper mitigation must be proposed in the EISs. Fig. 23. A pair of Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasses cleaning a Hawai’ian Hogfish (photo credit: Victoria Martocci). In addition to fishes, marine invertebrates such as hermit crabs, Feather Duster Worms, sea stars and snails, are taken in very high numbers by commercial aquarium collectors. These invertebrates play a key role in the coral reef environment, and their overharvesting may have serious ecological consequences. 159 The EISs must address the very large numbers of invertebrates that are taken and proper mitigation measures must be proposed. Concerns expressed by experts about the very high levels of hermit crab collection include: • 159 • “The removal of available shells, a critical resource for hermit crabs, will doom the hermit crab population in any given area; replenishment of shells of all sizes due to natural causes will not be able to keep up with the artificial removal by collectors; hermit crabs are essential to the ecosystem. Not only are they grazers but even more importantly they are detritus feeders and scavengers keeping the ecosystem ‘clean’.” 160 5. Expanded Waikiki MLCD and Flame Wrasse Conservation (Preferred) Alternative “Collectors do not merely take the crabs, they take also the shells. This amounts to destroying the available habitat for these animals; hermits regularly outgrow their shells and seek new ones, leaving the smaller shells for smaller hermits. When a hermit dies, it leaves its shell for another hermit; taking all the shells will leave no shells for hermits to live in. The population will crash; taking the shells will eventually make shells so uncommon that there are virtually no hermits.” 161 Livengood & Chapman (2007). Dr. Ernie Reese, UH Professor Emeritus, Biology, Behavioral ecology of coral reef animals. 2008 email communication with Rene Umberger. 160 John Hoover, Author of Hawai’i’s Sea Creatures: A Guide to Hawai’i’s Marine Invertebrates. 2008 email communications with Rene Umberger. 161 36 The O’ahu FEA proposes to expand the Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District MLCD by 740 acres, and to prohibit only commercial aquarium collection within that expanded area. 162 We concur with the Agency that this alternative is problematic for a number of reasons, including its lack of proper scientific review of the impacts. While it is expected that once collection pressure is removed, there may be a beneficial impact of increasing populations of targeted species, it is also expected that without concurrent reductions in allowable take, populations in the areas open to collection are likely to experience further declines as a result of increased pressure that result from reduced access elsewhere, as has been demonstrated in West Hawai’i. In addition, the O’ahu FEA proposes a bag limit of 10 Flame Wrasses per day. We concur with the Agency that this proposal lacks a scientific basis for concluding that a bag limit of 10 per day would be sufficient. Not only would the bag limit apply to a limitless number of people, and as such, would neither limit actual take nor would it help to restore or protect populations from increasing collection pressure, it also fails to address the potential for extirpation of Flame Wrasses on coral reefs shallower than 98 feet where collection pressure is the greatest. As pointed out in the O’ahu FEA, a recent study found zero Flame Wrasses shallower than 98 feet on West Hawai’i reefs. 163 Rather than an indication that Flame Wrasses spend much of their time in deeper waters, an idea forwarded in both FEAs with no reference, the absence of Flame Wrasses in their natural range is more likely an indicator of severe over-collection by the trade in the shallower depths they once inhabited. Flame Wrasses naturally occur at depths over 50 feet. 164 SCUBA divers, including two of the Commenters, have for decades consistently encountered harems of Flame Wrasses at depths ranging from 50 – 90 feet on multiple dive sites, as long as the sites weren’t accessed by the aquarium trade. On sites accessed by the trade, Flame Wrasses at those depths have completely disappeared. 165 Historical catch records indicate that collection pressure on O’ahu populations of Flame Wrasses has dramatically increased: hundreds were annually captured prior to 2008; since then, annual catch has ranged between 1,000 - >4,000. 166 The potential for Flame Wrasses to disappear from shallower reefs around O’ahu, as they have from West Hawai’i, is very real. This increasing collection pressure must be acknowledged and addressed in the EISs. V. Reliance on Inadequate Science and Data A. Flawed Threshold for “Sustainable” Collection The applicant continues to base both FEAs on the premise that fish collection is considered sustainable if only removes less than 5% to 25% of the entire population (annually), but the reasoning behind this threshold is flawed. The FEAs stated that “research suggests that collection 162 O’ahu FEA at 13. O’ahu FEA at 35. 164 Randall (1996); Hoover (2008). 165 Observations communicated by Rene Umberger, Mike Nakachi, Lynn Allen, Warren Blum, all SCUBA instructors with tens of thousands of dives between them 166 DLNR catch reports. 163 37 between 5% and 25% of a reef fish population is sustainable for various reef fish species in the Philippines that are similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, and triggerfish)” based on a Reef Check report by Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006). 167 However, the EISs should not use these thresholds because: • • • • These thresholds for sustainable ornamental fish collection are species–specific based on estimated natural mortality rates (M) and fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) or year-per-recruit analysis. Natural mortality rates for reef fishes are based on growth rates and length and thus are also area-specific. Mortality is based on catch data. Yield-per-recruit analysis should be derived from several annual surveys. Thus, these parameters should be specifically calculated for Hawai’ian reef fish targeted by the aquarium industry as highlighted in Ochavillo & Hodgson (2006). The 5%-25% threshold indicates “a good rule-of-thumb of collection limit” for coral reef fishes in the Philippines. 168 This does not mean it is a good rule of thumb for collecting reef fishes in Hawai’i. Most ornamental fish species in Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) are species different from those on the White list. Only a few species share the same genus or species (butterflyfish, a couple of wrasses, one angelfish, a couple of damselfish, one tang and one triggerfish). Thus, it is questionable whether this fairly wide threshold (5%-25%) is representative and applicable to Hawai’ian species. Finally, this report is not peer-reviewed research, it is a field manual: Marine Aquarium Trade for Coral Reef Monitoring Protocol with a Data Analysis and Interpretation Manual. This field manual was designed in part to: “provide a scientific basis for recommending sustainable levels of collection.” 169 The FEAs continue to assume that current fish abundance for target species is the baseline, and thus 1% to 5% of individuals removed from the population would be considered sustainable. But this is wrong. The FEAs still do not acknowledge that current population abundance of most of these fish species is already depleted due to in part to heavy exploitation by the aquarium trade since at least the 1970’s and habitat degradation. The total allowable collection/catch for each species must be calculated based on information on natural mortality rates and the available and limited information on collection/catch records, specific to the geographic areas and locations where they are taken throughout the state. 170 B. Unrepresentative Data Used The Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP) data used in the FEAs for the entire Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu (based on 2010-2016 surveys) continue to not be representative of regional population 167 168 169 170 Hawai’i FEA at 95; O’ahu FEA at 70. Ochavillo & Hodgson (2006), at 12. Ochavillo & Hodgson (2006). See Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) for step by step guidance on how to do this analysis. 38 abundance such as in East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA, and should not be used to estimate regional proportions of fish catch. Population abundance estimates for fish species for the entire island of Hawai’i 171 are not representative of regional fish abundances such as East Hawai’i and WHRFMA. The CREP data collect fish data from 257 stationary point count locations around Hawai’i between depths of 0-98 feet. In contrast, the West Hawai’i Aquarium Project (WHAP) collected data from 25 transect survey sites from WHRFMA area between depths of 30-60 feet. It is well established that population abundances of reef fish species in Hawai’i, especially relatively small-size species that are targeted by the aquarium industry, are highly variable in space depending on reef complexity, depth and wave exposure, and in time (within and among years) depending on the season, mortality, recruitment to the population, and environmental factors. 172 The relative proportion abundance of fish species taken annually by the aquarium industry should be based on regional total abundances and regional catch records (e.g., aligned with the aquarium fish trip report zones). Allowable levels of take should be determined in conjunction with the wishes of Hawai’i residents and visitors who strongly desire that fish populations are restored to their naturally occurring (i.e. unfished) levels of abundance on the majority of Hawai’i reefs. The FEAs continue to assume that current island-wide and regional targeted fish population estimates are healthy and not impacted and this represents a shifting in baselines. Population abundance of most of these fish species has declined over the past decades due to overexploitation and habitat degradation and thus they cannot be considered baselines. Strong scientific evidence shows that coral reefs of the main Hawai’ian Islands, especially near higher human population densities (where exploitation pressure is the highest), have significantly less abundance and biomass of reef fish species than more isolated islands due to overfishing. 173 The allowable number of individuals that could be collected from aquarium fish populations must be substantially less than those stated by the FEAs because most of these species are already depleted. Fishing effort has substantially increased for aquarium fish species on the Island of Hawai’i as well as for certain species, such as Flame Wrasses, on O’ahu. 174 Prime-targeted species on both islands have significantly declined due to overharvesting. 175 For example, population abundance of one of the most heavily exploited species, Yellow Tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), on the west coast of the Big Island of Hawai’i (West Hawai’i) declined 45% due to exploitation in areas open to fishing/collection from 1999 to 2007. 176 Yellow Tang abundance is closely tied to annual levels of recruitment, and after good recruitment levels from 2008 – 2013, Yellow Tang abundance in the Open Areas improved, but was still 4.7% lower than the 1999 – 2000 Open Area baseline. 177 CREP (2018). Friedlander & Parrish (1998a, 1998b). 173 Friedlander & DeMartini (2002); Williams et al. (2008); Nadon et al. (2015); Nadon (2017); Friedlander et al. (2018). 174 DLNR Catch Reports. 175 Williams et al. (2009); Walsh et al. (2004). 176 Williams et al. (2009). 177 2015 Report to the Legislature. 171 172 39 As noted earlier, an anomalous recruitment pulse in 2014 is likely behind the increase in abundance seen since then. 178 Even when including marine managed areas (MMAs) such as fish replenishment areas (FRA), where collection is prohibited and abundances are five times higher than in open areas, the population abundance of Yellow Tangs on West Hawai’i is substantially less than historical levels. 179 The established networks of MMAs have definitely worked to increase Yellow Tangs and some other fish species in the West Hawai’i FRAs, 180 but not all species have responded positively, and some have actually decreased overall since the FRAs were established. The extent to which collection pressure—whether in the Open Areas or due to poaching—is driving the decline of heavily targeted aquarium species in the areas closed to the trade must be studied. While the FEA attempts to minimize the impacts of collection pressure by proposing that “factors other than aquarium collecting [are] also affecting their populations,” it remains highly likely that the main cause is collection pressure 181 An example of the effect of collection pressure on populations in MMA’s is found in the significant decline of Yellow Tangs in those areas from 2004-2009 which coincided with Yellow Tang reported catch during that period that was substantially higher (e.g. in 2004 and 2006 it was more than double that reported in 2002). Given the relative long life-span of Yellow Tangs (>40 yrs.) and increasing fishing intensity, these MMAs are just becoming sources for the aquarium fishing industry. The recovery of this species to past levels is unlikely if fishing/collection intensity continues or increases in the future. The commercial aquarium fishery in the Island of Hawai’i has grown over the last three decades, particularly after the O’ahu aquarium fishery substantially declined in the early 1990s due to hurricanes and localized overfishing. 182 It is thought that the expansion of the Island of Hawai’i aquarium fishery was due to new collectors and relocation of collectors from O’ahu. 183 Scientific evidence shows that collecting activities substantially affect targeted species in Hawai’i 184 and fishing intensity remains high even when stocks are depleted or recruitment is weak. 185 Therefore, the current estimates of population abundance of fish species for the entire Island of Hawai’i (from 2010 to 2016) 186 should not be used as regional/local reference abundances (e.g., East Hawai’i, WHRFMA) to estimate minimum and maximum percentage of fish taken per year. 187 This is because these calculations underestimate the proportion of fish collected by region (East and West Hawai’i) and assumes fish populations of the entire Island of Hawai’i are distinct or discrete. A more accurate calculation of allowable catch would be based on regional population Gove et al. (2016). Williams et al. (2009). 180 Tissot et al. (2004); Williams et al. (2009). 181 Hawai’i FEA at 60, 99, 101. 182 Walsh et al. (2004); Friedlander et al. (2008). 183 Friedlander et al. (2008). 184 Tissot & Hallacher (2003). 185 Stevenson et al. (2011). 186 CREP (2018). 187 Hawai’i FEA, Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 178 179 40 abundance, using the aquarium trip report zones, and by using the WHAP data estimates obtained from the depth ranges where the fishes are captured, rather than by regions. Finally, sustainable fishable abundance for target species must take into consideration the fact that most target species are depleted in comparison with historical levels. The EISs must take into account these depletions to determine the number of individuals that could be taken from the populations. The EISs must analyze the impact of collection/fishing on current population abundance and consider that these populations are far below the historical baselines. C. Catch Is Grossly Underreported As mentioned above, there is no requirement for recreational aquarium collectors to report catch. For commercial collectors, while reports are required, catch report compliance is substantially low on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu and thus catch records grossly underestimate the real impact of the aquarium fishery. The number of permits reporting catch in the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu was approximately half of the number of commercial aquarium permits issued annually from 2000 to 2017. On average, 47% (40 out 85) of commercial aquarium permit holders reported their catch between 2000 and 2017 in O’ahu. 188 Similarly, on average, 56% (33 out 59) of commercial permit holders in the Island of Hawai’i (WFRFMA and East Hawai’i combined) reported their catch during the past 18 years (see Table 3 in the DEA of Island of Hawai’i). Although commercial aquarium fishers are required to report their monthly catch on an aquarium fish catch report, the compliance is clearly significantly low. This is a systemic problem that undermines the evaluation of the real impact that the aquarium fishery has on target species, the coral reef ecosystem, and the people that depend on them in Hawai’i. As such the impact of the aquarium fishing industry is likely larger than is reported, which has been discussed in the scientific literature. 189 As a former DLNR employee succinctly wrote regarding aquarium catch reports: “The reliability of the data depends upon the sincerity of the permittees.” 190 There is no verification system, such as that provided by independent observers, to ensure the accuracy of self-reported data. One additional major impediment to accurate data stems from the lack of a license requirement for marine dealers and/or exporters. Currently there is a requirement for dealers (i.e. those who buy directly from aquarium collectors) to report their purchases. According to DLNR, the effect is that “dealer reporting is essentially on a voluntary basis and a few dealers are not reporting in whole or in part. 191 DLNR cannot know whether a “few” or a dozen dealers are not reporting, but without a requirement for these businesses to have licenses, these businesses operate beneath the radar and serve as a conduit for moving unreported catch out of the state. 188 See O’ahu DEA, Table 2. 190 Katekaru (1978). 189 191 Friedlander et al. (2008). DLNR (2014). 41 Establishing a marine dealer/exporter license has long been a priority for those within DLNR concerned about Hawai’i’s marine resources, because it would enable the department to verify catch reports, identify unlicensed collectors (and all commercial fishers), identify dealers and helped with generating economic data about the fisheries. Without this information DLNR/DAR has no accurate data on health of fish populations. According to a former DAR Commercial Fisheries manager, Karl Brookins, the process of establishing the license was abandoned due to lack of funding. 192 In addition, the combined average of total fish and invertebrates collected under aquarium permits from East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA annually from 2000-2017 should not be used as reference for future annual collections. The lack of collection data for East Hawai’i from 2001 to 2004 lowers the calculated average and underestimates the number of fish collected. 193 A more accurate estimation is to use data collected after 2005 when collection data from East Hawai’i resumed. As such the combined average fish and invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits from East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA annually from 2005-2017 was 392,006 individuals instead of 355,381 (see Fig. 24). This updated estimate, which accounts for 36,625 more individuals, along with a value representing underreporting, should be used as the reference point for the Hawai’i EIS to calculate proportion of the population that is being taken by the fishery island wide. We note that Table 8 in the Hawai’i FEA has not “been updated to exclude any years without data in the averaging for East Hawai’i data,” as stated in the Applicant’s response. 194 Clark & Gulko (1999); Brookins, K., DAR commercial fisheries manager, personal communication to author R. Umberger (October 7, 2008). 192 193 194 See Hawai’i DEA, Table 8. Hawai’i FEA at Comment No. 833-49. 42 Fig. 24. Combined number of fish and invertebrates collected under Aquarium permits from East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA annually from 2000-2017. Blue line is a loess trend with span of 0.8 and 95% confidence interval (grey area). Red horizontal line is the average between 2005 and 2017. Note that the data before 2005 is missing records from East Hawai’i. Data extracted from Hawai’i FEA, Table 8. D. Further Data is Needed for an EIS As discussed above, there is no reliable data on how many fish and other species are actually taken pursuant to aquarium permits in any given year. The FEAs repeatedly referred to a lack of data for numerous species. For example: • • 195 196 “Because specific species of hermit crabs are not reported on aquarium permits reporting forms, it is not possible to know which species are collected, with the exception of zebra hermit crabs.” 195 “Due to this underestimation, it is not possible to know the exact proportion of Flame Wrasse population that would be collected. . . .” 196 Hawai’i FEA at 51. O’ahu FEA at 70. 43 • For Psychedelic (Redtail) Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse, Fisher’s Angelfish, and Eyestripe Surgeonfish (Palani), open area populations and catch as a percent of the open area populations are not available, because species “occur[] in habitats not adequately surveyed by transects.” 197 This data is necessary in order for the EISs to properly assess impacts. Furthermore, the Agency must conduct stock assessments of species before it is able to determine a sustainable rate of take. Clearly the Agency has not done so, as DLNR personnel have stated that to do so would take over a decade for just 40 fish species, out of the more than 287 fish and invertebrate species the Agency identifies as targeted by the trade (found at Appendix 4). 198 Without such data, the Agency cannot meaningfully assess the environmental impacts of commercial aquarium collection. Such assessments must be completed prior to the issuance of the EISs, and in the face of any uncertainty, the EISs’ analyses must err on the side of caution to protect these vulnerable species. VI. Additional Deficiencies The FEAs continue to contain additional deficiencies that must be remedied for the Agency to conduct a thorough review of environmental impacts. A. Lack of Meaningful Alternatives Analyses Neither FEA considers any alternatives other than the Preferred Alternative, Status Quo Alternative, and a No Action Alternative. HEPA requires EAs to identify and summarize reasonable alternatives. 199 The new Preferred Alternatives ignore the vast majority of comments submitted on the DEAs and instead focus on just two species, Achilles Tangs on Hawai’i Island and Flame Wrasses on O’ahu. They also ignore the many comments naming locations where the impacts of collecting pressure are of concern, and instead arbitrarily name Waikiki as an area where no commercial collection would occur in the future. The Agency’s letter of determination stated that “because the applicant can propose but not ensure regulations aimed at protecting and restoring populations of aquarium fish, [the Agency] is interested in proposals for self-regulation by aquarium permit holders which could be incorporated into permit conditions even in the absence of or prior to establishing other regulations to accomplish the same purposes.” 200 We dispute the value of any self-regulation measure. Meaningful change must be binding on the industry, and a meaningful alternatives analysis requires the Applicant to propose binding measures. A reasonable alternative would require the Agency to first determine: 197 198 199 200 Hawai’i FEA at 59, Table 6. DLNR (2017); Eagle (2017); Aquarium Fishing Trip Report. See Haw. Code R. § 11-200-10(7). DLNR HRS Chapter 343, Final Environmental Assessment, Notice of Determination for Hawai’i at 3 and for O ’ahu at 3. 44 1) the life history, spawning grounds and offspring/recruitment patterns for each species to be collected for aquarium purposes (see DLNR list of aquarium species at Appendix 4); 201 2) natural abundance (i.e. unfished) levels and complete stock assessments, for each island as a whole in addition to each collection zone, for those same species (see DLNR map of aquarium fish zones at Appendix 5);202 3) a definition for “sustainable” as it relates to the natural abundance of coral reef species taken for aquarium purposes; and 4) annual total allowable catch, by species, designed to restore and then sustain natural abundance levels, with negligible impacts as defined in the Queensland Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery, for each species to be taken for aquarium purposes, in each zone. 203 After making these necessary threshold determinations, the Agency should issue limited numbers of Aquarium Permits, by zone and by species with corresponding total allowable catch limits, per the above parameters. Additionally, the Agency should require Aquarium Collection Permits, for all take for aquarium purposes, regardless of the method of collection. B. Lack of Mitigation Measures HEPA also requires an EIS to consider mitigation measures. 204 With minor exceptions, such a discussion is plainly absent from both FEAs. Decades of Applicant actions have directly impacted more than 200 species and indirectly impacted an unknown number of additional vertebrate and invertebrate species found in Hawai’i’s coral reefs, one of the most complex ecosystems on Earth, where the fate of each species is determined by the existence, abundance and diverse actions of a multitude of other species that inhabit or otherwise rely upon these unique places. Yet, the FEAs claim there are no significant impacts whatsoever, and therefore, propose no mitigation measures outside of those found in the Preferred Alternatives, related to just two species and one area, which were designed to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources only. 205 In addition to proposing mitigation measures to address biological and related impacts to the various socio-economic values described herein, the EISs must also propose mitigation for impacts to cultural resources and for the ethical concerns and harm done to the animals, themselves, also described herein. C. Lack of Early Consultations PIJAC additionally failed to conduct the required early consultations prior to submitting its DEAs/FEAs. HEPA requires that the application must “at the earliest practicable time, . . . consult with . . . those citizen groups and individuals which the approving agency reasonably believes to be affected.” 206 In this case, it is clear from the long history of litigation that Commenters, at the very 201 See DLNR Aquarium Fish Trip Report See DLNR Aquarium Fish Trip Report 203 See Roelofs (2008) for a useful guide for describing the range of impacts to populations of target species in marine aquarium fisheries. 204 Haw. Code R. § 11-200-10(7). 205 Hawai’i FEA at 74; O’ahu FEA at 59. 202 206 Haw. Code R. § 11-200-9(b)(1). 45 least, should have been consulted. PIJAC should also have consulted Native Hawai’ian groups and experts such as Gail Grabowsky. As a result of this failure to abide by HEPA’s mandate of early consultation, the FEAs fail to analyze all impacts, and are skewed toward a favorable result for industry. VII. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, the Hawai’i FEA and O’ahu FEA are patently insufficient to analyze the impacts of commercial aquarium collection permits. Moreover, as numerous significance criteria are met, we concur with the Agency that EISs are required to fully analyze the impacts of issuing these permits prior to issuing any in the future. A serious overhaul of aquarium fish permitting in Hawai’i is needed. Because currently there are not restrictions on the number of collection permits or the amount of take per species under a fine mesh net (i.e. aquarium) permit or commercial fishing license, the impact that collection may have on target species must be evaluated before issuing permits. As such, each aquarium collection permit must show the total allowable catch, per species and ideally per zone that permit holders must follow to prevent unsustainable fishing. Catch limits per species and per zone should be calculated in conjunction with input from all stakeholders and based on the stock assessment for each target species in the specific areas where they will be allowed to be taken under a permit. The legislature has decreed it the “policy of the State” that DNLR and other agencies must “[c]onserve natural resources . . . by preserving or augmenting natural resources, and by safeguarding the State’s unique natural environmental characteristics . . . .” 207 The Agency must also “[e]ncourage management practices which conserve . . . all natural resources,” and encourage all individuals “to fulfill the responsibility as trustees of the environment for the present and succeeding generations.” 208 In enacting HEPA, the State legislature found “that the quality of humanity's environment is critical to humanity's well-being, [and] that humanity's activities have broad and profound effects upon the interrelations of all components of the environment . . . .” 209 The Agency simply cannot meet these mandates by continuing to allow unlimited aquarium collection, in light of the serious environmental consequences of those permits. Respectfully submitted, Rene Umberger Executive Director, For the Fishes rene@forthefishes.org 808.875.8759 mobile: 808.283.7225 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 344-3(1). Haw. Rev. Stat. § 344-4(2)(A), (10)(A). 209 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-1. 207 208 46 Laura Friend Litigation Fellow, Animal Protection Litigation The Humane Society of the United States 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20037 lfriend@humanesociety.org (202) 676-2331 Keith Dane Hawai’i Policy Advisor The Humane Society of the United States 67-1185 Mamalahoa Hwy. D-104 PMB:259 Kamuela, HI 96743 kdane@humanesociety.org (301) 312-1489 Miyoko Sakashita Oceans Director Senior Counsel CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612 Email: miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org Office: 510-844-7108 Kaimi Kaupiko Kalanihale Miloli’i Wilfred Kaupiko 47 Mike Nakachi President Moana Ohana PO Box 4454 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 mikenakachi@hawaii.rr.com 808-640-3871 CC: Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, jim.lynch@klgates.com Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., terry.vandewalle@stantec.com 48 References Aila, 2014. Submittal to the Board of Land and Natural Resources: Request for Final Approval to Adopt New Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 13-77, Oahu Aquarium Life Management, to Establish New Regulations on Gear, Bag, and Size Limits for Aquarium Collecting on Oahu. Available at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/meeting/submittals/141024/F-2.pdf (accessed on May 6, 2018) Bishop et al. 2011. Total Economic Value for Protecting and Restoring Hawaiian Coral Reef Ecosystems: Final Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Office of Response and Restoration, and Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 16. 406 pp. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pv1x5lzopq5k9pu/Bishop%202011.pdf?dl=0. Board of Land and Natural Resources 2014. October 24, 2014. Item F-2 Submittal. Available at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/meeting/submittals/141024/F-2.pdf (accessed on May 2, 2018) Board of Land and Natural Resources, 2014. October 24, 2014 Meeting Minutes. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/141024-minutes.pdf (accessed on May 2, 2018) Cartwright et al. 2012. Saving Nemo: Mariculture and Market-based Solutions to Reform the Marine Ornamental Trade, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UCSB. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzlfrhkqsyih33s/Cartwright%202012.pdf?dl=0. Cesar, et al. (2002). Economic valuation of the coral reefs of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Available at: https://www.coris.noaa.gov/portals/pdfs/hicesar.pdf (accessed on May 6, 2018) Christie, et al., 2010. Larval Connectivity in an Effective Network of Marine Protected Areas. PLoS ONE 5(12): e15715. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015715. Clark, A.M., & Gulko, D. (1999). Hawaii’s state of the reefs report 1998. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. Davidson, K., Hamnett, M., & Minato, C. (eds). 2003. The First Four Years: Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program (1998-2002). Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 72 pp. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwb4gr4sbqqm2d3/Davidson%202003.pdf?dl=0. Dewees, C.M., & Weber, M.L. (2001). A review of restricted access fisheries. California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game (2001). Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=34331 (accessed on Sept. 6, 2018) DLNR, 2012. Proposed Oahu Only Aquarium Regulations Small Business Impacts Analysis. Small Business Regulatory Review Board, June 20, 2012. Available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dzFJTEDRqLrdqaIMXbPC0PhvzxP9ISQn (accessed on May 4, 2018) DLNR, 2014. Report on the Findings and Recommendations of Effectiveness of the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area. State of Hawai’i. Available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2015/01/ar_hrs188_2015.pdf. DLNR, 2015. State Initiates Comprehensive Coral Reef Management Planning. News Release November 16, 2015. Available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2015/11/16/nr15-179/ (accessed on May 2, 2018) DLNR, 2017. Testimony before State House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources and Hawaiian Affairs. Available at: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2017/Testimony/SB1240_SD2_TESTIMONY_OMH_ 03-14-17_.PDF. Eagle, Nathan, DLNR Urges Ige to Veto Bill Phasing Out Aquarium Fishing in Hawaii (June 23, 2017), www.civilbeat.org/2017/06/dlnr-urges-ige-to-veto-bill-phasing-out-aquarium-fishing-inhawaii/. Eble, et al. 2011. Escaping paradise: Larval export from Hawaii in an Indo-Pacific reef fish, the Yellow Tang (Zebrasoma flavescens). Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011; 428: 245–258. doi: 10.3354/meps09083. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260458/#R93 (accessed on Sept. 6, 2018) Fenner, FAQs About Yellow Tangs 4. Yellow Tang Lifespan. Available at: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/yeltangfaq4.htm (accessed on May 7, 2018) Fenner. Marine Life Use in the Aquarium Hobby. Available at: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marlifeusebiz.htm (accessed on May 7, 2018) Friedlander A, Aeby G, others. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the main Hawaiian Islands. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific freely associated states. Available at: http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/coral_report_2005/MHI_Ch9_C.pdf (accessed October 23, 2015). Friedlander AM, DeMartini EE. 2002. Contrasts in density, size, and biomass of reef fishes between the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: the effects of fishing down apex predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230:253–264. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lpFkRNzW2ibVbAqH5FSE_ci9pO37RU2j (accessed May 8, 2018) Friedlander AM, Donovan MK, Stamoulis KA, Williams ID, Brown EK, Conklin EJ, DeMartini EE, Rodgers KS, Sparks RT, Walsh WJ. 2018. Human-induced gradients of reef fish declines in the Hawaiian Archipelago viewed through the lens of traditional management boundaries. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 28:146–157. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=17LyZEpfD5ENm15g2ecsOG9X_Q_OKbuD7 (accessed May 8, 2018) Friedlander AM, Parrish JD. 1998b. Temporal dynamics of fish communities on an exposed shoreline in Hawaii. Environmental Biology of Fishes 53:1–18. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PX6K98igAgT05KEN8ACRO6qFJTCMz67R (accessed on May 8, 2018) Friedlander AM, Parrish JD. 1998a. Habitat characteristics affecting fish assemblages on a Hawaiian coral reef. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 224:1–30. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tOSj1-Ikmdh6Nqec5nVdiXPch7RoRK0o (accessed on May 8, 2018) Future of Reefs in a Changing Environment (FORCE) Management Brief #4 for Caribbean Reef Management, Economic value of reef fishes to the dive tourism industry: the implications of reef fish decline, European Union Seventh Framework Program (P7/2007-2013) Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/czuml5jpetqv6bc/FORCE%20Management%20Brief_Divers %20pay%20more%20to%20see%20more%20fish.pdf?dl=0. Gove et al. (2016). PIFSC. 2016. West Hawai‘i Integrated Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystem Trends and Status Report. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication, SP-16004, 46p. doi:10.7289/V5/SP-PIFSC-16-004. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/12106 (accessed on Sept. 6, 2018) Grabowsky, 2011. Written and oral testimony before the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Water, Land and Housing on SB580, a bill to regulate the aquarium trade. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=13krnibVcDnDugecxH0fWNa8h9OIxcJzk (accessed on May 4, 2018) Grabowsky, 2014. Oral testimony before the Board of Land and Natural Resources regarding the Oahu Aquarium Rules. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/141024-minutes.pdf (accessed on May 4, 2018) Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2018. Hawaii’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Pg. 4-13 Available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2016/12/HI-SWAP2015.pdf (accessed on May 1, 2018) Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2018. Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/hswap/cwcs/hawaii/species/ (accessed on May 1, 2018) Hawaii Small Business Regulatory Review Board, 2012. Proposed New Hawaii Administrative Rule, Title 13 Chapter 77, “Oahu Aquarium Life Management”. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=11Dk1pUKtRQeBVW7llgpuNYeFoDWgj4Ig (accessed on May 4, 2018) Hawaii Small Business Regulatory Review Board, memo to DLNR 2012. DLNR Should Work with Folks: Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=16rVDVvo2iyfWPbx6ZOyznwfy1_nOiRI5. Hoover, 1993. Hawaii’s Fishes - A Guide for Snorkelers, Divers and Aquarists. Mutual Publishing. Hoover, 2008. The Ultimate Guide to Hawaiian Fishes, Sea Turtles, Dolphins, Whales, and Seals. Mutual Publishing Jones GP, McCormick MI, Srinivasan M, Eagle JV. 2004. Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:8251–8253. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u3sSpW6zYOu6-yQzY6zECTtHsh7Syifn (accessed on May 8, 2018) Katekaru, 1978. Hawaii Div. of Fish and Game, Regulations of Tropical Reef Fish Collecting, Tropical Reef Fish Conference. Sea Grant College Program, Working Paper No. 34. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0e59ieyf3iyc2qg/Noland%201978.pdf?dl=0. KHON TV 2015. State Initiates Comprehensive Coral Reef Management Planning. Available at: http://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/state-initiates-comprehensive-coral-reefmanagement-planning/1025650625 (accessed on May 2, 2018) Livengood and Chapman (2007). The Ornamental Fish Trade: An Introduction with Perspectives for Responsible Aquarium Fish Ownership, University of Florida. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa124 (accessed May 5, 2018) McGilvray (2014). Testimony regarding the Request to Approve Proposed New Oahu Aquarium Life Management Rules. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NUKu_gmYtyuqg9p2F8DicQWUus5PgUZa (accessed on May 6, 2018) Nadon MO. 2017. Stock assessment of the coral reef fishes of Hawaii, 2016. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EOS4GX6fNmkHxogrufucZJrUwZtlQ2IP (accessed on May 8, 2018) Nadon MO, Ault JS, Williams ID, Smith SG, DiNardo GT. 2015. Length-based assessment of coral reef fish populations in the Main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. PLoS One 10:e0133960. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133960 (accessed on May 8, 2018) Noland, 1978. Ocean Research Consulting and Analysis, Ltd., Hawaii Tropical Reef Fish Study, Tropical Reef Fish Conference. Sea Grant College Program, Working Paper No. 34. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0e59ieyf3iyc2qg/Noland%201978.pdf?dl=0. Ochavillo D, Hodgson G. 2006. Marine Aquarium Trade Coral Reef Monitoring Protocol: Data Analysis and Interpretation Manual. Page 39. Available at: http://reefcheck.org/PDFs/MAQTRAC%20Analysis%20Manual%202006.pdf. Queensland Summary Fishery Reports. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kdyx9v20bo738mb/Queensland%20Summary%20Fishing% 20Report.pdf?dl=0 (accessed on April 30 2018) Randall, 1996. Shore Fishes of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Roelofs, 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Queensland Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kUB3wsFzL_Oh0u4HAtTbgclq8MGrBy6W. Rhyne, Tlusty, Holmberg, and Szczebak 2015. Aquariumtradedata.org. (accessed on Sept. 6, 2018) Slembrouck, 2011. There’s Something About Yellow. Visually Blog. Available at: https://visual.ly/blog/the-use-of-yellow-in-data-design/ (accessed on May 6, 2018) Spalding et al. 2017. Mapping the global value and distribution of coral reef tourism. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014 (accessed on May 6, 2018) Stevenson TC, Tissot BN, Dierking J. 2011. Fisher behaviour influences catch productivity and selectivity in West Hawaii’s aquarium fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68:813–822. Available from: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K369D30-NlGFhVcoD1xcqKVf73792Yk (accessed on May 8, 2018) Talbot 2014. “Biblical” Spawning Event on Hawaiian Reefs. CORAL Magazine. Available at: https://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/08/29/biblical-spawning-event-on-hawaiian-reefs/ Tissot, 2005. Integral Marine Ecology: Community-Based Fishery Management in Hawaii. Washington State University. Available at: http://www.malamakai.org/000/docs/WHFC/Community-Based-Fishery-Mgmt-Hawaii.pdf (accessed on May 6, 2018) Tissot B, Hallacher L. 2003. Effects of Aquarium Collectors on Coral Reef Fishes in Kona, Hawaii. Conservation Biology 17:1759–1768. Available at: Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bxrvruhs0743gnb/Tissot%20and%20Hallacher%202003.pd f?dl=0. Tissot BN, Walsh WJ, Hallacher LE. 2004. Evaluating effectiveness of a marine protected area network in West Hawai’i to increase productivity of an aquarium fishery. Pacific Science 58:175–188. Available at: Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wkw7vskfghoqpc/Tissot%20et%20al%202004.pdf?dl=0. Tissot, et al. 2004. Evaluating Effectiveness of a Marine Protected Area Network in West Hawaii to Increase Productivity of an Aquarium Fishery. Pacific Science (2004), vol. 58, no. 2:175– 188. University of Hawai‘i Press. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wkw7vskfghoqpc/Tissot%20et%20al%202004.pdf?dl=0. U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, Trade Subgroup Report (2005), What Do We Know About Coral Reefs, International Trade in Coral Reef Animals and the Urgent Need for Action? Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw68f7icoszv2l1/U.S.%20Coral%20Reef%20Task%20Force %202005.pdf?dl=0 Walsh, 2013. Background on Proposed Hawaii Administrative Rule 13-60.4, West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area, Hawaii. Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2014/05/WHI_HAR_13-60.4_Background.pdf (accessed on May 7, 2018) Walsh 2013. South Kohala Reefs in Dire Straits. Briefing document. DLNR/DAR. Available at: https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/project/20642/S-Kohala-CoralReefs-in-Dire-Straits.pdf (accessed on May 7, 2018) Walsh, et al. 2013. Long-Term Monitoring of Coral Reefs of the Main Hawaiian Islands, Final Report. 2009 NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Hawaiʹi Island Monitoring Report NA09NOS4260100, 10/01/2009 – 12/31/2012. Available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2014/04/NOAA_2013_WHi_-Mon_-Rep.pdf (accessed on May 2, 2018) Walsh WJ. 2015. Report to the Thirtieth Legislature 2015 Regular Session. Report on the findings and recommendations of effectiveness of the West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area. Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vbiSzrRHyd3HKnmusucTRcP-MGIweE2K (accessed on May 8, 2018) Walsh WJ, Cotton SS, Dierking J, Williams ID. 2004. The commercial marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii 1976-2003. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xa_fhq5_tBRCaF58ji7xVAxejg5_sUz(accessed on May 8, 2018) Williams and Walsh, 2007. Strengthening Coral Reef Monitoring of Main Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative (HCRI) Project Report Format. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pztmuf1jjfs33nm/Williams%20and%20Walsh%202007.pdf? dl=0. Williams and Walsh, 2008. West Hawaii Aquarium Species of Special Concern, Initial Considerations and Relevant Data. Powerpoint Presentation. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sm4psxdgn7w2d8d/Wlliams%20and%20Walsh%202008_W est%20HI%20Species%20of%20Special%20Concern_powerpoint.pdf?dl=0 Williams ID, Walsh WJ, Claisse JT, Tissot BN, Stamoulis KA. 2009. Impacts of a Hawaiian marine protected area network on the abundance and fishery sustainability of the yellow tang, Zebrasoma flavescens. Biological Conservation 142:1066–1073. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f0CWb5QB7aKo0dEYJTmpIn8h7w1s0dYO (accessed May 8, 2018) Williams ID, Walsh WJ, Schroeder RE, Friedlander AM, Richards BL, Stamoulis KA. 2008. Assessing the importance of fishing impacts on Hawaiian coral reef fish assemblages along regionalscale human population gradients. Environmental Conservation 35:261. Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OMMj1npKxL-J5enF-t88TynBQXlSFuM(accessed on May 8, 2018) Appendix 1 Linear model results showing a significant increase on the number of commercial aquarium permits issued annually for the Island of Hawai’i (WHRFMA and East Hawai’i combined) and O’ahu. Data from O’ahu DEA (Table 2, p16) and Hawai’i DEA (Table 2, p20). Island of Hawai’i Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(> t ) (Intercept) -3316.8903 1157.5586 -2.865 0.0112 * year 1.6801 0.5763 2.915 0.0101 * --Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 12.69 on 16 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.3469, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3061 F-statistic: 8.498 on 1 and 16 DF, p-value: 0.01012 O’ahu Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(> t ) (Intercept) -3157.1228 1260.2195 -2.505 0.0234 * year 1.6140 0.6274 2.572 0.0205 * --Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 13.81 on 16 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.2926, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2484 F-statistic: 6.617 on 1 and 16 DF, p-value: 0.02045 Appendix 2 All photos courtesy of Paul Cox. Aquarium Collecting Vessel Anchored off Black Rock Caves, North Kohala 2011 Aquarium Collecting Vessel Anchored off Papa Bay, Milolii, February 2014: prior coral damage apparent in trench adjacent to current anchor location; newly broken coral indicated by bright white pieces. Aquarium Collecting Vessel Anchored off Papa Bay, Milolii, March 2014 (same vessel as in images for Feb. 2014). Aquarium Collecting Vessel Anchored off Papa Bay, Milolii, September 2014: (different vessel from Feb/March photos). Aquarium collectors crawling through coral wearing knee pads. Note: none of these divers are wearing buoyancy control devices—used to maintain neutral buoyancy above the coral—which are standard equipment for recreational scuba divers. Instead they use a backpack designed to contribute to negative buoyancy, along with weight belts. Appendix 3 Live Arrive/Stay Alive Restrictions on Guarantees Available at: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/productdetail.asp?cid=8&pid=145&did=1 Guarantee Restriction: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/guarantee_restriction.htm Available at: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/productdetail.asp?cid=26&pid=558&did=1 Guarantee Restriction: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/guarantee_restriction.htm Available at: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/productdetail.asp?cid=26&pid=617&did=1 Guarantee Restriction: https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/guarantee_restriction.htm Salt Water Salt Water Fish Fish Please enter your search here Home Popular Category Salt Water Fish H-Z Wrasses Golden Cleaner Wrasse (Hawaii) - Labroides phthirc-pliagus - Cleaner Royal - Golden Cleaner Wrasse (Hawaii) - Labroides phthirophagus - Cleaner Royal Cleaner Wrasse roll over image to magnify Bookmark This Page '2 Shopping with us is Safe Guaranteed Print This Page Clams I Bivalve Reptiles Reptile Aquarium Bird Small Supplies Supplies Supplies Animal Aquarium suitability: Care level: Behavior: Minimum tank size: Maximum size: Reef compatibility: Diet: Origin: Family: Manufacturer Name: Regular Price: Purchase size: Our Price: You Save: Stock Code r? Expert Not Cover Under Arrive Guaranteed Peaceful 30 Gallon 3.9 inches Yes Carnivore Hawaii Labridae FreshMarine $69.99 Small l" 2" Medium 3' 4" Large 5" 6" $50.50 $12.49 (19.83%) golden?cleaner?wrasse Available at: Appendix 4: DLNR Commercial Aquarium Species List (available in DLNR Aquarium Fish Trip Report Booklet) FBV- 9/30/2011 Commercial Aquarium Species List 311E: 36111131111311.1336? 3 I 4 Squaretai] (Cantherhines sandwichiensis) 103 Achilles Tang (Acan?mrus (161117193) 315 Yellowtail (Peruagor aapncaudm 107 Bluelined Surgeon (Acanlhums nigruris) 114 Chevron Tang {Ctenochaems hawaiiensir) 170 andtail (Upeneus taeniopterus) 104 Goldrim Surgeon (Acanrhurus nign'canr) 176 Kumu - Whitesaddle* (Parupeneur 13 Kole - Gonring (Grenachaetus 5111305115) 175 Moana kali Blue (Pa rupeneur cycloslomus) 106 Lavender Tang (Forktail) (A 01111111111113 111g1'0?15t'11s 177 Moano Manybar* ('Parupeneus mum'fnsciams) 120 Long bodied Surgeon (Nam brevimsm's) 178 Munu 7 Doublebar (Pampenens bi?rsciatus) 101 Manini Convict 'l'ang* (Acorn/Imus Iriostegus) 172 Red Weke - Yellow?n* vanicolensis) 118 Naso Tang (Naso 1111111111115) 174 Sidespot (Pampeneus pleumstr'gma) 109 Orange-shoulder Surgeon (Acanthurus 011111166115) [71 White Weke- Yellowstripe" 110 Palani - Eyestripe (11135111111811) 33313351111555 1 1 Puaiu Yellow?n (Amnrimms xanrhoptems) 331 Arc- (Paracirrhires arcarus) 1 l2 Ringtail Surgeon?sh (Acamhumr bloc-7111') 332 Blackside (Freckled, Forster's) 16 Sail?n Tang vehfemm) 336 Longnose (01316117411165 13111113) 1 19 Sleek Unicorn* (Naso hexacamims) 335 Redbar (Cirrhiropsfasciarus) 102 Spotted Tang (Ac-anthumr 511111111115) 333 Stocky (Cirrhim: pinmdatus) 100 Surgeon?shes (Acanthuridae) 334 Twospot 6111111611111) 108 Thompson's Surgeon (Acanthums 11101111150111) 121 Unicom"? (Naso 1111117011113) 504 Fantail (Donhamphur exirus) 117 Unicornfishes 565 Pipefishes 105 Whitebar Surgeon Ecucopareius) 505 Redstripe baldwim') 115 Yellow Tang (Zebrmoma 566 Seahorses 122 Moorish Idol (Zanclur 110171111115) 567 Spotted Seahorse (H1ppocamp11s 11111111) 1111111113313112311311 1 '1 303 Black niger) 350 Porcupinefish (Diodon 113156111) 300 Blue?0110111 auromargr'mnur) 351 Spiny Balloon?sh (01011011 holocanthus) 299 Crosshatch 11191110) 33111 11311113311336?? '11 1&611?66366113339 302 Lagoon acuiearus) 293 Amboy Tobyr amboiensis) 301 Picasso (Rhinecan?ms rectangular) 291 Crown Toby (Cann'u'guster 601111111111 304 Pinktail (Melina-71111313 vidua) 294 Maze Toby (Canthigaster 1111111111111) 305 Whiteline, Lei - (81111111111911 bursa) 341 Spotted Puffer meieagrz's) 136 1.3171333331331232?: 3333113111113? 342 Stripebelly Puffer (Arwhron hispidus) 157 Belted (Orange bar) (S tethtyulzs balteata) 292 White- -spot Toby 651111111 gaster jactaror) 151 Bird (Gomphosm van'us) 295 Yellowtail Toby (Cam/111311 rter epilamem) 150 Blacktail (Thaiassoma baliieni) 1:11.131 151:1?131166?11663116663 146 Christmas (Thaiassoma 11110611111111) 405 Devil Scorpion?sh (Scorpaenopsis (111111701115 131 Cigar (Alligator) {Cheilio inermis) 403 Green Lion?sh (Dendrochims 27a rben) 134 Cleaner [Labroides 402 Hawaiian Turkey?sh (Preror's ex) 144 Dragon raem'ourus) 401 Leaf Scorpion (Taenianotus 11121111111111 us) 139 Eightline (Pseudocheilinus 0610111611151) 407 Speckled Scorpion?sh (Sehasrapisres 17011101111) I53 Elegant Curis (Cori: 111311113111) 406 Titan Scorpion?sh (Sitar-1911311010515 cacopsis) 160 Flag (Anampses cuvier) 13311? ?gi??imwx? 1; 311mm; 162 Flame (Cirr?hilabmsjordani) 376 Bigscale Soldier (Myr iprr'stis bemdti) 140 Fourline (Pseudachez'l 111115 (erratum 1'11 377 Brick Soldier (Myriprisn's 1111111191111) 133 Hog?sh (Bodiamis 61111111116165) 374 Crown Squirrel (Sargocentron diadema) 155 Lined Coris (Cm-13 1111111116111) 375 Hawaiian Squirrel (Sargocentron 165 Moon (Lyretail) (?11111155011111 lunare) 378 Shoulder-bar Soldier (Myn'prisris kumee) 161 Ornate (Pinkface') (Haiichoeres ornatissimur) 370 Squirrelfish (Holocentridae) 143 Peacock Razor?sh (X pave) 373 Whitespot Squirrel :Sargocenrmn punt-1.1111531711111171) 156 Pencil (Pseudojntoia?es cemxt'nur) 158 Potter's (Macropharyngodon geo?my) rev. 9/30/2111 1 Commercial Aquarium Species List 6(r4' awmiw 8889318 8W 1.267 642 490 230 398 ,Ei?gitlga? 801 804 802 970 mam?. 4,1,3 ?was o?m85-, . Razor?sh Red-tail Ringtail Saddle Scarlett Sharp?headed Sunrise Wrasse Sunset Surge Twospot Yellowstriped Coris Yellowtail Cmis 7 WW 58' 8w38: 88% 88388mm 280 Aholehole- Hawaiian Flagtail* Aweoweo - Bigeyes Bait?sh Bat fish Boarlish Cornet?sh Dart?sh Dwarf rock?sh Frog?sh Gobies Hawaiian Morwung Helmet Gurnard Lefteye lounders Lizard?shes Mollies Moi - Thread?n* Mu - Bigeye Emperor Nenue Papio - Jacks* Redspotted Sandperch Righteye Flounders Saltwater cats Sand Tile?sh Scaridae Sharks Sharp-j aw Mullet Striped Mullet?c Stripey Ta?ape Blueline Snapper Toau - Blacktail Snapper Trumpet?sh Uhu- Parrot?shes* Veivetfish Grape a erpa Halirneda Letucce Cauerpa Other Algae 4:35:83? jd?ejk 1 WM 31:3; 3283:: 1:83 VW temyZQ 803 Red Kelp 805 Sea Lettuce (X yrichi} iimbrilams) (Anampses imrfaseiums) (Thaiasmma dupperey)? (Pseudocheilinus evanidus) lecture) 81 1 Mann' 5 Anemone 812 Seabae Anemone ggfcanhwg?888838988? Mary YIK )v z. 888888;; (Halj'menia Spp) (Ulva app) :8 e?xwxm N. em edggm?wwyw 1.1m 1, 18888333888 mm?: (Ciadacteila manni) (Hater actis main) . . my gm :?iwgea 8 818% 82;: mm? 9?88 2" (Bodmnus swam-es.) ?888888 888888888 (Thaiassmna iutescens) 863 Aama (Grapsus Ienuicrustatus) 933 Anemone Hermit (Orange-leg) 860 Black 861 Flat Rock (Sally Lightfoot) 862 Pom?Porn 932 Yellow Hairy Hermit 937 Halloween Hermit Crab 934 Hermite (small misc.) 938 Zebra Hermit Crab 854 Arrow 865 Strawberry 88:88:31? 936 Hawaiian Red Lobster 910 Spiny Lobster* 912 Slipper Lobster* WNW as (Thaiassomti purpm?eum) (Oxycheiiz'mts tritium-uterus) (Coris?avovirtam) (C01 ir gaimard) WWwv:wv@M g9? :ggk 0'81? gemggw ?883888983288? 8? (Kaitlin saiidvicensis (Pn' acanthidae) (Onoeephalidae) (Histioopteridae) (Fistularia commersonii) (Mierodesmidae) (Canihidermis mriculams) (Antenmlariidae) (Gobiidae) (Cheiimiacrylus viitams) (Dacrylaptena orientaiis) (Bothidae) (Synodontidae) (Poecilidae) (Poiydactyhis sex?iir) (M anoiaxis grandocuiir) (Kyphosus bigibbus) (Caramgidae) (Pampercis (Pleuronectidae) (B rotulidae) 876 Black (Maiamn!hus brevimsn'is) 877 Strawberry 01* Pink (Scaridae) 878 Stubborn WW 8883:8883 8. . 881 Blue Linckia 882 Common Linekia 954 Crown-of-Thorns 883 Cushion Star 884 Orange Knob W?i??m ??wwas?wri; 891 Longspine 892 Pincushion 893 Shortspine 956 Slate uranium ?at 91888898945 Cleaner 948 Coral?banded 943 Ghost 944 Green 946 Harlequin 866 Opae ula? Red Pond 947 Red? Stripe (Neumyxus leaciscusl (Magi! cephaias) (Microwmhus strigatus) (Lurjamis kasmira) (Lutjarms (Aulostomus chinemis) (Scaridae) (Caracanthidae) ?8689"?199 ?759?? ?Mwe 8:8 88888mmw?88888888 ?m (Canisrpa racemnsa) app.) (Camel-pa spp.) wawx M??i 4,82,, ?9:385: ?m eggw-wmmv? 8 8&8 1 ?81,1888 E88 g??f gg?ge?i ?u?xbel? gala? ?3 r? 8318' M8 8888 ?g?i?mtw?xe We? MM 88 M?Q$?J?g$wok$wn MW: 83 MN ?f?g 8888888 fax ?@33ng 8 i 88888888518888 e888; ,1 (Dardanas (Percnon pianissimum (Lybia) (Ania-tries maximus) (Caicinus eiegans) (Di 0 genidae) zebra) (Majidae) (XanthidaeLx ?8:859? .e?9 gm xvfwev?z ?Wearww?ge 8i (Enoplon?ieti opidae) (Palinur idae) Haw 838.8.? N, 8388228 an 3&8; ??91883 1" wv?g 3* ?28 mm? 8 f?wamawammegaxl gig my .88 mm?g} a? al?? mg1??88898899? 8:88888 235;} mm, W, AWL (Lysmaia. ambainensis) (Stenopus hispidiis) (Stenapus pyrsonotiis] (Hippolytidae) (H ymermcera pitta) (Haiocariciina mbm) (Sara ?i?w?w (Haiothuria arm) (Hoiothuria eduiis) (Hoiotimria perviccuc)? j??wvvw?awe ?888 (Lincicra (Linckiri (A canthaster pianci) (C uicim novaeguinae) (Pgntacem. rter umin (Echmothrix or Diadema spp. (Tripneiisiea 3: (11111.51) (Echinametra spp. (Helemcentmius mammilarur ?2583188 .5, mega; 29882 rawiwm??m Mg rev. 9130/2011 Commercial Aquarium Species List M95?f??131? 858 Bobtail Squid scolopes') 963 Bubble Shells (order Cephalaspidea) 961 Nudibranchs (order Nudibranchia) 900 Octopus* (Octopus spp.) 859 Oval Squid (Sepioreuthis lessoniuna) 962 Sea Hares (order Anaspidea) 964 Spanish Dancer (Hexabranchus sanguineus) 959 Cones (Conidae) 960 Cewries (Cypraeidae) 852 Reticulated Cowries (Cyrpaea reticulum) 85] Tiger Cowries -- 818iI ?snDW?ake Coral (Carijua riisei) nggiq . EH >e&:w:333 33$ $39-me39 3 area ,3 9 ?9:3wa ggaw??-swy I 3 921 Feat er uster (Sabeliasmrte sancrgosephr) 923 Medusa Worms (Loimia madam) v: Mwaaww?nawaw WW 999 (For any Invert or Fish: please describe specimen) (Cypraea tigrir) 39?3?? 333-333 3? ?ifgga ?3333. fee: Appendix 5 DLNR Aquarium Fish Catch Report Zones (available in DLNR Aquarium Fish Trip Report Booklet) Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response We concur with DLNR’s findings that the significance criteria in HAR § 11-200-12 have been met, and that the preparation of EISs is required to fully analyze the environmental impacts of commercial aquarium collection on both the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared. To this end, we expect the Applicant endeavor to develop fully acceptable EISs prior to the time the EISs is filed with the office, through a full and complete consultation process, and that the Applicant shall not rely solely upon the review process to expose environmental concerns. We are also requesting to be parties to any public scoping meeting(s) convened to receive comments on the FEA-EISPNs and setting forth the scope of the draft EISs. Further, we expect our substantive comments on the FEAs, discussed below, to be responded to in writing and incorporated into the draft EIS by the Applicant prior to the filing of the draft EISs with DLNR. We also expect that the responses shall not be merely self-serving recitations of benefits and/or rationalizations of the proposed actions. In addition, we expect the EIS’s to disclose any and all adverse effects on cultural resources and traditional cultural practices, which are set forth in HAR § 11-200-10 and discussed in more detail below. Finally we also expect the Draft EIS to include discussion and disclosure of climate change impacts, as envisioned by the proposed HAR § 11-200.1-13 Significance Criteria, Criterion 11 (based on the December 2017 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission report) to address concerns related to climate change adaptation, such as impacts from increased hurricane frequency and/or intensity, potential endangered species migration, impacts on areas likely to experience wave inundation, increased exposure to hurricanes, or flooding, and further impacts discussed below. Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared, and the commenter was included as a consulted party. No public scoping meeting was held. Cultural impacts are analyzed in depth in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS). The DEIS includes an analysis of the cumulative impacts of climate change (Section 5.4.3.5 of the DEIS). The FEAs are entirely inadequate under the HEPA and its implementing regulations. The environmental impact statements now required by DLNR must adequately address these and other notable flaws remaining in the FEAs fail to analyze the impacts of collection beyond one year; fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of unlimited collection of aquatic life; fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of commercial collection on the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu along with collection in other parts of the State; fail to analyze the cumulative impacts of commercial collection along with recreational collection; fail to analyze impacts on cultural resources; fail to analyze reasonable alternatives; fail to analyze the impacts of harmful collection practices; rely on inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete data; fail to analyze mitigation measure; fail to incorporate input of Native Hawai’ian groups, experts, and affected citizens. The Applicant unlawfully limited its analyses to the time period of a single year. PIJAC’s reasoning for this is that each permit only lasts one year, and therefore a new EA would need to be completed on an annual basis. However, while Commenters agree that it is critical for the Agency to continue to monitor the impacts that aquarium collection is having over time, the relatively short time period of the activity itself does not nullify HEPA’s clear requirement for considering the long‐term effects of that activity (example given). Comment noted. The DEIS expanded the analysis to a 5-year period, and also addresses the cumulative impact of past, present, and foreseeable aquarium collection in future years in Section 5.4.3.3. Cumulative impacts of recreational collection is discussed in Section 5.4.3.1. Impacts to cultural resources are analyzed in Section 5.3, and also included in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS). Two additional alternatives have been added in the DEIS that addresses concerns with Achilles Tang and the number of permits that would be issued. Specifically, one alternative proposes restricting permits to the WHRFMA, and the other alternative includes issuance of only 14 permits, as well as reducing the Achilles Tang bag limit form 10/day to 5 per day for commercial aquarium collection in the WHRFMA. The Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) included consultation with Native Hawaiian groups and affected citizens. The best available scientific data has been included in the DEIS. Comment noted. As noted in the DEIS, the analysis period has been expanded to five years. However, under HRS 188-31, the DLNR may issue an Aquarium Permit not longer than one year in duration. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Additionally, a 12‐month timeframe that analyzes impacts is inadequate because the impact of fish removal will accumulate over time. Studies show that catch numbers from the commercial aquarium fishery in Hawai’i have significantly increased over the last few decades and are likely to increase even more Response Comment noted. As noted in the DEIS, the analysis period has been expanded to five years. However, under HRS 188-31, the DLNR may issue an Aquarium Permit not longer than one year in duration. While it is correct that individuals are removed from the population annually, it is also true that new individuals are added during that period, and therefore it is not certain losses will accumulate over time. As noted in Section 5.4.1.2 of the Hawai'i DIES, reef fish have high fecundity and are long lived, and as such produce a large number of young each year over many years. In addition, as noted throughout the DEIS, commercial aquarium collection targets juvenile fish leaving behind the adult broodstock. Section 5.4.3.3 of the DEIS addresses the cumulative impacts of multiple years of commercial aquarium collection. The number of commercial aquarium permits issued per year has significantly increased over the last 18 years for the Island of Hawai’i (at ~35% per year, p=0.01) and for O’ahu (at ~29% per year, p=0.02) (see Fig. 1, see Appendix 1 for linear model results). In fact these trends have been observed since the early 1980s. It is likely that the number of commercial aquarium permits issued on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu will continue to increase in the coming years due to the high demand for aquarium reef fish and their increasing market value. In response to this comment, the Applicant claims that the number of permits issued is “[not] necessarily indicative of the number of fish collected,” however DLNR data shows a strong correlation between the number of permits issued and the level of catch (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the Hawai’i Supreme Court has made clear that the proper inquiry under HEPA is “the outer limits of what the permits allow . . . .” The relationship between the number of participants in a fishery and impacts to fish populations is wellestablished in the literature. The importance of restricting access to fisheries has been acknowledged and used for thousands of years to conserve and help sustain fish populations. The FEAs failed to take into account how increasing demand and increasing market value will affect already depleted targeted reef fish species in the coming years, thus result in significant environmental impact. For example, the market value of tropical reef fish (e.g., yellow tang) has increased and thus collection/fishing pressure is likely to increase in the near future. The commercial aquarium fishery in Hawai’i reports annual landings of over 579,000 organisms (fish and invertebrates combined. The number of aquarium fish caught on the island of Hawai’i since 1976 has substantially increased by 645%. Similarly, the adjusted value of the Hawai’i Island aquarium fishery increased by over 280% between 1976 and 2003. This relationship must be analyzed in the FEAs and permitting must be adjusted accordingly to account for populations declines. The FEAs’ claim that the high fecundity and long lifespans of reef fishes combined with the limited targeting of adult brood-stock by the trade removes the certainty that the losses will accumulate over time is false. Studies show that populations of heavily targeted species, such as Yellow Tangs, are neither annually replenished, nor restored over time to their natural levels of abundance. On the contrary, they have been severely depleted over time, especially in the areas where they are collected. While the Hawai’i FEA noted that for Yellow Tang and kole, which represent two of the top three collected species, population trends are stable or increasing, it failed to acknowledge that the increase in fish abundance is due to an anomalous recruitment pulse that coincided with warming waters in 2014. Typical recruitment pulses, such as those that occurred in 2002 and 2009, have resulted in short-lived increases in fish populations that were followed by prolonged or short and steep population declines Comment noted. The DEIS has been updated, and the new Preferred Alternative limits the number of permits to be issued to 14 fishers. Comment noted. As discussed in the DEIS, population trends for Yellow Tang and Kole continue to increase. Two alternatives in the DEIS address concerns with Achilles Tang, specifically by reducing the bag limit from 10/day to 5/day for commercial aquarium collection in the WHRFMA. For the remaining species, the data analysis in the DEIS were limited to collection data from 2000-2017 due to changes in regulations that occurred in or after 1999 (i.e., creation of FRAs, bag limits, etc.). The Preferred Alternative further limits commercial aquarium collection by limiting the number of permits to 14. The analysis looks at both average and maximum collection rates from recent years (2000-2017) to estimate collection over the 5year analysis period. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment The FEAs also fail to consider other cumulative impacts. The Hawai’i FEA states that it only analyzes impacts that the aquarium permits issued for the island of Hawai’i will have; similarly, the O’ahu FEA states that it only analyzes the impacts that aquarium permits issued for O’ahu will have. Neither FEA considers the cumulative impacts that permits issued for either island will have cumulatively with permits issued for the other island with a FEA—let alone cumulatively with permits issued for islands for which PIJAC conducted no FEA (e.g., Kauai and the islands that make up the County of Maui). Coral reefs in Hawai’i are connected by ocean currents. Carried within these currents are the larvae of Hawai’i’s reef fishes which typically settle downstream of the reefs where they originated. Most fishes on Hawai’i’s reefs are the result of other fishes upstream of that reef. Fish removed from a reef can re‐populate as long as the capacity of the upstream larval reservoir isn’t exceeded. For example, the prevailing currents in Hawai’i mean that Hawai’i Island reefs “seed” the islands to the northwest—marine life spreads from the Hawai’i Island to the islands of Maui County and beyond. Reduced populations of reef fishes on Hawai’i Island can seriously impact reef fish abundance in the entire state. Additionally, the FEAs fail to even properly address the true nature of what the Applicant is requesting in its Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternatives for both EAs, “DLNR would issue Aquarium Permits for the island of Hawai’i under existing regulation set forth in HRS 188‐31,” and “DLNR would issue Aquarium Permits for the island of O’ahu under existing regulation set forth in HRS 188‐31.” In other words, PIJAC’s Preferred Alternative is collection of an unlimited number of fish and other coral reef inhabitants—the limits of what regulation allows. Additional bag limits, proposed only for Achille Tangs in the Hawai'i FEA and Flame Wrasses in the O'ahu FEA, fail to limit total catch because these daily catch limits apply to a limitless number of people. Yet, the FEAs consider only very limited collection. HEPA requires that an EA assess the potential cumulative impacts of what State regulations allow, not just what some permittees may claim they intend to do with their permits. As the Hawai’i Supreme Court clearly stated, “the properly defined activity for the purposes of the HEPA analysis must encompass the outer limits of what the permits allow and not only the most restrictive hypothetical manner in which the permits may be used.” The EISs must address this. Likewise, although the FEAs purport to analyze impacts cumulatively with those of recreational collection permits, the FEAs do not account for the fact that the Agency issues a permit for every application that is submitted, and therefore the take under recreational permits is potentially unlimited as well. And the FEAs admit that, as there is no required reporting for recreational permits, it is currently impossible to know how many of each species are taken under those permits, and therefore, the impact of collection under these permits on species collected under thes permits cannot be quantified. This lack of data must be addressed in the EISs. The analysis of cumulative impacts must include the impact of the commercial aquarium fishery, regardless of the gear used to capture the marine life, combined with non‐aquarium commercial and recreational fisheries and other activities that impact population abundance. Commercial and recreational fishing combined with the aquarium fishery have a substantial impact on targeted species. The FEAs should determine cumulative impact of all fishing on target species. In addition, the FEAs must analyze indirect impacts from collection such as vessel traffic and accumulated reef damage due to vessel anchoring and collection practices. As noted earlier, the EISs must also evaluate the potential of cumulative impacts of climate change (warming, coral bleaching, and ocean acidification) on targeted fish species such as decline of coral coverage which have been demonstrated to influence reef fish species diversity and abundance. The FEAs recognize that climate change poses serious threats to Hawai’i’s coral reefs and the species targeted by the Applicant, yet ironically claim that climate change impacts coupled with the impacts of implementing the three proposed alternatives are expected to be less than significant. These statements completely deny the research and data that demonstrate what is stated, that climate change impacts, specifically ocean warming, acidification and coral bleaching events will continue, thus further analysis of impacts and exacerbation of impacts due to climate change is required. Response Comment noted. As noted in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, Toonen et al. (2011) conclude that the Hawaiian Archipelago is not a single, well-mixed marine community, but rather there are at least four significant multi-species barriers to dispersal along the length of the island chain, and that species that appear capable of extensive dispersal, such as Yellow Tang and Kole, show significant population differentiation within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In addition, there are significant consensus genetic breaks that restrict gene flow between islands, include a barrier between the island of Hawai’i and the rest of the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). Comment noted. The DEIS has been updated, and the new Preferred Alternative limits the number of permits to be issued to 14 fishers. The DEIS used the best available data to evaluate the cumulative impacts from recreational permits. Comment noted. The issues mentioned in the comment are addressed in various sections of the DEIS, including the Cumulative Impacts section (5.4.3), direct impacts, and Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS which notes that two studies have concluded that the aquarium fishery has no significant impact on coral or the reef ecosystem. As noted in Section 5.4.3.6 of the DEIS, cumulative impacts to the 12 White List Species which have significantly declined between 1999 and 2017 would be significant. However, as noted in Section 5.4.3, the DAR (2019) found that declines were occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating the aquarium collection is not driving the decline. While commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Additionally, measures included in the Preferred Alternative (e.g., limited permit issuance, reduced Achilles Tang bag limit) may mitigate potential impacts by limiting the number of aquarium permits issued as well as the number of Achilles Tang that can be collected by commercial aquarium collectors each day. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response It is clear from an analysis of cumulative impacts that many of HEPA’s “significance criteria” apply. Most directly, the proposed actions willl likely have a significant effect on the environment due to at least: the loss or destruction of natural and cultural resources; curtailing the range of beneficial uses of the environment; substantial degradation of environmental quality; cumulative effects on the environment; and potentially substantially affecting rare, threatened or endangered species, or its habitat. The scope of the EISs must address these effects. The scope must include a temporal baseline that captures the impacts of collection pressure over time, before the natural populations of targeted species were depleted by this activity. Proper examination of the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations and the coral reef ecosystem over time requires a look-back period that in the very least begins in 1953 when the aquarium permits were authorized by the state. Comment noted. The DEIS evaluates the HEPA significance criteria in Section 5.6. The scope of the DEIS evaluates each of the five alternatives based on their impact to the current baseline conditions, because that is the environment which would be impacted by each of the five alternatives. Environmental impacts from aquarium trade activities have been documented for over forty years. Under the Preferred Alternative, every fish and marine creature, other than corals and those associated with live rock, could be removed from one, or all, of the State of Hawai’i’s reefs—with catastrophic effects. This is not speculation: there is currently no law, regulation or enforcement capability that would prevent this from occurring. The potential for unlimited collection is a fact that encompasses the outer limits of what the aquarium permits allow, as was explained earlier. Collecting individual species in high numbers poses a significant threat to coral reef health. As explained herein, herbivorous species, such as Yellow Tangs and Goldring Surgeonfishes, are the most heavily targeted. Herbivorous fish are essential to avoid algal overgrowth of corals and concomitant degradation of the reef. Hermit crabs are also collected in large numbers despite being essential to ecosystem health. Other important functional groups include: planktivores (e.g. Hawai’ian Dascyllus), corallivores (e.g. Fourspot Butterflyfish, Multiband Butterflyfish), fish predators (e.g. Hawkfishes, Hawai’ian Lionfish) and cleaner fishes (e.g. Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse). The collection of large numbers of invertebrates including hermit crabs and shrimps that are grazers, scavengers, or cleaners, could potentially have serious ecosystem impacts including reduced resiliency to other threats. Comment noted. The concept of “unlimited” collection is still speculative and not reasonably foreseeable. Analyzing extreme possibilities is not helpful (and not what the law requires). The law requires an assessment of the "expected consequences" of a proposed action. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS limits the number of permits to be issued to 14 permits, and limits the permits to the WHRFMA. The DEIS uses the best available data (past commercial aquarium collection) to predict the reasonable outcome of issuance of permits for five additional years. The analysis in the DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. As noted in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, Toonen et al. (2011) conclude that the Hawaiian Archipelago is not a single, well-mixed marine community, but rather there are at least four significant multi-species barriers to dispersal along the length of the island chain, and that species that appear capable of extensive dispersal, such as Yellow Tang and Kole, show significant population differentiation within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In addition, there are significant consensus genetic breaks that restrict gene flow between islands, include a barrier between the island of Hawai’i and the rest of the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). It is understood that coral reefs are a complicated ecosystem made up of many species that each serve a function. However, given the conclusions in the DEIS that commercial aquarium collection is not significantly impacting the populations of any of the White List Species on the island of Hawai'i , the species are anticipated to continue to serve their functions in the ecosystem. In addition, as noted in Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS, Tissot and Hallacher (2003) found no evidence that algal growth was higher in areas of collection versus areas without collection, despite differences in fish abundance. Additionally, the DAR (2019) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment The reduction of natural populations of species taken by the aquarium trade in any area (e.g. specific site, zone, coastline, island or statewide), and by any amount, whether one or one hundred percent, indicates an irrevocable commitment and loss of a natural and cultural resource. This very loss curtails the range of beneficial uses that would otherwise be provided by the natural abundance of these populations. As has been long recognized, "The impact of commercial aquarium fish collecting is a complicated issue. The fish community members are highly dependent on one another. There is a constant interaction between predators and competitors, as well as other members of the food web. There is a lot of variability in the system, even when it is not disturbed by man. Reefs seem to undergo natural cycles. At times they may be very abundant. There is also natural variation in the fish community at different locations." The EISs and any discussion of “sustainable” must include the high aesthetic value of this beautiful marine life as well as impacts to the complex relationships inherent in coral reef ecosystems and impacts to overall coral reef health. “Animal communities” are included in the rule definition for “environment,” however the FEAs exclude any mention of the impact to fish and invertebrate communities. Response Comment noted. This is not an irrevocable action, as commercial aquarium permits may be suspended pursuant to HAR 13-74-3(1) if the department determines that it is necessary for the protection and conservation of aquatic life. In addition, fish will continue to reproduce. The DEIS concludes that there will be no significant reduction in the natural populations of species collected by the aquarium trade. In addition, regarding the aesthetic values of fish, the DEIS concludes that the percent of each population collected would be imperceptible to observers. The Hawai’i State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) states that “Excessive extractive use constitutes a threat to wildlife. Certain reef fishes are harvested for sale in the aquarium trade . . . . These activities are not sustainable on a large scale and impact native wildlife.” Comment noted. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). The list of species of greatest conservation need includes at least 18 native fish species that are threatened by the aquarium trade and in need of conservation actions to reduce the risk of extinction (see Fig. 2). Comment noted. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS includes limited permit issuance for the WHRFMA only, which limits collection to the 40 White List Species, of which three are SGCN, which are discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS. The DEIS concludes no significant impact to these three species. Butterflyfishes are heavily targeted by the aquarium trade (Fourspot Butterflyfish, Longnose Butterflyfish, Teardrop Butterflyfish, Forcepsfish, Multiband/Copperband). Reported aquarium harvest of those same five species has since plummeted (see Fig. 5). The same is true for other heavily targeted butterflyfish species that have been among the top twenty aquarium fishes collected by the trade since 1976. This sharp decline in reported catch is not an indicator that these species are no longer in demand. Continuing demand is confirmed by several examples: • These species’ inclusion in the West Hawai’i White List. • Their exclusion from the O’ahu rules (The O’ahu aquarium rule prohibits take of three butterflyfishes, citing their “coral diets” as the need for the restriction. Since 1999 total reported take of those three species was 50 fish. Zero restrictions were provided for three additional coral eating butterflyfishes, with total reported take of over 51,000 individuals since 1999.) • The Fourspot Butterflyfish catch increase that followed the 2014/2015 warming event and unprecedented fish bloom. Subsequently, catch of the Fourspot Butterflyfish declined to an all‐time low. Comment noted. Of the five butterflyfish species mentioned specifically in the comment, the DEIS concludes that commercial aquarium collection is anticipated to take 1% or less of the population of the fourspot butterflyfish, forcepsfish, and multiband/copperband butterflyfish (see Table 5-14 in the DEIS). The longnose butterflyfish and teardrop butterflyfish are no longer able to be collected in West Hawai'i. The scope of the EISs must include a temporal baseline that captures the impacts of the heavy collection pressure on these species over time, before their natural populations were depleted by this activity. The scope of the DEIS evaluates each of the five alternatives based on their impact to the current baseline conditions, because that is the environment which would be impacted by each of the five alternatives. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response In nearly every encounter with commercial aquarium collectors on West Hawai’i reefs, snorkelers and divers have witnessed and documented destructive practices that harm corals, with the most damage coming from vessel anchors and chains. Sticks, buckets, nets, underwater propulsion devices (scooters) are laid in the corals and the fins, knees and legs of collectors often come in contact with the reef—in fact, they are typically described as “crawling across” or “standing” on the corals. The results of these actions include abrasion and coral breakage. Both FEAs refer to a study that determined there was no evidence to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices (e.g. breaking apart corals to capture hiding fishes).However, the abundance of photographic evidence documenting coral breakage from vessel anchoring and fish capture activities, these impacts cannot be dismissed and must be evaluated in the EISs. Photographs of these practices and their effects can be found at Appendix 2 Comment noted. Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS notes that two studies have concluded that the aquarium fishery and aquarium fish collection practices have no significant impact on coral or the reef ecosystem. The Applicant is not aware of any scientific studies documenting damage to coral reefs as a result of commercial aquarium collection in Hawai'i. In addition to the impacts to biodiversity, ecosystem function, and other fisheries, aesthetic and other social values are also heavily impacted. Species experiencing the heaviest collection pressure, with a corresponding reduction in natural abundance, are Hawai’i’s most beautiful, charismatic and iconic fishes. The diminished aesthetic value from the cumulative and substantial reductions in species such as Yellow Tangs, butterflyfishes and Moorish Idols, which are dominated by vibrant yellows and oranges and striking white and black patterns, cannot be overestimated (see Fig. 6). These colors are more than aesthetically pleasing, as our eyes are physiologically attuned to them. The frequencies and wavelengths of yellows, oranges and reds allow them to strike our eyes much faster than the other colors. By removing the species with prominent yellow, orange, red or white coloration and markings, the palette and very essence of what makes a coral reef beautiful to the human eye is diminished and degraded. It is impossible to decrease populations of a coral reef’s beautiful wildlife without greatly decreasing the natural beauty of the place. Comment noted. The DEIS concludes that there will be no significant reduction in the natural populations of species taken by the aquarium trade. In addition, regarding the aesthetic values of fish, the DEIS concludes that the percent of each population collected would be imperceptible to observers. As noted in Section 5.2.2.2 of the DEIS, available data do not suggest that commercial aquarium collection has impacted the tourism industry in Hawai’i. Hawai‘i’s tourism industry achieved new records in total visitor spending and visitor arrivals in 2017, marking the sixth consecutive year of record growth in both categories. The EISs must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the amenity/property values and propose proper mitigation measures. Houses that are within a block or 100 meters of beautiful, clean and healthy coastlines, beaches and coral reefs are more valuable and sell for significantly higher prices than comparable properties elsewhere. The same is true for condos and hotels/hotel rooms which generally command higher room and occupancy rates. Healthy coral reefs are also more likely to prevent beach erosion and, therefore, add value as a form of coastal protection. One and a half percent of the sale price of these properties is attributable to the marine ecosystem. Hawai’i’s reef‐related property value in 2001 was calculated at $40 million. Comment noted. The DEIS addresses socioeconomic impacts in Section 5.2. The average sale price of homes in 2014 was $594,440, which was 26.4 percent higher than the average sale price in 2011. In 2015, the total number of home sales increased by 9.3 percent (HDBEDT 2016). The DEIS does not conclude that there are any impacts to housing values; therefore, no mitigation is proposed or required. The EISs must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the recreational value of this marine life and their coral reef homes and propose proper mitigation measures. The annual estimated expenditures related to marine life viewing (i.e. snorkeling and scuba) in Hawai’i is $551 million. Reef‐ adjacent marine tourism expenditures (including hotel rooms) within 30 km of the coastline are an annual $680 million. These amounts exclude the lost value from declining fish abundance which is captured in willingness to pay surveys and summarized below: Healthier reefs lead to substantial economic gains; Recreational users are willing to pay higher rates for a healthier marine environment; Snorkel/dive businesses benefit when there are more fish for their clients to see; One recent study showed divers were willing to pay $93 to $110 more to dive with abundant fish life; Without new regulations the potential for increasing losses is real; Inability to stem declining reef fish numbers could cause significant losses to dive tourism industry (i.e. reductions in willingness to pay); These consumer surplus losses could range from $1.2 million to $12.2 million annually; Areas with degraded reefs and low fish populations could also see significant losses from a decrease in their share of the global dive market; Anecdotal reports from long‐ time residents and visitors point to revenue loss already occurring from reduced abundance of beautiful fishes on Hawai’i reefs. Comment noted. The DEIS addresses socioeconomic impacts in Section 5.2. As noted in Section 5.2.2.2 of the DEIS, available data do not suggest that commercial aquarium collection has impacted the tourism industry in Hawai’i. Hawai‘i’s tourism industry achieved new records in total visitor spending and visitor arrivals in 2017, marking the sixth consecutive year of record growth in both categories. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Additionally, Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS notes that two studies have concluded that the aquarium fishery and aquarium fish collection practices have no significant impact on coral or the reef ecosystem. Therefore, the DEIS concludes that coral and reef fish viewing opportunities would not be significantly impacted under the Preferred Alternative. The DEIS addresses the cumulative impact of tourism, including damage to coral reef habitat in associatiojn with tourism (thorugh coastal development, point source pollution, and recreational activities) in Section 5.4.3.4. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment The EIS must acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on the substantial non‐use values of this marine life and their coral reef homes and propose proper mitigation measures. Intrinsic and social values associated with coral reefs are diminished by reduced fish populations. Concern for the marine environment has increased in recent years and people now place tremendous value on coral reef ecosystems. Many people value beautiful and healthy coral reef ecosystems as part of their legacy and responsibility to ensure future generations are able to experience them. A 2011 report for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated the passive use annual value of Hawai’i’s coral reef ecosystems through a willingness to pay survey of U.S. households. The survey included a visual representation of an overfished and an abundant coral reef (see Fig. 7). The project determined that increased protections and restoration of degraded coral reefs in Hawai’i is worth about $288 to the average U.S. household which aggregated over all U.S. households amounts to a $34 billion annual passive use value for Hawai’i’s coral reefs.58 This and other socio‐economic values described here provide meaningful insights into the public’s concerns and should be addressed in a comprehensive EIS. As noted earlier and as set forth in HAR §§ 11-200-10 and -16 through -18, a complete analysis and discussion of impacts to cultural resources is required. The EISs must acknowledge and address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on cultural resources. The loss and harm caused by the irrevocable commitment of natural resources equally applies to impacts to cultural resources, as well. The EISs must also acknowledge and address the effects of the trade on Native Hawai’ians traditional reliance on species targeted by the trade for subsistence, such as pāku‘iku‘i (Achilles Tang) and kole (Gold Ring Surgeonfish), and propose proper mitigation measures. The EISs must also acknowledge and address the Native Hawai’ian cultural and spiritual connections to the reef. Examples include consideration of the reef ecosystem and its associated gods and goddesses and their many kinolau (divine bodily forms). These gods and goddesses include, but are not limited to, the Goddess Hina and her form as Hina ‘Opu Hala Ko’a who is the goddess of the coral and who gives birth to the reef itself; or, in her moon form which relates to coral spawning events. The Native Hawai’ian ceremonial practices associated with these types of cultural and religious beliefs must be included in the scope of the EISs. Likewise, many of the particular fish species favored by the aquarium trade also happen to be ‘aumakua (family guardians). The taking of these species obviously adversely impacts Native Hawai’ian cultural and religious beliefs and practices. These aspects must be addressed in the EISs. “Malama aina involves asking permission prior to fishing, taking only what you need, sharing your catch with your extended ‘ohana or community and having respect for the sacredness of the process. Clearly, harvesting live fish for economic gain and shipping them in a bag for a long, convoluted odyssey, potentially resulting in mortality and waste, violates the very core of these traditional values.”67 The aforementioned examples were not adequately addressed in the FEAs and serve to highlight that where cultural impacts are concerned, the need for significant analysis remains. Response Comment noted. The DEIS addresses socioeconomic impacts in Section 5.2, and addresses cultural impacts in Section 5.3 (as well as in the Cultural Impact Assessment, which is Appendix A of the DEIS). The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Comment noted. The DEIS addresses the cultural significance of each of the 40 White List Species in Section 4.4.1. A Cultural Impact Assessment has been included as Appendix A of the DEIS, and cultural impacts are addressed there and within Section 5.3 of the DEIS. Comment noted. The DEIS addresses the cultural significance of each of the 40 White List Species in Section 4.4.1. A Cultural Impact Assessment has been included as Appendix A of the DEIS, and cultural impacts are addressed there and within Section 5.3 of the DEIS. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response A major factor that drives the rates of collection is premature mortality rates in captivity. According to a long‐time industry insider, most yellow tangs die with the first month in a hobbyist tank and fewer than 1% of those captured survive one year in captivity. A 2012 study determined that mistreatment in capture, handling, transport, and holding plays a larger factor in these premature deaths than hobbyist inexperience. Hawai’i’s Yellow Tang ranks among the top ten fish sold in the marine aquarium trade. As such, it was prominently featured in the study, in both the consumer survey, as one of the nine fish species featured, and in the supply chain analysis, as one of the eighty-five species analyzed which included eleven other species that are captured both in Hawai’i and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. The researchers also determined that each step in the supply chain significantly profits from customer purchases to replace fish that die prematurely, and that profits from replacement fish sales are so high, stores have no incentive to take action to reduce deaths. Comment noted. As stated in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, the DEIS focuses primarily on the effects of aquarium fishing on wild populations of White List Species, as it is at the population level that DAR measures changes in White List Species and makes management decisions (e.g., issuance of harvest permits, implementation of bag limits). Therefore, because population effects have already occurred once an individual fish has been removed from the ocean, it is beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate effects on individual fish once they are removed from the population. A number of practices frequently utilized as cost saving measures by the aquarium trade in Hawai’i are inhumane and significantly contribute to the stressors that accumulate and ultimately lead to premature deaths of captive marine life. They include rapid surfacing and subsequent use of a technique known as “fizzing” to mitigate the resulting barotrauma injury to swim bladders; starving fish for 2 – 10 days prior to transport and spine cutting. Alternatives to these practices include slow surfacing, transport in larger volumes of water to dilute any waste produced by fishes during transport, and transport in hard plastic containers that cannot be punctured by fish spines. Every fish that dies early puts extra pressure on natural resources because of the take of replacements. There is a general consensus in many countries that it is not ethical to trade in live animals, unless their health and welfare are ensured. These unnecessary and early deaths have given the trade a poor image. A $20 million, multi‐stakeholder reform effort failed, in part, because of trade reluctance to address, and take steps to reduce, mortality rates. Fifty percent of species among Hawai’i’s historical top 20 fish list are either not guaranteed to arrive alive or stay alive longer than 7 – 14 days when purchased from online or “brick and mortar” retailers. Examples are found in Appendix 3. In addition, the paper referenced here (Cartwright et al. 2012) is focused on marine ornamentals from the “Coral Triangle” (Philippines, east Malaysia, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands), where they commonly use harmful chemicals such as cyanide and dynamite to catch fish, which then leads to extremely high mortality rates in the supply chain. These practices are not used in Hawai'i. Comment noted. As stated in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, the DEIS focuses primarily on the effects of aquarium fishing on wild populations of White List Species, as it is at the population level that DAR measures changes in White List Species and makes management decisions (e.g., issuance of harvest permits, implementation of bag limits). Therefore, because population effects have already occurred once an individual fish has been removed from the ocean, it is beyond the scope of this analysis to evaluate effects on individual fish once they are removed from the population. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response Comment noted. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Baseline fish population data from the 1970’s at Honaunau in West Hawai’i were compared to data gathered in surveys conducted 1998 – 2001. The results indicated that nearly all small bodied surgeonfish, butterflyfish and angelfish (i.e. species targeted by the aquarium trade) declined in abundance. Commercial aquarium collecting was implicated in the decline (see Fig. 8). Similar results were found at Ke‘ei where the site had been intermittently surveyed since 1979. “Of the 20 most collected aquarium species, 18 declined in abundance with the species facing the heaviest fishing pressure typically showing the greatest declines.” In addition to documenting the impact of aquarium collecting in these areas, these studies also document baselines for abundance levels of aquarium targeted and other impacted species. Examinations of reported catch, as documented by DLNR, serve to further highlight the impacts of the trade. The documentation shows that the initial surveys were conducted during a time when the aquarium trade reported taking fewer than 50,000 fish annually from West Hawai’i reefs. In subsequent years, from 1987 to the final surveys in 2001, reported aquarium fish catch in West Hawai’i ranged between 150,000 and 300,000 individuals taken. Since then the annual West Hawai’i aquarium fish catch has ranged between 250,00 and >450,000 fish. Additionally, with the closure of approximately 32% of the reefs in West Hawai’i with the implementation of the FRAs in 2000, this increased fishing pressure was focused in smaller areas with likely intensified results. As discussed in the DEIS, population trends for the two top collected species (Yellow Tang and Kole) show significantly increasing population trends. For the next eight most commonly collected species, six species have had long-term population increases. For the two species with long term declines, these declines were in both FRAs (where commercial aquarium collection is not allowed) and in Open Areas, with larger declines seen in FRAs than in Open Area, suggesting that some factor other than commercial aquarium collection is driving the decline. For one of these species, the Achilles Tang, a reduced bag limit is proposed in the Preferred Alternative to reduce impacts to this species. The commenter also noted a concern of increased fishing pressure in open areas due to the closure of approximatly 32% of the reefs. As stated in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, there is connectivity around the island of Hawai’i, with fish from protected FRAs being documented to seed unprotected areas, highlighting the effectiveness of protected areas (Christie et al. 2010). And as discussed above, population trends for many of the species have increased since establishment of this network of FRAs. Lastly, the paper referenced in the comment was Williams and Walsh (2007). This study was conducted in 1998-2001, which coincides with the beginning of the FRAs, and as stated above, population trends for eight of the top ten collected species since implementation of more regulations in 1999 have been stable or increasing. The evidence suggests that the conservation measures put in place in 1999 and 2014 are working, and the Preferred Alternative adds additional conservation measures. Williams and Walsh (2007) also found declines in food fishes (17 of the 29 species) and other species (26 of the 47 species), but these were determined to be non-significant because it wasn’t as large of a proportion of the group as aquarium fish (18 of the 20 species). However, of the ten aquarium fish species that they evaluate in the text, half of the species are not on the White List, and are thus no longer collected in West Hawaii. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response Comment noted. The Applicant used the best available science to develop the DEIS, including recent population estimates (CREP 2018). The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Another long‐term study looked at reefs in South Kohala and determined that reef fish abundance was in “drastic decline” and reefs were in “dire straits”. Populations of all of the top five most abundant fish families had declined since the original surveys conducted in 1979‐1981 (see Fig. 9). Thirty‐one of the thirty‐five most abundant fish species had declined, including 19 species targeted by the aquarium trade. Most of the aquarium targeted species had declined by more than 50% and many were down by more than 80%. The extent to which the massive increase in reported take has contributed to this decline must be studied. As the Applicant noted in the FEAs’ responses to this comment, the “Dire Straits” report concluded that “the widespread declines in families of fish not typically targeted either for food use or for the aquarium fishery suggest that other, more widespread factors are additionally contributing to the overall long-term declines in fish abundance.”[emphasis added] Rather than rebutting the argument that further analysis is needed, this statement only serves to highlight why the EISs must also evaluate the potential of cumulative impacts of other factors (e.g. pollution, and sedimentation) on targeted fish species, such as decline of coral coverage, which have been demonstrated to influence reef fish species diversity and abundance. The areas south of these reefs are subject to some of the most intense aquarium collecting pressure in the state. Aquarium take between Keahole Point and these reefs in South Kohala, in one year alone, exceeds the aquarium take from the entire Great Barrier Reef in Australia, which has a reef area that is 300 times larger than Hawai’i’s. For example, in 2014 aquarium collectors reported taking 191,083 fish from this Hawai’i zone. By comparison, 2014 reported aquarium take from the Great Barrier Reef was 112,000. Furthermore, more recent data than that provided by the commenter has been included in the DEIS. DAR (2019) reported that total abundance of nearshore fishes has had a significant positive trend in all management areas (open areas, FRAs and MPAs) since 2003. As discussed in the DEIS, population trends for the two top collected species (Yellow Tang and Kole) show significantly increasing population trends. For the next eight most commonly collected species, six species have had long-term population increases. For the two species with long term declines, these declines were in both FRAs (where commercial aquarium collection is not allowed) and in Open Areas, with larger declines seen in FRAs than in Open Area, suggesting that some factor other than commercial aquarium collection is driving the decline. For one of these species, the Achilles Tang, a reduced bag limit is proposed in the Preferred Alternative to reduce impacts to this species. Lastly, the DEIS evaluated the cumulative impacts in Section 5.4.3. As noted in Section 5.4.3.6 of the DEIS, cumulative impacts to the 12 White List Species which have significantly declined between 1999 and 2017 would be significant. However, as noted in Section 5.4.3, the DAR (2019) found that declines were occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating the aquarium collection is not driving the decline. While commercial aquarium collection does contribute to the cumulative impact, it is a less than significant factor in the observed declines. Additionally, measures included in the Preferred Alternative (e.g., limited permit issuance, reduced Achilles Tang bag limit) may mitigate potential impacts by limiting the number of aquarium permits issued as well as the number of Achilles Tang that can be collected by commercial aquarium collectors each day. Comment noted. The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Abundant populations of herbivorous fishes are critically important to coral reefs. They keep algae from overgrowing corals or preventing new corals from starting. Important families of herbivorous fishes in Hawai’i include surgeonfishes, damselfishes and parrotfishes. The vast majority of fishes taken by the aquarium trade are surgeonfishes. Yellow Tangs are the dominant herbivore in West Hawaii. They are also the most heavily collected species. The Dire Straits study documented a 90% decline in herbivorous surgeonfish and damselfish populations, while parrotfish populations had actually increased over time. This aforementioned 90% decline in herbivores contributed to a 35% reduction in coral cover, a 64% reduction in coral building coralline algae, a 38% increase in algae at one site and a staggering 322% increase in algae at another. DLNR claims that parrotfishes are more important herbivores than surgeonfishes when it comes to keeping algae in check on coral reefs. On these South Kohala reefs, the increased parrotfish populations were not enough to offset the loss of surgeonfishes and damselfishes, and the algae still outcompeted the corals. The notion that surgeonfishes taken by the aquarium trade are not an important component to coral reef health is challenged by this study. The FEAs attempt to downplay the importance of surgeonfishes and other herbivorous fishes taken by the trade by citing a 2003 study by Tissot and Hallacher (described more in the next section) that found no evidence of increased algal growth in areas of collection versus areas without collection, despite reduced fish abundance in the collected areas. However, the authors concluded that the study may not be a good test of that hypothesis for several reasons and that further investigation is warranted. Further, a more recent assessment of ecosystem trends in West Hawai’i includes, among other data, the differences in herbivore biomass and coral cover between reefs on the northern portion of the West Hawai’i coast (which encompasses the South Kohala area described above and extends from Keahole Point, northward) and reefs on the southern portion (from Keahole Point, southward). The data shows that herbivore biomass in the north is significantly lower than that found on the south. Additionally, while the northern reefs are now dominated by algae, and coral cover has declined by ~30%, the same not true for the southern reefs. Notably, though the northern area is~33% smaller than the area to the south, catch reports do not indicate a corresponding reduction in take. In fact, in 2014 take was higher in the north than in the south. The extent to which heavy collection pressure in the north has contributed to this shift must be thoroughly addressed in the Hawai’i EIS. The FEAs also attempt to downplay the importance of herbivores taken by the trade by claiming that they target the smaller fish which are “the least effective sizes for cropping algae.” A comparison of adult Yellow Tang densities in the West Hawai’i long-term protected areas (i.e.MPAs) vs. the Open Areas, shows that collection pressure on small, juvenile, Yellow Tangs has reduced the natural abundance of adults, which are 2 – 4 times larger than juveniles, by an average of 60%. The fact remains that algae now dominates many West Hawaii reefs, making it essential that the EISs thoroughly evaluate and mitigate any Applicant impacts that occur as a result of reduced herbivory. Response Comment noted. As noted throughout the DEIS, the DAR (2019) reported that herbivore biomass has not changed since 2003 in the open areas or FRAs and has increased by 30.8% in the MPAs. While there has been no significant change in Open Areas or FRAs, there has still been an increasing trend, with a 14.4% increase in herbivore biomass in FRAs and a 26.0% increase in herbivore biomass in Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (DAR 2019, Gove et al. 2019). This occurred even with the pressures from commercial aquarium collection, which was occurring during this time. Since establishment of the FRAs, the population of Yellow Tang has increased 150% (over 3.4 million fish) between 1999/2000 and 2017/2018, to a current population of approximately 5.7 million fish (DAR 2019). While they are the most heavily collected species, they have increased even in Open Areas, doubling in population size since 1999. The role of herbivores, and the impact of aquarium collection on these species, is included in Section 5.4 of the DEIS. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response Two peer reviewed studies documented the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations of heavily targeted species by the aquarium trade. One, published in 2003 by Tissot and Hallacher, was conducted the two years prior to the establishment of the West Hawai’i Fish Replenishment Areas (i.e. aquarium no‐take zones). The next study, by Tissot, et al., was conducted in 2000‐2002, three years after those area closures. The results of each study showed that aquarium collectors have a significant effect on the abundance of targeted aquarium fishes (see Fig. 11). The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force described these results as follows: “Severe overfishing for aquarium trade occurs even in the United States: Aquarium fishes outside of reserves [in West Hawai’i] experience significant declines – from 14% to 97%.” In a 2010 grant report to NOAA, DLNR documented that “a number of aquarium‐targeted species have not responded to the increase in protected areas and have actually decreased in West Hawai’i since 1999” (see Fig. 11). Per DLNR aquarium catch reports, these species are also among the top 20 most harvested fishes. Nonetheless, all but two species, the Moorish Idol and the Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse, were included in the West Hawai’i 40 Species White List adopted in 2014. DLNR therefore calls for the continued harvesting of these species, despite knowing that their populations are in decline. Comment noted. The FEAs use the best available data regarding species abundance, including more recent data on the effectiveness of the WHRFMA and existing restrictions than the citations provided by the commenter. DAR (2019) reported that total abundance of nearshore fishes has had a significant positive trend in all management areas (open areas, FRAs and MPAs) since 2003. For the 12 White List Species which had significant declines, as noted in Section 5.4.3, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. Three species identified in the SWAP, the Bandit Angelfish, Bluestripe Butterflyfish, and Hawai’ian Turkeyfish Figure 4 (in gold outline) were included in a DLNR presentation on West Hawai’i Species of Special Concern (Fig. 2) where two were described as routinely seen in the 1970’s and now very rare, and one was described as down by 99% in two different areas. Comment noted. Collection of these three species is not allowed in the WHRFMA, as none of these species are on the White List. In West Hawai’i the decline of butterflyfishes has been well‐documented in both population surveys and aquarium catch data. A 2008 presentation on West Hawai’i aquarium species of special concern reported declines in butterflyfish abundance and diversity. Two species were particularly hard hit: the Bluestripe Butterflyfish and the Teardrop Butterflyfish, experienced population declines ranging from 89% ‐ 100% in two West Hawai’i areas (see Fig. 12). Comment noted. Collection of these two species is not allowed in the WHRFMA, as the Bluestripe Butterflyfish and the Teardrop Butterflyfish are not on the White List. The Bluestripe Butterflyfish is a highly unique, endemic Hawai’ian species that, having no sister species elsewhere in the Indo‐Pacific, is also known as a relic (see Fig. 13). Until 1980, this species was among the top twenty fishes collected in West Hawai’i, with an annual average harvest of 347. By 2012, the last year this species appeared on West Hawai’i catch reports, reported harvest had dropped to a total of nine. This species was excluded from the West Hawai’i forty species White List which went into effect in 2014. 2015 Hawai’i SWAP lists the Bluestripe Butterflyfish among the species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 Hawai’i State Wildlife Action Plan. Threatened by the aquarium trade, conservation actions include to “protect current populations, but also to establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction.” Comment noted. Collection of the Bluestripe Butterflyfish not allowed in the WHRFMA, as the species is not on the White List. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment According to DLNR reef surveys and catch data, the Teardrop Butterflyfish has also experienced drastic declines on West Hawai’i reefs (see Fig. 12). This beautiful species is named for the striking upside down black teardrop located mid‐body (see Fig. 3). Until 1980, the Teardrop Butterflyfish was among the top ten fishes collected in West Hawai’i with an average annual harvest of 1,454 individuals (see Fig. 14). During the following five years, the harvest rate dropped, but it was still among the top twenty species collected (see Fig. 14). Though collection continued until at least 2013, by the late 1990’s DLNR considered Teardrop Butterflyfish as no longer targeted by the aquarium trade and excluded them a list of aquarium targeted species provided to researchers, Brian Tissot and Leon Hallacher, who were embarking on a project to document the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations. They were, however, included in the surveys to test assumptions since they were similar to targeted species. The researchers encountered just one individual Teardrop Butterflyfish during the entire study and so they were excluded from further analysis. In 2011 a group of divers encountered an aquarium collector at a popular North Kohala dive site. They watched in horror as the collector scooped up the first Teardrop Butterflyfish they had seen in that area in years along with a number of yellow tangs and other fishes (Fig. 15).92 In 2013, the last year Teardrop Butterflyfish appeared on aquarium catch reports, reported take had dropped to a total of ninety, reflecting a 99% drop in annual catch since 1980.93 This species was excluded from the West Hawai’i forty species White List which went into effect in 2014. Response Comment noted. Collection of the Teardrop Butterflyfish is not allowed in the WHRFMA, as the species is not on the White List. Because these species cannot be collected, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not impact their populations. Impacts to the reef ecosystem as a whole are analyzed in Section 5.4 of the DEIS. The scope of the DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i, and the Preferred Action limits permit issuance to the WHRFMA, where only the White List Species can be collected. The exclusion of any formerly collected species from the White List, such as the Bandit Angelfish, Bluestripe Butterflyfish, Hawai’ian Turkeyfish, Teardrop Butterflyfish, or Thornback Cowfish, is not an exemption for a thorough analysis of their current status within the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA) and elsewhere on Hawai’i Island, compared to the baseline (i.e. historic natural abundance), nor does it exempt the need for thorough analysis of impacts from collection efforts elsewhere in the state. The aquarium fishery in West Hawai’i takes 1.8X more reef fish than recreational and other commercial fishing combined. Most of these fish are yellow tangs. “Overall Yellow Tang abundance in 30’‐60’ hardbottom habitat in West Hawai’i increased by 355,758 individuals from 1999/2000 to 2010‐2012 even though Yellow Tang abundance in the Open areas decreased by 21%. This decrease is attributable largely to an increase in the number of aquarium collectors and collected animals relative to the period when the FRAs were established.” Over sixty percent of West Hawai’i reefs are open to the aquarium trade. On the reefs in those areas, the impact of the aquarium trade on natural populations of yellow tangs has been a significant reduction in the abundance. For example, natural populations were reduced by over 75% in 2007‐2009 and in recent years, by 60% (see Fig. 16). The increase in FRA Yellow Tang abundance that began in 2002, three years after establishment of these protected areas, is a clear example of the impact of the trade on natural populations: when collection pressure is removed, given enough time, populations may be able to rebound. As noted earlier, the overall increase in Yellow Tang abundance that has occurred since 2014 is due to an anomalous recruitment pulse that coincided with warming waters in 2014. Typical recruitment pulses, such as those that occurred in 2002 and 2009, have resulted in short-lived increases in fish populations that were followed by prolonged or short and steep population declines Comment noted. The statement in the comment is included in the DEIS from the DAR 2019 report. As noted in Section 5.4.3.2 of the DEIS, the DAR report also stated if Yellow Tang, which is primarily collected at small sizes and generally not targeted by other fishers, is excluded, on average the recreational and commercial fisheries combine to take 3 times the number of reef fishes (194,674/year) caught annually by aquarium collectors (64,815/year). Comment noted. Section 5.4.1.2.1 of the DEIS includes more recent data than that referenced in the comment, which shows an increase in Yellow Tang populations between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018 in all areas, including a 101% increase in Open Areas. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment We agree with DLNR that the Achilles Tang Conservation Alternative does not provide a scientific basis for concluding that the proposed reduction would be sufficient to sustain the population. Further, in 2014 a bag limit of 10 Achilles Tang per day was imposed on the aquarium trade in an attempt to address declining populations in West Hawai’i. Since 2014, the price has increased, populations have decreased. The FEA proposes to reduce the daily bag limit to 5 per day for commercial aquarium purposes and create a 5 per day bag limit for all consumptive purposes, as well. As with other heavily targeted aquarium species, the natural abundance of Achilles Tangs, as indicated by population densities in long-term protected areas such as MPAs, is substantially diminished by aquarium trade collection pressure. Most importantly, a serious flaw in the DLNR data used by the Applicant to show Achilles Tang catch as a percentage of the Open Area population substantially underestimates the impact of collection pressure. DLNR compared Achilles Tang average reported catch over FY 2013 – 2014 to their CY 2012 – 2013 Achilles Tang Open Area population estimate and determined that catch as a percentage of Open Area population was 32.7%. An examination of catch report data reveals that had they used reported catch from the same time period as the population estimate (i.e. CY 2012 – 2013), Achilles Tang catch as a percentage of Open Area population was substantially higher (see Fig. 18). This exemplifies the potential for extreme over-collection by the trade; the need for a thorough review of annual reported catch numbers and their relationships to the populations of aquarium targeted species in the areas from which they taken; and, the need for mechanisms for real-time assessments and adjustments to protect these vulnerable species. Unlike West Hawai’i, no aquarium fish population data was gathered during the early years of aquarium trade operations on O’ahu reefs. More recent data has been gathered in a yet to be published study by Dr. Gail Grabowsky of Chaminade University and is summarized below. Dr. Grabowsky reached the same conclusions reached by Williams and Walsh in a 2007 report documenting declines in populations of certain fishes on two Hawai’i Island reef areas: commercial aquarium collecting is implicated in the declines; and, the greatest declines are seen in the species that have faced the heaviest fishing pressure. Using the same methods described in earlier research on Hawai’i Island documenting the magnitude of the effect of aquarium collecting on natural populations of heavily targeted species, Dr. Grabowski and her team quantified the abundance of aquarium collected fish at over 20 sites around O’ahu from 2008‐ 2010. Surveyed species included Yellow tangs, Forcepsfish, the Hawai’ian “Domino” Damselfish, as well as additional butterflyfishes, surgeonfishes, and other fishes targeted by the aquarium trade. The fish population surveys showed that species targeted by the aquarium trade are ten times more abundant at Hanauma Bay, Hawai’i’s first marine life conservation district, protected since 1967, than they are on other O’ahu survey sites. As with the Hawai’i Island studies conducted by Tissot and others, uncollected sites were selected as controls and served as a proxy for estimating natural abundance. The data also showed that aquarium fish are rare at Pupukea and Coconut Island in Kaneohe Bay, both of which are protected similarly to Hanauma Bay, but unlike Hanauma Bay, are easily accessed by poachers. There were no juvenile fish smaller than a silver dollar at Hanauma Bay, which led Dr. Grabowsky to surmise that it may be “that the fish are so depleted on O’ahu that those we see are the “living dead” who cannot effectively maintain a population due to their rarity. This is called the Allee effect and has been documented in other rare species.” In addition to population surveys, catch data can provide an important view into the status of populations of targeted fishes. As explained elsewhere in these comments, using catch data to estimate the proportion of fishing mortality to total population is highly problematic since catch reports are unverified and both underreporting and non‐reporting are highly likely . Response Comment noted. Impacts to Achilles Tang are addressed in detail in Section 5.4.1.2. As noted in this Section, while the most recent DAR report suggests there should be concern for the sustained abundance of Achilles Tang in the WHRFMA, the report concedes that WHAP transects are not located in prime habitat for adult Achilles Tang (i.e., high energy shallower surge zones), and therefore the bulk of the Achilles Tang population is not adequately surveyed by WHAP monitoring (DAR 2019). Additionally, unlike the Yellow Tang and Kole, Achilles Tang have generally been more abundant over the past decade in Open Areas compared to the protected FRAs, which may reflect habitat differences or differential non-aquarium fishing pressure in various areas (DAR 2019). It should be noted that even in the absence of collection by commercial aquarium collectors, harvest by other fishing groups would continue. The Applicant cannot independently confirm the Achilles Tang reported catch numbers presented in Table 18 of the comment, as they do not align with the collection numbers provided by the DLNR. Comment noted. The best available scientific data has been included in the DEIS, which is limited to the island of Hawai'i. Unpublished data from Dr. Grabowski was not available for analysis in the DEIS. Comment noted. The best available scientific data has been included in the DEIS, which is limited to the island of Hawai'i. Unpublished data from Dr. Grabowski was not available for analysis in the DEIS. As noted in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR (2019) concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment However, where baseline population data are absent, and where consumer demand exists for a particular species or family group, it is highly likely that substantial declines of reported catch reflect reduced abundance of the target sizes—juveniles in most cases—of those species or families Hawai’i’s reefs. In fact, historical catch reports have been used to document the collapse of the aquarium fishery on southwest O’ahu reefs after hurricane Iwa hit Hawai’i in 1982 and damaged many reefs. Per anecdotal reports from a number of aquarium collectors, the storm destroyed important habitat for yellow tangs and other targeted species. This resulted in the migration of many fishes to undamaged coral reef areas. Aquarium collectors then concentrated their efforts on these sites and within a few short years, populations of species targeted by the trade completely collapsed. Referring to these data, researchers noted that since yellow tangs are in high demand, these declines reflect the situation on these reefs (i.e. reduced abundance of the small yellow tangs targeted by the trade) (Walsh et al. 2004). Catch reports from 2016 confirm that yellow tang populations have yet to recover (see Fig. 17, 18). The Bluestripe Butterflyfish (see Fig. 13) was among the top fifteen aquarium fishes captured on O’ahu through the five‐year period that ended in 1995. As of the five‐year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 79% from the five‐year period that ended in 1980. In 2016, reported catch dropped an additional 15% (see Fig. 19). As previously noted, the Bluestripe Butterflyfish is listed among the species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 Hawai’i SWAP. Despite this listing and the alarming decline in reported catch, no take limits were placed on this species in the O’ahu Aquarium Rule. Reported catch of the Teardrop Butterflyfish has also experienced drastic declines on O’ahu reefs (see Fig. 19). During the ten‐year period 1976‐1985, the Teardrop Butterflyfish was among the top ten fishes collected on O’ahu with an average annual harvest of 2,558 individuals (see Fig. 19). During the following five years, the harvest rate dropped, but it was still among the top twenty species collected. As of the five‐ year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 94% from the five‐year period that ended in 1980. In 2016, reported catch dropped an additional point (see Fig. 19). The Bandit Angelfish is another beautiful and highly unique, endemic Hawai’ian species with a color pattern unlike that of any other angelfish on Earth (see Fig. 20). The Bandit Angelfish has been among the top twenty aquarium fishes captured on O’ahu on and off since 1976, most recently in During the five‐year period 1976‐1980, annual reported catch averaged 1,380 individuals (see Fig. 19). After that, annual reported catch rarely exceeded 600 individuals and from 1996‐2005 the average was less than 100. As of the five‐year period that ended in 2015, reported catch had declined by 64% from the 1976‐1980 high (see Fig. 19). Catch reports also indicate increasing consumer demand for this precious species in the landed value data. From 1976‐2003 the average landed value for a Bandit Angelfish was $10. By 2004 it had jumped to $54 and in recent years has skyrocketed to $137 each. A similar pattern was noted for Bandit Angelfishes captured in West Hawai’i and prompted University of Hawai’i (UH) and DAR researchers to point out that decreasing catch combined with increasing value signals a real population decline. Not surprisingly, the Bandit Angelfish is also listed among the species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 Hawai’i State Wildlife Action Plan. Threatened by the aquarium trade, conservation actions include to “protect current populations, but also to establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction.” The O’ahu aquarium rule established a daily bag limit of two Bandit Angelfishes greater than 5.5 inches in length. Commercial data does not capture fish sizes so the impact of this size limit cannot be determined. Response Comment noted. The DEIS includes the best available science, including updated population data on the Yellow Tang. The DAR (2019) concluded that there were no significant differences in the abundance of adult Yellow Tang in open vs. closed areas in shallow water (10-20-foot depths). Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. The Bluestripe Butterflyfish is not on the White List, and cannot be collected in the WHRFMA. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. The Teardrop Butterflyfish is not on the White List, and cannot be collected in the WHRFMA. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. The Bandit Angelfish is not on the White List, and cannot be collected in the WHRFMA. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. The Bandit Angelfish is not on the White List, and cannot be collected in the WHRFMA. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response Rules governing the take of certain aquarium species on O’ahu were adopted in 2014. The development and adoption of these rules was highly controversial because they were not scientifically sound and did not address the concerns of stakeholders outside the aquarium trade. Over 4,000 testimonies were received by DAR, and 98% of the comments preferred that aquarium collecting should end altogether or in the very least should include limits on the number of permits issued, and scientific and community‐ based limits on species and take levels. Many comments noted that the so‐called “limits” allowed take that far exceeded the number of animals historically taken by the trade, and in fact, allowed limitless catch because they included no restrictions on input (i.e. permit limits), and no meaningful restrictions on output (species or take limits). Among those opposed to the rules was coral reef and marine fisheries biologist, Frazer McGilvray, who was the DAR Administrator at the time. Mr. McGilvray opposed the rules because they were neither based on science, nor were they developed under a multi‐stakeholder approach. The written and oral testimony Mr. McGilvray presented to the board governing DLNR included the following: "All stakeholders should be consulted and everyone’s opinion should be taken into account. There appears to be no scientific basis for the proposed bag limits for each species. The proposed take limits were akin to setting a speed limit at 400 MPH. These rules do not address the take of undersize, sexually immature fish. The majority of yellow tang allowed to be taken under this rule are immature and have not contributed to the future of the species. These rules, driven by the demands of the trade, are contrary to good natural resource management. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. The take of juveniles is generally prohibited in other fisheries, but not by the aquarium trade. The take of adults is allowed, but only where good management practices govern the take in other fisheries, but not by the aquarium trade. The taking of 100 immature yellow tang per person per day is not consistent with good natural resource management when there are more than 50 licensed aquarium collectors on O’ahu. It is my belief that these rules require further work and are not yet ready for adoption.” The DLNR submittal to the board conceded that the proposed limits were not intended to reduce take, but were, instead, based on animal welfare. This statement does not stand up to scrutiny since no animal welfare experts or groups familiar with the aquarium trade were consulted, and in fact, the concerns of several of these groups were dismissed outright. The 2014 O'ahu rules also imposed bag limits for certain sizes of three species were also imposed: a minimum and maximum (i.e. slot) limit for yellow tangs and maximum size limits for kole (bag limits of two of each size) and Bandit Angelfishes (bag limit of two). While there has been some discussion of the poor survival rates of very small yellow tangs, no such discussion was documented for the larger sizes. Finally, because aquarium catch reports do not capture fish sizes, it is impossible to determine or even estimate the impact of a size limit in the aquarium fishery.” However, catch reports do show that despite the combined catch, size and vessel limits, yellow tang catch in 2015 and 2016 exceeded historical reported catch. This was due to an unprecedented warm water event that bleached and killed many corals, but also brought large numbers of young fishes to Hawai’i’s reefs during 2014 and 2015. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i, and the Preferred Alternative limits the issuance of permits to 14. Additionally, there are bag limits on Yellow Tang in the WHRFMA. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response The O’ahu FEA’s discussion of other regulated species describes the Achilles Tang, Bandit Angelfish, and Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse as “not collected to the level of the top twenty collected species.” However, according to both historical and recent catch data, this is inaccurate. These three species have historically, and recently in one case, been among the top twenty collected species on O’ahu as follows: Achilles Tang was among the top twenty during the five‐year period that ended in 1985; Bandit Angelfish was among the top twenty during the five‐year period that ended in 1980 and again in 2014, 2015 and 2016; Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse among the top twenty during the five‐year period that ended in 1980. Bandit Angelfish have been described earlier, and Achilles Tangs are both a culturally important food source and an important herbivore on the reef. The Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse plays a particularly critical role in the reef ecosystem by feeding on parasites, dead tissue and mucus of reef and other fishes (see Fig. 21). In 2008 the West Hawai’i aquarium trade included the Hawai’ian Cleaner Wrasse in its list of Species of Special Concern that should not be captured, citing the key role the play in maintaining the “health of the reef population, as the doctors of the sea”. Obviously this species plays a similar role on reefs throughout Hawai’i. This is another clear example of how the dictates of the North American aquarium trade are driving extremely poor management decisions. The cumulative impact of long term sustained heavy collecting pressure on these and other species, and its effects on coral reef ecosystems must be fully evaluated and proper mitigation must be proposed in the EISs. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. In addition to fishes, marine invertebrates such as hermit crabs, Feather Duster Worms, sea stars and snails, are taken in very high numbers by commercial aquarium collectors. These invertebrates play a key role in the coral reef environment, and their overharvesting may have serious ecological consequences. The EISs must address the very large numbers of invertebrates that are taken and proper mitigation measures must be proposed. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. On the island of Hawai'i, invertebrates are only collected in East Hawai'i, and those impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS. However, collection of invertebrates is not a part of the Proposed Action, and a commercial aquarium permit is not required for their collection. The O’ahu FEA proposes to expand the Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District MLCD by 740 acres, and to prohibit only commercial aquarium collection within that expanded area. We concur with the Agency that this alternative is problematic for a number of reasons, including its lack of proper scientific review of the impacts. While it is expected that once collection pressure is removed, there may be a beneficial impact of increasing populations of targeted species, it is also expected that without concurrent reductions in allowable take, populations in the areas open to collection are likely to experience further declines as a result of increased pressure that result from reduced access elsewhere, as has been demonstrated in West Hawai’i. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response In addition, the O’ahu FEA proposes a bag limit of 10 Flame Wrasses per day. We concur with the Agency that this proposal lacks a scientific basis for concluding that a bag limit of 10 per day would be sufficient. Not only would the bag limit apply to a limitless number of people, and as such, would neither limit actual take nor would it help to restore or protect populations from increasing collection pressure, it also fails to address the potential for extirpation of Flame Wrasses on coral reefs shallower than 98 feet where collection pressure is the greatest. As pointed out in the O’ahu FEA, a recent study found zero Flame Wrasses shallower than 98 feet on West Hawai’i reefs.163 Rather than an indication that Flame Wrasses spend much of their time in deeper waters, an idea forwarded in both FEAs with no reference, the absence of Flame Wrasses in their natural range is more likely an indicator of severe over-collection by the trade in the shallower depths they once inhabited. Flame Wrasses naturally occur at depths over 50 feet. SCUBA divers, including two of the Commenters, have for decades consistently encountered harems of Flame Wrasses at depths ranging from 50 – 90 feet on multiple dive sites, as long as the sites weren’t accessed by the aquarium trade. On sites accessed by the trade, Flame Wrasses at those depths have completely disappeared. Historical catch records indicate that collection pressure on O’ahu populations of Flame Wrasses has dramatically increased: hundreds were annually captured prior to 2008; since then, annual catch has ranged between 1,000 - >4,000.166 The potential for Flame Wrasses to disappear from shallower reefs around O’ahu, as they have from West Hawai’i, is very real. This increasing collection pressure must be acknowledged and addressed in the EISs. The applicant continues to base both FEAs on the premise that fish collection is considered sustainable if only removes less than 5% to 25% of the entire population (annually), but the reasoning behind this threshold is flawed. The FEAs stated that “research suggests that collection between 5% and 25% of a reef fish population is sustainable for various reef fish species in the Philippines that are similar to those on the White List (e.g., tang, wrasse, butterflyfish, angelfish, and triggerfish)” based on a Reef Check report by Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006). However, the EISs should not use these thresholds because: These thresholds for sustainable ornamental fish collection are species–specific based on estimated natural mortality rates (M) and fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) or year‐per‐recruit analysis. Natural mortality rates for reef fishes are based on growth rates and length and thus are also area‐specific. Mortality is based on catch data. Yield‐per‐recruit analysis should be derived from several annual surveys. Thus, these parameters should be specifically calculated for Hawai’ian reef fish targeted by the aquarium industry as highlighted in Ochavillo & Hodgson (2006); The 5%‐25% threshold indicates “a good rule‐of‐ thumb of collection limit” for coral reef fishes in the Philippines. This does not mean it is a good rule of thumb for collecting reef fishes in Hawai’i; Most ornamental fish species in the Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) are species different from those on the White list. Only a few species share the same genus or species (butterflyfish, a couple of wrasses, one angelfish, a couple of damselfish, one tan and one triggerfish). Thus, it is questionable whether this fairly wide threshold (5%‐25%) is representative and applicable to Hawai’ian species; Finally, this report is not peer‐ reviewed research, it is a field manual: Marine Aquarium Trade for Coral Reef Monitoring Protocol with a Data Analysis and Interpretation Manual. This field manual was designed in part to: “provide a scientific basis for recommending sustainable levels of collection.” The FEAs continue to assume that current fish abundance for target species is the baseline, and thus 1% to 5% of individuals remove from the population would be considered sustainable. But this is wrong. The FEAs still do not acknowledge that current population abundance of most of these fish species is already depleted due to in part to heavy exploitation by the aquarium trade since at least the 1970's and habitat degradation. The total allowable collection/catch for each species must be calculated based on information on natural mortality rates and the available and limited information on collection/catch records, specific to the geographic areas and locations where they are taken throughout the state. Comment noted. The DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. Comment noted. The DEIS uses the best available science in the analysis, and there are currently no Hawai'i-specific thresholds. However, the Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006) thresholds were established using data from fish from the same families and guilds as those collected in Hawai'i. Comment noted. The DEIS uses the best available science in the analysis. Under the Preferred Alternative, all collection would be below 4% of current population estimates for the 40 White List Species. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response The Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP) data used in the FEAs for the entire Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu (based on 2010‐2016 surveys) continue to not be representative of regional population abundance such as in East Hawai’i and the West Hawai’i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA), and should not be used to estimate regional proportions of fish catch. Population abundance estimates for fish species for the entire island of Hawai’i are not representative of regional fish abundances such as East Hawai’i and WHRFMA. The CREP data collect fish data from 257 stationary point count locations around Hawai’i between depths of 0‐98 feet. In contrast, the West Hawai’i Aquarium Project (WHAP) collected data from 25 transect survey sites from WHRFMA area between depths of 30‐60 feet. It is well established that population abundances of reef fish species in Hawai’i, especially relatively small‐size species that are targeted by the aquarium industry, are highly variable in space depending on reef complexity, depth and wave exposure, and in time (within and among years) depending on the season, mortality, recruitment to the population, and environmental factors. The relative proportion abundance of fish species taken annually by the aquarium industry should be based on regional total abundances and regional catch records (e.g., aligned with the aquarium fish trip report zones; or, as in Hawai’i DEA, Table 6). Allowable levels of take should be determined in conjunction with the wishes of Hawai’i residents and visitors who strongly desire that fish populations are restored to their naturally occurring (i.e. unfished) levels of abundance on the majority of Hawai’i reefs. Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, there is connectivity around the island of Hawai’i, with fish from protected FRAs being documented to seed unprotected areas, highlighting the effectiveness of protected areas (Christie et al. 2010). Therefore, using island-wide population estimates to analyze impacts is appropriate. WHAP data (which are specific to the WHRFMA) are also included in the analysis, but no comparable data are available for East Hawai'i. Comment noted. The most recent population data are used as the baseline, because that is the environment which would be impacted by each of the five alternatives. The DEIS does not assume that the White List Species populations are not impacted (see Cumulative Impacts in Section 5.4.3 of the DEIS) and because these populations have been impacted by past and present activities, using the most recent population data provides the best baseline against which to analyze impacts. The Hawai’i FEA continue to assume that current island‐wide and regional targeted fish population estimates are healthy and not impacted and this represents a shifting in baselines. Population abundance of most of these fish species has declined over the past decades due to overexploitation and habitat degradation and thus they cannot be considered baselines. Strong scientific evidence shows that coral reefs of the main Hawai’ian Islands, especially near higher human population densities (where exploitation pressure is the highest), have significantly less abundance and biomass of reef fish species than more isolated islands due to overfishing. As stated in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, there is connectivity around the island of Hawai’i, with fish from protected FRAs being documented to seed unprotected areas, highlighting the effectiveness of protected areas (Christie et al. 2010). Therefore, using island-wide population estimates to analyze impacts is appropriate. Additionally, as noted in Section 5.4.1.2, a comparison of West Hawai’i with Maui using 20022010 WHAP data and CREP data found that for the 10 most collected species in the WHRFMA, all were more abundant within the Open Areas of the WHRFMA (where aquarium collection occurs) than in the Maui MPA closed areas, and five of the species were significantly more abundant (DAR 2019). Additionally, as noted in Section 5.4.3.6 and throughout the DEIS, the DAR (2019) has reported that populations of 24 of the 40 White List Species are either stable or increasing. For the 12 species with documented declines, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives would collect less than 1% of the island-wide population estimates for 10 of the species. For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 4% of the island-wide population. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment The allowable number of individuals that could be collected from aquarium fish populations must be substantially less than those stated by the FEA because most of these species are already depleted. Fishing effort has substantially increased for aquarium fish species on the Island of Hawai’i as well as for certain species, such as Flame Wrasses on O'ahu. Prime‐targeted species on both islands have significantly declined due to overharvesting. For example, population abundance of one of the most heavily exploited species, yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), on the west coast of the Big Island of Hawai’i (West Hawai’i) declined 45% due to exploitation in areas open to fishing/collection from 1999 to 2007. Yellow Tang abundance is closely tied to annual levels of recruitment, and after good recruitment levels from 2008 – 2013, Yellow Tang abundance in the Open Areas improved, but was still 4.7% lower than the 1999 – 2000 Open Area baseline. As noted earlier, an anomalous recruitment pulse in 2014 is likely behind the increase in abundance seen since then. Even when including marine managed areas (MMAs) such as fish replenishment areas (FRA), where collection is prohibited and abundances are five times higher than in open areas, the population abundance of yellow tangs on West Hawai’i is substantially less than historical levels. The established networks of MMAs have definitely worked to increase yellow tangs and some other fish species in the West Hawai’i FRAs, but not all species have responded positively, and some have actually decreased overall since the FRAs were established. The extent to which collection pressure—whether in the Open Areas or due to poaching—is driving the decline of heavily targeted aquarium species in the areas closed to the trade must be studied. While the FEA attempts to minimize the impacts of collection pressure by proposing that “factors other than aquarium collecting [are] also affecting their populations,” it remains highly likely that the main cause is collection pressure. An example of the effect of collection pressure on populations in MMA’s is found in the significant decline of Yellow Tangs in those areas from 2004-2009 which coincided with Yellow Tang reported catch during that period that was substantially higher (e.g. in 2004 and 2006 it was more than double that reported in 2002). Response Comment noted. As stated in Section 5.4.1.2 of the DEIS, the Yellow Tang population has increased over 150% (over 3.4 million fish) from 1999/2000 to 2017/2018 to a population of approximately 5.7 million fish, and there were no significant differences in the abundance of adult Yellow Tang in open vs closed areas in shallow water (DAR 2019). Even with the targeting the smaller fish by the commercial aquarium collectors, juvenile Yellow Tang densities have significantly increased by 60.8% within Open Areas between 2003 and 2017 (Gove et al. 2019). Additionally, as noted in Section 5.4.3.6 and throughout the DEIS, the DAR (2019) has reported that populations of 24 of the 40 White List Species are either stable or increasing. For the 12 species with documented declines, these declines are occurring in both areas open and closed to commercial aquarium fishing for all but one species, indicating that aquarium collection is not driving the decline (DAR 2019). Because these declines are occurring in FRAs and/or MPAs as well (i.e., areas not open to commercial aquarium collection) it is reasonable to assume that banning commercial aquarium collection would not halt the declines. In addition, for the 12 species that have shown a significant decline in population size in one or more management area since establishment of the WHRFMA in 1999, commercial aquarium collection under any of the five alternatives would collect less than 1% of the island-wide population estimates for 10 of the species. For the remaining two species, Achilles Tang and the Pyramid Butterflyfish, commercial aquarium collection would collect less than 4% of the island-wide population. Given the relative long life‐span of yellow tangs (>40 yrs) and increasing fishing intensity, these MMAs are just becoming sources for the aquarium fishing industry. The recovery of this species to past levels is unlikely if fishing/collection intensity continues or increases in the future. As mentioned above, there is no requirement for recreational aquarium collectors to report catch. For commercial collectors, while reports are required, catch report compliance is substantially low on the Islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu and thus catch records grossly underestimate the real impact of the aquarium fishery. The number of permits reporting catch in the islands of Hawai’i and O’ahu was approximately half of the number of commercial aquarium permits issue annually from 2000 to 2017. On average, 47% (40 out 85) of commercial aquarium permit holders reported their catch between 2000 and 2017 in O’ahu. Similarly, on average, 56% (33 out 59) of commercial permit holders in the Island of Hawai’i (WFRFMA and East Hawai’i combined) reported their catch during the past 18 years (see Table 3 in the DEA of Island of Hawai’i). Although commercial aquarium fishers are required to report their monthly catch on an aquarium fish catch report, the compliance is clearly significantly low. Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. While the commenter points to differences between the number of permits issued and the number reporting, a difference in these values is not indicative of underreporting. Rather, as stated in Section 5.2.1 of the DEIS, to avoid duplicate fish catch reporting, only a principal diver is required to report the catch and effort for the dive team (DAR, pers. comm., 2018). This process ensures that reported catch data are not duplicated in the State’s system. However, this reporting mechanism can lead to confusion by outside observers, as the total number of permit holders is higher than the number of permit holders reporting data, giving the appearance of under reporting. Analysis by the DAR (2019) has shown that actual underreporting of catch is small, with a 3.5% difference between the number of animals reported caught and sold in 2010 and a 0.4% difference in 2014, which likely represent live releases and mortality. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response This is a systemic problem that undermines the evaluation of the real impact that the aquarium fishery has on target species, the coral reef ecosystem, and the people that depend on them in Hawai’i. As such the impact of the aquarium fishing industry is likely larger than is reported, which has been discussed in the scientific literature. As a former DLNR employee succinctly wrote regarding aquarium catch reports: “The reliability of the data depends upon the sincerity of the permittees.” There is no verification system, such as that provided by independent observers, to ensure the accuracy of self-reported data. One additional major impediment to accurate data stems from the lack of a license requirement for marine dealers and/or exporters. Currently there is a requirement for dealers (i.e. those who buy directly from aquarium collectors) to report their purchases. According to DLNR, the effect is that “dealer reporting is essentially on a voluntary basis and a few dealers are not reporting in whole or in part. DLNR cannot know whether a “few” or a dozen dealers are not reporting, but without a requirement for these businesses to have licenses, many operate beneath the radar and serve as a conduit for moving unreported catch out of the state. Establishing a marine dealer/exporter license has long been a priority for those within DLNR concerned about Hawai’i’s marine resources, because it would enable the department to verify catch reports, identify unlicensed collectors (and all commercial fishers), identify dealers and helped with generating economic data about the fisheries. Without this information DLNR/DAR has no accurate data on health of fish populations. According to a former DAR Commercial Fisheries manager, Karl Brookins, the process of establishing the license was abandoned due to lack of funding. Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. While the commenter points to differences between the number of permits issued and the number reporting, a difference in these values is not indicative of underreporting. Rather, as stated in Section 5.2.1 of the DEIS, to avoid duplicate fish catch reporting, only a principal diver is required to report the catch and effort for the dive team (DAR, pers. comm., 2018). This process ensures that reported catch data are not duplicated in the State’s system. However, this reporting mechanism can lead to confusion by outside observers, as the total number of permit holders is higher than the number of permit holders reporting data, giving the appearance of under reporting. Analysis by the DAR (2019) has shown that actual underreporting of catch is small, with a 3.5% difference between the number of animals reported caught and sold in 2010 and a 0.4% difference in 2014, which likely represent live releases and mortality. In addition, the combined average of total fish and invertebrates collected under aquarium permits from East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA annually from 2000‐2017 should not be used as reference for future annual collections. The lack of collection data for East Hawai’i from 2001 to 2004 lowers the calculated average and underestimates the number of fish collected. A more accurate estimation is to use data collected after 2005 when collection data from East Hawai’i resumed. As such the combined average fish and invertebrates collected under Aquarium Permits from East Hawai’i and the WHRFMA annually from 2005‐ 2017 was 392,006 individuals instead of 355,381 (see Fig. 22). This updated estimate, which accounts for 36,625 more individuals, along with a value representing underreporting, should be used as the reference point for the Hawai’i EIS to calculate proportion of the population that is being taken by the fishery island wide. We note that Table 8 in the Hawai’i FEA has not “been updated to exclude any years without data in the averaging for East Hawai’i data,” as stated in the Applicant’s response. As discussed above, there is no reliable data on how many fish and other species are actually taken pursuant to aquarium permits in any given year. The FEAs repeatedly referred to a lack of data for numerous species. For example: "Because specific species of hermit crabs are not reported on aquarium permits reporting forms, it is not possible to know which species are collected, with the exception of zebra hermit crabs"; "Due to this underestimation, it is not possible to know the exact proportion of Flame Wrasse population that would be collected. . . .”; For Psychadelic (Redtail) Wrasse, Tinker’s Butterflyfish, Longfin Anthias, Flame Wrasse, Fisher’s Angelfish, and Eyestripe Surgeonfish (Palani), open area populations and catch as a percent of the open area populations are not available, because species “occur[] in habitats not adequately surveyed by transects.” This data is necessary in order for the EISs to properly assess impacts. Furthermore, the Agency must conduct stock assessments of species before it is able to determine a sustainable rate of take. Clearly the Agency has not done so, as DLNR personnel have stated that to do so would take over a decade for just 40 fish species, out of the more than 287 fish and invertebrate species the Agency identifies as targeted by the trade (found at Appendix 4). Without such data, the Agency cannot meaningfully assess the environmental impacts of commercial aquarium collection. Such assessments must be completed prior to the issuance of the EISs, and in the face of any uncertainty, the EISs’ analyses must err on the side of caution to protect these vulnerable species. Comment noted. The DEIS does not include data from years without data in the East Hawai'i averages, however, those years are included for the island averages since they did have data from the WHRFMA. However, impacts to the fish species are analyzed using both the average and maximum values from 2000 to 2017, eliminating any bias that including those years may introduce. As stated in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. Therefore, no adjustments to the values were made for "underreporting". Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4.7.1 of the DEIS, the DAR concluded that the 2010 and 2014 Hawai'i Island aquarium catch report validation did not indicate substantial underreporting of catch by aquarium collectors. The DEIS uses the best available data for analysis. This includes CREP (2018) population estimates for 38 of the 40 White List Species. The two species without population estimates are the Flame Wrasse and the Longfin Anthias, both of which have a maximum collection of less than 275 individuals in any given year. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment HEPA also requires EAs to consider mitigation measures. Such a discussion is plainly absent from both DEAs. The new Preferred Alternatives ignore the vast majority of comments submitted on the DEAs and instead focus on just two species, Achilles Tangs on Hawai’i Island and Flame Wrasses on O’ahu. They also ignore the many comments naming locations where the impacts of collecting pressure are of concern, and instead arbitrarily name Waikiki as an area where no commercial collection would occur in the future. The Agency’s letter of determination stated that “because the applicant can propose but not ensure regulations aimed at protecting and restoring populations of aquarium fish, [the Agency] is interested in proposals for self-regulation by aquarium permit holders which could be incorporated into permit conditions even in the absence of or prior to establishing other regulations to accomplish the same purposes.” We dispute the value of any self-regulation measure. Meaningful change must be binding on the industry, and a meaningful alternatives analysis requires the Applicant to propose binding measures. A reasonable alternative would require the Agency to first determine: 1) the life history, spawning grounds and offspring/recruitment patterns for each species to be collected for aquarium purposes (see DLNR list of aquarium species at Appendix 4); 2) natural abundance (i.e. unfished) levels and complete stock assessments, for each island as a whole in addition to each collection zone, for those same species (see DLNR map of aquarium fish zones at Appendix 5); 3) a definition for “sustainable” as it relates to the natural abundance of coral reef species taken for aquarium purposes; and 4) annual total allowable catch, by species, designed to restore and then sustain natural abundance levels, with negligible impacts as defined in the Queensland Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery, for each species to be taken for aquarium purposes, in each zone. After making these necessary threshold determinations, the Agency should issue limited numbers of Aquarium Permits, by zone and by species with corresponding total allowable catch limits, per the above parameters. Additionally, the Agency should require Aquarium Collection Permits, for all take for aquarium purposes, regardless of the method of collection. Response Comment noted. The DEIS states in Section 5.6 that no significant adverse effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation for impacts is not warranted and no mitigation measures would be implemented. Sections 5.2.4, 5.3.3 and 5.4.4 specifically address mitigation for socioeconomics, cultural resources and biological resources. It should be noted that the DEIS does include a limited permit issuance alternative as the Preferred Alternative, as well as a reduced bag limit for the Achilles Tang. Public comments on the DEA and FEA were fully considered during the development of the DEIS. Individuals and groups who requested to be consulted parties for the DEIS are listed in Section 6.0, and comments and responses are included in Appendix B of the DEIS. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was prepared that includes additional consulted parties, and is included as Appendix A of the DEIS. Comment noted. As stated by the DLNR, the Applicant cannot ensure enforcement. The Applicant is proposing a limited issuance of permits, issuance of permits only for the WHRFMA, and a reduction in the Achilles Tang bag limit. The Applicant can only propose but not ensure regulations; therefore, it is up to the DLNR to make these binding (e.g., changing the law/regulation or including a a condition of the permit). Any permit issued would require the permit holder to abide by all conditions of the permit. Comment noted. The alternatives included in the DEIS address the issues raised by the commenter as follows: 1) the DEIS includes overviews of known ecology of each of the 40 White List Species in Section 4.4.1, and the DLNR monitors populations in the WHRFMA through the WHAP (described in Section 4.4.7.1). 2) the DEIS is limited to the island of Hawai'i. As stated in Section 4.4, there is connectivity around the island (Christie et al. 2010), but genetic breaks between the island of Hawai'i and the rest of the MHI (Toonen et al. 2011). Therefore, population data from the island of Hawai'i (CREP 2018) are used as the basis of the DEIS analysis. The most recent population data are used as the baseline, because that is the environment which would be impacted by each of the five alternatives. 3) the DEIS defines "sustainable" as collection of 5% to 25% or less of the population, based on the available research by Ochavillo and Hodgson (2006). 4)the Queensland Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine Aquarium Fishery defines "negligible" as "insignificant impacts to populations (dynamics/structure/size)". The DEIS concludes that collection under the Preferred Alternative represents less than 3% of each White List Species population when considering average collection rates, and less than 4% when considering maximum collection rates (less than 1% for 32 of the species, 1%-4% for 6 species). This level of take is below what is considered to be sustainable reef fish harvest based on available research (5% - 25%; Ochavillo and Hodgson 2006). The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS limits the number of commercial aquarium permits to 14, limits collection to only the open zones within the WHRFMA (no collection in the FRAs or MPAs), and limits collection to the 40 White List Species. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Kalanihale Mololi’i/Moana Ohana Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment HEPA also requires an EIS to consider mitigation measures. With minor exceptions, such a discussion is plainly absent from both FEAs. Decades of Applicant actions have directly impacted more than 200 species and indirectly impacted an unknown number of additional vertebrate and invertebrate species found in Hawai’i’s coral reefs, one of the most complex ecosystems on Earth, where the fate of each species is determined by the existence, abundance and diverse actions of a multitude of other species that inhabit or otherwise rely upon these unique places. Yet, the FEAs claim there are no significant impacts whatsoever, and therefore, propose no mitigation measures outside of those found in the Preferred Alternatives, related to just two species and one area, which were designed to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources only. In addition to proposing mitigation measures to address biological and related impacts to the various socio-economic values described herein, the EISs must also propose mitigation for impacts to cultural resources and for the ethical concerns and harm done to the animals, themselves, also described herein. PIJAC additionally failed to conduct the required early consultations prior to submitting its DEAs/FEAs. HEPA requires that the application must “at the earliest practicable time, . . . consult with . . . those citizen groups and individuals which the approving agency reasonably believes to be affected.” In this case, it is clear from the long history of litigation that Commenters, at the very least, should have been consulted. PIJAC should also have consulted Native Hawai’ian groups and experts such as Gail Grabowsky. As a result of this failure to abide by HEPA’s mandate of early consultation, the FEAs fail to analyze all impacts, and are skewed toward a favorable result for industry. Response Comment noted. The DEIS states in Section 5.6 that no significant adverse effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation for impacts is not warranted and no mitigation measures would be implemented. Sections 5.2.4, 5.3.3 and 5.4.4 specifically address mitigation for socioeconomics, cultural resources and biological resources. Comment noted. PIJAC engaged with interested parties prior to publication of the DEA (Section 6.5 in the Hawai'i FEA). The DEAs were widely distributed to a range of parties prior to publication. Public comments on the DEA and FEA were fully considered during the development of the DEIS. Individuals and groups who requested to be consulted parties for the DEIS are listed in Section 6.0, and comments and responses are included in Appendix B of the DEIS. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was prepared that includes additional consulted parties, and is included as Appendix A of the DEIS. From: To: Subject: Date: Kealoha Pisciotta Sakoda, David; Kealoha Pisciotta Draft EIS Comments relating to the Aquarium Trade and Trafficked Industry Friday, September 07, 2018 7:52:29 PM Aloha Mr. Sanoda, please find attached comments provided by Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa the Marine Protection Organization. Aloha and Mahalo for you time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me if u have any questions regarding our testimony submission. Aloha Kealoha Pisciotta Keomaivg@gmail.com P.O.Box 5864 Hilo, HI 96720 Our request to be consulting parties and testimony: Aloha, I write here as President Of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Founder Of Kai Palaoa. We believe that this EIS relating to the Aquarium Fish Trade and Trafficking has significant and cumulative impacts not only on the reef itself but on the people of Hawai’i, including Native Hawaiians(Kanaka Maoli). We have reviewed the responses to our previous comments beginning on P. 436 of the Draft EIS. It is our testimony, in light of those responses, that all Traditional and Customary Cultural and Religious Practices of the Reef systems that will have a significant impact under this project/action (that being the Aquarium Trade and Trafficking of Wildlife from within the water and near shore reefs of Hawai’i) must be considered and included and the EIS analysis. I live on Hawai’i Island where much of the wildlife and aquarium fish are collected, contained and shipped to North American pet stores and private collectors for profit and commercial exploitation. I and my Organizations wish to be a consulting parties for the purpose of providing oral and written testimony regarding our collective and personal families traditional and customary cultural and religious use and practices relating to the reef and wildlife and for testifying to the significance impact the Aquarium Fish Trade and Trafficking will and has had on our cultural and religious practices and use. The States DLNR as submitted remarks to be added for consideration in the scoping, which have many good points that we also concur with, however, we wish at this time to add the following: 1. Because many species are considered ‘Aumakua (family guardians) the Native Hawaiian religious significance of each and every species collected must also be included in the EIS analysis and impact statement. 2. The social and cultural impact must also be taken into account. 3. The social, cultural and even economic impact as secondary impacts to non-commercial and or to local fishermen who fish in part for subsistence and in part to help provide some economic relief must also be considered. 4. The impact of the Aquarium Trade and Trafficking Industry has on the health and well being of of the various cultural groups including Native Hawaiians must be considered and taken into account. 5. The EIS must include graphical and other analysis of the socio-economic impact on Native Hawaiian Communities with high incidence of of Commercial Aquarium Trade and Trafficking in their area, Ahupua’a or placed base analysis. How does this industry impact traditional Hawaiian communities such as Miloli’i for example? 6. The EIS should include other sources of significant and cumulative impacts such as: 7. Climate change in coral systems and reef wildlife. 8. Climate change impacts on run off, water diversion for development or and impacts when added to pollution and contamination for all run off sources; including golf courses, hotels, housing development and other projects that contribute to the destruction and or contamination of the reef and near shore eco-systems. 9. Any other activities that frustrate or negatively impact or produce irreparable harm to the reefs and the reef wildlife should all be apart of the significance and cumulative impact analysis. We reserve our rights to add more comments as consulting parties to the Aquarium Trade and Trafficking Industry EIS. Can you please add my email (Keomaivg@gmail.com) onto the list for future reference and forward any relevant public documents we may need to review. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Aloha and Mahalo, ———-/s/————— Kealoha Pisciotta Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa Keomaivg@gmail.com P.O. Box 5864 Hilo, Hawai’i 96720 Responses to comments received from Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response Aloha, I write here as President Of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Founder Of Kai Palaoa. We believe that this EIS relating to the Aquarium Fish Trade and Trafficking has significant and cumulative impacts not only on the reef itself but on the people of Hawai’i, including Native Hawaiians(Kanaka Maoli). Comment noted. A DEIS has been prepared analyzing the significance of impacts to the human and natural environment. We have reviewed the responses to our previous comments beginning on P. 436 of the Draft EIS. It is our testimony, in light of those responses, that all Traditional and Customary Cultural and Religious Practices of the Reef systems that will have a significant impact under this project/action (that being the Aquarium Trade and Trafficking of Wildlife from within the water and near shore reefs of Hawai’i) must be considered and included and the EIS analysis. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has been prepared, and cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. I live on Hawai’i Island where much of the wildlife and aquarium fish are collected, contained and shipped to North American pet stores and private collectors for profit and commercial exploitation. I and my Organizations wish to be a consulting parties for the purpose of providing oral and written testimony regarding our collective and personal families traditional and customary cultural and religious use and practices relating to the reef and wildlife and for testifying to the significance impact the Aquarium Fish Trade and Trafficking will and has had on our cultural and religious practices and use. The States DLNR as submitted remarks to be added for consideration in the scoping, which have many good points that we also concur with, however, we wish at this time to add the following: Comment noted. Comment noted. Kealoha Pisciotta was contacted as part of the consultation process of the DEIS, as noted in Section 6.0 of the DEIS and in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS). Comment noted. Responses to specific comments provided below, and response to the DLNR are also provided in Appendix B of the DEIS. 1. Because many species are considered ‘Aumakua (family guardians) the Native Hawaiian religious significance of each and every species collected must also be included in the EIS analysis and impact statement. Comment noted. The cultural significance of each White List Species has been added to Section 4.4 of the DEIS, and is described in detail in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS). 2. The social and cultural impact must also be taken into account. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has been prepared, and cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. 3. The social, cultural and even economic impact as secondary impacts to non-commercial and or to local fishermen who fish in part for subsistence and in part to help provide some economic relief must also be considered. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has been prepared, and cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. Socioeconomic impacts are discussed in Section 5.2 of the DEIS. Both the cultural and socioeconomic impacts include direct, indirect, and cumulative impact assessments. 4. The impact of the Aquarium Trade and Trafficking Industry has on the health and well being of of the various cultural groups including Native Hawaiians must be considered and taken into account. 5. The EIS must include graphical and other analysis of the socio-economic impact on Native Hawaiian Communities with high incidence of of Commercial Aquarium Trade and Trafficking in their area, Ahupua’a or placed base analysis. How does this industry impact traditional Hawaiian communities such as Miloli’i for example? Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has been prepared, and cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. Comment noted. A Cultural Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the DEIS) has been prepared, and cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. Responses to comments received from Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa Comment dated September 7, 2018 Comment Response 6. The EIS should include other sources of significant and cumulative impacts such as: Comment noted. Cumulative impacts are assessed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. 7. Climate change in coral systems and reef wildlife. Comment noted. The cumulative impact of climate change is assessed in Section 5.4.3.5 of the DEIS. 8. Climate change impacts on run off, water diversion for development or and impacts when added to pollution and contamination for all run off sources; including golf courses, hotels, housing development and other projects that contribute to the destruction and or contamination of the reef and near shore eco-systems. Comment noted. The cumulative impact of climate change is assessed in Section 5.4.3.5 of the DEIS. 9. Any other activities that frustrate or negatively impact or produce irreparable harm to the reefs and the reef wildlife should all be apart of the significance and cumulative impact analysis. Comment noted. Cumulative impacts are assessed in Section 5.0 of the DEIS. Comments Received From Consulted Parties and Applicant Responses August 30, 2019 Terry VanDeWalle Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2300 Swan Lake Boulevard Suite 202 Independence IA 50644-9708 VIA Email: Terry.Vandewall@Stantec.com RE: Pending Proposed DEIS for the West Hawaii Aquarium Trade Mr. VanDeWalle, Preliminarily, we must note Stantec’s failure to comply with the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) process, including contacting us at the outset of the environmental assessment phase (see Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-9(b), and as formally requested Consulted Parties in this environmental impact study phase (see Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-15(a)). Stantec contacted us only after we (1) heard through happenstance that Stantec was conducting cultural consultations for its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and (2) reported this failure to consult to the Board of Land and Natural Resources Chair, Suzanne Case. Therefore, by not contacting us early in the process, as required, we were deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the consultation and decision-making process early on, which is a critical and imperative part of the HEPA process. We expected the Applicant to endeavor to develop a fully acceptable EIS prior to the time the EIS is filed with the Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) through a full and complete consultation process, rather than relying solely upon environmental review documents to expose environmental concerns. For examples of some of our expectations regarding the consultation process, see page two of our Sept. 7, 2018 comments on the FEA-EISPN, as well as the 2014 HEPA Citizen’s Guide, published by the OEQC. Despite our objections, we submit these comments and questions to inform and improve the forthcoming DEIS. The below questions were prompted after recently being made aware of the limited geographic scope of the forthcoming DEIS, to include only West Hawaii, as well as the DEIS’s intent to provide exclusive aquarium collection privileges to 14 individuals, contrary to the earlier Draft Environmental Assessments (DEAs). Some of the Consulted Parties learned of the scope of the proposed DEIS only this week, from other Consulted Parties. Stantec’s failure to provide this crucial information to all Consulted Parties limited some of the Consulted Parties’ ability to meaningfully comment, and undermines HEPA’s notice requirements. 1 We also continue to await your response to our earlier questions and comments, submitted on the DEA in May 2018 and on the FEA-EISPN in September of 2018 – which are attached in the email and incorporated herein by reference. Your thorough response to these new and earlier outstanding questions is necessary to inform our response to the pending DEIS, and to ensure that you are thoroughly evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to HEPA. 1. What are the environmental benefits of removing tens to hundreds of thousands of animals annually for the West Hawaii aquarium trade? 2. Why is the proposed DEIS limited to West Hawaii? Collection continues in East Hawaii and at even greater rates since the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s September 2017 opinion. Why would other areas of collection be excluded? Do the 14 collectors propose to collect only in West Hawaii, or is this due to the need for an additional West Hawaii permit to take in this area? Research suggests that larval connectivity and dispersal extends across all areas of potentially all islands, without barriers, thus, a depletion of species in one area may have a much larger impact on that species in other areas as well. Specifically, what research has led you to not consider this important aspect of connectivity, or considering the broader effects of aquarium collection as a whole throughout the state? The Proposed DEIS would provide exclusive access, take and related privileges to 14 individuals that no other person would otherwise have access to. Given these 14 applicants are requesting special permission to access and remove constitutionally protected public trust resources, the below information is needed to explain how and why these 14 applicants should be granted this exclusive access, that would otherwise be denied to others. 3. Please identify the 14 applicants by name and business name (DBA). 4. How many reef animals have been taken by the 14 applicants in the past decade (list per year, per species and method of collection) and in what area, and how many are the applicants proposing to take each year for the next decade (list per species and method)? 5. Have any of the applicants been charged with any offense related to the aquarium trade or occurring during the course of aquarium trade activities, or county or state natural resource related offenses? If so, include date, offense and outcome of each offense. 6. What steps will be taken by the 14 applicants to reduce the impacts of climate change, specifically, coral bleaching and ocean temperature rise, which is predicted to occur more frequently and more severely over the next decade, given they will be removing thousands of herbivorous species? The environmental review must fully disclose the changing baseline from climate change and the effects of the proposed activities on the reef in light of climate change. The 2 Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in late 2018, projects that by 2040 Hawaii’s coral reefs will bleach annually which will result in the loss of 71% of the state’s current coral reef cover by mid-century, and 99% by 2100. Unprecedented coral bleaching across Hawaii and especially in West Hawaii has already occurred: back-toback years of increased sea temperatures in 2014 and 2015 caused 50% of bleached corals to die in West Hawaii. Further, on August 23, 2019, the Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) warned of possible severe and widespread coral bleaching across the state within the next two months as the result of sea temperatures that are currently 3 degrees above normal. Because temperatures are expected to rise even further, this bleaching event will likely be even worse than the one that damaged so many of Hawaii’s reefs 4 – 5 years ago. Reefs in West Hawaii are already showing signs of stress such as bleaching and both DLNR and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have asked the public to take actions to minimize any additional stress to Hawaii’s reefs. Notably, among the actions to be avoided are many that are widespread and/or inherent to the aquarium trade, referenced below. 7. How will the 14 applicants 1) specifically comply with the following recommended actions, and, given the extremely limited enforcement resources and capabilities of DLNR, 2) how do they propose to show compliance with these recommended actions? • • • Reduce or stop taking herbivorous fishes such as surgeonfish which are needed to keep algae growth under control so as not to smother and kill corals stressed from bleaching Avoid touching, standing in corals Keep vessel anchors and chains off corals 8. How do the 14 applicants propose to prevent population reductions of reef species when, outside of the current court order, there are no limits on: • • • • • • • • • the issuance of West Hawaii aquarium collection permits the issuance of State aquarium collection permits the issuance of Commercial Marine Licenses caps on the issuance of the above permits or a limited entry program the use of certain types of gear that may be detrimental to the environment overall take (Total Allowable Catch) area/geographical limitations outside of “no take” areas collection of species outside of the “white list” number of “white list” species that may be taken 9. The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), specifically the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and their enforcement arm, the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) has severely restricted resources, 3 such as inadequate staff and funding for enforcement, and there are current statutory restrictions on searches of certain containers carrying marine life and certain vessels. How do the 14 applicants propose that enforcement will be achieved on any proposed limits to their activities, including verifiable compliance with current administrative rules, and state and federal laws, including those listed below. How are the 14 applicants currently complying? • • Federal Lacey Act requirements USC Title 16 Hawaii Misdemeanor Cruelty to Animals statute HRS 711-1109 10. The commercial aquarium trade has long operated with fewer regulations, oversight and compliance-verification mechanisms than those that commercial food fisheries must adhere to. Further, while the issuance of aquarium collection permits is discretionary, and subjects the permit holder to certain legal obligations, including inspection of facilities holding marine life, many of these regulations have not been actively enforced. For clarification, do the 14 applicants cooperate and comply with the following: • • provide open and immediate access to coolers, containers, vessels and other aquarium related gear, equipment and holding facilities upon request of a DLNRDOCARE Officer, as per the conditions of their permits? allow observers on their vessels with/without notice? 11. The earlier DEAs for the aquarium trade failed to include data and records which are not readily accessible to the public and other interested parties. Please provide the necessary data and response to the following to address our outstanding concerns with enforceability of the above-referenced laws specifically as it relates to animal health, welfare and mortality rates: a) Thousands of fish have been taken since the Supreme Court opinion and subsequent District Court orders were issued in September and October of 2017 which prohibited the use of fine mesh nets (nets with a mesh less than 2 inch). Ninety plus percent of catch prior to the court ruling involved the use of fine mesh nets. Please explain in detail the gear and method(s) of collection currently (October 2017 to present) used by each of the 14 applicants and for what species. If the 14 collectors did NOT collect during this period please provide that information as well. b) Per HDOA intrastate shipment records, thousands of fish have been shipped since the above-referenced court order took effect. For the 14 applicants please provide: • how many fish/animals were shipped by each applicant per month since October 2017 to the present and; • specifically where these fish/animals were shipped to (e.g., intrastate to Honolulu, interstate or international) and; • the mortality rates for each shipment (a) upon arrival and (b) at 14 days postshipment; 4 • what percentage of animals remain in Hawaii (for resale) versus those who are shipped 1) to the US mainland and 2) international; c) For each of the 14 applicants please note whether the collector is also a dealer. If the collector is not a dealer, provide who the collector sells their catch to; d) For each of the 14 applicants, please note which collectors engage in the following practices in contradiction to HRS 711-1109: • • • • withholding of food (starvation) and for what period of time; fizzing or puncturing of the swim bladder; cutting of spines or dorsal fins; body compression (squeezing animal to force out ejection of fecal matter). In conclusion, we emphasize that the environmental review must address every phase and aspect of the proposed action to determine the “overall and cumulative effects of an action,” Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-12(a), which may include “ecological effects (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic effects, [] cultural effects, [and] economic effects . . . whether primary, secondary, or cumulative.” Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-2. It is vitally important that the environmental review provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental and cultural effects of the proposed action. These effects combined with the cumulative effects should be fully mitigated or the actions should not be approved. We also reiterate that thorough answers to the questions posed here, as well as thorough responses to our earlier comments are necessary in order for us to adequately provide consultation on this matter. Thank you, Rene Umberger Executive Director, For the Fishes rene@forthefishes.org 808.283.7225 Inga Gibson Policy Director, Pono Advocacy LLC PonoAdvocacy@gmail.com 808.922.9910 5 Laura Smythe Staff Attorney, Animal Protection Litigation The Humane Society of the United States 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20037 lsmythe@humanesociety.org (202) 676-2331 Keith Dane Senior Advisor The Humane Society of the United States 67-1185 Mamalahoa Hwy. D-104 PMB:259 Kamuela, HI 96743 kdane@humanesociety.org (301) 312-1489 Miyoko Sakashita Oceans Director Senior Counsel CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612 Email: miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org Office: 510-844-7108 Mike Nakachi Cultural Practitioner, Moana Ohana Email: mikenakachi@hawaii.rr.com 6 Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/Pono Advocacy LLC/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Moana Ohana Comment dated August 30, 2019 Comment Response Preliminarily, we must note Stantec’s failure to comply with the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) process, including contacting us at the outset of the environmental assessment phase (see Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-9(b), and as formally requested Consulted Parties in this environmental impact study phase (see Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-15(a)). Stantec contacted us only after we (1) heard through happenstance that Stantec was conducting cultural consultations for its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and (2) reported this failure to consult to the Board of Land and Natural Resources Chair, Suzanne Case. Therefore, by not contacting us early in the process, as required, we were deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the consultation and decision-making process early on, which is a critical and imperative part of the HEPA process. We expected the Applicant to endeavor to develop a fully acceptable EIS prior to the time the EIS is filed with the Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) through a full and complete consultation process, rather than relying solely upon environmental review documents to expose environmental concerns. For examples of some of our expectations regarding the consultation process, see page two of our Sept. 7, 2018 comments on the FEA-EISPN, as well as the 2014 HEPA Citizen’s Guide, published by the OEQC. Despite our objections, we submit these comments and questions to inform and improve the forthcoming DEIS. Comment noted. The commenters were included in the consultation process for the DEIS, as described in Section 6.0. We also continue to await your response to our earlier questions and comments, submitted on the DEA in May 2018 and on the FEA-EISPN in September of 2018 – which are attached in the email and incorporated herein by reference. Your thorough response to these new and earlier outstanding questions is necessary to inform our response to the pending DEIS, and to ensure that you are thoroughly evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to HEPA. Comment noted. The responses to the comments on the DEA were included in the publication of the FEA and are not repeated here. They can be found online here: http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-08-08-HA-FEA-EISPN-Hawaii-IslandCommercial-Aquarium-Permits.pdf What are the environmental benefits of removing tens to hundreds of thousands of animals annually for the West Hawaii aquarium trade? Comment noted. The environmental impacts of commercial aquarium collection in West Hawai'i are evaluated in the DEIS in Section 5.0. Why is the proposed DEIS limited to West Hawaii? Collection continues in East Hawaii and at even greater rates since the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s September 2017 opinion. Why would other areas of collection be excluded? Do the 14 collectors propose to collect only in West Hawaii, or is this due to the need for an additional West Hawaii permit to take in this area? Comment noted. The DEIS evaluates the impact of commercial aquarium collection on the entire island of Hawai'i. However, the Applicant is not requesting any permits to be issued for East Hawai'i. The collection that has continued in East Hawai'i since the October 2017 ban on commercial aquarium collection in the WHRFMA is legal and does not require a commercial aquarium permit. Nonetheless, the DEIS does evaluate the impacts of continued collection in East Hawai'i, as well as the impacts that issuing permits for the WHRFMA may have on collection in East Hawai'i. The comments and responses on the FEA are included in this Appendix. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/Pono Advocacy LLC/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Moana Ohana Comment dated August 30, 2019 Comment Research suggests that larval connectivity and dispersal extends across all areas of potentially all islands, without barriers, thus, a depletion of species in one area may have a much larger impact on that species in other areas as well. Specifically, what research has led you to not consider this important aspect of connectivity, or considering the broader effects of aquarium collection as a whole throughout the state? Response Comment noted. As stated in Section 4.4 of the DEIS, Toonen et al. (2011) conclude that the Hawaiian Archipelago is not a single, well-mixed marine community, but rather there are at least four significant multi-species barriers to dispersal along the length of the island chain, and that species that appear capable of extensive dispersal, such as Yellow Tang and Kole, show significant population differentiation within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In addition, there are significant consensus genetic breaks that restrict gene flow between islands, including a barrier between the island of Hawai’i and the rest of the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). Please identify the 14 applicants by name and business name (DBA). Comment noted. The applicant information is provided in the DEIS. How many reef animals have been taken by the 14 applicants in the past decade (list per year, per species and method of collection) and in what area, and how many are the applicants proposing to take each year for the next decade (list per species and method)? Comment noted. The average and maximum collection by species of the 14 fishers has been added to Table 5-11. It should be noted that these fishers waived their right to confidentiality, and as such, this includes all their collected numbers from 2000 through 2017 (no data are excluded due to Hawai'i confidentiality laws). The collection numbers are limited to the WHRFMA for the analysis. It is assumed for the environmental consequences that the collection rates seen over the past 18 years will remain relatively the same over the 5-year analysis period, though the maximum collection is also included in the analysis. Collection would occur via fine mesh nets or other legal methods. Have any of the applicants been charged with any offense related to the aquarium trade or occurring during the course of aquarium trade activities, or county or state natural resource related offenses? If so, include date, offense and outcome of each offense. Comment noted. We do not possess this information. Enforcement and information concerning it is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/Pono Advocacy LLC/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Moana Ohana Comment dated August 30, 2019 Comment Response What steps will be taken by the 14 applicants to reduce the impacts of climate change, specifically, coral bleaching and ocean temperature rise, which is predicted to occur more frequently and more severely over the next decade, given they will be removing thousands of herbivorous species? The environmental review must fully disclose the changing baseline from climate change and the effects of the proposed activities on the reef in light of climate change. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in late 2018, projects that by 2040 Hawaii’s coral reefs will bleach annually which will result in the loss of 71% of the state’s current coral reef cover by mid-century, and 99% by 2100. Unprecedented coral bleaching across Hawaii and especially in West Hawaii has already occurred: back-to-back years of increased sea temperatures in 2014 and 2015 caused 50% of bleached corals to die in West Hawaii. Further, on August 23, 2019, the Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) warned of possible severe and widespread coral bleaching across the state within the next two months as the result of sea temperatures that are currently 3 degrees above normal. Because temperatures are expected to rise even further, this bleaching event will likely be even worse than the one that damaged so many of Hawaii’s reefs 4 – 5 years ago. Reefs in West Hawaii are already showing signs of stress such as bleaching and both DLNR and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have asked the public to take actions to minimize any additional stress to Hawaii’s reefs. Notably, among the actions to be avoided are many that are widespread and/or inherent to the aquarium trade, referenced below. Comment noted. There is no evidence that suggests that commercial aquarium collection is a major contributer to climate change, including coral bleaching or ocean temperature rise, though these impacts are included in the cumulative impacts analysis in the DEIS. As stated in Section 5.4, no impacts on populations of herbivores are anticipated. Tissot and Hallacher (2003) concluded that there were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collected sites (i.e., sites where aquarium collection occurs) to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. In addition, they found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. The DAR (2019) concluded that commercial aquarium collecting is not having any measurable negative impact on percent coral cover or change in coral cover over time. How will the 14 applicants 1) specifically comply with the following recommended actions, and, given the extremely limited enforcement resources and capabilities of DLNR, 2) how do they propose to show compliance with these recommended actions? Reduce or stop taking herbivorous fishes such as surgeonfish which are needed to keep algae growth under control so as not to smother and kill corals stressed from bleaching; avoid touching, standing in corals; keep vessel anchors and chains off corals Comment noted. Section 5.4.2 of the DEIS evaluates the impacts of the alternatives on herbivores and coral reefs. As stated in Section 5.4, no impacts on populations of herbivores are anticipated. Tissot and Hallacher (2003) concluded that there were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collected sites (i.e., sites where aquarium collection occurs) to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. In addition, they found no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting. The DAR (2019) concluded that commercial aquarium collecting is not having any measurable negative impact on percent coral cover or change in coral cover over time. How do the 14 applicants propose to prevent population reductions of reef species when, outside of the current court order, there are no limits on: the issuance of West Hawaii aquarium collection permits; the issuance of State aquarium collection permits; the issuance of Commercial Marine Licenses; caps on the issuance of the above permits or a limited entry program; the use of certain types of gear that may be detrimental to the environment; overall take (Total Allowable Catch); area/geographical limitations outside of “no take” areas; collection of species outside of the “white list”; number of “white list” species that may be taken Comment noted. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS limits the issuance of commercial aquarium permits to 14 fishers, and limits the permits geographically to the WHRFMA, eliminating some of the uncertainty inherent with an unlimited issuance of permits (as was previously done and analyzed in the DEIS). Existing bag limits would remain in effect, and the Preferred Alternative includes a reduced bag limit for the Achilles Tang. As evaluated in Section 5.0 of the DEIS, based on the low percentage of the overall populations collected annually by commercial aquarium fishers, which is spread throughout the year and across multiple areas, Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/Pono Advocacy LLC/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Moana Ohana Comment dated August 30, 2019 Comment Response as well as the targeted collection of smaller, less fecund individuals, commercial aquarium collection would have a less than significant direct impact on reef fish populations. The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), specifically the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and their enforcement arm, the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) has severely restricted resources, such as inadequate staff and funding for enforcement, and there are current statutory restrictions on searches of certain containers carrying marine life and certain vessels. Comment noted. Enforcement is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. How do the 14 applicants propose that enforcement will be achieved on any proposed limits to their activities, including verifiable compliance with current administrative rules, and state and federal laws, including those listed below. How are the 14 applicants currently complying? Federal Lacey Act requirements USC Title 16; Hawaii Misdemeanor Cruelty to Animals statute HRS 711-1109 The commercial aquarium trade has long operated with fewer regulations, oversight and compliance-verification mechanisms than those that commercial food fisheries must adhere to. Further, while the issuance of aquarium collection permits is discretionary, and subjects the permit holder to certain legal obligations, including inspection of facilities holding marine life, many of these regulations have not been actively enforced. For clarification, do the 14 applicants cooperate and comply with the following: Comment noted. Permit holders must comply with law. Enforcement is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. provide open and immediate access to coolers, containers, vessels and other aquarium related gear, equipment and holding facilities upon request of a DLNR-DOCARE Officer, as per the conditions of their permits?; allow observers on their vessels with/without notice? Thousands of fish have been taken since the Supreme Court opinion and subsequent District Court orders were issued in September and October of 2017 which prohibited the use of fine mesh nets (nets with a mesh less than 2 inch). Ninety plus percent of catch prior to the court ruling involved the use of fine mesh nets. Please explain in detail the gear and method(s) of collection currently (October 2017 to present) used by each of the 14 applicants and for what species. If the 14 collectors did NOT collect during this period please provide that information as well. Comment noted. Within the WHRFMA, collection of aquarium fish is not ocurring under any method. In East Hawai'i, collection can occur without fine mesh nets, and the 2018 collection numbers are presented in Table 5-2 of the DEIS, and the impact of increased collection is described in Section 5.4.1.1. Responses to comments received from For the Fishes/Pono Advocacy LLC/The Humane Society of the United States/Center for Biological Diversity/Moana Ohana Comment dated August 30, 2019 Comment Response Per HDOA intrastate shipment records, thousands of fish have been shipped since the abovereferenced court order took effect. For the 14 applicants please provide: how many fish/animals were shipped by each applicant per month since October 2017 to the present and; specifically where these fish/animals were shipped to (e.g., intrastate to Honolulu, interstate or international) and; the mortality rates for each shipment (a) upon arrival and (b) at 14 days post-shipment; what percentage of animals remain in Hawaii (for resale) versus those who are shipped 1) to the US mainland and 2) international; Comment noted. Available collection data is provided in the DEIS from 2018 (when collection was conducted without the use of fine mesh nets and restricted to East Hawai'i). For each of the 14 applicants please note whether the collector is also a dealer. If the collector is not a dealer, provide who the collector sells their catch to; Comment noted. This information is not available. Available information is presented in the DEIS. For each of the 14 applicants, please note which collectors engage in the following practices in contradiction to HRS 711-1109: withholding of food (starvation) and for what period of time; fizzing or puncturing of the swim bladder; cutting of spines or dorsal fins; body compression (squeezing animal to force out ejection of fecal matter). Comment noted. Permit holders must comply with law. Enforcement is within the purview of the State of Hawaii. In conclusion, we emphasize that the environmental review must address every phase and aspect of the proposed action to determine the “overall and cumulative effects of an action,” Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-12(a), which may include “ecological effects (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic effects, [] cultural effects, [and] economic effects . . . whether primary, secondary, or cumulative.” Haw. Admin. R. § 11-200-2. It is vitally important that the environmental review provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental and cultural effects of the proposed action. These effects combined with the cumulative effects should be fully mitigated or the actions should not be approved. We also reiterate that thorough answers to the questions posed here, as well as thorough responses to our earlier comments are necessary in order for us to adequately provide consultation on this matter. Comment noted. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action are analyzed in the DEIS in Section 5.0. Responses to all comments are provided in Appendix B of the DEIS. APPENDIX LIST FOR THE DEIS Distribution List for the DEIS GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I(S) Agency Mailing Address dags@hawaii.gov (808) 586-0400 dbedt.director@hawaii.gov (808) 586-2355 No. 1, Capitol District Bldg. 250 S. Hotel Street, Ste. 435 Honolulu, HI 96813 Joseph.A.Roos@dbedt.hawaii.gov Tammy.Lam@hawaii.gov (808) 586-2481 235 S. Beretania St., 5th flr. Honolulu, HI 96813 dbedt.energyoffice@hawaii.gov (808) 587-3812 235 S. Beretania St., 6th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/ (808) 587-2846 3949 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, HI 96816 478 S. King Street Honolulu, HI 96813 P.O. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 P.O . Box 3378 Honolulu, HI 96801 P.O. Box 621, Honolulu, HI 96809 601 Kamokila Blvd., Rm. 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 hi.dod.pa@icloud.com (808) 733-4258 https://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 586-3555 dhhl.icro@hawaii.gov (808) 620-9501 webmail@doh.hawaii.gov (808) 586-4424 dlnr@hawaii.gov (808) 587-0400 Alan.S.Downer@hawaii.gov (808) 692-8015 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 2540 Dole Street, Room 283 Honolulu, HI 96822 2500 Dole Street Krauss Annex 19 Honolulu, HI 96822 2550 McCarthy Mall Honolulu, HI 96822 200 W. Kawili Street Hilo, HI 96720 310 Ka'ahumanu Avenue Kahului, HI 96732 dotpao@hawaii.gov (808) 587-2160 thomas@hawaii.edu (808) 956-7847 envctr@hawaii.edu (808) 956-7362 uhmlib@hawaii.edu (808) 956-8264 mookini@hawaii.edu (808) 974-7346 uhmclib@hawaii.edu (808) 984-3233 State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Research Division Library State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Strategic Industries Division State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Office of Planning Attn: Mary Alice Evans, Director State of Hawai'i Department of Defense State of Hawai'i, Department of Education, Hawaii State Library, Hawai'i Documents Center State of Hawai'i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands State of Hawai'i, Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation University of Hawai'i Water Resources Research Center University of Hawai'i Environmental Center University of Hawai'i Maui College Library Telephone (808) 973-9550 1428 S. King Str. Honoluolu, HI 96814 P.O . Box 119 Honolulu, HI 96810 University of Hawai'i Thomas H. Hamilton Library University of Hawai'i at Hilo Edwin H. Mo'okini Library Electronic Mail or Internet Address hdoainfo@hawaii.gov State of Hawai'i Department of Agriculture State of Hawa i'i Department of Accounting and General Services State of Hawai'i Department of Business. Economic Development and Tourism P.O. Box 2359 Honolulu, HI 96804 Distribution List for the DEIS University of Hawai'i Kaua'i Community College Library Office of Hawaiian Affairs Legislative Reference Bureau Library 3-1901 Kaumualii Highway Lihu'e, HI 96766 711 Kapi'olani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 State Capitol 415 S. Beretania St., Rm. 005 Honolulu, HI 96813 kcclib@hawaii.edu (808) 245-8233 info@oha.org (808) 594-1835 lrb@capitol.hawaii.gov (808) 587-0690 GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI'I(H) Agency County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management County of Hawai'i Department of Parks and Recreation County of Hawai'i Planning Department County of Hawai'i Department of Public Works County of Hawai'i Department of Water Supply GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) Federal Agency Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Pacific Islands Water Science Center Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Department of the Interior National Parks Service Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Mailing Address Pu'ainako Town Center 2100 Kanoelehua Avenue, Bay C-5, Hilo, HI 96720 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 Hilo, HI 96720 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720 345 Kekuanao'a Street, Suite 20 Hilo, HI 96720 Mailing Address 677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Ste. 415, Honolulu, HI 96813 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm. 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850-0056 Pacific Islands Regional Office 1611 Kapi'olani Boulevard, Suite 1110 Honolulu, HI 96814 Pacific Islands Support Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm. 6-226 Honolulu, HI 96850 Pacific Islands Area Office PO Box 50004 Honolulu, HI 96850 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm. 7-128 Honolulu, HI 96850-7128 90 7th Street, Suite 15-300 San Francisco, CA 94103 Electronic Mail or Internet Address Telephone cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov (808) 961-8083 parks_recreation@co.hi.us (808) 961-8311 planning@co.hi.us (808) 961-8288 public_works@co.hawaii.hi.us (808) 961-8321 dws@hawaiidws.org (808) 961-8050 Electronic Mail or Internet Address Telephone santhony@usgs.gov (808) 587-2400 pifwo_admin@fws.gov (808) 792-9400 pirohonolulu@noaa.gov (808) 944-2200 melia_lane-kamahele@nps.gov (808) 541-2693 travis.thomason@usda.gov (808) 541-2600 kevin.h.nishimura@faa.gov (808) 312-6030 ted.matley@dot.gov (415) 734-9490 Distribution List for the DEIS Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard LIBRARIES AND DEPOSITORIES (LD) Library or Depository North Kohala Public Library Hilo Public Library Attn: Justin Rajkowski Kailua-Kona Public Library Honokaa Public Library Kealakekua Public Library Pahoa Public and School Library Thelma Parker Memorial Public and School Library Naalehu Public Library NEWS MEDIA (NM) Organization Honolulu Star Advertiser Hawai'i Tribune Herald David Bock, Publisher and Editor West Hawai'i Today Tom Hasslinger, Editor The Garden Island Maui News Moloka'i Dispatch ELECTED AND OTHER OFFICIALS (EO) Official U.S. Senator - Mazie K. Hirono Commander, 14th Coast Guard District, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 9-204, Honolulu, HI 96850-4982 Mailing Address 54-3645 Akoni Pule Hwy Kapaau, HI 96755 300 Waianuenue Ave. Hilo, HI 96720 75-138 Haulalai Rd. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 45-3380 Mamane St., Bldg #3 Honokaa, HI 96727 81-6619 Mamalahoa Hwy Kealakekua, HI 96750 15-3070 Pahoa-Kalapana Rd. Pahoa, HI 96778 67-1209 Mamalahoa Hwy Waimea, HI 96743 95-5669 Mamalahoa Hwy Naalehu, HI 96772 Mailing Address Restaurant Row 7, Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210, 500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96813 P.O. Box 767 Hilo, HI 96721 P.O. Box 789, Kailua-Kona, HI 96745-0789 P.O. Box 231, Lihu'e, HI 96766 100 Mahalani Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 P.0. Box 482219, Kaunakakai, HI 96748 Mailing Address 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 3-106 Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 535-3325 Electronic Mail or Internet Address Telephone http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 889-6655 justin.rajkowski@librarieshawaii.org (808) 933-8890 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 327-4327 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 775-8881 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 323-7585 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 965-2171 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 887-6067 http://www.librarieshawaii.org/locations/index.htm (808) 939-2442 Electronic Mail or Internet Address Telephone citydesk@staradvertiser.com (808) 529-4747 dbock@hawaiitribune-herald.com (808) 930-7323 thasslinger@westhawaiitoday.com (808) 329-93 I I neagle@thegardenisland.com (808) 245-3681 citydesk@mauinews.com (808) 244-3981 editor@themolokaidispatch.com (808) 552-278 I Electronic Mail or Internet Address hawaiioffice@hirono.senate.gov Telephone (808) 522-8970 Distribution List for the DEIS U.S. Senator - Brian Schatz U.S. Representative - Ed Case U.S. Representative - Tulsi Gabbard State Senator - Dru Mamo Kanuha Senate District 3 State Senator - Lorraine Inouye Senate District 4 State Senator - Kai Kahele Senate District 1 State Representative - Ryan Yamane House District 37 State Representative - Richard P. Creagan House District 5 State Representative - Nicole E. Lowen House District 6 State Representative- David A. Tarnas House District 7 County Council Representative - Maile Medeiros David Mayor Harry Kim CONSULTED PARTIES AND COMMENTERS UNDER SECTION 11-200-15, HAR(CP) Name 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 7-212 Honolulu, HI 96850 2443 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 1433 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 206 brian_schatz@shatz.senate.gov (808) 523-2061 ed.case@mail.house.gov (202) 225-2726 tulsiOffice@mail.house.gov (202)225-4906 senkanuha@Capitol.hawaii.gov (808) 586-9385 Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 210 seninouye@capitol.hawaii.gov Hawaii State Capitol, Rm 213 senkkahele@capitol.hawaii.gov Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 420 repyamane@capitol.hawaii.gov Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 427 repcreagan@capitol.hawaii.gov Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 425 replowen@Capitol.hawaii.gov Hawaii State Capitol, Rm. 328 reptarnas@Capitol.hawaii.gov (808) 586-8510 86-4310 Mamalahoa Hwy Captain Cook, HI 96704 Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 maile.david@hawaiicounty.gov (808) 323-4277 harry.kim@hawaiicounty.gov (808) 961-8211 Electronic Mail or Internet Address Telephone Mailing Address Keith Dane, Hawai'i Policy Advisor, The Humane Society of the United States 67-1185 Mamalahoa Hwy. D-104 PMB:259 Kamuela, HI 96743 kdane@humanesociety.org Laura Smythe, Litigation Fellow, Animal Protection Litigation, The Humane Society of the United States Inga Gibson, Policy Director, Pono Advocacy, LLC 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20037 lsmythe@humanesociety.org Mike Nakachi, President, Moana Ohana PO Box 4454 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 PO Box 5864 Hilo, HI 96720 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 PO Box 1894 Kihei, HI 96753 Kealoha Pisciotta, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kai Palaoa Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director, Senior Counsel, Center for Biological Diversity Rene Umberger, Executive Director, For the Fishes Robert Flatt ponoadvocacy@gmail.com mikenakachi@hawaii.rr.com keomaivq@gmail.com miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org rene@forthefishes.org robert@fishes.com Distribution List for the DEIS Alton Miyasaka amiyasaka7@cs.com John Powers imagtek@imagtek.com Patty Shenker, Doug & Julia Stoll pattypushka@gmail.com Mark Tang dancingcloudrefuge@gmail.com Jojo Tanimoto, Aha Moku Island Council guavaland622@gmail.com OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES Name Kehau Springer Mailing Address Electronic Mail or Internet Address kspringer@conservation.org Bimo Akiona bimoakiona@yahoo.com Pelika Andrade pelikaok@hawaii.edu Ka'imi Kaupiko kkaupiko@gmail.com Willie Kaupiko hawaiianrolloffservices@gmail.com Greg Asner greg@hawaiimerc.org Akoni Palacat-Nelson shanen@oha.org Damien Kenninson namamo@yahoo.com Nohea Kaawa kaawa.nohea@gmail.com Mel Johansen mjohansen@TNC.org John Replogle jrepsr@gmail.com Megan Lamson lamson@hawaii.edu Shaylan Crysdale scrysdale@TNC.org Diane Maka'ala Kaneali'i dkanealii02@gmail.com Chad Wiggins cwiggins@TNC.org Hannah Springer ohiwai@gmail.com Ku'ulei Keakealani kuumehananani@yahoo.com Krista Johnson kdolph_1_n@earthlink.net Reggie Lee rlee@kohanaiki.com Aric Arakaki aric_arakaki@nps.gov George Fry bapuii@icloud.com Pi'i Laeha pii.laeha@aubergeresrorts.com Chuck Leslie checkleslie7@gmail.com Bianca Isaki bianca@kahea.org Telephone