blue shark, dolfinfish (mahi mahi) and silky shark€¦ · blue shark, dolfinfish (mahi mahi)...

52
Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis East Pacific Pelagic longline July 12, 2016 Alexia Morgan, Consulng Researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external sciensts with experse in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scienfic review, however, does not constute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendaons on the part of the reviewing sciensts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. 1

Upload: others

Post on 26-Jun-2020

19 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark

Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

East Pacific

Pelagic longline

July 12, 2016

Alexia Morgan, Consul ng Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by externalscien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scien fic review, however, does notcons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommenda ons on the part of thereviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

1

Page 2: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

23455788

132432353641

Table of Contents

Table of ContentsAbout Seafood WatchGuiding PrinciplesSummaryFinal Seafood RecommendationsIntroductionAssessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentCriterion 2: Impacts on other speciesCriterion 3: Management EffectivenessCriterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

AcknowledgementsReferencesAppendix A: Extra By Catch Species

2

Page 3: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainableseafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc onin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makesits science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Eachreport synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, thenevaluates this informa on against the program’s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of “BestChoices,” “Good Alterna ves” or “Avoid.” The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fisherymanagement plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, andmembers of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces.Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will beupdated to reflect these changes.

Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on about Seafood Watch® andSeafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

3

Page 4: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng wildcatchfisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?

How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?

How effec ve is the fishery’s management?

How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and score

Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng

Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs andthe overall recommenda on are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause li le harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alterna ve/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marinelife or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

Page 5: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Summary

This report focuses on longline fisheries opera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean that catch mahi mahi(Coryphaena hippurus), blue shark (Prionace glauca) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis).

Blue and silky sharks are slow growing species that reach sexual maturity later in life and produce a smallnumber of young. In contrast, mahi mahi grows quickly, reaching sexual maturity at a young age and producinga large number of young. The statuses of mahi mahi popula ons in the Eastern Pacific Ocean are currentlyunknown, as is the status of blue shark in the South Pacific. In the North Pacific, blue shark popula ons arehealthy and sustainably fished. Although silky shark popula ons are currently being assessed, there is a largedegree of uncertainty surrounding their status. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is incharge of management of these species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. There are no management measures inplace for mahi mahi; although some measures are in place for sharks (for example, prohibi ng shark finning),there are no catch limits or other measures in place.

The longline fisheries that target these species also capture a number of secondary target and bycatch species,including other tunas, bony fish, sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds. The IATTC has adopted managementmeasures aimed at bycatch species. Many of these measures do not meet best prac ces requirements, andscien fic advice has not always been followed when se ng these measures. We have included species thattypically report as 5% of more of the total catch or whose status, e.g., endangered or threatened, jus fies theirinclusion in this report, per the Seafood Watch criteria.

Longlines do not typically come in contact with bo om habitats but do capture “excep onal species,” andmanagement does not currently take this into account.

Final Seafood Recommenda ons

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Silky sharkEast Pacific,Pelagic longline

Red (1.414) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.510)

Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)East Pacific,Pelagic longline

Green (3.318) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.869)

Silky sharkNorth Pacific,Pelagic longline

Red (1.414) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.510)

Silky sharkSouth Pacific,Pelagic longline

Red (1.414) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.510)

Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)North Pacific,Pelagic longline

Green (3.318) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.869)

Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)South Pacific,Pelagic longline

Green (3.318) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.869)

5

Page 6: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Summary

The dra overall recommenda on for silky shark, blue shark, and mahi mahi caught in the eastern PacificOcean is 'Avoid'.

Scoring GuideScores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingopera ons have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Cri cal scores

Good Alterna ve/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCri cal scores

Avoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Cri cal scores.

Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on forany fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

Blueshark:NorthernstockEast Pacific,Pelagic longline

Green (3.831) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.937)

Blueshark:SouthernstockEast Pacific,Pelagic longline

Red (1.414) Red (0.950) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.510)

2

6

Page 7: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Introduc on

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on

This report focuses on longline fisheries opera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean that catch mahi mahi(Coryphaena hippurus), blue shark (Prionace glauca), and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis).

Species Overview

Mahi mahi is a highly migratory species found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Mahi mahi istypically found in pelagic habitats, where it forms schools and is commonly found associated with floa ngobjects. Mahi mahi is a top predator, feeding on small fish and squid (Froese and Pauly 2015).

Blue shark is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world’s oceans in epipelagic andmesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and the most abundant, withabundance increasing with la tude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squidspecies (ISCSWG 2014).

Silky shark is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world’s oceans. Silky shark is found in anumber of habitats, including along the con nental shelf and open ocean. Silky shark is o en found associatedwith schools of tuna, making it suscep ble to bycatch in tuna fisheries. Silky shark feeds on fish, squid, andsome invertebrates (Froese and Pauly 2015).

These species are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the Eastern PacificOcean.

Produc on Sta s cs

Catches of mahi mahi by longliners opera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) were very low during the early1990s but increased rapidly from 43 MT in 1996 to 6,866 MT in 1997. Catches have remained higher(although variable between 2 MT and 15,000 MT) since 1997, peaking at 17,253 MT in 2012. Catches in 2013(the last year of data available) were lower, at 10,559 MT (IATTC 2015a).

Silky shark catches in the EPO were around 15,000 MT in 1994. Catches decreased through the late 1990s intothe early 2000s. Since 2009, catches have been increasing, reaching around 16,000 MT in 2010 (IATTC 2013g)(IATTC 2014d).

Blue shark catches in the North Pacific peaked in the late 1970s at over 100,000 MT. Since then, catches overallhave declined, though they have been somewhat variable. In 2012, catches were less than 40,000 MT in theNorth Pacific (ISCSWG 2014).

Importance to the US/North American market.

During 2014, the United States imported 26,467 t of mahi mahi. The largest por on (26%) came from Ecuador,followed by Chinese Taipei (21%) and Peru (21%). Another 1,595 t or 6% was imported from Panama (NMFS2015). Species-specific informa on on imports and exports of sharks is not available through the Na onalMarine Fisheries Service. During 2014, imports of fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smalleramounts imported from Canada, China, Costa Rica, and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealandand China (NMFS 2015).

Common and market names.

Mahi mahi is also known as dolphinfish and dorado. Blue and silky sharks are also known as “shark.”

Primary product forms

Mahi mahi, blue and silky sharks are commonly sold in fresh and frozen forms. Shark fins may also be sold as aseparate product. 7

Page 8: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Assessment

This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at h p://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Theinherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortalityscores. The Criterion 1 ra ng is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal

Criterion 1 Summary

Blue and silky sharks grow slowly, reach sexual maturity at a later age, produce a small number of young, andhave a long life span. The status of blue shark in the South Pacific Ocean is unknown but there are concernsover its popula on status. In the North Pacific, blue shark popula ons are healthy and fishing mortality ratesare sustainable. Assessments of silky shark in the Eastern Pacific Ocean have been conducted but the resultsare currently uncertain. Mahi mahi is a fast growing species of fish that reaches sexual maturity at a young ageand produces a large number of young. Its status in the Pacific Ocean is currently unknown.

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

BLUE SHARKRegion / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

East Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.831)

East Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.414)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

East Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.318)

North Pacific Pelagiclongline

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.318)

South Pacific Pelagiclongline

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.318)

SILKY SHARKRegion / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

East Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.414)

North Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.414)

South Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.414)

8

Page 9: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris csthat make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteris cs that make it neither par cularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle offood chain).

High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteris csthat make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduc on rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index ofthe inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, ageat first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

4 (Low Concern)—Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.

2 (High Concern)—Popula on is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknownand the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

1 (Very High Concern)—Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribu on tothe mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthyand the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.

1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

0 (Cri cal)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

BLUE SHARK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINEEAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High

9

Page 10: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 77 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blue sharkreaches sexual maturity around 4–7 years of age and reaches a maximum size and age of 380 cm and 16years, respec vely. Blue shark gives birth to live pups every 1–2 years (ISCSWG 2014). These life historycharacteris cs also suggest a “high” inherent vulnerability to fishing.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

An updated assessment of blue shark in the North Pacific was completed during 2014. Two different modelswere used in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the popula on(biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) of blue shark is not overfished (B /B = 1.65and SSB /SSB = 1.621) and that the popula on will remain above the level necessary to maintain themaximum sustainable yield (B ) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). There is high uncertainty in theassessments. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern score.

2011 M SY

2011 M SY

M SY

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High Concern

No assessments of blue shark in the South Pacific have been conducted. The Interna onal Union for theConserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers blue shark to be Near Threatened globally (Stevens 2009). There issome informa on from fisheries observers regarding the abundance of blue shark throughout the region thatindicates a decrease since 2004 (IATTC 2011e). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCNstatus, high vulnerability, and unknown status.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate es mated in 2011 (F ) was around34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F ) (ISCSWG 2014). Therefore overfishingis not occurring. There is uncertainty surrounding these results, and previous assessments have indicatedsome issues with the data (e.g., unreported and underreported catch and effort data, along with sizeinforma on). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score.

2011

M SY

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High Concern

No assessment of blue shark in the South Pacific region of the Eastern Pacific Ocean has been conducted, sofishing mortality rates are unknown. Observed catches have decreased over me from a high of 25,000 sharksin 1995 to under 5,000 since the mid-2000s (IATTC 2011e). There are no management measures in place andblue shark is vulnerable to capture, so we have awarded a “high” concern score.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Dolphinfish’s lifehistory characteris cs support this score. Sexual maturity is reached around 45 cm or 2 years of age and it can10

Page 11: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SILKY SHARK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

reach a maximum size of 110 cm and age of 12 years. It is a broadcast spawner and has a high trophic level(Froese and Pauly 2013).

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderate Concern

No popula on assessments of dolphinfish in the Pacific Ocean have been conducted; however, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is in the beginning stages of developing a plan for assessingdolphinfish (IATTC 2013). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers dolphinfish aspecies of Least Concern with a stable popula on trend (Colle e et al. 2011). We have awarded a “moderate”concern score because the stock has not been assessed rela ve to reference points, but is not considered tobe a high concern based on the vulnerability ra ng and IUCN lis ng.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates for dolphinfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean are not known, but the Inter-AmericanTropical Tuna Commission is in the beginning stages of assessing them (IATTC 2013). Dolphinfish is caught asbycatch and targeted in longline fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (IATTC 2013). The Interna onal Unionfor Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) does not consider there to be any major threats to dolphinfish fromcommercial fishing (Colle e et al. 2011). Preliminary analysis shows variable but somewhat steady catch perunit effort trends in abundance (IATTC 2013). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern score becausecommercial fishing does not appear to be a major threat and the catch per unit effort has been somewhatstable over me.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Silky shark reachessexual maturity between 200 and 260 cm in size and 7–12 years of age. Silky shark gives birth to live young. Itreaches a maximum size of 350 cm and lives at least 25 years (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life historycharacteris cs also suggest a “high” vulnerability to fishing.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High Concern

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has been working toward an assessment of silky shark since11

Page 12: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

2009. A full assessment was a empted and the results presented in 2014. Due to issues with the historicalme series of catches and the inability of the model to fit abundance series, the results were deemed

uncertain (IATTC 2014d). Updated indicators for a northern and southern por on of the popula on werepresented in 2015. It appears that silky shark popula ons are well below historic (1990s) levels. There havebeen recent increases in catch per unit effort series, but these may reflect environmental changes or changesto the availability of the popula on, not actual popula on increases (IATTC 2015d). The Interna onal Unionfor Conserva on of Nature has classified silky shark as Near Threatened globally (Bonfil et al. 2009). We haveawarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN status and high inherent vulnerability.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High Concern

Silky shark is caught as bycatch in purse seine and longline fisheries opera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean,but is also targeted in small amounts in some longline fisheries (IATTC 2013g). The most recent a empt at anassessment for this species indicated that the current fishing mortality rates are unknown (IATTC 2014d).There is no effec ve management in place in the Eastern Pacific Ocean region, so we have awarded a “high”concern score.

12

Page 13: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species underassessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality orinjury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened speciescatch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is mul pliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 sec on; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.

BLUE SHARK - EAST PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

13

Page 14: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

BLUE SHARK - EAST PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - EAST PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)14

Page 15: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

1.00:High Concern Yellow(2.236)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.95015

Page 16: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

SILKY SHARK - EAST PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159)16

Page 17: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Concern

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

SILKY SHARK - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

1.00:High Concern Yellow(2.236)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

SILKY SHARK - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.95017

Page 18: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

This report is for the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) longline fishery that targets large pelagic species includingmahi mahi, tuna, billfish, and sharks, and incidentally captures sea turtles and seabirds. Informa on on bycatchin the EPO longline fisheries is lacking. We iden fied the addi onal species to include in this report based oninforma on indica ng that they make up at least 5% of the total catch or based on their status (e.g., overfished,endangered) per the Seafood Watch criteria, through several sources. These included various bycatchreports/presenta ons provided by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) as well as IATTC catchsta s cs and independent analysis of poten al bycatch issues. The addi onal species included in this report,the jus fica on for their inclusion, and the source of informa on are included in the table below. The lowestscoring species were three sea turtle species: hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead, due to their currentstatuses.

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

waved albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Indo-Pacific sailfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

Species Jus fica on Source

indopacific sailfish Unknown but reported IATTC 2013e

Olive ridley Vulnerable IATTC 2012

Green turtle Endangered IATTC 2012

Hawksbill Cri cally Endangered IAC 2012

Leatherback Cri cally Endangered IAC 201218

Page 19: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Criterion 2 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

(same as Factor 1.3 above)

Hawksbill turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Loggerhead Endangered IAC 2012

Black-footedalbatross

36% overlap with conven onarea

Anderson 2009

Laysan albatross

Waved albatross

5% overlap with conven onarea

100% overlap with conven onarea

IATTC 2006

Anderson 2009

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtle as Cri cally

19

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). Hawksbill turtle has beenlisted on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1977 and iscurrently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on and that interna onal tradeis prohibited. It has been es mated that popula ons in the Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% overthree genera ons (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on theIUCN lis ng.

Page 20: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Leatherback turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The incidental capture of hawksbill turtle has been iden fied as adversely affec ng its recovery worldwide,although declines in the popula on of hawksbill turtle are mainly a factor of historical targe ng ofthis species (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). Hawksbill sea turtle is reported as incidentally captured inlongline fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (IAC 2012). The bycatch impacts in this region are consideredlow but a high risk to the popula on size (Wallace et al. 2013). There is no indica on that bycatch mi ga onmeasures have been put into place by all fleets (IAC 2012) (Zhu and Dai 2014), and there have been issueswith compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013). We have awarded a “high” concernscore because the popula on has already been depleted.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

High

20

EAST PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

Page 21: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Very High Concern

Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle asCri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend in 2000 (Mar nez 2000). Leatherback turtle hasbeen listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and iscurrently listed on Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on and that interna onal trade isprohibited. Over the past 25 years, the popula on of leatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean has decreasedsignificantly (Spo la et al. 1996). Recent es mates from the Pacific Ocean suggest a popula on size of294,068 turtles, and out of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). We have awarded a “very high”concern score based on the ESA, IUCN, and CITES lis ngs.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtle, especially for juveniles and adults thatcan be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996).In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, bycatch in longline fisheries is thought to be a low impact, but interac ons are ahigh risk to the popula on size overall (Wallace et al. 2013). For example, Japan reported that 166leatherback sea turtles were incidentally captured in their longline fisheries alone during 2000 (IATTC 2013d).There is no indica on that bycatch mi ga on measures have been put into place by all fleets (IAC 2012) (Zhuand Dai 2014) and there have been issues with compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke etal. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern and not cri cal concern score.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

21

Page 22: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Very High Concern

Loggerhead sea turtle has been listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle asCri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend in 2000 (Mar nez 2000). Leatherback turtle hasbeen listed on CITES since 1975 and are currently listed on Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened withex nc on and that interna onal trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years, the popula on of leatherbacks inthe Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spo la et al. 1996). Recent es mates from the Pacific Oceansuggest a popula on size of 294,068 turtles, and out of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). We haveawarded a score of “very high” concern based on the ESA, IUCN, and CITES lis ngs.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle is considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006).Research in the Pacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured in thePacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture; it is possiblethat its mortality threshold has been exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). In the North and SouthPacific Ocean, it appears that there is a low bycatch impact from longlines but bycatch has a high risk to thepopula on (Wallace et al. 2013). There is no indica on that bycatch mi ga on measures have been put intoplace by all fleets (IAC 2012) (Zhu and Dai 2014) and there have been issues with compliance in other regionsof the Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “high” and not cri cal concern score.

22

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Loggerhead turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Page 23: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

23

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Page 24: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Criterion 3: Management Effec veness

Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 ra ng is determinedas follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal.

Criterion 3 Summary

Criterion 3 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien ficResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffec ve,’ ‘moderately effec ve,’ or ‘highly effec ve.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effec ve’ for all seven subfactors considered

4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effec ve’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’

3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’

2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effec ve’ for Management Strategy andRecovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffec ve.’

1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffec ve.’

0 (Cri cal)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catchesthreatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, andunreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Factor 3.1 Summary

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

East Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

North Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

South Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES

Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

East Pacific / Pelagiclongline

Ineffec ve N/A ModeratelyEffec ve

Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

HighlyEffec ve

North Pacific / Pelagic Ineffec ve N/A Moderately Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately Highly24

Page 25: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

The United Na ons Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) indicated that themanagement of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional FisheriesManagement Organiza ons (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on thehigh seas and within EEZ waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of theworld’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs inorder to fish in their waters {Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010). Some RFMOs manage all living marine resourceswithin their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while othersmanage a group of species such as tunas (e.g., Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas(ICCAT)). This report focuses on longline fisheries of large pelagic species in waters within the Eastern PacificOcean, which are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (see below for member countries).For this report we have scored this sec on for RFMO management.

IATTC members: Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France,Guatemala, Japan, Kiriba , Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu,and Venezuela.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effec ve ra ng, there mustbe appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

longline Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve

South Pacific / Pelagiclongline

Ineffec ve N/A ModeratelyEffec ve

Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

HighlyEffec ve

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

There are currently no management measures in place for mahi mahi caught in the Eastern Pacific Ocean

(EPO). In terms of sharks, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has implemented a 5%shark fin rule, meaning that shark fins can weigh no more than 5% of the total sharks on board (IATTC 2005).But there are no catch limits in place for any shark species. In addi on, despite calls by the Scien ficCommi ee to ins tute immediate precau onary measures to protect silky shark, similar to measuresimplemented by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (e.g., prohibi ng reten on), thesemeasures have not been adopted (IATTC 2013g).

The IATTC has been tasked with developing target and limit reference points for tuna (ISSF 2013). Currently,interim target and limit reference points and harvest control rules have been defined for bigeye, skipjack, andyellowfin tuna (IATTC 2012b) (ISSF 2014). Management measures specific to pelagic longline fisheriesopera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean include catch limits (vessels larger than 24 m) for bigeye for China(2,507 t), Japan (32,372 t), Korea (11,947 t), and Chinese Taipei (7,555 t). The remaining member countries ofIATTC must keep catches of bigeye below 500 t or at catch levels from 2001 (IATTC 2013i).

We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score due to a lack of management measures being put into place fortarget species such as silky shark.

NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

There are currently no management measures in place for mahi mahi caught in the Eastern Pacific Ocean(EPO). In terms of sharks, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has implemented a 5% sharkfin rule, meaning that shark fins can weigh no more than 5% of the total sharks on board (IATTC 2005}. Butthere are no catch limits in place for any shark species. In addi on, despite calls by the Scien fic Commi ee toins tute immediate precau onary measures to protect silky shark, similar to measures implemented by theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (e.g., prohibi ng reten on), these measures have not been

25

Page 26: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considera ons: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihoodof success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimizemortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

adopted (IATTC 2013g).

There are few management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean. Measures wereadopted in 2005 and have not been updated since then. Those management measures included maintainingcurrent catch levels in order to maintain the long-term sustainability of the stock, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was to work with members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission to agree on consistent management measures for the North Pacific popula on (IATTC2005c) (WCPFC 2005). Work has begun to iden fy target and limit reference points as well as harvestcontrol rules for albacore tuna (IATTC 2013k). In an effort to determine previous catches and poten al catchlimits for albacore tuna, countries are to report catches of North Pacific albacore tuna from 2007–2012 andthe corresponding fishing effort to the IATTC (IATTC 2013k). There are no management measures in place forswordfish.

We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score to account for the lack of management measures for target speciessuch as silky shark.

SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

There are currently no management measures in place for mahi mahi caught in the Eastern Pacific Ocean

(EPO). In terms of sharks, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has implemented a 5% sharkfin rule, meaning that shark fins can weigh no more than 5% of the total sharks on board (IATTC 2005). Butthere are no catch limits in place for any shark species. In addi on, despite calls by the Scien fic Commi ee toins tute immediate precau onary measures to protect silky shark, similar to measures implemented by theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (e.g., prohibi ng reten on), these measures have not beenadopted (IATTC 2013g).

Although there are no specific management measures in place for albacore or swordfish in the South Pacificregion of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, work has begun to iden fy target and limit reference points as well asharvest control rules for albacore tuna (IATTC 2013k). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission(WCPFC), another RFMO that cooperates with IATTC to manage albacore, has limited the number of fishingvessels ac vely fishing for albacore. Specifically, fishing effort is not to exceed 2005 levels or historical levels(2000–2004). In addi on, member countries have been asked to ensure the long-term sustainability ofalbacore tuna in this region, which includes collabora ve research (WCPFC 2010c). The IATTC has notins tuted any management measures for swordfish in this region but the WCPFC, which also cooperates onthe management of this species, limited the number of vessels targe ng swordfish and limited catch levels tolevels from any year between 2000 and 2005. This informa on is to be reported to the Commission (WCPFC2009).

We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score to account for a lack of management for target species such as silkyshark.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

N/A

26

Page 27: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on andthe fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must beconducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

In the eastern Pacific Ocean, the status of mahi mahi is unknown and the status of silky shark is uncertain,although there is some concern over its status {IATTC 2014d) {IATTC 2015d). There is concern over the statusof blue shark in the South Pacific Ocean.

There is a mul -annual conserva on program to monitor bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Inter-AmericanTropical Tuna Commission Conven on Area. This is not a recovery plan. The conserva on and managementplan includes management measures for yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The currentresolu on for 2014–2016 is an extension of the previous program that ran from 2011–2013. Although thebiomass of bigeye tuna has dropped since 2005 (when IATTC created resolu ons to address bigeye), thecurrent assessment indicates that, at current fishing mortality levels, the biomass is predicted to stabilizearound MSY levels and is expected to increase above these levels for yellowfin tuna {IATTC 2014a) {IATTC2014f). The current plan will be evaluated again during 2015 and 2016 to determine its success at maintainingpopula ons of yellowfin and bigeye tuna.

We have awarded an N/A score because none of the target species in this report is currently listed asoverfished.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

An assessment of blue sharks in the North Pacific Ocean was conducted by the Interna onal Scien ficCommi ee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species (ISC). The assessment included a variety of informa on on catchand effort from a number of fleets. There are con nuing concerns over missing, underreported, andunreported catch and effort data for blue shark (IATTC 2013e) (Kleiber et al. 2009). The Inter-AmericanTropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has been working on an assessment of silky shark, and it is likely to assessdolphinfish in the near future (IATTC 2013g) (IATTC 2013). Specifically, IATTC is currently working withindividual countries to collect catch and effort data on mahi mahi, which is required for an assessment.

Yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore tuna, along with swordfish, are assessed on a regular basis (Brodziak andIshimura 2010) (IATTC 2011a) (IATTC 2013b) (ISCAWG 2014) (IATTC 2013f). A variety of informa on,including catch and effort data, size (for some species), and biological informa on, is included in theseassessments.

The IATTC conducts assessments for yellowfin and bigeye tuna and for the southern popula on of swordfish.The northern popula on of swordfish was last assessed by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center of theNa onal Marine Fisheries Service. Albacore tuna is assessed by the ISC. Assessments have also beencompleted for Indo-Pacific sailfish (IATTC 2013e) (Kleiber et al. 2009).

We have awarded a “moderately effec ve” score because almost all of the target species included in thisreport have been assessed, assessments are underway, or assessments are planned for in the near future. Wehave not awarded a low concern score because there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding the results.

27

Page 28: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a HighlyEffec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainable

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

No scien fic advice was provided for mahi mahi. It was advised that improvements should be made to themonitoring of blue shark catches and discards (ISCSWG 2014). The scien fic advice for silky shark caught inlongline fisheries was to: 1) require the immediate release of any silky shark not caught in targeted fisheries;

2) implement a 3-month closure for targeted silky shark fisheries; 3) prohibit use of steel leaders in non-target silky shark fisheries; 4) implement a size limit of greater than 100 cm to 20% of silky sharks caughtduring a set; and 5) iden fy silky shark nurseries and prohibit the use of steel leaders in those waters. Inaddi on, bycatch mi ga on studies should be conducted in longline fisheries capturing sharks (IATTC 2014g).

The IATTC scien fic staff made the following recommenda ons to the Commission in 2013 and 2014 fortunas. 1) Con nue implemen ng the current tuna management plan because there is evidence that fishingmortality for bigeye tuna may s ll be too high. In addi on, yellowfin tuna longline catches should be reportedmonthly, along with bigeye catches, and countries repor ng more than 500 t of yellowfin catch shouldprovide reports to the IATTC. 2) Adopt a harvest control rule that requires effort to be reduced once fishingmortality exceeds the MSY (IATTC 2013a) (IATTC 2014g).

The Commission adopted only some of this scien fic advice, namely, extending current managementmeasures for tuna. In 2014, the Commission made progress toward agreeing to harvest control rules. Nomeasures were made requiring monthly repor ng of yellowfin longline catches. Thus, we have awarded an“ineffec ve” score because the scien fic advice was not followed for silky shark during the 2015 Commissionmee ng.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Informa on on catches of large pelagic species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean is provided to IATTC throughvessel logbooks, observer programs, unloading records, export/import records, and from sampling programs(IATTC 2013f). Member countries must report annually to the IATTC on compliance, monitoring, and controlmeasures that have been established (IATTC 2013i). The compliance commi ee has noted that the amount ofnon-compliance has been reduced in recent years (IATTC 2014g). In addi on, vessels larger than 24 m inlength must have a VMS in place (IATTC 2004).

In terms of compliance with management measures, the IATTC has a Permanent Working Group onCompliance with Conserva on and Management Measures and has a standard ques onnaire on compliancethat individual countries submit prior to Commission mee ngs. IATTC reviews the implementa on ofmanagement measures and other obliga ons requested within resolu ons. There is some transparency in thisprocess, with the IATTC Review Commi ee being open to observers, and documents are made availableto member countries and observers. But this informa on is not available to the general public. The ReviewCommi ee provides instances of non-compliance to the Commission, although there do not appear to beincen ves for complying with measures (Koehler 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve”score.

28

Page 29: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

levels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given ifmeasures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of speciesover me.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by themanagement of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if themanagement process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of thefishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place tominimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mi ga on measures, etc.).

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

There are no catch limits in place for mahi mahi, silky shark, or blue shark. Blue shark popula ons are healthybut the statuses of mahi mahi and silky shark are unknown or uncertain.

IATTC management measures have not been successful for yellowfin tuna, but have been successful atreducing bigeye tuna fishing mortality levels (IATTC 2013a), and swordfish and albacore tuna are healthy(IATTC 2013f) (ISCAWG 2014).

We have awarded only a “moderately effec ve” score to account for the unknown track record for targetspecies in this report.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Highly Effec ve

The IATTC allows for outside accredited observers, which can be made up of scien sts, NGOs, or otherinterested par es to a end mee ngs. We have therefore awarded a “highly effec ve” score.

FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Cri cal Strategy Research Advice Enforce

East Pacific / Pelagic longline No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

North Pacific / Pelagiclongline

No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

South Pacific / Pelagiclongline

No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

29

Page 30: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

A number of management measures aimed at protec ng bycatch species caught in longline fisheries opera ngin the Eastern Pacific Ocean have been adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Forexample, member countries are to implement Interna onal Plans of Ac on for seabirds. In addi on, longlinevessels larger than 20 m in length that fish in specific parts of the Conven on area must use at least twomi ga on methods and are required to provide informa on to IATTC on any incidental interac ons (IATTC2011). Sea turtle management measures include ins tu ng a 3-year program to reduce the impact of tunafishing on turtles, repor ng of interac ons to IATTC, and requiring longline vessels to carry proper sea turtlerelease gear (IAC 2012). Oceanic white p shark is prohibited from being captured in the EPO (IATTC 2011c)We have awarded an “ineffec ve “score because best-prac ce bycatch mi ga on measures are not in place for all bycatch species caught in this fishery. For example, seabird mi ga on measures are limited to only certainregions and there are no bycatch mi ga on methods (e.g., circle hooks) adopted to protect sea turtles.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

Star ng in 2013, longline vessels are required to have at least 5% of their fishing effort observed. Prior to this,observer coverage was not required in this fleet. Observers collect catch and effort informa on on catch aswell as bycatch (IATTC 2011d). We consider this a low level of observer coverage and it is too early todetermine what level of observer coverage has actually been obtained. Although other research ac vi es (e.g.,life history, popula on dynamics) are being conducted, this score is related predominantly to observerprograms, so we have awarded an “ineffec ve” score.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

The Scien fic Commi ee has recently recommended changes to the current seabird management measuresthat are more in line with best prac ces and addi onal guidelines for sea turtle handling and release (IATTC2014g). The recommenda on has not yet been formally accepted by the Commission. Other advice related toseabirds and sharks has been followed to varying degrees. We have therefore awarded a “moderatelyeffec ve” and not highly effec ve score.

NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

See the Harvest Strategy sec on (3.1.4) for detailed response.

30

Page 31: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregula ons and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Informa on on catches of large pelagic species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean is provided to IATTC throughvessel logbooks, observer programs, unloading records, export/import records, and from sampling programs(IATTC 2013f). Member countries must report annually to the IATTC on compliance, monitoring, and controlmeasures that have been established (IATTC 2013i). The compliance commi ee has noted that the amount ofnon-compliance has been reduced in recent years (IATTC 2014g). In addi on, vessels larger than 24 m inlength must have a VMS in place (IATTC 2004).

In terms of compliance with management measures, the IATTC has a Permanent Working Group onCompliance with Conserva on and Management Measures and has a standard ques onnaire on compliancethat individual countries submit prior to Commission mee ngs. IATTC reviews the implementa on ofmanagement measures and other obliga ons requested within resolu ons. There is some transparency in thisprocess, with the IATTC Review Commi ee being open to observers, and documents are made available tomember countries and observers. But this informa on is not available to the general public. The ReviewCommi ee provides instances of non-compliance to the Commission, although there do not appear to beincen ves for complying with measures (Koehler 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve”score.

31

Page 32: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if thereare measures in place to mi gate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food weband the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem BasedFisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons among species and all natural and humanstressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mi ga on of gearimpacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined asfollows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng cannot be Cri cal for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bo om habitats, they do affect a numberof ecologically important species and the consequence of this varies by region. Mi ga on measures to reducethe impact of pelagic longlines on bo om habitats are not generally needed.

Criterion 4 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bo om

4 (Very Low) - Ver cal line gear

3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bo om, but is not dragged along the bo om (e.g. gillnet, bo om longline, trap) and is not fished on sensi ve habitats. Bo om seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bo om occasionally

2 (Moderate)—Bo om dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap,or bo om longline fished on sensi ve boulder or coral reef habitat. Bo om seine except on mud/sand

1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensi ve habitats (e.g., cobbleor boulder)

0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)Note: When mul ple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classifica on isuncertain, the score will be based on the most sensi ve, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mi ga on)—Examples include large propor on of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mi ga on of GearImpacts EBFM Score

East Pacific / Pelagiclongline

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

North Pacific / Pelagiclongline

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

South Pacific / Pelagiclongline

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

32

Page 33: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor andmodifica ons shown to be effec ve at reducing damage, or an effec ve combina on of ‘moderate’mi ga on measures.

+0.5 (Moderate Mi ga on)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spa al footprint of damage caused from fishing.

+0.25 (Low Mi ga on)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitatsnot protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not ac vely being reduced

0 (No Mi ga on)—No effec ve measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substan al efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing prac ces do not have nega ve ecological effects (e.g., large propor on of fishery area is protectedwith marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators)

4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in placeto protect the ecological role of any species that plays an excep onally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize poten ally nega ve ecological effect if hatchery supplementa on or fishaggrega ng devices (FADs) are used.

3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an excep onally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR nega ve ecological effects from hatchery supplementa on or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mi gate these impacts

2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) in the fisheryis having serious nega ve ecological or gene c consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascadesor other detrimental impacts to the food web.

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

None

Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries(Passfield and Gilman 2010). These effects are s ll considered to be a low risk to bo om habitats (Gilman etal. 2013) (Seafood Watch 2013), so we have awarded a no impact score.

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Not Applicable

EAST PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

33

Page 34: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Moderate Concern

Pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Eastern Pacific Ocean catch ecologically important species includingother tunas, billfish, and sharks. Sharks are apex predators and play a cri cal role in how these ecosystems arestructured and func on (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can cause manychanges to prey abundances, which can cascade throughout the foodweb (Myers et al. 2007) (Duffy 2003)(Ferre et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and change the behavior of several taxa (Heithaus et al. 2007).

Longline fisheries could cause other indirect effects that are not well understood, such as reducing preyavailability to seabirds due to the removal of tunas, reducing school sizes, or reducing the fitness ofindividuals in a school (Gilman et al., in press).

IATTC has objec ves that incorporate ecosystem considera ons into management, including crea on ofecosystem-based models and other types of analyses. IATTC considers management measures aimed atprotec ng dolphins, sea turtles, and seabirds as addressing ecosystem considera ons (IATTC 2012c). We havetherefore awarded it a “moderate” concern.

34

Page 35: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Acknowledgements

Scien fic review does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafoodrecommenda ons, on the part of the reviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank one anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scien ficaccuracy.

35

Page 36: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

References

Abreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Anderson, O. 2009. Albatross and petrel distribu on within the IATTC area: an addendum. Seabird TechnicalMee ng of the IATTC Stock Assessment Working Group.

Anderson, O. 2009b. Es ma ng seabird bycatch rates in IATTC industrial longline fisheries. Seabird TechnicalMee ng of the IATTC Stock Assessment Workshop, 11 May 2009, La Jolla, Ca.

Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Hammond, P.S., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Sco , M.D., Wang,J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012. Stenella longirostris. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

BirdLife Interna onal. 2012a. Diomedea epomophora. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2.

BirdLife Interna onal. 2012f. Phoebetria palpebrata. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

BirdLife Interna onal 2014. Phoebastria nigripes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M.,Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2014.2.

Brodziak, J. and Ishimura, G. 2010. Stock assessment of North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in 2009.Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administra ve Report H-10-01. 43 p.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001. Yellowtail, California's living marine resources: a statusreport. California Department of Fish and Game.

Clark, T.B., Smith, W.D. & Bizzarro, J.J. 2006. Mobula thurstoni. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies. Version 2013.1.

Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conserva on and management measure for the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and Na onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra on.WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08.

Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., MinteVera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa,R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Coryphaena hippurus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H.,Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo,V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E.,Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011b. Is ophorus platypterus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1

Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H.,Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H.,Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires FerreiraTravassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011c. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Cousins, K. and Cooper, J. 2000. The popula on biology of the black-footed albatross in rela on to mortalitycaused by longline fishing. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Delgado-Trejo C, Alvarado-Díaz J (2012) Current conserva on status of the black sea turtle in Michoacan,Mexico. in press In: Advances in Research and Conserva on. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 386pp..Seminoff JA, Wallace BP (eds) Sea Turtles of the Eastern Pacific

Duffy, J.E. 2003. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem func oning. Ecology Le ers 6:680-687.

Ferre , F., B. Worm, G.L. Bri en, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Pa erns and ecosystem consequencesof shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Le ers, 13: 1055– 1071.

Fonteneau, A. 1991. Seamounts and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlan c. Aqua c and Living Resources 4:13-36

Page 37: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

25.

Fonteneau, A., Ariz, J., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. and Pallares, P. 2000a. Observed changes in the speciescomposi on of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 to 1999, in rela on with the fish aggrega ngdevice fishery. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:253-257.

Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associa ve behavior: Toward a generaliza on of the mee ng pointhypothesis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:183-207.

Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., Kennelly, S. In Press (2013). Causes and methods to es mate cryp c sourcesof fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology.

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Sco , M.D., Wang,J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012. Stenella a enuata. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of ger shark in mida on ina marine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:837-844.

Inter-American Conven on for the Protec on and Conserva on of Sea Turtles (IAC). 2012. Conserva on statusand habitat use of sea turtles in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Mee ng of the Scien fic Advisory Commi ee,15-18 May, 2012, La Jolla, CA

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 1999. Agreement on the Interna onal DolphinConserva on Program. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2003. Interna onal Dolphin Conserva on Program systemfor tracking and verifying tuna (amended). AIDCP tuna tracking system amended 11 October 23.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolu on on the establishment of a vesselmonitoring system (VMS). Resolu on C-04-06.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005. Resolu on on the conserva on of sharks caught inassocia on with fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolu on C-05-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2006. Review of seabird status and incidental catch inEastern Pacific Ocean fisheries. Document BWG-5-05.a.i, Working Group on Bycatch, 5th Mee ng.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolu on to mi gate the impact of tuna fishingvessels on sea turtles. Resolu on C-07-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2009a. Updated es mates of Nmin and stock mortalitylimits. 7th Mee ng of the Scien fic Advisory Board, 30 October, 2009, La Jolla, Ca.

IATTC. 2009b. Comparison of on-board observer programs in regional fisheries management organiza on.Document MOP-21-09, 21st Mee ng of the Par es, 5 June 2009, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2010. Recommenda on prohibi ng fishing on data buoys.Recommenda on C-10-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Status of swordfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in2010 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-02-09.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolu on to mi gate the impact on seabirds offishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolu on C-11-02.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011c. Resolu on on the conserva on of oceanic white psharks caught in associa on with fisheries in the An gua Conven on Area. Resolu on C-11-10.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolu on on scien fic observers for longlinevessels. Resolu on C-11-08.

IATTC. 2011e. Preliminary pelagic longline catch and effort es mates. 2nd technical mee ng on sharks. May2011, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2012a. Bycatch issues. 2nd Mee ng of the Scien ficAdvisory Commi ee 9-14 May 2011, La Jolla, CA

IATTC. 2012b. Reference points, decision rules and management strategy evalua on for tunas and associatedspecies in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Mee ng of the Scien fic Advisory Commi ee, 15-18 May, 2012.Available at: h p://www.ia c.org/Mee ngs/Mee ngs2012/May/PDFs/Reference-points-decision-rules-and-management-SAC-3.pdf

37

Page 38: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

IATTC. 2012c. Ecosystem considera ons. Document SAC-02-12.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013a. Mee ng report. Scien fic Mee ng, La Jolla, CA, 29April - 3 May 2013.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013b. Status of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Oceanin 2012 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-04b.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013c. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tunain the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-04-06a.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013d. Bycatch management. 4th Mee ng of the Scien ficCommi ee, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013. Preliminary results from mahimahi (dorado)collabora ve research with IATTC member countries. 4th Mee ng of the IATTC Scien fic Advisory Mee ng, 29April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013e. Status of sailfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in2011 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-07c.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013f. Fishery status report No. 11. Tunas and billfishes inthe Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2012. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013g. Stock status of the silky shark in the Eastern PacificOcean. 4th Mee ng of the IATTC Scien fic Advisory Mee ng, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, Ca.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013h. IATTC-Interna onal Dolphin Conserva on Program(IDCP). IATTC.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013i. Mul annual program for the conserva on of tuna inthe Eastern Pacific Ocean during 2014-2016. Resolu on C-13-01.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013j. Resolu on C-13-02 measures for the conserva onand management of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 85th Mee ng, Veracruz, Veracruz Mexico, 10-14June 2013.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013k. Supplemental resolu on on North Pacific albacore.Resolu on C-13-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013l. Collec on and analyses of data on fish-aggrega ngdevices. Resolu on C-13-04.

IATTC. 2014a. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013; Update of 2013 stock assessment.IATTC Document SAC-05-07. Availableat:h p://www.ia c.org/Mee ngs/Mee ngs2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/presenta ons/SAC-05-07-Yellowfin-tuna-assessment-2013.pdf

IATTC. 2014b. Scien fic Advisory Commi ee Fi h Mee ng. La Jolla, California 12-16 May 2014. Availableat:h p://www.ia c.org/Mee ngs/Mee ngs2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-May-2014-Mee ng-report.pdf

IATTC. 2014d. A collabora ve a empt to conduct a stock assessment for the silky shark in the eastern PacificOcean (1993-2010): Update report. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Scien fic Advisory Commi eeFi h Mee ng Document SAC-05 INF-F.

IATTC. 2014e. Tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Fishery status report No. 12. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

IATTC. 2014f. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission.

IATTC. 2014g. Recommenda ons by the staff for conserva on measures in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 2014.Document IATTC-87-03d.

IATTC. 2015b. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future. DocumentSAC-06-05.

IATTC. 2015d. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future.Document SAC-06-06.

IATTC. 2015a. The fishery for tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014. IATTC Document SAC-06-03.

IATTC. 2015d. Updated stock status indicators for silky sharks in the eastern Pacific Ocean (1994-2014). IATTC38

Page 39: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Document SAC-06-08b.

ISC. Report of the shark working group workshop. Interna onal Scien fic Commi ee for Tuna and Tuna-likeSpecies in the North Pacific Ocean, 7-14 June, 2013.

ISC. 2014. North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the Billfish WorkingGroup.

ISCAWG. 2014. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean in 2014. Interna onal Scien ficCommi ee for Tuna and Tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean. 16-21 July 2014 Taipei, Taiwan.

Interna onal Scien fic Commi ee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Pacific BluefinWorking Group. 2012. Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment summary. Webinar, 19-21 December, 2012. 13 p.

ISCSWG. 2014. Stock assessment and future projec ons of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean. Report of theShark Working Group. Interna onal Scien fic Commi ee for Tuna and Tuna-like species in the North PacificOcean. 16-21 July 2014 Taipei, Chinese-Taipei.

ISSF. 2014. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2014: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report2014-09. Interna onal Seafood Sustainability Founda on, Washington, D.C., USA.

Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Has ngs, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resourcerequirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle popula on. PLoS ONE7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447.

Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggrega ons around fish aggrega ngdevices from acous c surveys in French Polynesia. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:183-192.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470.Rome, FAO. 131p.

Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. and Takeuichi, Y. 2009. North Pacific blue sharkstock assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-17. 83 p.

Koehler, H.R. 2013. Promo ng compliance in tuna RFMOS: A comprehensive baseline survey of the currentmechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obliga ons and measures. ISSFTechnical Report 2013-02. 53 pp.

Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2003. Es ma ng fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabirdpopula on. Ecological Applica ons 13:743-753.

Lewison, R., Crowder, L.B., Read, A.J. and Freeman, S.A. 2004. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch onmarine megafauna. Trends in Ecology and Evolu on 19:598-607

Mar nez, A.L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2.

Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000a. Food consump on of tuna in theequatorial Atlan c Ocean: FAD associated versus unassociated schools. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:233-240.

Menard, F., Fonteneau, A., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V., Stequert, B. and Marchal, E. 2000b. Exploita on ofsmall tunas by a purse-seine fishery with fish aggrega ng devices and their feeding ecology in an easterntropical Atlan c ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:525-530.

Mor mer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss ofapex predatory sharks from a coastal. Science 315:1846-1850.

Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano, T. S. Zimmerman. 2007. A Conserva on Ac on Plan for Black-footed Albatross(Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0.

Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Sec on 7 Consulta on BiologicalOpinion. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division. 162 pg.

NMFS. 2014. Commercial fisheries sta s cs: annual trade data by product, country/associa on. Na onalMarine Fisheries Service.

Passfield, K., Gilman, E. (2010) Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems based onInterviews with Pacific Island Fishers. Technical Report produced under the Global Environment FacilityOceanic Fisheries Management Project. Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature, Gland,

39

Page 40: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Switzerland.

Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communi es: change of paradigmsfor conserva on priori es. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074.

Secretary of Agriculture, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA). 2010. Na onal fisheries chart2010. SAGARPA, Na onal Fisheries Ins tute, Mexico.

Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impactson predators with contras ng life histories. Ecological Applica ons 12:735-748.

Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch VersionJanuary 18, 2013. 82 p.

Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Spo la, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Leslie, A.J., Steyermark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. and Paladino, F.V. 1996. Worldwidepopula on decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going ex nct? Chelonian Conserva on andBiology 2:209-222

Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. and Walker, P.A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras(chondrichthuyans), and the implica ons for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494.

Wallace, B.P., DiMa eo, A.D., Hurley, B.J. Finkbeiner, E.M. et al. 2010. Regional management units for marineturtles: a novel framework for priori zing conserva on and research across mul ple scales. PLoS ONE5:e15465.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015465

Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMa eo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheriesbycatch on marine turtle popula ons worldwide: toward conserva on and research priori es. Ecosphere4:40.h p://dx.doi.org/10.1980/ES12-00388.1

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2009. Conserva on and management forswordfish. Conserva on and Management Measure 2009-03, Sixth Regular Session, Papeete, Tahi , FrenchPolynesia, 7-11 December 2009.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012. Conserva on and management measure forPacific bluefin tuna. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-06. Commission Ninth Regular Session,Manila, Philippines 2-6 December 2012.

White, W.T., Clark, T.B., Smith, W.D. & Bizzarro, J.J. 2006. Mobula japanica. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Zhu, J. and Dai, X. 2014. CPC observer annual report for the year 2013 in the IATTC conven on area. DocumentSAC-05 INF-C.

40

Page 41: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Olive ridley turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

TThe Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers the popula on of olive ridley sea turtleto be Vulnerable. In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, es mates of the total number of nests range from 608protected nests in Mexico to 33,530 to 68,753 nests in Nicaragua. Female popula on size has been es matedto range from 8,768 in Panama to 1,013,034 in Mexico. The annual nes ng female sub-popula on size hasdecreased by 99% in some regions in Mexico, increased substan ally in others, and not changed at all in areassuch as Nicaragua. Overall, the annual nes ng female sub-popula on size in the Eastern Pacific Ocean hasdeclined around 35% over me (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008), but the risk to popula ons from longlinefishing in this region is considered low (Wallace et al. 2013). We have awarded a “high” concern score basedon the IUCN classifica on.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The incidental capture of olive ridley sea turtles occurs worldwide. There is some thought that other fisheriessuch as trawls and gillnets appear to have a larger nega ve impact compared to longlines in many areas,except for the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Withinthis region, the impact from incidental captures in longline fisheries is considered high (Wallace et al. 2013).For example, during 2000, the Japanese reported the incidental capture of 6,000 sea turtles, the majority ofwhich were olive ridleys (exact number not provided) (IATTC 2013f). There is no indica on that bycatchmi ga on measures have been put into place by all fleets (IAC 2012) (Zhu and Dai 2014) and there have been

41

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Page 42: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Laysan albatross

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

issues with compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a“high” concern and not cri cal concern score.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened butwith a stable popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2012b). Globally, there are an es mated 591,000breeding pairs or 1.18 million mature birds (Naughton et al. 2007). We have awarded a “high” concern scoredue to the IUCN lis ng.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

Laysan albatross only has a 5% overlap, in terms of distribu on, with the Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission’s Conven on area in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) (Anderson 2009a), but it has been reportedas one of the most commonly caught species in some longline fisheries opera ng in these waters(IATTC 2006). Es mates of seabird mortality in longlines opera ng within the EPO are difficult due to low

42

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Page 43: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Black-footed albatross

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

observer coverage (Anderson 2009b). It has been es mated that more than 4,000 birds (all species combined)are killed within Eastern Pacific Ocean waters per year (Anderson 2009b). There are management measures inplace through the IATTC to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds, but these have not been fullyimplemented, so we have awarded a “moderate concern” score (IATTC 2011a).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

According to the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross is classified asNear Threatened with a stable to increasing popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2014). Based on countsconducted during the 2006–2007 breeding season, 64,500 pairs were es mated in colonies that support 90%of the global breeding popula on. Other es mates from 2000 concluded that there were 275,000 birds(Cousins and Cooper 2000). Its status in the Eastern Pacific Ocean is unknown, so we have awarded a “high”concern score based on the IUCN status.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern43

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Page 44: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Bigeye tuna

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Black-footed albatross have been iden fied as a species of concern for longline fisheries opera ng in theEastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) (IATTC 2006). It is es mated that 36% of its distribu on during the breedingseason occurs within the Conven on area of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (Anderson 2009).Es mates of seabird mortality in longlines opera ng within the EPO are difficult due to low observercoverage; however, albatross species are one of the most vulnerable to incidental longline capture (Anderson2009b). It has been es mated that more than 4,000 birds (all species combined) are killed within IATTCwaters per year (Anderson 2009b). There are management measures in place through the IATTC to reduce theincidental capture of seabirds, so we have awarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score (IATTC2011a).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Medium

FishBase has assigned a vulnerability score of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But bigeye tuna’s lifehistory characteris cs suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reaches sexualmaturity around 100–125 cm, reaches a maximum size of 200 cm, and lives around 11 years (Davies et al.2014) (Froese et al. 2013). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on theSeafood Watch produc vity analysis table, these life history characteris cs suggest a medium level ofvulnerability (PSA score = 2.17). We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a different vulnerabilityra ng. But because the stock status of bigeye tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not affectthe overall outcome. We have therefore awarded a “medium” vulnerability based on the produc vity tableanalysis.

Ra onale:

Life history trait Paramater Score

Average age at maturity <3 years 3

Average size at maturity 40-200 cm 2Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Average maximum size 2Reproduc ve strategy

100-300 cm Broadcast spawner 3

Trophic level >3.25 1

44

Page 45: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Yellowfin tuna

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

According to the last updated assessment of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (2015), the spawningbiomass (amount of fish capable of reproducing) had increased from a record low level at the start of 2013(19%) to 22% of its unfished abundance level at the beginning of 2015. The spawning biomass (SB) wasaround 6% above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SB ), so the popula on is nolonger overfished, which is a change from the previous assessment results. We have therefore awarded a“moderate” concern and not low concern score (IATTC 2015b).

M SY

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Low Concern

Current fishing mortality rates (F) are 13% below the levels that would produce the maximum sustainableyield (F ), and therefore overfishing is not occurring. But these es mates are highly uncertain due toassump ons and es mates made with regard to natural mortality rates, catches, discards, etc. whileconduc ng the last assessment (IATTC 2015b). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern and not very lowconcern score.

M SY

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tunareaches sexual maturity by 100 cm in length (although growth rates vary by loca on) and 2–3 years of age. Itcan a ain a maximum size of 180 cm, and live to at least 4 years of age and perhaps as much as 9 years. It is abroadcast spawner and important predator in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froese and Pauly 2013).Although its life history characteris cs may suggest a lower level of vulnerability, this inherent vulnerabilityscore does not factor into the overall score because its status is known. We have therefore scored accordingto Fishbase.

45

Page 46: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Albacore tuna

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

According to the 2015 updated assessment, the spawning biomass ra o (ra o of the spawning biomass to theunfished popula on) (SBP) was 0.26 at the start of 2015, which is below the maximum sustainable yield(MSY) of 0.27, indica ng that the popula on is overfished. The ra o of the recent spawning biomass to thebiomass that produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (S /S ) is 0.99 and the ra o of the recentbiomass to MSY (B /B ) is 1.12 (IATTC 2015d). We have awarded a “moderate” concern scorebecause the current biomass is right around MSY levels but was es mated to be slightly below these levels inprevious assessments.

R EC ENT M SY

R EC ENT M SY

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Low Concern

Fishing mortality is currently es mated to be 86% of the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) (F/FMSY = 0.86) and overfishing is not occurring. But uncertainty surrounding the rela onshipbetween recruitment to the fishery and the current popula on, natural mortality, and average size of olderfish could mean fishing mortality rates are actually higher and above MSY levels (IATTC 2015d). We havetherefore awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

SOUTH PACIFICNORTH PACIFIC

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life historycharacteris cs of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reachessexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reaches a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2014). It is abroadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteris cs, wehave awarded a “medium” score.

Ra onale:

Life history parameter Value Score

Age at maturity 5-10 years 246

Page 47: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

SOUTH PACIFIC

Low Concern

Albacore tuna in the South Pacific was last assessed in 2015. According to the assessment, the spawningstock biomass of albacore tuna has been reduced to around 41% (33%–55%) of unfished levels. The currentspawning stock biomass is es mated to likely be above the levels needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield. The limit reference point for albacore is 20% of the spawning biomass with no fishing(20%SBF = 0), and the current spawning biomass is es mated to be 40% of values with no fishing (SBF = 0)(Harley et al. 2015). We have awarded a “low” concern score because even though the model suggests ahealthy stock, there is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding these results and the biomass has beendeclining over me.

NORTH PACIFIC

Low Concern

The most recent stock assessment for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2014.According to this assessment, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 (last year of data included in themodel) was 110,101 t, with stock deple on es mated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass-basedreference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was li le indica on that the SSB wasbelow any candidate biomass-based reference points. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern scorebecause it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific is not overfished, but not a very low concern scorebecause no reference points are currently accepted (ISCAWG 2014).

SOUTH PACIFIC

Very Low Concern

According to the most recent stock assessment (2015), the fishing mortality reference point for albacore tunain the South Pacific, F /F , had a median es mate of 0.39 (0.2–0.59) and there is a low risk thatoverfishing is occurring (Harley et al. 2015). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.

current M SY

NORTH PACIFIC

Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate (F ) for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is around 72% ofthe interim reference point (F , the fishing mortality rate that would lead to future minimum SSBfalling below the SSB-ATHL threshold level at least once during a 25-year projec on period). In addi on, thecurrent fishing mortality rate (F ) is below other F-based reference points (F , F , and F

(fishing mortality that gives a 10%–50% reduc on in the spawning poten al ra o)) except F andF . Albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is therefore not currently undergoing overfishing. Butincreases in fishing mortality rates will significantly reduce the spawning biomass (ISCAWG 2014). We haveawarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score.

2010–2012

S S B-ATH L50%

2010-2012 M SY 0.1 10-

40% M ED

50%

SOUTH PACIFICNORTH PACIFIC

47

Page 48: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Indo-Pacific sailfish

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Medium

Indo-Pacific sailfish have a high to very high vulnerability according to FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2013). It isreported to reach sexual maturity around 150 cm, although the age at which maturity is reached is unknown.Indo-Pacific sailfish reaches a maximum size of 230-300 cm and lives up to 13 years. It is a broadcast spawnerand top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life history characteris cs suggest a moderate level ofvulnerability and we have adjusted the score accordingly.

Ra onale:

Life history trait Paramater Score

Average size at maturity 40-200 cm 2

Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Average maximum size 100-300 cm 2Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

An assessment of Indo-Pacific sailfish popula ons in the Eastern Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2010 andupdated in 2013. The model presented unreliable results and could not be used to assess the status of thepopula on with regard to management reference points. The abundance data used in the model did show adownward trend in abundance from 1994 to 2009, with a stable trend since (IATTC 2013e). The Interna onalUnion for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers this a species of Least Concern (Colle e et al. 2011b).We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because the status is unknown.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

48

Page 49: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Green sea turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

The 2011 assessment (updated in 2013) of Indo-Pacific sailfish did not determine the current fishing mortalityrates. It is highly likely that catches are severely under-reported for this species, which has affected theassessment’s ability to produce realis c results. Longline fisheries are the major fisheries that catch Indo-Pacific sailfish, and it is currently believed that if catches remain at current levels, the popula on will not benega vely affected (IATTC 2013e). But we have awarded a “moderate” concern score because fishingmortality rates are unknown.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified green sea turtle as Endangered witha decreasing popula on trend. Green sea turtle has been listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade inEndangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on Appendix I, meaning that it is threatenedwith ex nc on and that interna onal trade is prohibited (Seminoff 2004). But this assessment is 10 years oldand more recent informa on suggests that popula ons in Mexico have been increasing (Delgado-Trejo and

49

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

Page 50: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Swordfish

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Alvarado-Diaz 2012). We have awarded a “high” concern and not very high concern score based on the IUCNclassifica on.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

High Concern

The incidental capture in fisheries is considered a major threat to green sea turtles worldwide (Seminoff 2004)but there are regional differences. Green sea turtles are reported as incidentally captured in longline fisheriesin the Eastern Pacific Ocean (IAC 2012). The bycatch impacts in this region are considered low but a high riskto the popula on size (Wallace et al. 2013). There is no indica on that bycatch mi ga on measures have beenput into place by all fleets (IAC 2012) (Zhu and Dai 2014) and there have been issues with compliance in otherregions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern and not cri calconcern score.

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

SOUTH PACIFICNORTH PACIFIC

Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the lifehistory characteris cs of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reachessexual maturity around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age. Swordfish reaches a maximum length of455 cm and lives more than 10 years. Swordfish is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly2013). This is more indica ve of a moderate vulnerability to fishing, so we have adjusted the scoreaccordingly.

Ra onale:

Life history trait Paramater Score

Average age at maturity <5 years 3

Average size at maturity 40-200 cm 2Average maximum age >25 years 1Average maximum size >300 cm 1Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

50

Page 51: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Waved albatross

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC

Very Low Concern

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission conducted an assessment of swordfish in the southeasternregion of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The spawning stock biomass is around 45% higher than that needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (SSB /SSB = 1.45), indica ng the popula on is notoverfished (IATTC 2013f).

C UR R ENT M SY

NORTH PACIFIC

Very Low Concern

The most recent assessment conducted on North Pacific swordfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean indicated thatthe biomass has been increasing since 1995 and has generally remained above the levels needed to producethe maximum sustainable yield (B ) (ISC 2014). Therefore swordfish in this region are not overfished andwe have awarded a “very low” concern score.

M SY

SOUTH PACIFIC

Very Low Concern

In the southeastern region of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, overfishing is not occurring and there is no indica onthat fishing has significantly affected the popula on (IATTC 2013f). We have therefore awarded a “very low”concern score.

NORTH PACIFIC

High Concern

Fishing mortality rates of swordfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (northern region) have been increasing overme. During 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2012, fishing mortality rates were higher than those needed to produce

the maximum sustainable yield (B ). There is a 55% chance that overfishing is occurring (ISC 2014). Wehave therefore awarded a “high” concern score.

M SY

SOUTH PACIFICNORTH PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

51

Page 52: Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark€¦ · Blue shark, Dolfinfish (Mahi mahi) and Silky shark Prionace glauca, Coryphaena hippurus, Carcharhinus falciformis

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteris cs that include a long life, lateage at maturity, and low reproduc ve output (Seafood Watch 2013).

SOUTH PACIFICEAST PACIFIC

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature has classified waved albatross as Cri cally Endangereddue to its small breeding range and recent large popula on declines (BirdLife Interna onal 2014b). Thepopula on size in 2001 was 34,694 adults on Espanola, with fewer than 20 pairs on Isla de la Plata (BirdLifeInterna onal 2014b). We have awarded a “very high” concern score due to the IUCN classifica on.

SOUTH PACIFICEAST PACIFIC

Moderate Concern

Waved albatross have been iden fied as a species of concern for longline fisheries opera ng in the EasternPacific Ocean (EPO) (IATTC 2006). It is es mated that 100% of its distribu on occurs within the Conven onarea of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (Anderson 2009). Es mates of seabird mortality inlonglines opera ng within the EPO are difficult due to low observer coverage; however, albatross species areone of the most vulnerable to incidental longline capture (Anderson 2009b). It has been es mated that morethan 4,000 birds (all species combined) are killed within IATTC waters per year (Anderson 2009b). There aremanagement measures in place through the IATTC to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds, so we haveawarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score (IATTC 2011a).

SOUTH PACIFICEAST PACIFIC

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in pelagic longline fisheries that target tuna and other large pelagic speciesworldwide is 22%, but discard rates reported by the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO) in the centralEastern Pacific Ocean are much less, at 7.7% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on on discard rates from IATTC longlinefisheries is not reported but is unlikely to be much higher than the overall average of 22%, so we haveawarded a score of 20%–40%.

52

EAST PACIFICNORTH PACIFICSOUTH PACIFIC