Hawaii - Seafood Watch · Pelagic longline gear has minimal impact to bottom habitats because it...

Albacore Tuna, Bigeye Tuna, Skipjack Tuna, Swordfish, Yellowfin TunaThunnus alalunga, Thunnus obesus, Katsuwonus pelamis, Xiphias gladius, Thunnus albacares

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Hawaii

Longline (deep-set), Longline (shallow-set)

October 22, 2014 (updated January 8, 2018)

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2

®®

®

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Appendix B: Updated January 8, 2017

2

About Seafood WatchMonterey 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 originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase productionin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makesits science-based recommendations 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 oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation 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 information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “BestChoices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fisherymanagement plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, andmembers of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch ’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updatedto reflect these changes.

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

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating 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 effective is the fishery’s management?How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation 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 little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/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 othermarine life or the environment.

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

1

1

4

SummarySwordfish and tuna are caught in longline fisheries throughout the worlds oceans. This report focuses on thetwo, shallow and deep set, pelagic longline fisheries that operate in and around Hawaii primarily (~85%) in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean but also (~15%) in the eastern Pacific Ocean (~15% of the total catch).

Swordfish are targeted by the Hawaii shallow set pelagic longline fishery. Abundance levels are high and fishingmortality rates appear low enough to maintain the population at a healthy level. High incidental capture of seaturtles lead to the closure of this fishery between 2001 and 2004. The fishery was re-opened in 2005 withseveral new management measures aimed at reducing sea turtle and sea bird bycatch, including 100%observer coverage, which appears to have successfully reduced bycatch levels. The deep set pelagic longlinefishery targets bigeye tuna. Bigeye tuna populations have increased and are no longer overfished. Severalspecies of sharks and fish are also caught in these fisheries and the status of their population varies fromunknown, to overfished to healthy. In state waters, the state of Hawaii manages tuna, in US federal waters the Western Pacific Regional FisheryManagement Council (WPRFMC) manages swordfish and tuna. In addition, the US is a memeber of two regionalfishery management organizations, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and theInter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that manage these species throughout their range in thePacific Ocean. Management measures for swordfish and tuna are moderately effective.

Pelagic longline gear has minimal impact to bottom habitats because it fishes at or near the surface andimprovements such as gear modifications are typically not necessary.

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION2: IMPACTSON OTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION4: HABITATANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

AlbacoreHawaii Western andCentral Pacific, Longline(deep-set), UnitedStates of America

Green (3.83) Red (1.34) Green (3.87) Green (3.87) Good Alternative(2.96)

Bigeye tunaHawaii Western andCentral Pacific, Longline(deep-set), UnitedStates of America


AlbacoreHawaii Eastern CentralPacific, Longline (deep-set), United States ofAmerica


Bigeye tunaHawaii Eastern CentralPacific, Longline (deep-set), United States ofAmerica


Skipjack tunaHawaii Western andCentral Pacific, Longline(deep-set), UnitedStates of America


SwordfishHawaii Western andCentral Pacific, Longline(shallow-set), UnitedStates of America


Yellowfin tunaHawaii Western andCentral Pacific, Longline(deep-set), UnitedStates of America


Skipjack tunaHawaii Eastern CentralPacific, Longline (deep-set), United States ofAmerica


6

Summary

All tuna and swordfish caught in the Hawaiian longline fishery is a 'Good Alternative'.

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations 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 Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern , and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/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 Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

SwordfishHawaii Eastern CentralPacific, Longline(shallow-set), UnitedStates of America


Yellowfin tunaHawaii Eastern CentralPacific, Longline (deep-set), United States ofAmerica

Yellow (2.71) Red (1.34) Green (3.87) Green (3.87) Good Alternative(2.72)

2

2

7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report is on the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries for swordfish (Xiphias gladius), albacore tuna (Thunnusalalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnusalbacares) in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO).

Species Overview

Swordfish are a widely distributed billfish species, found globally from 50N to 50S and at all longitudes in thePacific Ocean. Swordfish are assessed as two populations in the North Pacific (Western and Central andEastern Pacific), a single population in the Southwest Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North),and a single population in both the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Albacore tuna are widelydistributed in temperate and tropical waters in all ocean. There are six populations of albacore tuna, North andSouth Pacific Ocean, North and South Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (ISCAWG 2014). Bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific Ocean (Davies etal. 2014)(Rice et al. 2014)(Davies et al. 2014b). There are four populations of bigeye and yellowfin and five ofskipjack: Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Eastern Pacific Ocean, Atlantic (eastern and western skipjack) andIndian Ocean.

Globally, longlines are the most common method used to capture swordfish, albacore and bigeye tuna andpurse seines are the primary gear used to capture skipjack and yellowfin tuna. Albacore catches haveincreased since the 1950's remaining around 400,000 t over the past decade. Bigeye, skipjack and yellowfintuna catches have all increased substantially over time, peaking in the early 2000's for bigeye and yellowfin tunaand around 2009 for skipjack tuna (ISSF 2013b).

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council manages these species in Hawaiian waters while theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, of which the United States is a participating Member, is incharge of management in western and central Pacific Ocean and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commissionis in charge in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Production Statistics

In Hawaii, the pelagic longline fishery caught 84% of all pelagic species during 2010. Bigeye tuna makes up themajority of the tuna landings in Hawaii, 75% in 2010, and swordfish made up 18% of total landings in 2010(WPRFMC 2013b).

Catches of swordfish in the western and central north Pacific Ocean have varied over time, peaking during thelate 1950's and again during the early to mid 1990's. Catches in recent years have declined to below 13,000 t(ISCBWG 2014). Longline catches of swordfish in the northern region of the eastern Pacific Ocean (WPO) havevaried over time with peaks occurring during the late 1960's and early 2000's (~6,000 t). In 2012, catches werearound 3,000 t and less than in previous years (~2008-2011) (IATTC 2014). In Hawaii, longline landings ofswordfish have varied greatly over time, peaking in 1992 and 1993 at 12,566,000 lbs (5,702 t) and 13,027,000lbs (5,910 t) respectively. Average landings by the longline fishery over time (1987-2010) were 4,648,000 lbs(2,108 t). with landings ranging from 2,573,000 lbs (1,167 t) to 4,299,000 lbs (1,950 t) since the longline fisheryreopened in 2005(WPRFMC 2013b). Catches of swordfish in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery have beensomewhat stable since the fishery was re-opened in 2005 but have not returned to levels prior to the closureand have remained below the long term average of 4,648,300 lbs since 2001 (WPRFMC 2013b).

8

Figure 1 Swordfish landings (mt) in the western and central north Pacific Ocean (1951-2012) (ISC 2014)

Figure 2 Annual landings (1000 lbs) of swordfish in hawaii between 1987 and 2010 (WCPRFMC 2012)

Longline fisheries for albacore tuna in the North Pacific catch less then half of all albacore in the region. Thetotal catches of albacore in the north Pacific have ranged from a low of 37,000 t in 1991 to a high of 125,000and 126,000 t in 1999 and 1976 respectively (ISCAWG 2014). Annual catches between 2006-2012 averagedaround 78,000 t (IATTC 2014). In Hawaii, longline landings of albacore tuna peaked during the mid to late1990's and ealry 2000's and have since declined. Peak landings were 3,626,000 lbs (1,645 t) in 1997 and in2010 only 916,000 lbs (415.5 t) were landed(WPRFMC 2013b).

9

Figure 3 Catches of north Pacific albacore by major gear types, 1966-2012. The Other gear category includescatches with purse seine, recreational gear, hand lines, and harpoons (ISCAWG 2014).

10

Figure 4 Annual landings (1000 lbs) of albacore tuna in hawaii between 1987 and 2010 (WCPRFMC 2012)

Total catches of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean have increased over time, peaking in themid 2000's at just under 200,000 mt. Longline catches of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean(WCPO) ranged from 44,000 to 62,000 t between 1980 and 1993 and since 2004 have ranged from 67,000 t to77,000 t (Davies et al. 2014). The majority of bigeye catches occur within equatorial regions of the western andcentral Pacific Ocean (Williams and Terewasi 2014). Total catches of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Oceanhave varied over time, peaking during the early 1990's and reaching the highest level (148,557 t) in 2000. Since the mid 2000's, catches have been around 100,000 t but declined to around 80,000 t in 2013 (IATTC2014). The majority of bigeye tuna in the region are caught with surface fishing gear and not longlines. Although historically, until the mid 1990's longlines were the predominate gear used (IATTC 2013f). In Hawaii,longline landings of bigeye tuna have increased over time from a low of 1,796,000 lbs (815 t) in 1987 to a highof 12,909,000 lbs (5,856 t) in 2008 with average landings of 6,448,000 lbs (2,925 t) between 1987 and 2010(WPRFMC 2013b).

11

Figure 5 Total annual catch (1000s mt) of bigeye tuna from the WCPO by fishing method from 1952-2012(Harley et al. 2014)

Figure 6 Annual landings (1000 lbs) of bigeye tuna in hawaii between 1987 and 2010 (WCPRFMC 2012)

Skipjack tuna make up the majority of tuna in tuna fisheries within the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) buta small portion of Hawaii tuna catches. Catches of skipjack tuna in the WCPO have increased over time,reaching 1.6 million t in 2009, although longline catches represent only a small portion of these catches (Rice etal. 2014). Catches of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) are significantly less than those from theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean. However, catches in the EPO have been increasing over time, peaking in2006 at over 300,000 t. Catches have since declined slightly to just under 300,000 t. The majority of thesecatches come from the purse seine fisheries (IATTC 2014). Longline landings of skipjack tuna in Hawaii aremuch lower than for other tuna species, averaging only 178,000 lbs (80 t) between 1987 and 2010, althoughthey have increased over time. For example, in 1987 only 3,000 lbs (1 t) of skipjack tuna were landed in theHawaiian longline fishery but in 2010 330,000 lbs (150 t) were landed (WPRFMC 2013b).

12

Figure 7 Skipjack catches, 1972-2012, in the WCPO by fishing gear (Rice et al. 2014).

Figure 8 Annual landings (1000 lbs) of skipjack tuna in hawaii between 1987 and 2010 (WCPRFMC 2012)

Total catches of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO have increased over time from a low of under 50,000 t during themid 1950's to over 600,000 t in 2008 and 2012. Annual catches of yellowfin tuna by longliners in the WCPOhave been around 70,000 to 80,000 t since the mid 1980's (Davies et al. 2014b). Yellowfin tuna catches in theEastern Pacific Ocean peaked in 2002 at 443,458 t and have since decreased to just over 200,000 t in 2013. Over the years, catches have been variable. Longline catches have remained under 40,000 t since the 1970'sand have been below 10,000 t since 2010. Peak longline catches occurred during the early and mid 1990's andearly 2000's (IATTC 2014). Hawaii longline landings of yellowfin tuna have varied to some degree over time,averaging 1,675,000 lbs (760 t) between 1987 and 2010. For example, longline landings ranged from a low of575,000 lbs (261 t) in 1987 to a high of 2,656,000 lbs (1,205 t) in 2000. During 2010, 1,254,000 lbs (569 t)

13

were landed.(WPRFMC 2013b).

Figure 9 Annual landings (1000 lbs) of yellowfin tuna in hawaii between 1987 and 2010 (WCPRFMC 2012)

Figure 10 Annual catches (1000 t) of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO from 1952 -2012 by fishing gear (Davies et al.2014)

Importance to the US/North American market.

During 2013, the United States imported the most (39%) albacore tuna from Thailand. Other countries theUnited States imports large amounts of albacore from include Vietnam (20%) and Indonesia (16%) (NMFS2014).

14

Figure 11 Major contributors to US albacore tuna imports (%) all countries and region (counry of origin) (NMFS2014)

The United States imported around 19% of bigeye tuna from Ecuador, 16% from the Marshall Islands and 14%from Sri Lanka during 2013 (NMFS 2014).

Figure 12 Major contributors to US bigeye tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS2014)

15

The United States imported over half of all skipjack tuna from Mexico (55%) during 2013. Other importantcountries included the Philippines (15%) and Mexico (13%).

Figure 13 Major contributors to US skipjack tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS2014)

The majority of yellowfin tuna were imported from Trinidad and Tobago in 2013 (49%). Smaller amounts wereimported from the Philippines (7%), Vietnam (6%) and Indonesia (5%) (NMFS 2014).

16

Figure 14 Major contributors to US yellowfin tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (counry oforigin) (NMFS 2014)

During 2013, swordfish imports into the United States were primarily from Ecuador (23%), Canada (14%) andCosta Rica and Singapore (11%).

Figure 15 Major contributors to US swordfish imports (%) all countries (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

17

Albacore tuna was the most commonly exported tuna species by the United States in 2011 and 2012 (10,205 tin and 11,023 t respectively). Around 200 t of bigeye and skipjack and 300 t of yellowfin were exported in 2011. Exports of bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna were higher in 2012 (679 t and 843 t respectively). Skipjack tunaexports during 2012 were 339 t. Swordfish exports in 2011 and 2012 were fairly low too, 206 t and 152 trespectively (NMFS 2014).

Common and market names.

Swordfish are also known broadbilled swordfish, broadbill, espada and emperado. Albacore tuna is also knownas germon, longfinned tuna, albecore and T. germo. Skipjack tuna are alos known as ocean bonito and lessertuna. In Hawaii, albacore tuna is known as tombo ahi, bigeye and yellwofin tuna are known as Ahi, skipjack asAku and swordfish as mekajiki.

Primary product forms

In Hawaii, swordfish, albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna are typically landed and sold fresh for bothcooking and for sushi and sashimi.

18

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherentvulnerability to fishing rating 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 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Criterion 1 Summary

ALBACORERegion | Method |Country | CustomGroup

InherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Hawaii/Western andCentral Pacific Longline(deep-set) | United Statesof America

2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83)

Hawaii/Eastern CentralPacific Longline (deep-set) | United States ofAmerica


BIGEYE TUNARegion | Method |Country | CustomGroup






19

Abundance levels of albacore skipjack and swordfish are high and fishing mortality rates are sustainable. Bigeye tuna populations in the Pacific have increased in recent years and they are no longer consideredoverfished. Yellowfin tuna are healthy in the western and central Pacific Ocean but are overfished in the easternPacific Ocean.

SKIPJACK TUNARegion | Method |Country | CustomGroup



2.00: Medium 5.00: Very LowConcern

5.00: Very LowConcern

Green (5.00)



SWORDFISHRegion | Method |Country | CustomGroup


Hawaii/Western andCentral Pacific Longline(shallow-set) | UnitedStates of America



Green (5.00)

Hawaii/Eastern CentralPacific Longline (shallow-set) | United States ofAmerica



Green (5.00)

YELLOWFIN TUNARegion | Method |Country | CustomGroup





Green (5.00)


2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 3.67: Low Concern Yellow (2.71)

20

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics thatmake it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middleof food chain).High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristicsthat make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduction 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, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.2 (High Concern)—Population 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)—Population 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 contribution to themortality 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 itscontribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy andthe species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility 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 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

ALBACORE


21



BIGEYE TUNA

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the lifehistory characteristics of albacore suggest only a "medium" vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacorereach sexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reach a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011).They are broadcast spawners, and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life historycharacteristics we have awarded a score of "medium" vulnerability.

HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Medium

FishBase assigned a "high" vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the lifehistory characteristics of albacore suggest only a "medium" vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacorereach sexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reach a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011).They are broadcast spawners, and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life-historycharacteristics we have awarded a score of "medium" vulnerability.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Low Concern

The most recent stock assessment for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2017.According to this assessment, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2015 (last year of data included in themodel) was 132,072 t with stock depletion estimated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass-basedreference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was little indication that the SSB wasbelow any candidate biomass-based reference points. We have therefore awarded a score of "low" concernbecause it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific are not overfished, but not a score of "very low"concern because no reference points are currently accepted (ISC 2017).


Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate (F2012-2014) for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is below potentialF-based reference points (FMSY F0.1 and F10-40% (fishing mortality that gives 10-40% reduction in thespawning potential ratio)) except for F50%. Albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean are therefore notcurrently undergoing overfishing. However, increases in fishing mortality rates will significantly reduce thespawning biomass (ISC 2017). We have awarded a low and not very low concern score because overfishing islikely not occurring, but there is some uncertainty and potential for increased fishing mortality that would leadto overfishing.

22




Medium

FishBase assigned a "high" to "very high" vulnerability of 72 out of 100 to bigeye tuna (Froese and Pauly2013). However, their life-history characteristics suggest a "medium" vulnerability to fishing. For example,bigeye tuna reach sexual maturity around 100 to 125 cm, reach a maximum size of 200 cm, and live around11 years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froeseand Pauly 2013). Based on the Seafood Watch productivity analysis table, these life-history characteristicssuggest a "medium" level of vulnerability. We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a differentvulnerability rating. However, because the stock status of bigeye tuna is known, this inherent vulnerabilityscore will not affect the overall outcome. We have therefore awarded a score of "medium" vulnerability basedon the productivity table analysis.


Medium

FishBase assigned a "high" to "very high" vulnerability of 72 out of 100 to bigeye tuna (Froese and Pauly2013). However, their life-history characteristics suggest a "medium" vulnerability to fishing. For example,bigeye tuna reach sexual maturity around 100 to 125 cm, reach a maximum size of 200 cm and live around 11years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese andPauly 2013). Based on these life-history characteristics, we have awarded a score of "medium" vulnerability.


Low Concern

Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) were most recently assessed in 2017. Accordingto the base case model, the median ratio of the current average (2011 to 2014) spawning biomass to thatneeded to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) was 1.21 and the ratio of the latest(2014) spawning biomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(SB /SB ) was 1.42. The median ratio of the recent spawning biomass to that spawning biomass withno fishing is 0.34, which is above the limit reference point of 0.20, indicating that the population is notoverfished (McKechnie et al. 2017). This is a significant change and improvement from the 2014 assessment(Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a score of "low" concern because bigeye tuna are no longeroverfished, and the spawning stock biomass is above that needed to produce maximum sustainable yield.

RECENT MSY

LATEST MSY


Low Concern

According to the last assessment of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (2014), the spawning biomass(amount of fish capable of reproducing) had decreased to a record low level of 19% of its unfished abundancelevel at the beginning of 2014. The spawning biomass ratio has since increased to 0.26 at the start of 2017.The spawning biomass (SB) was estimated to be around 23% above the level needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (SB ), so the population is no longer overfished. We have therefore awarded ascore of "low" concern (Aires-da-Silva 2017).

MSY

23


SKIPJACK TUNA




Low Concern

The median ratio of current fishing mortality rates to those that produce the maximum sustainable yield(Fcurrent/FMSY) was 0.83, indicating overfishing is not occurring (McKechnie et al. 2017). This is a significantimprovement from the last assessment (Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a low concern score based onthe assessment results that overfishing is no longer occurring but not a very low concern due to theconsiderable uncertainty in the results.


Low Concern

Current fishing mortality rates (F) are 11% below levels that would produce the maximum sustainable yield(FMSY), and therefore overfishing is not occurring. However, these estimates are highly uncertain due toassumptions made while conducting the last assessment and fishing mortality rates have increased (Aires-da-Silva 2017). We have awarded a low concern score because overfishing is not occurring but not a very lowconcern due to uncertainty in the assessment.


Medium

Fishbase assigned a moderate vulnerability of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Their life historycharacteristics support this score. Sexual maturity is reached around 45 cm or 2 years of age and they canreach a maximum size of 110 cm and age of 12 years. They are broadcast spawners and have a high trophiclevel (Froese and Pauly 2013).


Very Low Concern

Skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean were last assessed in 2014. According to theassessment, the total biomass has been higher than the reference point (B - the biomass needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield) over the entire time period (1972-2010). The current total biomass isaround 52% of virgin levels (B ) and the ratio of the current spawning biomass to that needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield is well above 1 (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.94) (Rice et al. 2014). Therefore skipjacktuna are not overfished and above target levels and we have awarded a very low concern score.

MSY

0


Low Concern

24


SWORDFISH



Due to the complexity associated with skipjack tuna stock assessments, the latest assessment used indicators,instead of the typical reference points based on the maximum sustainable yield, to determine the biomass. According to these indicators, biomass appears to have been increasing over the past 20 years and has beenat high levels since 2003. There does not appear to be any indication the population is overfished, so we haveawarded a low concern score (IATTC 2014). We did not award a very low concern due to the lack ofreference points.


Very Low Concern

The current level of exploitation of skipjack tuna is below that needed to provide the maximum sustainableyield (MSY). Although fishing mortality rates have been increasing over time, the current fishing mortalityrate is below that needed to produce MSY (F /F =0.62) (Rice et al. 2014). Therefore overfishing ofskipjack tuna is not occurring and we have awarded a very low concern score.

current MSY


Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates have been increasing for skipjack tuna since the early 1990's, although decreases wereseen in both 2009 and 2010. Increasing fishing mortality rates are a concern for skipjack tuna but theyappear to have leveled off in recent years. The indicators used to determine the status of skipjack tuna in theEastern Pacific Ocean have not indicated any negative effects to the population from increased fishing (IATTC2014). We have therefore awarded a low concern score.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Medium

Fishbase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the lifehistory characteristics of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reachsexual maturity is around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age and they reach a maximum length of 455cm and live more than 10 years. Swordfish are broadcast spawners and are top predators (Froese and Pauly2013). This is more indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Very Low Concern

In 20014 an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. This assessment considered twopopulations; one in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) and one in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Accordingto this model, the exploitable biomass for the population in the WCPO region fluctuated at or above the levelneeded to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B for most of the time series (1951-2012) and there isMSY)

25


YELLOWFIN TUNA



a low probability (14%) of the biomass being below B in 2012 (ISCBWG 2014). We have thereforeawarded a very low concern score.

MSY

HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Very Low Concern

An assessment conducted on North Pacific swordfish (north of 100N and west of 1400W) indicates that thepopulation is stable and biomass is over 50% above unexploited levels (IATTC 2014). Therefore swordfish inthis region are not overfished and we have awarded a very low concern score.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Very Low Concern

In 2014 an assessment for swordfish was in the North Pacific was conducted. Exploitation rates in thisregion peaked in 1960's and have declined since. The current fishing mortality rate (H ) is 15%, whichis lower than the level necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (H =25%). It is very unlikely(<1%) that fishing mortality rates (H) are unsustainable and therefore overfishing is not occurring (ISC 2014).We have therefore awarded a very low concern score.

2010-2012

MSY


Very Low Concern

A recent assessment of swordfish in the North Pacific region indicated that current fishing mortality levels aresustainable and unlikely to reduce the spawning biomass to unsustainable levels (IATTC 2014). We havetherefore awarded a very low concern score.


Medium

Fishbase assigned a "moderate" to "high" vulnerability of 46 out of 100 to yellowfin tuna (Frose and Pauly2013). Their life-history characteristics support a "moderate" vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reach sexualmaturity by 100 cm in length, although growth rates vary by location, and 2 to 3 years of age. They can attaina maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least four years of age and perhaps as many as nine years. They arebroadcast spawners and important predators in the ecosystem (Davies et al. 2014b) (Froesy and Pauly 2013).


Very Low Concern

The biomass-based reference points for the reference model used in the 2017 assessment (SB /SB –RECENT MSY

26


the ratio of the current (2011 to 2014) spawning (mature fish) biomass to that needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield) was 1.37. The ratio of the latest (2014) spawning biomass to the level needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) was 1.38. The ratio of the recent spawningbiomass to the biomass with no fishing mortality is 0.31, which is higher than the limit reference point (0.20).Therefore, yellowfin tuna are not in an overfished state (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) and biomass is wellabove appropriate target levels such as SB (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017). We have therefore awarded ascore of "very low" concern.

CURRENT MSY

MSY.


High Concern

According to the 2016 assessment, the spawning biomass ratio (ratio of the spawning biomass to the unfishedpopulation) (SBP) was 0.23 at the start of 2017, which is below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of 0.27,indicating the population is overfished. The ratio of the current spawning biomass to the biomass thatproduces maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) is 0.86. The results are complicated due to theuncertainty surrounding the productivity of yellowfin tuna, recruitment levels, and maximum sustainable yieldlevels, which may have changed over time (Minte-Vera 2017). We have awarded a score of "high" concernbecause yellowfin tuna are overfished.

RECENT MSY


Very Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate is below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(Frecent/FMSY = 0.79) for the most realistic models. Therefore overfishing is not occurring (Tremblay-Boyeret al. 2017) and we have awarded a very low concern score.


Low Concern

Fishing mortality is currently estimated to be below levels that produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)(Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.93) and overfishing is not occurring. However, uncertainty surrounding the relationshipbetween recruitment to the fishery and the current population, natural mortality and average size of older fishcould mean fishing mortality rates are actually higher and above MSY levels (Minte-Vera 2017). We haveawarded a low concern score because overfishing is not occurring but not a very low concern due touncertainty.

27

Criterion 2: Impacts on other speciesAll 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 multipliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Criterion 2 Summary

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

®

ALBACORE - HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)

Subscore: 1.41 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 1.34

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

False killer whale 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.53)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.64)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.71)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.71)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Yellow(3.16)

Dolphinfish 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.32)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.83)

28

Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.83)

Skipjack tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.83)

ALBACORE - HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)







Red (1.53)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(3.16)



Skipjack tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern


Green(5.00)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern


Green(5.00)

BIGEYE TUNA - HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)




29





Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.64)




Yellow(3.16)



Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.83)



BIGEYE TUNA - HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)







Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(2.64)


30


Yellow(3.16)





Green(5.00)



Green(5.00)

SKIPJACK TUNA - HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)








Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.64)




Yellow(3.16)





31


SKIPJACK TUNA - HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)







Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(3.16)






Green(5.00)

SWORDFISH - HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET)






Yellow(2.24)

32

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern


Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(3.16)


SWORDFISH - HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET)






Yellow(2.24)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern


Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(3.16)


YELLOWFIN TUNA - HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)








Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.64)

33



Yellow(3.16)







YELLOWFIN TUNA - HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - LONGLINE (DEEP-SET)







Red (1.53)



Yellow(2.24)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(2.64)



Yellow(3.16)



34

Three sources were used to select the main species for these fisheries. For tunas, billfish and bony fish theWestern Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's annual report for 2011 {WPRFMC 2013b} was used toidentify species making up at least 5% of the total landings. Skipjack tuna were included in this assessmentbecause these reports focus on tuna species. The 2011 National Marine Fisheries Service bycatch report {NMFS2011} was used to identify shark bycatch species. Blue sharks were included in this report because they are themost commonly caught shark species in both fisheries and represent more than 5% of the total catch. Bigeyethresher sharks were included because they are considered a key stock by the NMFS in the deep-set fishery.Shortfin mako sharks were included because they are the second most commonly captured shark species andlittle is known about their status in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Oceanic whitetip sharkswere included because they are caught in these fisheries and have recently been assessed as overfished in theWCPO. Information on marine mammal, sea turtles and seabird bycatch in these fisheries was obtainedthrough observer records for 2010 through 2012. Only two species of birds, black-footed and laysan albatross,were commonly reported in both fisheries. Two species of marine mammals, one in the shallow-set (Risso'sdolphins) and one in the deep-set (false killer whales) were reported with any frequency between years.Leatherback and olive ridley sea turtles were reported in the deep-set fishery but only leatherback andloggerheads were reported in the shallow-set fishery. For the shallow-set fishery, shortfin mako sharks andfalse killer whales scored the lowest, based on their high vulnerability and unknown stock status. For the deep-set fishery, false killer whales, olive ridley and shortfin mako sharks scored the lowest due to their highvulnerability and unknown status as did shortfin mako sharks.




Green(5.00)

Fish and shark species Landings lbs Number caught Percent of total landings

Bigeye tuna deep-set 10,644,600

Blue shark deep-set* 4,826,418 17.88

Blue shark shallow-set* 666,311 17.84

Swordfish shallow-set 2,958,720

Yellowtin tuna deep-set 1,090,140

Opah deep-set 1,606,960

Albacore tuna deep-set 789,200 4.60

Dolphinfish deep-set 845,620

Skipjack tuna deep-set 300,300

Shortfin mako shark deep-set 157,060

Shortfin mako shark shallow-set 23,420

* "landings" category is actually estimated catches based on observer data for the year 2005

35


Sea bird SpeciesNumberreported(2010-2012)

Justification Source

Black-footed albatross deep-set 65

IUCN previously listed asEndangered, recently updated toVulnerable; one of three mostcommonly caught species

Birdlife International 2012a; PIRO 2011

Black-footed albatross shallow-set 95

IUCN previously listed asEndangered, recently updated toVulnerable; one of three mostcommonly caught species

Birdlife International 2012a; PIRO 2011

Laysan albatross deep-set 100IUCN Near Threatened; one ofthree most commonly caughtbird species

Birdlife Inernational 2012b; PIRO 2011

Laysan albatross shallow-set 150IUCN Near Threatened; one ofthree most commonly caughtbird species

Birdlife Inernational 2012b; PIRO 2011

Marine mammal species

False killer whale deep-set PBR=9.1, AFM=12.4 Caretta et al. 2014

Risso's dolphin shallow-set 11 PBR=12, AFM - varies NOAA 2013

Sea turtle species

Leatherback sea turtle deep-set 8IUCN listing CriticallyEndangered; ESA; CITESAppendix 1

Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012

Leatherback sea turtle shallow-set 31IUCN listing CriticallyEndangered; ESA; CITESAppendix 1

Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012

Loggerhead sea turtle shallow-set 24 IUCN listing Endangered; ESA MTSG 2006; NMFS 2012

Olive ridley turtle deep-set 17 ESA NMFS 2012

36

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)

FALSE KILLER WHALE




HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High

Mammals have a high level of vulnerability due to their life history characteristics that include late age atmaturity, slow growth, long-lived and low reproductive output (Seafood Watch 2013).


High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers false killer whales to be a Data Deficientspecies with an unknown population trend (Taylor et al. 2008a). There are three populations of false killerwhales in Hawaiian waters, a pelagic, Main Hawaiian Islands and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. We areconcentrating on the pelagic population for this analysis, which consists of 1,503 individuals (total populationof all three populations = 2,206 individuals) (Caretta et al. 2014). We have awarded a high concern scorebecause the status is unknown and they have a high inherent level of vulnerability to fishing.


High Concern

The Hawaii-deep set fishery is a Category I fishery, indicating frequent incidental mortality or serious injurieswith marine mammals occurs (FR 2013). The current status of the pelagic population of false killer whales inHawaiian waters is considered "strategic" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The pelagic population offalse killer whales in Hawaii have a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) of 9.1. The mean estimated annual takefrom the Hawaii deep-set fishery (2007-2011) was 9.6 individuals outside of the EEZ and 12.4 within EEZwaters, which is above the PBR. A Take Reduction Plan has been developed for this species, including gearrequirements, time-area closures and improvements to responses to entangled whales. However this Planonly went into effect in February of 2013 and the success is not yet know (NOAA 2013)(Caretta et al. 2014).We have awarded a high concern score because of the category 1 listing and because the majority of the PBR

37

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE



is taken in this fishery but not a critical concern because management measures have been put into place.


20-40%

Discard rates in the Hawaiian longline fisheries vary by species. For example, in 2010, the lowest and highestdiscard rates for targeted tunas were 1.5% for yellowfin tuna and 4.6% for albacore. Non-targeted tunas hada much higher discard rate of 25%. Discard rates were low for billfish, ranging from 0.6% for spearfish to6.1% for swordfish. Discard rates for "other fish species" such as wahoo (0.5%) and mahimahi (2.5%) werealso low. However, discard rates were much higher for other "miscellaneous fish" (61.2%) and for sharks(97.9%) (WPRFMC 2013b). The fishery bycatch ratio (total catch to discard ratio) of the Hawaii shallow-setfishery according to the US national bycatch report was 0.19 in 2010 (previously it was 0.24 in 2005) and forthe deep-set 29% in 2010 (NMFS 2013). We have awarded a score of 20-40% based on these ratios.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).


Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers olive Ridley sea turtles to be Vulnerablewith a decreasing population trend. Olive Ridley turtles have been listed as Threatened on the US EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012). The most recent 5 year status review of olive ridley sea turtlesindicated that olive ridley seaturtles should not be de-listed from the Threatened status due to decreasingtrends in the Arribada nesting population, continued threats to nesting beaches and poor management. Withinthe western Pacific Ocean, populations from Malaysia are decreasing, while those from Indonesia areincreasing. Other trends in this region are unknown (NMFS and USFWS 2014). We have awarded a very highconcern score based on the ESA listing.


High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the population of olive ridley sea turtles

38



to be Vulnerable. In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, estimates of the total number of nests range from 608protected nests in Mexico to 33,530-68,753 nests in Nicaragua. Female population size has been estimated torange from 8,768 in Panama to 1,013,034 in Mexico. The annual nesting female sub-population size hasdecreased by 99% in some regions in Mexico, increased substantially in others and not changed at all in areassuch as Nicaragua. Overall, the annual nesting female sub-population size in the eastern Pacific Ocean hasdeclined around 35% over time (Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008) but the risk to populations from longlinefishing in this region is considered low (Wallace et al. 2013). We have however awarded a high concern scorebased on the IUCN classification.


Very Low Concern

Olive Ridley turtles are caught turtle in the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery. There were 142 interactionsbetween this species and the deep-set fishery between 2005 and 2010 and of these 136 were dead (NMFS2012). These interactions have been fewer than the 121 (117 moralities) interactions allowed over threeyears under the incidental take statement (NMFS 2012). In 2012, 6 olive ridley turtles were released dead inthis fishery (PIROP 2012a). Bycatch interactions in the Western Pacific are considered to have a low impacton this species (Wallace et al. 2013) and a Biological Opinion (BiOp) conducted in 2005, found that the deep-set fishery had a negligible impact on the species. Mitigation measures (circle hooks and mackerel bait) are inuse in this fishery. We have awarded a very low concern score because interactions are below the allottedamount, considered negligible and there are bycatch mitigation methods in place.


High Concern

The incidental capture of olive ridley sea turtles occurs worldwide. There is some thought that impacts fromother fisheries such as trawls and gillnets appear to have a larger negative impact compared to longlines inmany areas except for the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) (Wallace et al. 2013){Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Within this 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, themajority of which were olive ridley's (exact number not provided) (IATTC 2014). There is no indication thatbycatch mitigation measures have been put into place by all fleets (IAC 2012)(Zhu and Dai 2014) and therehave been issues with compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (i.e. Clarke et al. 2014). We havetherefore awarded a high and not crtical concern score.


20-40%

Discard rates in the Hawaiian longline fisheries vary by species. For example, in 2010, the lowest and highestdiscard rates for targeted tunas were 1.5% for yellowfin tuna and 4.6% for albacore. Non-targeted tunas hada much higher discard rate of 25%. Discard rates were low for billfish, ranging from 0.6% for spearfish to6.1% for swordfish. Discard rates for "other fish species" such as wahoo (0.5%) and mahimahi (2.5%) werealso low. However, discard rates were much higher for other "miscellaneous fish" (61.2%) and for sharks(97.9%) (WPRFMC 2013b). The fishery bycatch ratio (total catch to discard ratio) of the Hawaii shallow-set

39

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK




fishery according to the US national bycatch report was 0.19 in 2010 (previously it was 0.24 in 2005) and forthe deep-set 29% in 2010 (NMFS 2013). We have awarded a score of 20-40% based on these ratios.

HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High

Fishbase assigned a very high vulnerability of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).


High

Fishbase assigned a very high vulnerability of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).


High Concern

There has been some question about the stock structure of shortfin mako sharks in the Pacific Ocean.Currently the consensus is that there is a single population in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014b). A stock wideassessment is planned for 2014, previously an assessment of shortfin mako sharks was conducted in theNorthwest Pacific in 2009. The assessment found a downward trend in the spawning stock biomass (SSB)(abundance of mature fish) and determined the population might have been overfished (Chang and Liu 2009). Analysis of catch rate data indicate no real trend in abundance for shortfin mako sharks over time (Clarke2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally asVulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a high concern score because the population was lastassessed as near overfished levels but no recent assessments have been completed. In addition, shortfinmako sharks have a high vulnerability score.


High Concern

In 2010, 73.7% of shortfin mako sharks caught in Hawaii longline fisheries were released. Landings ofshortfin mako shark have increased over time in these fisheries, being above the long term average of 74t since 2005, except during 2011 when landings were slightly less (65 t) (WPRFMC 2013b).

40


A 2009 assessment of shortfin mako sharks conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortalityshould be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). A later, separate analysis (not an assessment) found noclear trend throughout the North Pacific region based on abundances and size information, and so there is noevidence for the impact of fishing on mako sharks in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011)(Clarke 2011). We haveawarded a high concern score because there are no management measures in place and fishing mortalityrates may be too high.


20-40%


41

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessManagement 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 rating is determinedas follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

The Hawaiian deep and shallow set fisheries are considered to be moderatly well managed with regard toharvest strategy but both fisheries received an excellent score for bycatch management because of the highfishery observer monitoring rate. Biolgoical Opinions and the success of bycatch mitigation techniques.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and

Region / MethodHarvestStrategy

BycatchStrategy Score

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline (shallow-set) / UnitedStates of America

3.00 5.00 Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline (deep-set) / UnitedStates of America

3.00 5.00 Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline (shallow-set) /United States of America

3.00 5.00 Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline (deep-set) / UnitedStates of America

3.00 5.00 Green(3.87)

42

Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—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 Summary

This report focuses on Hawaii's pelagic longline fleet that targets highly migratory tuna and swordfish within theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Within EEZ waters of Hawaii, this fishery is managed by the state ofHawaii and the US Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). However, these fisheriestarget highly migratory species that have a range spanning into international waters. These targeted speciesare managed at the international level through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, specifically theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the WCPO and Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission (IATTC) in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The United States must abide by the management measuresset forth by the WCPFC and IATTC because they are a memebers of both. We have scored this report according to US domestic measures but included information on internationalmeasures as well. Domestic management measures for the Hawaiian longline fisheries are generallymoderately effective. The shallow-set fishery has highly effective enforcement measures because it requires100% observer coverage, compared to only 20% in the deep-set fishery. However, few internationalmanagement measures have been put into place, which is a cause for concern for highly migratory species suchas tuna.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,

FACTOR 3.1 - MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIESRegion / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

Hawaii / Eastern CentralPacific / Longline(shallow-set) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective

N/A ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Eastern CentralPacific / Longline (deep-set) / United States ofAmerica

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Western andCentral Pacific /Longline (shallow-set) /United States ofAmerica

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Western andCentral Pacific /Longline (deep-set) /United States ofAmerica

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

43

and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must beappropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: 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 rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood ofsuccess in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortalityfor any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

HAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Moderately Effective

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's (WPRFMC) Pelagics Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP)includes overfishing thresholds for bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas but not for swordfish or albacoretuna, the targetd species in this fishery. In addition, there are no target or rebuilding control rules or referencepoints. The FEP does include a limit to the number of longline permits. The WPRFMC will work with theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commissionto create rebuilding plans if a species is deemed depleted by the US Magnuson Stevens National Standard 1(WPRFMC 2009b). In addition, the US complies with international management measures adopted by theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, whichincludes catch limits for bigeye tuna caught by US longliners . We have awarded a moderately effective scorebecause overfishing thresholds for target species in this fishery have not been defined.

HAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's (WPRFMC) Pelagics Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP)includes overfishing thresholds for bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas but there are no target or rebuildingcontrol rules or reference points. The FEP does include a limit to the number of longline permits. TheWPRFMC will work with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission to create rebuilding plans if a species is deemed depleted by the USMagnuson Stevens National Standard 1 (WPRFMC 2009b). In addition, the US complies with internationalmanagement measures adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-AmericanTropical Tuna Commission, which includes catch limits for bigeye tuna caught by US longliners . However,management measures enacted by the WPRFMC and WCPFC have failed to allow populations of bigeye tunato remain sustainable. In addition, there is some concern that catches are approaching the maximumsustainable yield for some populations and the Council is considering options that would allow increases incapacity and effort. There are some signs of improvement; in previous years some member and cooperatingnon-member and participating territories (CCMs) exceeded catch limits for longline fishing for bigeye, whereasdata presented in 2014 show that in 2013, all CCMs complied with catch limits and overall longline catch wassubstantially reduced from the 2001-2004 level (WCPFC 2014). However, as of the latest stock assessmentoverfishing was occurring and signficant reductions in overall bigeye catch were needed to end overfishing,and it remains to be seen whether that will be achieved. We have therefore awarded a moderately and nothighly effective score.

44

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and thefishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conductedregularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

HAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

N/A

Swordfish and albacore tuna targeted in this fishery are both healthy and not in need of a recovery plan, sowe have awarded a score of N/A.

HAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


Because the targeted species in this fishery are highly migratory, and yellowfin are overfished, the success ofany recovery plans will be dependent on other nations as well. Measures to rebuild these tuna species havenot yet been effective for yellowfin tuna . However, other species, including bigeye tuna have recovered so wehave awarded a moderate and not ineffective score.

HAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

N/A

No target species are currently overfished or undergoing overfishing.



The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) uses the results of stock wideassessments conducted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The most recent stockassessment of swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted in 2009, while albacore tuna stocks are monitoredand assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014e). However, tuna and swordfish assessments have a largedegree of uncertainty associated with them. Several other main species, such as tunas and blue and oceanicwhitetip sharks have also been assessed but many species have not. The Hawaiian shallow-set longlinefishery has 100% observer coverage, vessel monitoring systems in place and logbooks (WPRFMC 2009b). Wehave awarded a moderately effective score to because assessments have not been completed for all speciesand assessments that have been conducted are surrounded by uncertainty.



The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) uses the results of stock wideassessments conducted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Bigeye, yellowfin, andskipjack tuna stocks are regularly monitored and assessed (Davies et al. 2014)(Rice et al. 2014)(Davies et al.

45

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

2014b) but tuna assessments tend to have a degree of uncertainty surrounding the results {(Davies et al.2014). Several other main species have been assessed including swordfish and blue and oceanic white tipsharks. However, many other species have yet to be assessed. The Hawaiian deep-set longline fishery usesobservers (~20% of fishery), vessel monitoring systems and logbooks to collect catch and effort data(WPRFMC 2009b)(PIROP 2012a). We have awarded a moderately effective score because of the uncertaintyassociated with the assessments and lack of assessments for all main species.



Members of the albacore working group suggested after the last assessment that the current managementmeasures should be maintained (ISCAWG 2011). The 2009 stock assessment for north Pacific swordfishsuggested managers look to cap fishing effort and to conduct more detailed assessments (Brodziak andIshimura 2010). The The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) limits swordfishlongline effort through a bycatch cap on sea turtles implemented in 2009. Prior to this there was a set limitfor the fishery. The WPRFMC has not implemented any effort controls beyond these but is a member of theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and abides by international measures (WPRFMC2009b).



The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's (WPRFMC) Amendment 14 to the PelagicsFisheries Ecosystem Plan recommended that the National Marine Fisheries Service and US delegation toPacific tuna Regional Fishery Management Organizations's (RFMO's) immediately end overfishing of bigeyeand yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. However, the WPRFMC did not ifollow scientificadvice and has failed to mplement their own set of plans to reduce fishing pressure on bigeye tuna becausethey determined their impact to the stocks was minimal. The WPRFMC is a member of the Western andCentral Pacific Fisheries Commission (WPFMC), and RFMO, and abides by international measures (WPRFMC2009b). We have therefore awarded a moderately effective score.

46

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levelsor a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measuresenacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

HAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII / WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Highly Effective

One of the top objectives of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) is toencourage compliance and enforcement with fishery regulations (WPRFMC 2009). Management measuresare implemented by the Pacific Islands Regional Office and the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the USCoast Guard enforce these regulations. There are no TAC's in place so they do not need to be enforced. Alllongline vessels must have VMS systems in place that are monitored by the NMFS and submit lobgooks(WPRFMC 2009). We have awarded a highly effective score because their are enforcement measures inplace.



The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, which manages tunas in and around Hawaii, hasprimarily implemented international management measures adopted by the Western and Central PacificFisheries Commission (WCPFC). For example, the Hawaii longline fleet has maintained catches of bigeye tunaat 3,763 per WCPFC mandate and/or shut down the fishery when catches reached this limit (WCPFC 2008a). We have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective’ because current management measures have maintainedspecies such as yellowfin tuna but not others such as bigeye and striped marlin.


Highly Effective

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has an Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) advisorypanel that advises the Council on fishery management issues among other things, a pelagic FEP team thatoverseas the development and implementation of the plans a Science and Statistical Committee, FEP Standing

47

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

SCORING GUIDELINES

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring,Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderatelyeffective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record ofFollowing Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these rating are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy butsome other factors rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened speciesare known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimizethe impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

Committee a Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee and cooperates in community outreach and research. Stakeholders are allowed to make comments and suggestions to proposed amendments to the FEP (WPRFMC2009b).

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline(shallow-set) / United States of America

No No HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline (deep-set) / United States of America


HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline(shallow-set) / United States of America


HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline(deep-set) / United States of America


HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective


Highly Effective

48

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: 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 Effective rating, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Hawaiian breeding locations for some species of bird, including the black-footed albatross, are protectedunder the US National Wildlife Refuge system of State of Hawaii Seabird Sanctuaries and there is a 50nautical mile Protected Species Zone surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which are breedingsites for black-footed albatross (BirdLife International 2014). In addition, the Hawaiian Islands HumpbackWhale National Marine Sanctuary has been in place since 1992 (NMFS 2012). A Take Reduction Plan has beendeveloped for false killer whales, including gear requirements, time-area closures and improvements toresponses to entangled whales. However this Plan only went into effect in February of 2013 and the success isnot yet know (NOAA 2013)(Caretta et al. 2014).

There are several measures in place to reduce seabird interactions with Hawaii longline vessels, which havebeen proven to be effective at reducing interactions by 87% (PIRO 2011). Those vessels fishing north of 23degrees north setting from the side must attach weights, set from the port or starboard side, use lineshooters, deploy gear so hooks do not reserve, use a bird curtain and follow seabird handling guidelines. Ifvessels set from the stern north of 23 degrees north, they must use weights, thawed and blue dyed bait, useline shooters and employ strategic offal discharge along with following seabird handling guidelines. Whenfishing south of 23 degrees north and side or stern setting, vessels must follow handling guidelines (WPRFMC2009b). In addition, shark finning is prohibited (WPRFMC 2009b) and there are sea turtle handling guidelines(WPRFMC 2009b). Vessels are required to use circle hooks and mackerel bait to reduce sea turtle interactions,there is a bycatch limit in the shallow-set fishery of 34 loggerhead and 16 leatherback sea turtles and seaturtle handling requirements (NMFS 2012) (WPRFMC 2009b)(PIRO 2014). These mitigation measures havebeen shown to be effective at reducing interactions by 83% (Gilman et al. 2007). Mitigation measures requiredby the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission have not show as much success in reducing bycatch.We have therefore awarded a highly effective score to the Hawaii fishery.


Highly Effective

The Hawaii based shallow-set longline fishery has 100% observer coverage (WPRFMC 2009b)(PIROP 2012b). In addition, there are Biological Opinions for short-tailed albatross and sea turtles and marine mammals inthis fishery (USFWS 2012a)(NMFS 2012). We have therefore awarded a highly effective score.


Highly Effective

The Hawaii based deep-set fishery requires the use of observers but only around 20% of the fleet is currentlycovered (WPRFMC 2009b)(PIROP 2012a). This coverage rate is much less than the 100% coverage in theshallow-set fishery but higher than in many other pelagic longline fisheries and higher than the 5% observercoverage required by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC 2007b)(WCPFC 2012).There is also a Biological Opinion for short-tailed albatross in this fishery (USFWS 2012a) but not for otherspecies. We have awarded a highly effective score due to the high observer coverage rate in this fishery.

49

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.


Highly Effective

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has been proactive and implemented a number ofmeasures that have effectively reduced bycatch interaction in longline fisheries ((PIRO 2011)(NMFS 2012)(Walsh et al. 2009).


Highly Effective

See 3.1.5 for details.

50

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment.

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


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

There are two pelagic longline fisheries in Hawaii, shallow and deep set. The shallow set fishery targetsswordfish and albacore and the deep set targets primarily bigeye tuna. These types of gears are bothconsidered surface gears because they fish at or near the water surface and have limited contact with theocean bottom. Therefore they typically have a minimal impact on bottom habitats and gear modifications toreduce any impacts are not necessary.


SCORING GUIDELINES

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

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation ofGear Impacts EBFM Score

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline(shallow-set) / United States of America

5.00: None 0.00: NotApplicable


Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Eastern Central Pacific / Longline (deep-set) / United States of America



Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline(shallow-set) / United States of America



Green(3.87)

Hawaii / Western and Central Pacific / Longline(deep-set) / United States of America



Green(3.87)

51

4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline,trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally (2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, orbottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive 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 multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) withgear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modificationsshown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—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 actively being reduced0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion 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 exceptionally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fishaggregating devices (FADs) are used.3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mitigate these impacts2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery ishaving serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades orother detrimental impacts to the food web.

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


None

Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries,

52

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

such as the Hawaiian shallow-set fishery ((Passfield and Gilman 2010) (Gilman et al. 2012). However, theseeffects are still considered to be a low risk to bottom habitats (Seafood Watch 2013).


Not Applicable


Moderate Concern

The species caught in the Hawaii longline fisheries are managed under a Fishery Ecosystem Plan that aims toaddress fishery effects on other species, habitats and the ecosystem as a whole (WPRFMC 2009b). This planis a first step in Hawaii moving towards an Ecosystem Based Management Approach. The plan aims toconsider the interconnections of species and to examine all impacts to the ecosystem. There are some ares inHawaii waters that are protected or restricted to fishing (DAR 2014). We have awarded a moderate concernscore because although sufficient ecosystem based policies are not yet in place, managers have made effortstowards an ecosystem system based management approach.

53

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Alexia Morgan, as wellas twelve anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

®

®

54

ReferencesAbreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Association of the Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AWCC). 2012. Petition to classify the Hawaiian Green Turtle Populationas a discrete population segment and delist the DPS under the Endangered Species Act. Association of HawaiianCivic Clubs, 28 p.

Arata, J.A. and M.B. Naughton, 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, North PacificOcean, 1923-2005. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5131. US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey.Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5131/pdf/sir20095131.pdf

BirdLife International. 2012c. Phoebetria palpebrata. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

BirdLife International 2012b. Phoebastria immutabilis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

BirdLife International 2014. Phoebastria nigripes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened 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 Administrative Report H-10-01. 43 p.

Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S.,Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A. 2009. Isurus oxyrinchus. In: IUCN 2012.IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

Caretta et al. 2014. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2013. NOAA Technical Memorandum,NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-532.

Chang J.H. and Liu, K.M. 2009. Stock assessment of the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the NorthwestPacific Ocean using per recruit and virtual population analyses. Fisheries Research 98:92-101.

Clarke, S. 2011. A status snapshot of key shark species in the Western and Central Pacific and potentialmanagement options. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, FederatedStates of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-EB-WP-04. 37 p.

Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. and Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna andtuna-like species: a global review of status and mitigation measures. WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-IP-04.

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A.Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Carettacaretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological ReviewTeam to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/loggerheadturtle2009.pdf

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

Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. 2014. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central PacificOcean. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-01

55

Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, S. 2014b. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Westernand Central pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-04.

Dutton, P.H., Hitipeuw, C., Zein, M., Benson, S.R., Petro, G., Pita, J. et al. 2007. Status and genetic structure ofnesting populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the western Pacific. Chelonian Conservationand Bioloyg 6:47-53.

Dutton, P., Balazs, G. H., LeRoux, R. A., Murakawa, S. K. K., Zarate, P., & Martinez, L. S. 2008. Composition ofHawaiian green turtle foraging aggregations: mtDNA evidence for a distinct regional population. EndangeredSpecies Research 5:37-44.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2012. Fishstat J database. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome,Itsly. Accessed April, 2013.

Forney, K.A. 2009. Serious injury determinations for cetaceans caught in Hawaii longline fisheries during 1994-2008. Draft document PSRG-2009-09 presented to the Pacific Scientific Review Group, November 3-5, 2009, DelMar, Ca.

Federal Register (FR). 2013. List of fisheries for 2013. 78 FR 23708: 23708-23732

Froese, R. and Kesner-Reyes, K. 2002. Impact of fishing on the abundance of marine species. ICES CM2002/L:12. Available at: http://info.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2002/L/L1202.pdf

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2013. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,version

Gilman, E., Kobayashi, D., Swenarton, T., Brothers, N., Dalzell, P. and Kinan, I. 2007. Reducing sea turtlesinteractions in the Hawaii-based longline swordfish fishery. Biological Conservation 139:19-28.

Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Read, A., Dalzell, P., Holetschek, J., Curtice, C. 2012. Hawaii longline tuna fisherytemporal trends in standardized catch rates and length distributions and effects on pelagic and seamountecosystems. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 446-488.

Gilman, E., Pasfield, K. and Nakamura, K. 2013. Performance of regional fisheries management organizations:ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries DOI:10.1111/faf.12021

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013. Preliminary results from mahimahi (dorado)collaborative research with IATTC member countries. 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting, 29April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

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

ISC. 2017. Stock assessment of albacore in the North Pacific Ocean in 2017. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-09.Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC13-SA-WP-09%20Stock%20Assessment%20N%20Pacific%20Albacore%20Rev%202%20%28combo%20v06%29_1.pdf

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013a. ISSF stock assessment workshop: control rulesand reference points for tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report 2013-03. International Seafood SustainabilityFoundation, Washington, DC. 34 p.

56

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013b. ISSF stock status ratings 2013 status of theworld fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2013-4, April 2013

Lawson, T. 2001. Observer data held by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme covering tuna fishery bycatches inthe western and central Pacific Ocean. 14th Meeting of the the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 9-16August 2001, Numea, New Caledonia. SWG-9. 42 p.

Lawson, T. 2011. Purse-seine length frequencies corrected for selectivity bias in grab samples collected byobservers. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST-IP-02. 8 p.

Marine Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Caretta caretta. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2.

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

Mckechnie, S., Pilling, G., and Hampton, J. 2017. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and centralPacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-05. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC13-SA-WP-05%20%5Bbet-assessment%5D%20REV1.pdf

Miyashita, T. 1993. Abundance of dolphin stocks in the western North Pacific taken by the Japanese drive fishery.Reports of the International Whaling Commission 43: 417-437.

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

NMFS. 2005. Biological Opinion for the Continued Authorization of the Hawaii-based Pelagic, Deep-set, TunaLongline Fishery based on the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation BiologicalOpinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division. 162 pg.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. U.S. National Bycatch Report first edition update 1. (Eds. L.R. Benaka,C. Rilling, E.E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo). US Department of Commercie, 57 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Us Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marineresources, 6th edition. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-80, pp.369.

NMFS and USFWS. 2014. Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 5-Year Review: Summary andEvaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

NOAA. 2010. Annual Report on Seabird Interactions and Mitigation Efforts in the Hawaii Longline Fisheries for2009. Summary of seabird interactions and nominal rates in the Hawaii longline shallow-set swordfish fishery,2004-2010.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). US Pacific marine mammal stock assessments:2012.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS0SWFSC-504

57

Passfield, K., Gilman, E. (2010) Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems based on Interviewswith Pacific Island Fishers. Technical Report produced under the Global Environment Facility Oceanic FisheriesManagement Project. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Paxton, J.R. 2010. Alepisaurus ferox. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Analysis of Hawaii Longline Catch Data Shows Changes at Top of the Subtropical Gyre Ecosystem. QuarterlyResearch Bulletin. October, 2008.

PIFSC. 2010. Hawaii longline data. Provided by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

PIFSC. 2014. Hawaii longline fishery logbook statistics quarterly summary charts (through June 2013). NOAAFisheries, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Available at:http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/fmb/reports/hlreports/qreport_items.php?yr=2013&qtr=2&type=fig&num=21

PIFSC. 2014b. International team launches research on pelagic sharks in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA PacificIslands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Research Bulletin, June 2011.

Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO). 2011. 2011 Annual Report: Seabird interactions and mitigation efforts inHawaiian longline fisheries. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office. 20 p.

PIRO. 2014. Sea turtle interactions in the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery. NOAA Fisheries PacificIslands Regional Office. Available at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_turtleint.html

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2010a. Shallow set annual status report, January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, February 9, 2011. 1 p.

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2010b. Deep set annual status report, January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, July 27, 2011. 1 p.

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2011a. Deep set annual status report, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, July 23, 2012. 1 p.

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2011b. Shallow set annual status report January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, January 11, 2012. 1 p.

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2012a. Deep set annual status report, January 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, January 29, 2013. 1 p.

Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP). 2012b. Shallow set annual status report, January 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012. Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, January 29, 2013. 1 p.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012a. Stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean.Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-07 Rev 1. 53 pg.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012b. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetop sharks in the western and central PacificOcean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06 Rev 1. 53pg.

Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. 2014. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and

58

central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands.WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-05.

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.

Spotila, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Leslie, A.J., Steyermark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. and Paladino, F.V. 1996. Worldwidepopulation decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation andBiology 2:209-222

Tapilatu, R.F., Dutton, P.H., Tiwari, M., Wibbels, T., Ferdinandus, H.V., Iwanggin, W.G. and Nugroho, B.H. 2013.Long-term decline of the western Pacific leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: a globally important sea turtlepopulation. Ecosphere 4:25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00348.1

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2012. Grampus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

test google link

Tremblay,-Boyer, L., McKechnie, S., Pilling, G. and Hampton, J. 2017. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in thewestern and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-06. Available at:https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC13-SA-WP-06%20YFT-stock-assessment_2017_REV1.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Biological opinion of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for theoperation of Hawaii-based pelagic longline fisheries, shallow set and deep set, Hawaii. 2011-F-0436, January 6,2012.

USFWS. 2012. Final Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an MBTA Permit to the National MarineFisheries Service Authorizing Take of Seabirds in the Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Fishery.

USFWS. 2012c. Draft environmental assessment issuance of an MBTA permit to the National Marine FisheriesService authorizing incidental take of seabirds in the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery. US Fish andWildlife Service, Pacific Region.

Van Houtan, K.S. 2011. Assessing the impact of fishery actions to marine turtle populations in the North Pacificusing classical and climate-based models, Internal Report IR-II-024. NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands ScienceCenter. 25 p.

Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2014.2

Walsh, W.A. and Clarke, S.C. 2011. Analyses of catch data for oceanic whitetip and silky sharks reported byfishery observers in the Hawaii-based longline fishery in 1995-2010. Scientific Committee Seventh RegularSession, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-03. 65 p.

Walsh, W.A., Bigelow, K.A. and Sender, K.L. 2009. Decreases in shark catches and mortality in the Hawaii-basedlongline fishery as documented by fishery observers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management andEcosystem Science 1:270-282.

59

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 200. Conservation and management measure forthe -regional observer programme. Conservation and Management Measure 200. Fourth Regular Session,Tumon, Guam, USA, 2-7 December 20007.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012. Conservation and management measure forimplementing the regional observer programme by vessels fishing for fresh fish north of 20N. Conservation andManagement Measure 2012-03. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2014. Information paper: Data summaries insupport of discussions on the CMM on tropical tunas (CMM 2013-01). WCPFC11-2014-IP02 Rev. 3. 25 November2014.

Williams, P. and Terewasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean,including economic considerations 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMc). 2008. Fishery ecosystem plan for Pacificpelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu,HI. 270 p.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 2009b. Fishery ecosystem plan for Pacificpelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu,HI.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council {WPRFMC). 2009c. Amendment 18 to the fisherymanagement plan for pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region including a final supplementalenvironmental impact statement, regulatory impact review and initial regulatory flexibility act analysis. WesternPacific Regional Management Council, Honolulu, HI.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), 2009a. Management Modifications for theHawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Swordfish Fishery: Proposal to Remove Effort Limit, Eliminate Set CertificateProgram, and Implement New Sea Turtle Interaction Caps. Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan forPelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region Including a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.March 10, 2009.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 2013b. Pelagic fisheries of the westernPacific region 2011 annual report. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. 325 p.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 2013a. Pelagic Fisheries of the WesternPacific, Region Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2011 Annual Report. 354pp.

Yagi, N. 2002. Draft country note on fisheries management systems-Japan. OECD, Paris France. 10 p.

Zischke MT. 2012. A review of the biology, stock structure, fisheries and status of wahoo (Acanthocybimsolandri), with reference to the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research 119-120: 13-22.

Zug, G.R. and Parham, J.F. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines:Dermochelyidae): A skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 244-249.

60

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesBLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS




HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High

Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013).

HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High



High Concern

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross are classified asNear Threatened with a stable to increasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014). The previousassessment, completed in 2010, classified this species as endangered. The United States Department of Fishand Wildlife Services has determined this species does not warrant listing under the US Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) (76 FR 62504, October 7, 2011). The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are a breeding ground for thisspecies (BirdLife International 2014). Based on counts conducted during the 2006-2007 breeding season,64,500 pairs were estimated in colonies that support 90% of the global breeding population. Other estimatesfrom 2000 concluded there were 275,000 birds (Cousins and Cooper 2000). We have awarded a high concernscore due to the IUCN listing.


Very Low Concern

In the Hawaiian deep-set longline fishery, observed interactions with black-foot albatross have ranged from alow of 5 in 2004, to a high of 35 in 2012 (PIOR 2011, PIROP 2012a). In 2010, 12 out of 13 black-footedalbatross observed caught were discarded dead but in 2012, all 35 birds incidentally caught were discardeddead (PIROP 2011, PIROP 2012a). It was estimated that fleet wide, 73 interactions occurred during 2011(PIRO 2011). Interactions are more frequent in the shallow-set fishery; however, black-footed albatross

61


BLUE SHARK



appear to be released alive more frequently in the shallow-set compared to the deep-set longline fishery. Forexample, in 2010 28 out or 39 birds were released alive and in 2012 10 out of 36 were released alive (PIROP201, PIROP 2012b). These mortality rates are much lower than those observed in 2000 and prior, due mostlyto the introduction of required use of seabird mitigation methods that were put into place between 2004 and2006 (and still exist). For example in 2000 it was estimated that 2,433 seabird interactions occurred inHawaiian longline fisheries but by 2011 these numbers declined by 87% to 328 birds (PIRO 2011). ThePotential Biological Removal (PBR) for US fisheries that incidentally capture this species is 11,980 birds (Arataand Naughton 2009). The longline fishery accounts for less than 1% of this PBR. This low impact ratecombined with the utilization of mitigation methods that have been proven to be successful, warrants a verylow concern score for this species.


20-40%


HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High

Fishbase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).


Low Concern

An updated assessment of blue sharks 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 population (biomass

62



DOLPHINFISH


(B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) of blue sharks is not overfished (B /B =1.65 andSSB /SSB =1.621) and that the population will remain above the level necessary to maintain themaximum sustainable yield (B ) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). However, evidence including declines inmedian size and catch rates suggest declines in abundance of blue sharks in recent years (Clarke 2011) andthere is uncertainty in the assessment of blue shark. We have therefore awarded a low rather than very lowconcern score.

2011 MSY

2011 MSY

MSY


Low Concern

Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific and dominate shark catches in thatregion. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate estimated in 2011 (F ) wasaround 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F (ISCSWG 2014). Thereforeoverfishing is not occurring. However, there is uncertainty surrounding these results and previous assessmentshave indicated some issues with the data. We have therefore awarded a low instead of very low concernscore.

2011

MSY)


20-40%



Medium

Fishbase assigned a moderate vulnerability of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Their life historycharacteristics support this score. Sexual maturity is reached around 45 cm or 2 years of age and they can

63



reach a maximum size of 110 cm and age of 12 years. They are broadcast spawners and have a high trophiclevel (Froese and Pauly 2013).


Moderate Concern

No population 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, among other species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considersdolphinfish a species of Least Concern with a stable population trend (Collete et al. 2011). We have awardeda moderate concern score because the stock has not been assessed relative to reference points, but is notconsidered to be a high concern based on the vulnerability rating and IUCN listing.


Moderate Concern

No population assessments of dolphinfish in the Pacific Ocean have been conducted.Catch rate data shows anincreasing trend, suggesting abundance is increasing, which may be due to declines in dolphinfish predators,such as sharks and billfish (PIFSC 2008)(WPRFMC 2013a). The International Union for Conservation ofNature (IUCN) considers them a species of Least Concern with a stable population trend (Collete et al. 2011c). We have awarded a moderate concern scorebecause the status is unknown, but they are not of highvulnerability nor considered threatened or vulnerable according to IUCN.


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 are caughtas bycatch and targeted in longline fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (IATTC 2013). The InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does not consider there to be any major threats to dolphinfish fromcommercial fishing (Collete et al. 2011). Preliminary analysis show variable but somewhat steady catch perunit effort trends in abundance (IATTC 2013e). 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 time.


Moderate Concern

No population assessment of dolphinfish has been conducted in the Western and Ccentral Pacific Ocean, sothe current fishing mortality rate is unknown (NMFS 2009). Landings of dolphinfish in the Hawaiian longlinefisheries were 419 t in 2011, just under twice the amount of the long term average, 265 t. Around 97% ofmahimahi are kept in these fisheries (WPRFMC 2013b). The IUCN does not consider there to be any majorthreats for dolphinfish from commercial fishing (Collete et al. 2011c), but we have awarded a moderate

64


LAYSAN ALBATROSS




concern score to account for lack of information.


20-40%


HAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High


HAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (DEEP-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAHAWAII/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, LONGLINE (SHALLOW-SET), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High



High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened butwith a stable population trend (BirdLife International 2012c). The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates thereare a total of 656,310 paris of birds and breeding numbers are increasing 6.7% per year (USFWS 2012b). Wehave awarded a high concern score due to the IUCN rating.

65


LEATHERBACK TURTLE




Low Concern

It has been estimated that pelagic longline vessels fishing in the North Pacific Ocean may kill around 8,000laysan albatross a year, although in recent years these numbers have been much less due to the use ofmitigation measures (Birdlife International 2012c). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimated2,500 birds were killed in fisheries during 2005, of which only 105 were attributed to the Hawaiian longlinefishery, primarily the shallow-set fishery (USFWS 2012b). Between 2005 and 2010, between 40 and 80 birdswere killed in the US fishery (NOAA 2011). This suggests the Hawaiian longline fishery does not have a largeimpact on the overall population size and in particular the USFWS has determined the shallow-set fishery tohave a negligible impact on laysan albatross (USFWS 2012b). We have therefore awarded a low concernscore.


20-40%



High


66



Very High Concern

Leatherback sea turtles have been listed as Endangered by the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The Internation Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtles globally aVulnerable but the Western Pacific region is classified as Critically Endangered (Wallace et al. 2013b).Leatherback turtles have been listed on CITES since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1,meaning they threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years thepopulation of leatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spotila et al. 1996) with a 5.9%decrease per year since 1984 (Tapilatu et al. 2013). Their populations are considered to be at a high risk fromfishing mortality (Wallace et al. 2013). Recent estimates from the eastern and Western Central Pacific Oceansuggest a population size of 294,068 turtles and out of these 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). Becauseleatherback turtles are classified as endangered, we have awarded a very high concern score.


Moderate Concern

There are only occasional interactions between leatherback sea turtles and the deep-set fishery, althoughmortality rates are much higher compared to the shallow-set fishery. Between 2005 and 2010 there were anestimated 17 leatherback moralities in the deep-set fishery and in 2012, only a single leatherback wasobserved caught and discarded dead in this fishery (PIROP 2012a). Interactions between leatherbacks and theHawaiian longline fisheries are much lower than those seen in other tuna and swordfish longline fisheries(NMFS 2012). Management measures introduced into the shallow-set fishery in 2004 have reducedleatherback interactions by 83% (Gilman et al. 2007) (WCPFMC 2009). There were 12 interactions with theshallow-set fishery between 2004 and 2011, and all of the turtles were released alive (NMFS 2012). In 2012,six leatherback sea turtles were released injured and one was released with an unknown condition ((PIROP2012b). The continuation of the Hawaiian longline fisheries will have a negligible impact to leatherbackpopulations in the Western Pacific according to the most recent Biological Opinion (NMFS 2005)(NMFS 2012). However in 2014 Amendment 7, which allows for additional fishing by the Hawaiian deep-set fishery, wasadopted (PIRO 2014). This new amendment could potentially lead to increased interactions with leatherbacksea turtles (as seen during the 2014 season (PIROP 2015). We have therefore awarded a moderate concernscore.


Very Low Concern

There are only occasional interactions between leatherback sea turtles and the deep-set fishery, althoughmortality rates are much higher compared to the shallow-set fishery. Between 2005 and 2010 there were anestimated 17 leatherback moralities in the deep-set fishery and in 2012, only a single leatherback wasobserved caught and discarded dead in this fishery (PIROP 2012a). Interactions between leatherbacks and theHawaiian longline fisheries are much lower than those seen in other tuna and swordfish longline fisheries(NMFS 2012). Management measures introduced into the shallow-set fishery in 2004 have reduced

67


LOGGERHEAD TURTLE



leatherback interactions by 83% (Gilman et al. 2007) (WCPFMC 2009). There were 12 interactions with theshallow-set fishery between 2004 and 2011, and all of the turtles were released alive (NMFS 2012). In 2012,six leatherback sea turtles were released injured and one was released with an unknown condition ((PIROP2012b). The continuation of the Hawaiian longline fisheries will have a negligible impact to leatherbackpopulations in the Western Pacific according to the most recent Biological Opinion (NMFS 2005)(NMFS 2012),so we have awarded a very low concern score.


20-40%



High



Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtles as Endangered in1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead populationsare considered by some to be at a high risk from bycatch in longline fisheries in the North Pacific (Wallace etal. 2013). Loggerheads are listed on Appendix 1 of CITES and the North Pacific loggerhead turtle populationwas recently uplisted to Endangered on the US Endangered Species Act in 2011 (NMFS 2012). Populations ofloggerhead sea turtles in the North Pacific declined between the 1950's and 1997. Populations have since

68



OPAH


increased in size and the current nesting population size is over 15,000 nests (NMFS 2012). We have awardeda very high concern score based on the ESA and IUCN listings.


Very Low Concern

Interactions between loggerhead turtles and the Hawaiian shallow-set longline fishery are lower than ratesseen in other swordfish targeted fisheries, although it has more interactions than the Hawaiian deep-setfishery. Mitigation methods (required use of circle hooks and mackerel bait) put into place in 2004 haveresulted in a ~97% reduction in the average number of loggerhead turtle interactions in the shallow-setfishery. Between 2005 and 2010 this fishery was estimated to result in 3 loggerheads deaths per year, withone being an adult female (NMFS 2012). From 2005-2011, a total of 67 interactions were observed, rangingfrom 0 to 17 per year (NMFS 2012). The level of mortality associated with the shallow-set fishery will have anegligible risk to loggerheads in the North Pacific (NMFS 2012), as the greatest threat in this region (NorthPacific) is from interactions in Mexico and the Asian regions (Conant et al. 2009). The deep-set fishery has anegligible impact as well (NMFS 2005). However, there is some indication that if significant alterations to theclimate occur in the future, the combined impact could lead to population declines (Van Houtan 2011). Wehave therefore awarded a very low concern.


20-40%



Medium

Fishbase assigned a very high vulnerability of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Opah reach a maximumlength of 200 cm and live at least 11 years (Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002). This is no information on theirage at maturity. They are broadcast spawners and are a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). These lifehistory characteristics suggest a moderate level of vulnerability, so we have adjusted the score.

69





Moderate Concern

The status of opah in the Pacific Ocean including around Hawaii is unknown. Although catch rate seriesindicate a fiarly stable trend over time (1992-2013) (PIFSC 2014). We have awarded a moderate concernscore because of their moderate vulnerability score and unknown status.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and and Eastern Central PacificOcean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opahs caught by longliners in thisregion, representing 9.3% of the "other fish" catch (Lawson 2001). During 2009 and 2010 1,895,000 and1,819,000 lbs of opah were landed by the Hawaiian longline fisheries (WCPRFMC 2012) and made up almost9% of the total catch during 2010. We have awarded a moderate concern score due to the unknown statusand because there is no management in place.


20-40%


70

Appendix B: Updated January 8, 20171.1 and 1.2 updated for N. Pacific Albacore, Bigeye (WCPO and EPO), yellowfin (WCPO and EPO).

71

Hawaii - Seafood Watch · Pelagic longline gear has minimal impact to bottom habitats because it...

Documents

Transcript of Hawaii - Seafood Watch · Pelagic longline gear has minimal impact to bottom habitats because it...