, , , , ,

Thunnus alalunga, obesus, Thunnus orientalis, Thunnus maccoyii, Xiphias gladius and Thunnus albacares

©

North, South, and Western and Central Pacific

Drifting longline

March 12, 2015 (updated January 8, 2018)

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

Disclaimer Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, science and . Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the ® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2 Table of Contents

About...... Seafood...... Watch ...... 3......

Guiding...... Principles ...... 4......

Summary...... 5......

Final...... Seafood...... Recommendations ...... 6......

Introduction...... 8......

Assessment...... 19......

Criterion...... 1: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . ...... under ...... assessment ...... 19 ......

Criterion...... 2: . . . Impacts...... on . . . other...... species...... 28 ......

Criterion...... 3: . . . Management...... Effectiveness ...... 52 ......

Criterion...... 4: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . habitat...... and . . . . . ecosystem...... 64 ......

Acknowledgements...... 67......

References...... 68......

Appendix...... A:. . . . Extra...... By . . . . Catch...... Species ...... 82......

Appendix...... B:. . . . Updated...... January...... 8,. . . .2017 ...... 112 ......

2 About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy .

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

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

3 Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does 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 score Guidelines 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 and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide:

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

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

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

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

4 Summary

Albacore, bigeye, Pacific bluefin, southern bluefin and yellowfin tuna and swordfish are caught by a variety of gears in the Western and Central (WCPO), including the North and South Pacific regions. This report focuses on the longline fisheries within the WCPO region that target these six species.

There are several broadly defined categories of longline fisheries. These include: 1. South Pacific albacore fishery, which is made up of domestic vessels from Pacific Island countries that operate in subtropical waters targeting albacore and distant water vessels from Chinese-Taipei, China and Vanuatu, that fish south of 20 degrees S and supply albacore to canneries. 2. South Pacific distant water swordfish fishery, which is mostly made up of vessels from . 3. Tropical offshore and distant water bigeye and yellowfin tuna targeted fisheries. The offshore fishery includes vessels from Chinese-Taipei and China that are based in the Pacific Island countries and the distant water fleet is made up of Japanese, Korean, Chinese-Taipei, China and Vanuatu vessels. The offshore fishery supplies tuna to the market and the distant water to the frozen sashimi market. 4. North Pacific distant water albacore and swordfish fisheries, made up of vessels from , Chinese-Taipei and Vanuatu. Pacific bluefin tuna are targeted by Japanese and Chinese-Taipei longliners and southern bluefin tuna are caught in longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific Ocean. In addition to these fisheries, there are a number of domestic tuna fisheries operating in the sub-tropical and temperate areas of the WCPO (SPC 2014). We have included in this report the North and South Pacific fisheries targeting albacore and swordfish, the North Pacific fishery for Pacific bluefin tuna and the south Pacific fishery for southern bluefin tuna. In addition, the tropical tuna fishery, which targets yellowfin and bigeye tuna is included in this report.

Populations of swordfish, albacore, and yellowfin tuna are healthy and fishing mortality rates are currently sustainable, although swordfish in the South Pacific may be undergoing . Bigeye tuna populations have increased in recent and they are no longer considered overfished. However, populations of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific ocean have been greatly reduced, as much as 96% over time and fishing mortality rates are currently too high.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages bigeye, and yellowfin tuna in the WCPO and albacore tuna in the South Pacific, while the WCPFC and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission manage swordfish, albacore and Pacific bluefin tuna throughout the North Pacific Ocean. Both organizations have provided few management measures specific to these species and have been only moderately effective in enforcing them. Management of bluefin tuna has not been effective to date at maintaining population abundance.

Pelagic longline gears typically have little to no contact with bottom habitats but do interact with ecologically important species, which could cause negative effects to the ecosystem.

5 Final Seafood Recommendations

CRITERION 2: CRITERION 1: IMPACTS ON CRITERION 3: CRITERION 4: IMPACTS ON OTHER MANAGEMENT HABITAT AND OVERALL SPECIES/FISHERY THE SPECIES SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION

Albacore Green (4.47) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.04) South Pacific, Drifting longline

Southern bluefin Red (1.92) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.65) tuna South Pacific, Drifting longline

Bigeye tuna Green (3.83) Red (1.00) Red (1.73) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.25) Western and Central Pacific, Drifting longline

Yellowfin tuna Green (5.00) Red (1.00) Red (1.73) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.41) Western and Central Pacific, Drifting longline

Pacific bluefin tuna Red (1.41) Red (0.95) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.51) North Pacific, Drifting longline

Swordfish Green (5.00) Red (0.95) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.07) North Pacific, Drifting longline

Albacore Green (3.83) Red (0.95) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.94) North Pacific, Drifting longline

Swordfish Yellow (3.05) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.85) South Pacific, Drifting longline

Summary The overall recommendation for longline caught albacore, bigeye, yellowfin and Pacific bluefin tuna along with swordfish caught in the western and central, north and south Pacific Ocean is 'Avoid'. This is due to a combination of factors including the current status of Pacific bluefin tuna, associated with these fisheries and a lack of well focuses management plans.

Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

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

6 Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores Avoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

7 Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report is on the tropical tuna pelagic longline fisheries for Western and Central Pacific populations of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), the northern and southern Pacific longline fisheries for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), the north Pacific longline fishery for Pacific bluefin (Thunnus orientalis) and the south Pacific longline fishery for southern bluefin (Thunnus maccoyii) .

Species Overview Swordfish are a widely distributed species, found globally from 50N to 50S and at all longitudes in the Pacific Ocean. Swordfish are assessed as two populations in the North Pacific (Western and Central and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the Southwest Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population in both the and Mediterranean . Albacore tuna are widely distributed in temperate and tropical waters in all ocean. There are six managed populations of albacore tuna, North and South Pacific Ocean, North and South , Indian Ocean and (ISCAWG 2014).

Bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2014) (Rice et al. 2014)(Davies et al. 2014b). There are four populations of bigeye and yellowfin tuna: Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Eastern Pacific Ocean, Atlantic and Indian Ocean. Pacific bluefin tuna are a single stock found throughout the North Pacific Ocean.

Southern bluefin tuna are only found in the , primarily in the Indian, Atlantic and Western Pacific Ocean and are uncommonly found in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. This species migrates from the south coast of and the central Indian Ocean as juvenile and remain in offshore waters as adults. There is only one known spawning location, south-east of Java, Indonesia in the Indian Ocean (IOTC 2013).

Globally, longlines are the most common method used to capture swordfish, albacore and bigeye tuna and purse seines are the primary gear used to capture Pacific bluefin and yellowfin tuna.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission is in charge of management of swordfish, albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is also in charge of management of swordfish, Pacific bluefin and albacore tuna in the North and south (swordfish) Pacific Ocean. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna manages that species throughout their range.

Production Statistics Catches of swordfish in the western and central north Pacific Ocean have varied over time, peaking during the late 1950's and again during the early to mid 1990's. The majority of swordfish are caught by longlines. Catches in recent years have declined to below 13,000 t (ISCBWG 2014) In the South Pacific Ocean, the majority of swordfish are captured by longline fisheries. Total catches in this region have been increasing over time, fluctuating around 6,000 t in recent years (Davies et al. 2013).

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

Figure 2 Annual catches (t) of swordfish in the south Pacific (1952-2007).

9 Longline fisheries for albacore tuna in the North Pacific caught 40% of all albacore in the region during 2013 (ISSF 2014). The total catches of albacore in the north Pacific have ranged from a low of 37,000 t in 1991 to a high of 125,000 and 126,000 t in 1999 and 1976 respectively (ISCAWG 2014). Annual catches between 2006- 2012 averaged around 78,000 t (IATTC 2014). The major fisheries for albacore tuna in the South Pacific are several distant water longline fleets (Japan, Chinese Taipei and China) along with some Pacific Island country domestic longline fleets. has increased since the mid-1990’s due to the development and expansion of small-scale fisheries in the Pacific Island countries (, Cook Islands, Fiji, , New Caledonia, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu). Since 2000, catches of albacore in the South Pacific have increased to more than 80,000 mt, with the majority being caught by the longline fishery (Hoyle et al. 2012).

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

10

Figure 4 Catches of albacore tuna in the south Pacific between 1950 and 2011 by gear type (Hoyle et al. 2012).

Total catches of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean have increased over time, peaking in the mid 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 to 77,000 t (Davies et al. 2014). The majority of bigeye catches occur within equatorial regions of the western and central Pacific Ocean (Williams and Terewasi 2014).

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

Total catches of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO have increased over time from a low of under 50,000 t during the mid 1950's to over 600,000 t in 2008 and 2012. Annual catches of yellowfin tuna by longliners in the WCPO have been around 70,000 to 80,000 t since the mid 1980's (Davies et al. 2014b).

Figure 6 Annual catches (1000 t) of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO from 1952 -2012 by fishing gear (Davies et al. 2014)

12

Purse seines catch the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna, followed by troll, longline and set nets in recent years. Information on historical Pacific bluefin catches (total) is limited, although data sets since 1804 and the early 1900’s are available from Japan and the US respectively. Catches were high from 1929 to 1940, peaking at 59,000 mt in 1935. In 1949, as the Japanese fleet moved across the North Pacific Ocean, catches increased significantly. Since 1952 (when catch reporting improved), the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna have been caught by Japan. Historically the United States was the second most important fishing nation for Pacific bluefin tuna. The United States began targeting Pacific bluefin tuna during the early part of the 20th century, with catches throughout the region peaking between 1929 and 1940. However, since the late 1990's Mexico has replaced the United States and is now the second largest fishing nation. Annual catches have been under 20,000 t during the past few years (ISCPBWG 2014).

Figure 7 Annual catch of Pacific bluefin tuna by gear (1952-2013) (ISWPBWG 2014)

Only a small proportion of southern bluefin tuna (16%) are caught in the Pacific Ocean. Total catches of southern bluefin tuna peaked in the 1960's at around 82,000 t, with just under 80,000 t coming from the longline fishery. Catches have declined significantly since then, being only around 10,000 t in 2012, with around

13 half of that coming from the longline fleet. Catches in the Pacific Ocean have ranged from 800 t to 19,000 t since 1968, with an average catch of 5,500 t(IOTC 2013).

Figure 8 Southern Bluefin tuna catches (IOTC 2013).

Importance to the US/North American market. During 2013, the United States imported the most (39%) albacore tuna from Thailand. Other countries the United States imports large amounts of albacore from include Vietnam (20%) and Indonesia (16%) (NMFS 2014).

Figure 9 Major contributors to US albacore tuna imports (%) all countries and region (counry of origin) (NMFS

14 2014)

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

Figure 10 Major contributors to US bigeye tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

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

15 Figure 11 Major contributors to US yellowfin tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

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

Figure 12 Major contributors to US swordfish imports (%) all countries (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

16 During 2013, the United States imported the majority (36%) of Pacific bluefin tuna from Spain, followed by Japan (23%) and Mexico (15%). Total imports during 2012 were 128.5 t. Export data is for Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna combined. During 2012, 396.7 to t of fresh and 114.5 t of frozen bluefin tuna were exported, primarily to Japan (NMFS 2014).

Figure 13 Pacific bluefin tuna imports (percentage), 2013, for all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

The US imports the majority of southern bluefin tuna from (47%), followed by Japan (33%) (NMFS 2014).

Figure 14 Southern bluefin tuna imports (percentage), 2013, for all countries and regions (counry of origin) (NMFS 2014)

17 Common and market names. Swordfish are also known broadbilled swordfish, broadbill, espada and emperado. Albacore tuna is also known as germon, longfinned tuna, albecore and T. germo. In , albacore tuna is known as tombo ahi, bigeye and yellwofin tuna are known as Ahi, skipjack as Aku and swordfish as mekajiki. Bluefin tuna are also known as giant bluefin, northern bluefin tuna, tunny and oriental tuna. Southern bluefin tuna are also known as southern tunny or tunny.

Primary product forms Swordfish, albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are sold in fresh and frozen forms. Albacore tuna is sold in primarily in canned form but also in fresh and frozen form.

18 Assessment

This 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 assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability 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 mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Criterion 1 Summary ALBACORE Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score South Pacific Drifting 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 5.00: Very Low Green (4.47) longline Concern North Pacific Drifting 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83) longline

BIGEYE TUNA Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western and Central 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83) Pacific Drifting longline

PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score North Pacific Drifting 2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41) longline

19 SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score South Pacific Drifting 1.00: High 1.00: Very High 3.67: Low Concern Red (1.92) longline Concern

SWORDFISH Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score North Pacific Drifting 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very Low 5.00: Very Low Green (5.00) longline Concern Concern South Pacific Drifting 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 2.33: Moderate Yellow (3.05) longline Concern

YELLOWFIN TUNA Region | Method | Country | Custom Inherent Group Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western and Central 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very Low 5.00: Very Low Green (5.00) Pacific Drifting longline Concern Concern

Populations of albacore tuna and swordfish in the North and South Pacific Ocean are healthy and fishing mortality rates appear sustainable, although there is the possability that swordfish in the South Pacific are undergoing overfishing. However, populations of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific ocean have been greatly reduced, as much as 96% over time and fishing mortality rates are currently too high. Throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, skipjack and yellowfin tuna populations are healthy and fishing mortality rates are low. In recent years the population of bigeye tuna has increased and is no longer considered overfished.

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 that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing). Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of chain). High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling,

20 aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and 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 fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality). 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the 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 is unknown 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 fishing mortality 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 curtail overfishing.

ALBACORE Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a "high" vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the life history characteristics of albacore suggest only a "medium" vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reach 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 history characteristics we have awarded a score of "medium" vulnerability.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern

21 Albacore tuna in the South Pacific was last assessed in 2012 and the results were very similar to previous assessments (2009 and 2011). According to the assessment, the total biomass of albacore tuna has been reduced to around 82% (62 to 93%) of unfished levels, while the spawning biomass (mature females) has been reduced to 63% (35 to 80%) of unfished levels. Both of these are considered "moderate" levels of depletion. The current ratio of the current total biomass and spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (BCURRENT/BMSY = 1.6 (1.4 to 1.9) and SBCURRENT/SBMSY = 2.6 (1.5 to 5.2) ) are both above 1. However, several issues were addressed during this assessment, chiefly the unrealistic declines in abundance during the early part of the time series and the high uncertainty surrounding increases in recruitment in recent years (Hoyle et al. 2012). We have awarded a score of "low" concern because, while the model suggests a healthy stock, a large amount of uncertainty surrounds these results.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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 of data included in the model) was 132,072 t with stock depletion estimated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass based reference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was little indication that the SSB was below any candidate biomass-based reference points. We have therefore awarded a score of "low" concern because it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific are not overfished; we did not award a score of "very low" concern because no reference points are currently accepted (ISC 2017).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very Low Concern According to the most recent stock assessment (2012), the fishing mortality reference point for albacore tuna in the South Pacific, FCURRENT/FMSY, had a median estimate of 0.21 (0.04-1.08) and there is a low risk that overfishing is occurring.

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

BIGEYE TUNA Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium

22 FishBase assigned a "high" to "very high" vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeye tuna's 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 11 years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on the Seafood Watch productivity analysis table, these life history characteristics suggest a "medium" level of vulnerability. We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a different vulnerability rating. However, because the stock status of bigeye tuna tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not affect the overall outcome. We have therefore awarded a "medium" vulnerability based on the productivity table analysis.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) were most recently assessed in 2017. According to the base case model, the median ratio of the current average (2011 to 2014) spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBRECENT/SBMSY) was 1.21 and the ratio of the latest (2014) spawning biomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBLATEST/SBMSY) was 1.42. The median ratio of the recent spawning biomass to that spawning biomass with no fishing is 0.34, which is above the limit reference point of 0.20, indicating that the population is not overfished (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 longer overfished and the spawning stock biomass is above that needed to produce maximum sustainable yield.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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 significant improvement from the last assessment (Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a low concern score based on the assessment results that overfishing is no longer occurring but not a very low concern because overfishing had previously been occurring for a very long time and there is still some uncertainty with regard to current fishing mortality rates.

PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a "high" vulnerability score of 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Pacific bluefin tuna begin reaching sexual maturity around 150 cm in size and reach sexual maturity between 3 to 5 years of age (PBTWG 2012). A maximum size and age of 300 cm and 15 years respectively have been reported. Pacific blueftin tuna are broadcast spawners and have a high according to Fishbase (Froese and Pauly 2013). According to these life history characteristics, Pacific bluefin tuna have a "moderate" level of

23 vulnerability and we have therefore adjusted the score.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern An updated assessment for Pacific bluefin tuna was conducted in 2016. Based on the updated analysis, the ratio of the spawning stock biomass in 2014 to that of unfished levels was 2.6%. There are no defined reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna. However, the results were compared to other reference points and based on a reference point of SSB20%, the population would be considered overfished. In addition, based on this reference point, the population has been overfished for the majority of the assessed time period (1950 to 2014) (ISC 2016). We have therefore awarded a score of "high" concern.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Based on the updated 2016 assessment, current fishing mortality rates (2011 to 2013) are higher than all potential biological reference points, except FMED and FLOSS. Because there are no currently defined reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna, the assessment presented two alternative results. Assuming an FMED reference point, the stock would be approaching an overfished status. Assuming an F20% reference point, overfishing would have been occurring for the majority of the assessed time period (1952 to 2015) (ISC 2016). We have awarded a score of "high" concern because the best available data indicates that overfishing is likely occurring.

SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High FishBase assigned a "high" to "very high" vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Southern bluefin tuna reach sexual maturity after at least 8 years of age and at a size of 155 cm in length, but perhaps not until 15 years of age. They reach a total length of 2 m and can live up to 42 years (IOTC 2013e). Southern bluefin tuna are a top predator and are considered broadcast spawners (Froese and Pauly 2013). We have awarded a score of "high" vulnerability based on the FishBase score.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very High Concern The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified southern bluefin tuna as "Critically Endangered" (Collete et al. 2011e). According to the latest stock assessment, the current spawning biomass of southern bluefin tuna is a small fraction of virgin levels and well below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBCURRENT/SBMSY = 0.229 [0.146-0.320]). However, at current catch levels the

24 population is expected to increase. Catch rates from the Japanese longline fishery have been increasing since 2007 for some age classes and aerial surveys have indicated a recent increase in abundance in 2013, the second highest in history (IOTC 2013e). We have awarded a score of "very high" concern based on the current low biomass levels and IUCN status.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Fishing mortality rates have decreased for southern bluefin tuna and are now below those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.76 (0.52-1.07)). In addition, reported catches are below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels and current exploitation rates are considered moderate (IOTC 2013e). We have awarded a low instead of very low concern score because fishing mortality rates have just decreased to sustainable levels and because current exploitation rates are considered moderate.

SWORDFISH Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

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

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very Low Concern In 20014 an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. This assessment considered two populations; one in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) and one in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. According to this model, the exploitable biomass for the population in the WCPO region fluctuated at or above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for most of the time series (1951-2012) and there is a low probability (14%) of the biomass being below BMSY in 2012 (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a very low concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern In 2013 and updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted. This updated stock assessment included both the South-West Pacific (SWP) as well as the South-Central Pacific (SCP). Compared to the 2008 assessment, this updated one was able to determine abundance estimates for both regions. However, considerable uncertainty still surrounded the

25 assumptions made with regard to growth, maturity and mortality (age specific). Standardized catch rates for the main fleets declined drastically between 1997 and 2011 and the mean size also decreased in the main fisheries. The total and spawning biomass have declined since the late 1990's and the current levels are 44- 68% and 27-55% of virgin levels. The ratios of biomass and spawning biomass (mature fish) levels to those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range from 1.15-1.85 and 1.15-3.53 respectively, indicating the population is not overfished (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded a low and not very low concern score due to the high level of uncertainty.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very Low Concern In 2014 an assessment for swordfish was in the North Pacific was conducted. Exploitation rates in this region peaked in 1960's and have declined since. The current fishing mortality rate (H2010-2012) is 15%, which is lower than the level necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (HMSY=25%). It is very unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality rates (H) are unsustainable and therefore overfishing is not occurring (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a very low concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern According to the updated 2013 assessment of swordfish in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, catches are around levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (82% -102%). The fishing mortality rate for juvenile swordfish increased in the mid 1990''s and the ratio of current fishing mortality rates to those needed to produce MSY range from 0.33 to 1.77. This indicates that the population under some assumptions may be undergoing overfishing (Davies et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a moderate and not low concern score.

YELLOWFIN TUNA Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a "moderate" to "high" vulnerability fo 46 out of 100 (Frose and Pauly 2013). Their life history characteristics support a "moderate" vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reach sexual maturity by 100 cm in length, although growth rates vary by location, and 2 to 3 years of age. They can attain a maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least four years of age and perhaps as much as nine years. They are broadcast spawners and important predators in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froesy and Pauly 2013).

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very Low Concern

The biomass based reference points for the reference model used in the 2017 assessment (SBRECENT/SBMSY – the ratio of the current (2011 to 2014) spawning (mature fish) biomass to that needed to produce the

26 maximum sustainable yield) was 1.37. The ratio of the latest (2014) spawning biomass to the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBCURRENT/SBMSY) was 1.38. The ratio of the recent spawning biomass 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 well above appropriate target levels such as SBMSY. We have subsequently awarded a score of "very low" concern.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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-Boyer et al. 2017) and we have awarded a very low concern score.

27 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

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

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

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

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 and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

ALBACORE - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.95 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Whitetip 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Striped 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

28 Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

ALBACORE - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Green 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.53) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.92) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64)

29 Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.32) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

BIGEYE TUNA - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.53) Concern Concern

30 Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.95 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

31 Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.53) Concern Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64)

32 Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.32) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.47) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

SWORDFISH - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.95 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41)

33 Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

SWORDFISH - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.53) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.92) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern

34 Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.71) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.32) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.47) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.00)

YELLOWFIN TUNA - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern

35 Whitetip shark 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) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.41) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.53) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.16) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.05) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

In the North Pacific longline fishery that operates in the Western and Central Pacific region, information on bycatch is limited due to low observer coverage (0.1%) in most fisheries, although some fisheries have substantially higher coverage rates. Tunas, billfish, otherfish, , sea , sea and marine mammals have been reported {OFP 2010}. According to observer records north of 10N, the majority of tuna species are kept, although had a discard rate of 35% between 1994 and 2009. Swordfish are the most commonly discarded billfish species (44%), while blue and black marlin are primarily retained. Discard rates for sharks in the North Pacific are very high for the majority of species {ODP 2010}. Laysan and black-footed albatross are incidentally captured in the north Pacific region, where they have a high breeding and non-breeding overlap {Clarke et al. 2013}{ACP 2008}. The area of most concern for interactions in this region is betwee 20- 400NInformation on bycatch of sea turtles in the North Pacific longline fishery is limited {Work and Balazs 2002}. The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries outside of the North Pacific region {Molony 2005). We have provided this information of the main bycatch species, taken from the previously mentioned literature, of the North Pacific albacore tuna fisheries along with additional information for some species. The worst scoring species in this fishery was the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) because of their low population sizes and high fishing mortality rates.

36 In the South Pacific, information on bycatch interactions is available through observer programs, primarily those of Australia and New Zealand along with MSC assessmens for several fisheries (i.e. Fiji and Cook Islands). Seabird interactions with pelagic longline gear are mostly recorded in EEZ waters in the South Pacific around New Zealand and Australia between 20-500S {Clarke et al. 2013}{Baker and Wise 2005}{Baker and Finley 2008}{Anderson et al. 2011}. It was noted that observers had a difficult time identifying birds to species level, and so estimates may underreport interactions {Molony 2005}. In the WCPO, the majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180 degrees and interaction rates are considered much less than in other ocean basins {Clarke et al. 2014}. interactions and associated mortality rates with the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery are reported to be very low{Molony 2005}. The worst scoring species in this fishery are loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles (1.00) due to their low population sizes and high mortality rates.

In the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) longline fishery, tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, sea birds, sea turtles and marine mammals are caught as bycatch. Discard rates of these species vary from only 5% for tunas to 96% for sea turtles {OFP 2010}{OFP 2012a}. Common shark species include blue, shortfin mako, silky and oceanic whitetip sharks. Blue sharks represented 19.5%, silky shark 3.5%, mako sharks 2.2%, and oceanic whitetip sharks 1.4% of the total observed catch between 1994 and 2009 {OFP 2010}. Sharks in this region are primarily impacted by longline fisheries and are considered priority species {Rice and Harley 2012a}. An ecological risk assessment of in the WCPO indicated that populations of ten species (combined) of large and small albatross and petrels were most likely to be impacted by bycatch in this region, primarily in the north and southern regions (seperated in this report) {Waugh et al. 2012}. The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 1800, with the highest catch rates occurring in the tropical shallow longline fishery. The majority of these are released alive, compared to the tropical deep water longline fishery, where most turtles are returned dead {Molony 2005}. Overall between 4,000 and 15,000 turtles (all species) are estimated to have been caught annually by these longline fisheries. Mortality rates for sea turtles are low, less than 26% in all years and total annual mortalities for all turtle species ranged from 500 to 3,000 between 1980 and 2004 {Molony 2005}. Marine mammal catch rates are very low, although in general the tropical shallow longline fishery has the highest catch rates. Observer records from 1980 to 2004 indicated many years where no marine mammal interactions with longline fisheries occurred. However, when observer estimates were extrapolated out to the entire fishery (not just the proportion observed), up to 2,200 marine mammal interactions are estimated to occur per year. Between 2000 and 2004, both catch and mortality rates of marine mammals declined. In general, less than 200 marine mammal mortalities were estimated to occur between 2000 and 2004 {Molony 2005}{Molony 2007}. The worst scoring species in this fishery are leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) due to their low population size and high fishing mortality rates.

North Pacific Species Justification Source Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b Shortfin Mako shark Key shark species in WCPO longline fishreies Clark 2011 Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a 60% of all billfish catches from longline and in overfished Striped marlin Lee et al. 2012 state

37 <1% of total catch but longline fishing makes up 80% of Blue marlin OFP 2012a total mortality Opah 9.3% of "other fish" Lawson 2001 Majority of catches from longline fishery; most commonly Blue shark caught shark species in pelagic longlines; 19.5% of Kleiber et al. 2009; OFP 2010 observed catch 1994-2009

IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, CITES Leatherback sea turtle Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012 Appendix I Loggerhead sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered; ESA listing MTSG 2006; NMFS 2012

Longline fisheries may threaten population, IUCN status Black-footed albatross Birdlife International 2012b recently updated from Endangered to Vulnerable

Laysan albatross IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012f

South Pacific Species Justification Source Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b Opah 9.3% of "other fish" Lawson 2001

Shortfin mako shark Key shark species in WCPO longline fishreies Clark 2011 silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a

<1% of total catch but longline fishing makes up Blue marlin OFP 2012a 80% of total mortality Longline fishery substantially affected population Striped marlin Davies et al. 2012 size

Black marlin 4-7% of billfish total catch OFP 2012a

Majority of catches from longline fishery; most Blue shark commonly caught shark species in pelagic Kleiber et al. 2009; OFP 2010 longlines; 19.5% of observed catch 1994-2009

38 IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, Leatherback sea turtle Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012 CITES Appendix I

Loggerhead sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered MTSG 2006

Black-browed albatross Birdlife International 2012a, Molony IUCN Endangered and observed in fishery (only S pacific ocean) 2005 Grey petrel IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012d Flesh-footed shearwater High interaction rates and discard rates Mollony 2005; OFP 2010 Light manteled albatross IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012s Salvin's albatross Common in New Zealand longline fisheries Birdlife International 2012h

IUCN listing Vulnerable and decreasing; large Wandering albatross Birdlife International 2012l foraging range White-chinned petrel IUCN listing Vulnerable and decreaseing Birdlife International 2012o

WCPO Species Justification Source Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b Opah 9.3% of "other fish" Lawson 2001

Shortfin mako shark Key shark species in WCPO longline fisheries Clark 2011

Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a

60% of total catches from longline and in overfished Striped marlin Lee et al. 2012 state

<1% of total catch but longline fishing makes up 80% Blue marlin OFP 2012a of total mortality

Black marlin 4-7% of billfish total catch OFP 2012a

39 Majority of catches from longline fishery; most Blue shark commonly caught shark species in pelagic longlines; Kleiber et al. 2009; OFP 2010 19.5% of observed catch 1994-2009

Green sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered; CITES Appendix I Semioff 2004

Hawksbill sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; CITES Appendix I Mortimer and Donnelly 2008

IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, CITES Leatherback sea turtle Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012 Appendix I Olive ridley sea turtle IUCN Vulnerabile; ESA listing Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008; NMFS 2012

Criterion 2 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality (same as Factor 1.3 above)

BIGEYE TUNA Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

40 SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

Medium FishBase assigned a "high" to "very high" vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeye tuna's 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 11 years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on the Seafood Watch productivity analysis table, these life history characteristics suggest a "medium" level of vulnerability. We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a different vulnerability rating. However, because the stock status of bigeye tuna tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not affect the overall outcome. We have therefore awarded a "medium" vulnerability based on the productivity table analysis.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) were most recently assessed in 2017. According to the base case model, the median ratio of the current average (2011 to 2014) spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBRECENT/SBMSY) was 1.21 and the ratio of the latest (2014) spawning biomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBLATEST/SBMSY) was 1.42. The median ratio of the recent spawning biomass to that spawning biomass with no fishing is 0.34, which is above the limit reference point of 0.20, indicating that the population is not overfished (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 longer overfished and the spawning stock biomass is above that needed to produce maximum sustainable yield.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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 significant improvement from the last assessment (Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a low concern score based on the assessment results that overfishing is no longer occurring but not a very low concern because overfishing had previously been occurring for a very long time and there is still some uncertainty with regard to current fishing mortality rates.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

41 SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

< 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

LEATHERBACK TURTLE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very High Concern Leatherback sea turtles have been listed as Endangered by the United States Act (ESA)

42 since 1970 (NMFS 2012). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtles as Critically Endangered with a decreasing population trend in 2000 (Martinez 2000). Wallace et al. (2013) identified leatherbacks in the western Pacific to be at a high risk. Leatherback turtles have been listed on the Conventional on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, meaning they are threatened with and international trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years the population of leatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spotila et al. 1996). Recent estimates from the Eastern and Western Central Pacific Ocean suggest a population size of 294,068 turtles and out of these 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the ESA, IUCN and CITES listings.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtles, especially for juveniles and adults that can be incidentally capture in fisheries along their migration routes (Martinez 2000)(Zug and Parham 1996) ( et al. 2014). The available data in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are spotty, due to low reporting by some nations and low observer coverage. In addition, due to this low reporting, there is a high amount of uncertainty surrounding current estimates (Brouwer and Bertram 2009)(Williams et al. 2013). Interactions with leatherback are typically higher in sub-tropical and temperate areas (Williams et al. 2013). For example, a recent study indicated that nesting leatherback turtles have a high risk of bycatch in several areas within the north and central Pacific Ocean (Roe et al. 2014). Other reesarch has estimated that leatherback turtles suffer a 12% annual mortality rate from pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO and based on these estimates, bycatch mortality in longline fisheries, along with other factors such as coastal mortality, should be reduced to avoid extinction (Kaplan 2005). Other estimates suggests 20,000 leatherback turtles were caught in longlines throughout the entire Pacific Ocean during 2000, with 1,000 to 3,200 of these being killed as a result. These results also suggest that continued bycatch in longline fisheries will have major consequences for leatherback turtles in the Pacific Ocean and that the mortality threshold for this species in the Pacific may have been exceeded (Lewison et al. 2004). Other analysis have suggested leatherback turtles have a high population risk but low bycatch threat throughout the western Pacific Ocean (Wallace et al. 2013). Some fleets within the WCPO have adopted management measures to aid in reducing the incidental capture of sea turtles but others have not complied with mandated bycatch mitigation methods (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a high concern score because the population is depleted, bycatch mortality appears to be a factor in this depletion and management measure may not be currently effective.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that

43 Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

44 SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

Very High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtles as Endangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Wallace et al. (2013) deteremined that loggerheads are at a high risk in the North and South Pacific Ocean. Loggerheads are listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the North Pacific Ocean, loggerheads have been listed as Endangered on the United States Endangered Species Act list since 1978 (NMFS 2012). We have therefore awarded a very high score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). However, data related to incidental captures is scarce due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (~1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates from the entire Pacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000 and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these estimates, it is possible their mortality threshold has been exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Loggerhead catch rates tend to increase in sub-tropical regions (Williams et al. 2013). A meta data analysis ranked loggerhead turtles caught by longline in the South Pacific Ocean as a high risk and high bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). Other studies have also suggested that loggerhead populations in the south Pacific are at the greatest risk to interactions with longline fisheries (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission but the effectiveness and use of these techniques is unknown. We have therefore awarded a high concern score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles has historically been considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallw-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). However, data related to incidental captures is typically scarce due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (~1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates, based on extrapolation from data sets, from the entire Pacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000 and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these estimates, it is possible their mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Other studies from the Pacific Ocean suggest there is a low impact from bycatch but high risk to the population (Wallace et al. 2013)(Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a high concern score.

45 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles has historically been considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallw-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). However, data related to incidental captures is typically scarce due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (~1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates, based on extrapolation from data sets, from the entire Pacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000 and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these estimates, it is possible their mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Other studies from the North Pacific Ocean suggest there is a low impact from bycatch but high risk to the population (Wallace et al. 2013)(Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a high concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

46 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

HAWKSBILL TURTLE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtles as Critically Endangered with a decreasing population trend (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the North Central Pacific Ocean, hawksbill populations are considered at a high risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Hawksbill turtles have been listed on CITES since 1977 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, meaning they threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. It has been estimated that populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% over three generations (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the Western Pacific, 7 out of 10 nesting locations have depleted or declining populations (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Interactions between hawksbill turtles and pelagic longline gear in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) do occur but do not appear to be frequent in nature. Recorded interactions are more frequent in tropical and subtropical waters compared to temperate (Williams et al. 2009). Between 1980 and 2004, only 12 hawksbill turtles were observed incidentally caught in tuna longline fisheries in the WCPO (Molony 2005), although mortality rates associated with this capture are high (OFP 2010). A meta data analysis indicated this

47 population had a high risk but low bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). There are bycatch mitigation measures being used by some fleets, but there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a high concern score because the population is depleted, the fishery impact is not fully known, and mitigation methods may not be effective.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SWORDFISH Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium Fishbase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the life history characteristics of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reach sexual maturity is around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age and they reach a maximum length of 455 cm and live more than 10 years. Swordfish are broadcast spawners and are top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). This is more indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Two stock assessments have been conducted for swordfish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). In 2009 an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted and in 2008 and updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the WCPO was conducted. The 2009 assessment considered two populations, one of which is included in the WCPO. According to this model, the exploitable biomass fluctuated at or above BMSY for most of the time series (1951-2006) and the current biomass was estimated to be about 25% above BMSY (Brodziak and Ishimura 2010).

In 2013 and updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted. This updated stock assessment included both the South-West Pacific (SWP) as well

48 as the South-Central Pacific (SCP). Compared to the 2008 assessment, this updated one was able to determine abundance estimates for both regions. However, considerable uncertainty still surrounded the assumptions made with regard to growth, maturity and mortality (age specific). Standardized catch rates for the main fleets declined drastically between 1997 and 2011 and the mean size also decreased in the main fisheries. The total and spawning biomass have declined since the late 1990's and the current levels are 44- 68% and 27-55% of virgin levels. The ratios of biomass and spawning biomass (mature fish) levels to those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range from 1.15-1.85 and 1.15-3.53 respectively, indicating the population is not overfished (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded a low and not very low concern score overall due to the high level of uncertainty in this assessment.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Two stock assessments have been conducted for swordfish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). In 2009 an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted and in 2008 and updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the WCPO was conducted. In the North Pacific, swordfish are mainly caught in longline fisheries, with the major fleets being Japan, Chinese-Taipei and the US, which have made up 95% of total removals since 2005. North Pacific swordfish catches have been around 15,000 mt since 2001. In the entire WCPO region, catches were between 19,000 and 21,000 mt during 2010 and 2011(OFP 2012a). Exploitation rates in this region were low in the 1950’s, peaked around at around 33% in 1960 and then declined and fluctuated around 50% of FMSY from the mid 1960’s to late 1980’s. In the 2000’s exploitation rates were about 67% of FMSY. Projections into the future suggested that current levels of fishing effort were sustainable (Brodziak and Ishimura 2010).According to the updated 2013 assessment of swordfish in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, catches are around levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (82% -102%). The fishing mortality rate for juvenile swordfish increased in the mid 1990''s and the ratio of current fishing mortality rates to those needed to produce MSY range from 0.33 to 1.77. This indicates that the population under some assumptions may be undergoing overfishing (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded a moderate and not low concern score overall to account for the results of this assessment.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

YELLOWFIN TUNA

49 Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a "moderate" to "high" vulnerability fo 46 out of 100 (Frose and Pauly 2013). Their life history characteristics support a "moderate" vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reach sexual maturity by 100 cm in length, although growth rates vary by location, and 2 to 3 years of age. They can attain a maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least four years of age and perhaps as much as nine years. They are broadcast spawners and important predators in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froesy and Pauly 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very Low Concern

The biomass based reference points for the reference model used in the 2017 assessment (SBRECENT/SBMSY – the ratio of the current (2011 to 2014) spawning (mature fish) biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield) was 1.37. The ratio of the latest (2014) spawning biomass to the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBCURRENT/SBMSY) was 1.38. The ratio of the recent spawning biomass 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 well above appropriate target levels such as SBMSY. We have subsequently awarded a score of "very low" concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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-Boyer et al. 2017) and we have awarded a very low concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from

50 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

51 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

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

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

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

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score North Pacific / Drifting longline 1.00 1.00 Red (1.00) South Pacific / Drifting longline 1.00 1.00 Red (1.00) Western and Central Pacific / Drifting longline 3.00 1.00 Red (1.73)

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission have been moderately effective in implementing and enforcing management measures for swordfish, albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna in the Pacific Ocean. Management of bluefin tuna has been ineffective.

Criterion 3 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/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 considered 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern 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 and 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 of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’ 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

52 Factor 3.1 Summary FACTOR 3.1 - MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion North Pacific / Ineffective Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Drifting longline Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective South Pacific / Moderately Ineffective Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Drifting longline Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Western and Moderately N/A Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Central Pacific / Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Drifting longline

The United Nations Straddling and Highly Migratory Agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO’s). RFMO’s are the only legally mandated fishery management body on the high and within EEZ waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of the world’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters (Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010). Some RFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (i.e., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean [GFCM]), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (i.e., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC]).

This report focuses on tuna and swordfish caught in pelagic longline fisheries managed under RFMO jurisdiction. Albacore tuna, swordfish, and Pacific bluefin tuna caught by pelagic longline fisheries in the North and South Pacific (only swordfish and albacore) are managed by two RFMOs, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (see below for member nations). Bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna caught in pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO are managed only by the WCPFC. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna manages that species throughout their range. Few management measures have been implemented specific to albacore tuna or swordfish, but their populations appear to be healthy and not in need of a recovery plan at this point. The WCPFC has instituted catch limits for bigeye tuna in the longline fishery. The WCPO and IATTC have been moderately effective in regards to accepting scientific advice, enforcement, and inclusion of stakeholder input.

WCPFC members: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, , Indonesia, Japan, , Republic of Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, , New Zealand, Niue, Palau, New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, , Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, and Vanuatu.

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

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

53 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Ineffective There are few management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean. Measures were adopted in 2005 and have not been updated since then. Those management measures included maintaining current catch levels (average effort between 2002 and 2004) in order to maintain the long-term sustainability of the stock and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was to work with members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission to agree on consistent management measures for the North Pacific population (IATTC 2005c) (WCPFC 2005).

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) implemented a catch limit of 6,600 t between during 2017 and 2018 (3,300 t/year) for Pacific bluefin tuna caught in the Convention Area. Countries must implement measures to reduce the catch of bluefin weighing less than 30 kg by 50% (IATTC 2016). In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has limited fishing effort for Pacific bluefin tuna. Vessels fishing north of 20˚N must stay below 2002 to 2004 fishing effort. In addition, catches of bluefin tuna less than 30 kg in weight shall be reduced by 50% of the 2002 to 2004 average level (WCPFC 2016). There is also a recently implemented catch documentation scheme (WCPFC 2013a). In 2017, the IATTC and WCPFC worked together to develop a new rebuilding plan for Pacific bluefin tuna, which included a target to rebuild the population to 20% of virgin levels by 2034. If the chances of meeting this rebuilding target fall below 60%, additional catch limitations will be put into place (NC 2017).

There is an interim reference point (fishing mortality) for North Pacific albacore, but no reference points for Pacific bluefin. Biomass based limit reference points are used to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group currently identifying potential target reference points; they last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species.

We have awarded a score of "ineffective" because the management structure has allowed severe declines of Pacific bluefin tuna and only responded with an appropriate rebuilding plan when abundance reached less than 3% of virgin levels.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Few management measures have been enacted for albacore tuna or other targeted tunas in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has limited the number of fishing vessels actively fishing for albacore to not exceed 2005 levels or historical levels (2000 to 2004). In addition, member countries shall work to ensure the long-term sustainability of albacore tuna in this region, which includes collaborative research (WCPFC 2010c). In 2009, the WCPFC limited the number of vessels targeting swordfish and catches to levels from any year between 2000 and 2005 and required this information to be reported to the Commission (WCPFC 2009). Management measures adopted for other retained species include effort restrictions for striped marlin (WCPFC 2006). In addition, biomass based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for albacore and are used to determine the status of tuna populations. There is a limit reference point for albacore tuna, but target

54 reference points are not yet in place for any of these species. In addition, there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group that is currently identifying potential target reference points; they last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species. Management measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), which is responsible for the management of southern bluefin tuna throughout their range, include a total allowable catch (TAC) set on a three year cycle divided between eight countries and the European Community; a management procedure (MP) is used by the CCSBT to aid in the setting of the TAC. The MP has been in place since 2012. In addition, there is a meta-rule process that the CCSBT can use to deal with certain situations such as untested recruitment or abundance estimates or "substantial" improvements in regard to unknown or missing data (CCSBT 2010) (CCSBT 2014). We have awarded a score of "moderately effective" because, while management has been unable to maintain healthy populations of southern bluefin tuna, the Pacific fishery catches only a small portion of the total catch and management has been fairly effective for the other species.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective There are few management measures in place for targeted tuna species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) longline fisheries. The measures in place include catch limits for bigeye tuna; catches of yellowfin tuna are not to be increased, and longline fishing effort cannot be increased (except for small island nations and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b)(WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005). At the most recent Commission meeting (2017), a tropical tuna bridging measure was adopted that increased the bigeye catch limits for the longline fishery, which is not inline with the scientific advice for maintaining the biomass of bigeye tuna (SeafoodSource 2017). In addition, biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for bigeye, and yellowfin tuna and are used to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, except for in the short term for bigeye tuna, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group that is currently identifying potential target reference points; they last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species. We have awarded a score of "moderate concern" because measures currently in place have had mixed results in protecting tuna populations from overfishing; nonetheless, improvements are still needed.

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Pacific bluefin tuna are overfished. Fishing effort and catch limits were adopted after the 2012 assessment by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

55 (WCPFC) (IATTC 2012) (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2012a) (IATTC 2016) (NC 2017). According to the 2016 updated assessment, rebuilding to the SSBMED reference point by 2024 will be achieved with at least a 60% probability. However, these projections are based on assuming the management measures are fully implemented, which is yet unknown. We have therefore awarded a score of "moderate."

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Ineffective Albacore and swordfish populations are healthy in the south Pacific region (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013). However, southern bluefin tuna populations are not healthy (IOTC 2013). Current management measures, which include a management procedure (pre-agreed set of rules) and total allowable catch, have resulted in only a small increase in biomass over time, but have not yet allowed the population to rebuild. The current rebuilding time frame is 2035 (CCSBT 2011), We have therefore awarded a score of "ineffective" at this point in time.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE N/A No target species are currently overfished or undergoing overfishing.

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 the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Albacore, swordfish and Pacific bluefin tuna stocks are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (ISCPBWG 2014), and include information on catches, , length frequency information and tagging data. However, assessments have not been conducted for species such as shortfin mako sharks and opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a great deal of uncertainty associated with them. We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Albacore, swordfish and southern bluefin tuna populations are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014)(Davies et al. 2013)(IOTC 2013), and include information on catches, catch per unit effort, length frequency information and tagging data. However, assessments have not been conducted for species such as shortfin mako sharks, opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a large amount of uncertainty surrounding them. We have therefore awarded a moderately effective score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective

56 Bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna stocks are regularly monitored and assessed (Davies et al. 2011)(Hoyle et al. 2011)(Langley et al. 2011). A variety of information including catch and effort data, size (for some species) and biological information are included in these assessments. Several other main species have been assessed including swordfish and blue and oceanic white tip sharks. However, many other species have yet to be assessed and there are issues with data reporting for the tuna assessments, so we have awarded a moderately effective score.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Members of the albacore working group suggested after the last assessment that the current management measures should be maintained (ISCAWG 2011). The latest Pacific bluefin stock assessment acknowledged that the recently implemented catch and effort controls put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, if properly implemented and enforced, could lead to an improved stock status . However, keeping fishing levels status quo (2007-2009), is unlikely to improve the status of Pacific bluefin tuna ((ISCPBWG 2012). The Scientific Committee suggested that fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna should be immediately reduced and that candidate limit and target reference points should be adopted (WCPFC 2013e). In 2013, a new resolution, which took into account scientific recommendations for the conservation of Pacific bluefin tuna, was adopted by the IATTC (IATTC 2013). Included in this resolution is the requirement that future assessments include analysis to determine what the status of Pacific bluefin tuna would be with and without these measures in place. The WCPFC also adopted an interim measure in 2013 that aimed to reduce fishing mortality rates and the Northern Committe has recently agreed upon additional management measures to reduce fishing mortality on (WCPFC 2013a)(WCPFC 2014). No new advice was provided by the Scientific Committee in 2014 for swordfish in the North Pacific Ocean (ISCBWG 2014). We have awarded a moderately effective score to account for new management being put into place based on the latest Pacific bluefin stock assessment.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The most recent assessment for albacore tuna in the South Pacific did not provide any suggestions on the need for any specific management measures. However, the Scientific Committee suggested that longline fishing mortality needs to be reduced to maintain the economic viability of the fishery, and this has not been adopted by the Commission (WCPFC 2013e). The last assessment did not suggest any specific management measures for swordfish in the south-west Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2013). No measures aimed at reducing longline fishing mortality rates have been adopted. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has adhered to scientific advice and utilizes a Management Procedure in setting a total allowable catch level that will ensure the biomass reaches the current interim rebuilding target for southern bluefin tuna (CCSBT 2011). We have awarded a score of only "moderately effective" because advice has not been followed for the target species.

57 WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The last bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna assessments made recommendations on ways to improve on the current statistical model used and identified needs for data improvement, but did not identify specific management measures (Davies et al. 2014) (Davis et al. 2011) (Rice et al. 2014) (Davies et al. 2014). Based on the assessment results, bigeye fishing mortality levels need to be 36% less than the 2008 to 2011 level in order to be sustainable. The Scientific Committee noted that spatial managment could be utilized for yellowfin tuna and that catches should not be increased from 2012 levels (WCPFC 2014b). In addition, reducing the fishing mortality on juveniles would increase the overall yield (Harley et al. 2014). The Scientific Committee did recommend in 2009 that the Commission consider fishing limits for skipjack (Rice et al. 2014). The Commission does recognize that fishing mortality needs to be reduced to improve the status of bigeye and yellowfin tuna in this region (WCPFC 2012). The Commission has recently prohibited discarding of these species but there are no catch limits for either species in this fishery. The 2014 Commission meeting had not occurred at the time of this report, so it is unknown if additional management measures are to be adopted based on the updated 2014 stock assessments. We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in place that assesses member compliance with obligations, identifies areas of conservation and management that may need refinement, responds to non-compliance and monitors, and resolves non-compliance issues. The Commission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to: catch and effort limits and reporting for target species, spatial and temporal closures, observer and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage and provision of scientific data (WCPFC 2012c). The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has a compliance monitoring plan that includes collecting information from member nations on compliance and enforcement of measures, requiring a plan of action to improve any issues from member nations not under compliance, and allows the Commission to develop sanctions and incentives to improve compliance (IATTC 2011a).

Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean south of 20˚N and east of 175˚E. The area north of 20˚N and west of 175˚W had an activation date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). Measures are in place allowing for boarding and inspection of vessels in the Convention Area (WCPFC 2006) and the WCPFC maintains a list of illegal, unreported and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, vessels larger than 24 m in length must use VMS (IATTC 2004) and a list of IUU vessels is maintained (IATTC 2005a).

A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMO's, found the WCPFC lacked transparency regarding the availability of compliance-related data, lacked incentive for countries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non-compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found both the WCPFC and IATTC to be ineffective regarding compliance transparency; specifically, the IATTC does not appear to deal with compliance issues in a thorough manner, and because the WCPFC's compliance assessment process (a compliance monitoring scheme is in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public, it does not have ways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013,

58 the Commission finally started releasing some information on the compliance of individual nations (WCPFC 2013g).

Assessing the effectiveness of these enforcement measures is difficult because there is a general lack in the transparency of information with regards to surveillance activities, infractions and enforcement actions, and outcomes (Gilman et al. 2013).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in place that assesses member compliance with obligations, identifies areas of conservation and management that may need refinement, responds to non-compliance and monitors and resolves non-compliance issues. The Commission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to: catch and effort limits and reporting for target species, spatial and temporal closures, observer and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage and provision of scientific data (WCPFC 2012c).

There are specific reporting requirements in place to monitor compliance with the FAD set limiting options (WCPFC 2013a). Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean south of 20˚N and east of 175˚E. The area north of 20˚N and west of 175˚W had an activation date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). Measures are in place allowing for the boarding and inspection of vessels in the Convention Area (WCPFC 2006b) and the WCPFC maintains a list of illegal, unreported and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b).

A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMO's, found the WCPFC lacked transparency regarding the availability of compliance related data, lacked incentive for countries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non-compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found both the WCPFC and IATTC to be ineffective regarding compliance transparency; specifically the IATTC does not appear to deal with compliance issues in a thorough manner, and because the WCPFC's compliance assessment process (a compliance monitoring scheme is in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public, it does not have ways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013, the Commission finally started releasing some information on the compliance of individual nations (WCPFC 2013g).

Assessing the effectiveness of these enforcement measures is difficult because there is a general lack in the transparency of information regarding surveillance activities, infractions and enforcement actions, and outcomes (Gilman et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a score of "moderate concern."

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective

59 Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). For Pacific bluefin tuna, the WCPFC and IATTC have been unable to maintain a healthy population (ISCPBWG 2014). However, albacore and swordfish populations have remained healthy (ISCAWG 2011)(ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). In addition, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has been unable to maintain healthy populations of southern bluefin tuna (IOTC 2013). We have awarded a score of "moderately effective" because some target species (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013) have remained healthy.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission (WCPFC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). For bigeye tuna, the WCPFC has been unable to reduce fishing mortality rates to appropriate levels (Harley et al. 2014) and catch limits have been exceeded by some nations (WCPFC 2014). It is unclear if newly enacted management measures will be successful (WCPFC 2013a). We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to participate in most meetings. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency {Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors, but this has improved in recent years. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission also allows for outside accredited observers, which can be made up of scientists, NGO's, or other interested parties who wish to attend meetings. We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to participate in most

60 meetings. Historically the WCPFC has lacked transparency {Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors, but this has improved in recent years. We have therefore awarded a score of "moderately effective."

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,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following 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 considered 4 (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 but some 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 species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY All Region / Method Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce North Pacific / Drifting longline No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Moderately Effective Effective South Pacific / Drifting longline No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Moderately Effective Effective Western and Central Pacific / Drifting No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Moderately longline Effective Effective

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have instituted management measures for sea birds and sea turtles in longline fisheries operating in the Pacific Ocean. However, the success of these measures is not yet known. Observer programs do exist, but they observer only a fraction of the entire 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 fishery on 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 minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

61 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Ineffective The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have adopted several management measures to protect vulnerable bycatch species. For example, WCPFC and IATTC members are asked to implement the International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Vessels fishing north of 23N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) are required to use at least two mitigation measures including at least one of the following: side setting, night setting, tori line or weighted branch line. Members must submit annual reports detailing the mitigation measures used and are encouraged to undertake additional mitigation research (IATTC 2011b)(WCPFC 2012e). Members of both the WCPFC and IATTC are also to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations. Proper handling and release guidelines should be used when hard-shell turtles are incidentally captured and longline vessels must carry line cutters and de-hookers to allow for the safe handling and release of turtles. Longline fisheries are also urged to research mitigation techniques such as the use of circle hooks. Vessels conducting shallow- set fishing targeting swordfish must also comply with mitigation measures (i.e. circle hooks, whole bait or other reviewed technique) (WCPFC 2008b)(IATTC 2006). In addition, fisheries observers record and report interactions with seabirds and turtles (IATTC 2011c)(WCPFC 2012e)(WCPFC 2008b).

Members of both the WCPFC and IATTC are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, storing or landing oceanic whitetip and silky sharks and any incidentally caught sharks should be released, the incident recorded and reported (IATTC 2011d)(WCPFC 2012f)(WCPFC 2013f). Members are also to implement the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks and National Plans of Action should have policies in place to reduce waste and discarding of sharks. Information on catch and effort for key species is to be reported and is banned (5% ratio) (IATTC 2005b)(WCPFC 2010a).

The WCPFC scored an average of 42% across 5 broad bycatch governance categories in a recent study conducted by Gilman et al. (2013). We have awarded an ineffective score because there are no bycatch limits for non-target species and it is unclear if these management measures are effective at maintaining population levels of bycatch species or being put into place. For example, Clarke (2013) identified that compliance with implementing WCPFC adopted management measures specific to sharks is at best 60% and lower for some measures. In addition, the low level of observer coverage in the WCPO has hampered the ability of assessing whether adopted management measures have been effective (Gilman 2011).

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Ineffective

62 Vessels fishing for "fresh fish" north of 20N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean must implement an observer program and achieve 5% coverage by the end of 2014 (WCPFC 2012g). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, vessels larger than 20 m in length must have at least 5% observer coverage by 2013 (IATTC 2011c). This monitoring level is very low considering the number of potential bycatch spaces, is often not attained by all nations, and the low observer coverage hinders the ability to accurately determine the effectiveness of management measures (Gilman 2011)(Clarke 2013). In addition, data collection protocols within the observer programs are considered deficient (Gilman et al. 2013).

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective The Scientific Committee has recently (2014) recommended several measures related to bycatch be adopted by the Commission. These include analyzing bycatch mitigation methods for sharks and evaluating the fin to carcass ration currently in effect, implementing e-monitoring trials for seabirds, additional collection of seabird bycatch data. No additional scientific advice was provided in 2014 for sea turtles (WCPFC 2014). Historically all scientific advice related to bycatch has not been adopted (i.e. (WCPFC 2013e), so we have awarded a moderate concern score.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderately Effective See harvest strategy section for determination.

63 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

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

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

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Gear Type and Mitigation of Gear Region / Method Substrate Impacts EBFM Score North Pacific / Drifting longline 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green Concern (3.87) South Pacific / Drifting longline 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green Concern (3.87) Western and Central Pacific / 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green Drifting longline Concern (3.87)

Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bottom habitats, they do impact a number of ecologically important species and the consequence of this varies by region. Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed and there is no indication of a need in these three fisheries.

Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate 5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom 4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear 3 (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 trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally ( 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand 1 (High)—Hydraulic dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

64 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%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown 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 to limit 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 habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced 0 (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 ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with 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 place to 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 fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used. 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts 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 is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

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

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE None Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries, such as the Hawaiian shallow-set fishery (Passfield and Gilman 2010) (Gilman et al. 2012). However, these effects are still considered to be a low risk to bottom habitats (Gilman et al. 2013) (Seafood Watch) so we have awarded a no impact score.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

65 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

Not Applicable

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern The pelagic longline fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean catches a number of ecologically important species including other tunas, billfish and sharks. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role in how these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can cause many changes such as to prey abundances, which can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers et al. 2007)(Duffy 2003)(Ferretti et aal. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In the North Pacific Ocean, the removal of blue sharks and tunas by longline fishery has been shown to lead to an increase in the number of short-lived fast growing species such as mahi mahi (Polovina et al. 2009).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has begun identifying key shark species impacted by fisheries in the Convention Area and has to date completed stock assessments on two species (oceanic white tip and silky sharks) in addition to adopted several management measures to protect bycatch species (Rice and Harley 2013)(Rice and Harley 2012b). In addition, the WCPFC has initiated studies to monitor changes to the food-web and to examine predator-prey relationships (Allain 2010) (Allain et al. 2012) .

We have awarded a moderate concern score because this fishery catches exceptional species but there are some efforts to incorporate their ecological role into management.

66 Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

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

67 References

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

ACAP. 2008. Albatross and petrel distribution within the WCPFC area. The Fourth meeting of the WCPFC Ecosystem and Bycatch Specialist Working Group, Port Moresby, August 14, 2008.

ACAP. 2014a. Light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

ACAP. 2014b. Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

ACAP. 2014d. White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

ACAP. 2014c. Salvin's albatross Thalassarche salvini. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACP). 2010. Species assessments: Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis). Downloaded from http://www.acap.aq on April 29, 2013.

Akroyd, J., Huntington, T. and McLoughlin, K. 2012. MSC report for Fiji albacore tuna longline fishery version 4 final report. Intertek Moody Marine.

Allain, V. 2010. Trophic structure of the pelagic ecosystems of the western and central pacific ocean. WCPFC- SC6-2010/EB- IP 10.

Allain, V., S.P. Griffiths, J. Polovina, and S. Nicol1. 2012. WCPO ecosystem indicator trends and results from ECOPATH simulations. WCPFC-SC8-2012/EB-IP-11.

Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M. & Valenti, S.V. 2009. Alopias superciliosus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. & Black, A. 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research 14: 91–106.

Baird, K., Dias, M., Small, C., Shaffer, S., Suryan, R., Anderson, D., Kappes, M. and Balgh, G.R. 2013. Overlap between WCPFC longline fishing effort and albatross distribution in the North Pacific. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP- 14.

Baker, G.B. and Finley, L.A. 2008. National Assessment Report for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries - 2008 Assessment Report. Report to Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and , Canberra.

Baker, G.B. and Wise, B.S. 2005. The impact of pelagic longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus carneipes in Eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 126: 306–316.

Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. Marine Mammal Science 22:446-464.

68 Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.

Bell, E.A., Sim, J.L. and Scofield, P. 2009. Population parameters and distribution of the black petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni), 2005/2006. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

BirdLife International. 2012. Thalassarche melanophyrs. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012d. Procellaria cinerea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

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

BirdLife International. 2012h. Thalassarche salvini. In: IUCN 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012i. Puffinus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

BirdLife International. 2012l. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

BirdLife International. 2012o. Procellaria aequinoctialis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

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

BirdLife International 2012e. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

BirdLife International 2012c. Thalassarche chrysostoma. 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.

BirdLife International 2014. Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.

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

Brooke, M. 2004. Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 499 p.

Brouwer, S. and I. Bertram. 2009. Setting bycatch limits for sea turtles in the Western and Central Pacific oceans shallow-set longline fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-04.

69 BWG. 2013. Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in 2013. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-09. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

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. oxyrinchus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

CCSBT. 2011. Report of the eighth meeting of the Commission. Commission for the Conservation of the Southern Bluefin Tuna. 10-13 October 2011, Bali, Indonesia.

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

Clarke, S. 2009. An alternative estimate of catches of five species of sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean based on shark fin trade data. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Paper SC5/WB-WP-02.

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

Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conservation and management measure for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08.

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H., and Nakano, H. 2011. Analysis of North Pacific shark data from Japanese commercial longline and research/training vessel records. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02. 89 p.

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H. and Nakano, H. 2011c. Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from Japanese Commercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02.

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

Clarke, S., Harley, S., Hoyle, S. and Rice, J. 2011b. An Indicator-based Analysis of Key Shark Species based on Data Held by SPC-OFP. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-01.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Carpenter, K.E., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Istiompax indica. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C.,et al. 2011b. nigricans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., et al. 2011c. Coryphaena hippurus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. 2011e. Thunnus maccoyii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

70 Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., et al. 2011d. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

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

Crowder, L. and R. Myers. 2001. A Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry. 2001 First Annual Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Cullis-Suzuki, S. and Pauly, D. 2010. Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy 34:1036-1042

Davies, N., Hoyle, S., Harley, S., Langley, A., Kleiber, P., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-02. 133 p.

Davies, N., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin ( audax) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-05. 84 p.

Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2013. Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-05. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Federated States of Micronesia.

Duffy, J.E. 2003. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters 6:680-687.

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

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

Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13: 1055– 1071.

Fonteneau, A. 1991. and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlantic. Aquatic and Living Resources 4:13-25.

Fonteneau, A., Ariz, J., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. and Pallares, P. 2000a. Observed changes in the species composition of tuna schools in the between 1981 to 1999, in relation with the fishery. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:253-257.

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, Del Mar, Ca.

Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associative behavior: Toward a generalization of the meeting point hypothesis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:183-207.

Froese, R. and Kesner-Reyes, K. 2002. Impact of fishing on the abundance of marine species. ICES CM

71 2002/L:12. Available at: http://info.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2002/L/L1202.pdf

Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C., and Cartwright, I. 2014. The SZLC, HNSFC & Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. MSC Public Comment Draft report.

Gilman, E.L. 2001. Keeping Albatross off the Hook in the North Pacific Ocean. World Watch. 23(2): 14-16.

Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy 35:590-609.

Gilman, E. and Kingma, E. 2013. Standard for assessing transparency in information on compliance with obligations of regional fisheries management organizations: validation through assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean & Coastal Management 84:31-39.

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

Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., Kennelly, S. In Press (2013). Causes and methods to estimate cryptic sources of fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology.

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

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L 2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. Journal of Ecology 76:837-844.

Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Langley, A. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-04. 134 p.

Hoyle, S., Hampton, J. and Davies, N. 2012. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the South Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/SA-WP-04-REV1. 123 p.

Huan, H. 2014. Seabirds and sea turtles bycatch of Taiwanese tuna longline fleets in the Pacific Ocean. WCPFC- SC10-2014/EB-SP-06 Rev 1.

Ianelli, J., M. Maunder, and A. E. Punt. 2012. Independent peer review of 2011 WCPFC bigeye tuna stock assessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-01. Available online http://www.wcpfc.int/node/4587.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolution on the establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Resolution c-04-06, 72nd Reunion, Lima Peru.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005b. Resolution on the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-05-03. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20- 24 June 2005.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005c. Resolution on northern albacore tuna; C-02-02. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.

72 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005a. Resolution to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C- 05-07. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2006. Consolidated resolution on bycatch. Resolution C-04- 05 (Rev 2). 74th Meeting, Pusan, Korea. 26-30 June 2006.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Resolution on the process for improved compliance of resolutions adopted by the Commission. Resolution C-11-07. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 July 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolution to mitigate the impact on seabirds of fishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolution C-11-02. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011c. Resolution on scientific observers for longline vessels. Resolution C-11-08. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks caught in association with fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area. Resolution C-11-10. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, Ca, 4-8 June 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2012. Conservation and Management Measures for bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-12-09, 83rd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 25-29 June 2012.

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

IATTC. 2016. Measures for the conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-16-08. Available at: http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-08-Conservation- and-management-of-Pacific-bluefin-tuna.pdf

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolution to mitigate the impacts of tuna fishing vessels on sea turtles. Resolution C-07-03. 75th Meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 25-29 June 2007.

IOTC. 2013e. Report on biology, stock status and management of southern bluefin tuna: 2013. IOTC-2013- SC16-ES05[E]. Available at:http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2013/sc/IOTC-2013-SC16-ES05[E].pdf

ISC. 2016. 2016 Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment. ISC Pacific Bluefin Tuna Working Group. WCPFC-SC12- 2016/SA WP-07. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC12-SA-WP- 07%20ISC%2016%202016%20Pacific%20Bluefin%20Tuna%20Stock%20Assessment.pdf

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

ISC Albacore Working Group. 2011. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean in 2011. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 9-17, August 2011. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-10

ISCBWG. 2014. North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the billfish working group. International Scientific Committee for tuna and tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean.

73 International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Pacific Bluefin Working Group. 2012. Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment summary. Webinar, 19-21 December, 2012. 13 p.

ISCSWG. 2013. Report of the shark working group workshops May 2012, January and April 2013. SCPFC-SC9- 2013/SA-WP-11a. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

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

ISSF. 2014. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2014: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2014-09. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.

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

Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Hastings, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resource requirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle population. PLoS ONE 7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447.

Josse, E., Bertrand, A. and Dagorn, L. 1999. An acoustic approach to study tuna aggregated around fish aggregating devices in French Polynesia: methods and validation. Aquatic and Living Resources 12:303-313.

Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggregations around fish aggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:183-192.

Kaplan, I.C. 2005. A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:1710-1719.

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

Kirby, D.S. 2006. Ecological risk assessment for species caught in WCPO tuna fisheries: inherent risk as determined by productivity-susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Second Regular Session, 7-18 August 2006, Manila, Philippines. WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB WP-1. 25 p.

Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean: productivity and susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Third Regular Session, 13-24 2007, Honolulu, HI. WCPFC-SC3-SWG/WP-1. 20 p.

Kleiber, P., Hampton, J., Hinton, M.G and Uozumi, Y. 2003. Update on blue marlin stock assessment. 15th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish BBRG-10. SCTB15 Working Paper.

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

Koehler, H.R., 2013. Promoting compliance in tuna RFMO's: a comprehensive baseline survey of the current mechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obligations and measures. ISSF Technical Report 2013-02.

74 Kolody, D., Campbell, R. and Davies, N. 2008. A Multifan-CL stock assessment of south-west Pacific swordfish 1952-2007. Scientific Committee Fourth Regular Session, 11-22 August 2008, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. WCPFC-SC4-2008-SA-WP-6 (REVISION 1*). 90PG.

Langley, A., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-03. 135p.

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

Lee, H., Piner, K.R., Humphreys, R. and Brodziak, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean in 2011. Report of the Billfish Working Group Stock Assessment Workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean.

Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A. and Picault, J. El Nino Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389:715-718

Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2003. Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird population. Ecological Applications 13:743-753.

Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2007. Putting longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspective. Conservation Biology 21:79-86

Lewison, R., Freeman, S.A. and Crowder, L.B. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerheard and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231/

Maison, K.A., Kinan Kelly, I. and K.P. Frutchey. 2010. Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislation throughout Oceania. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-110, 52 pp.

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. Version 2012.2.

Mckechnie, S., Pilling, G., and Hampton, J. 2017. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific 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

Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000. Food consumption of tuna in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean: FAD associated versus unassociated schools. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:233- 240.

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

Molony, B. 2005. Estimates of the mortality of non-target species with an initial focus on seabirds, turtles and sharks. First meeting of the Scientific Committee of the western and central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 9-19 August 2005. WCPFC-SC1. 84 p.

75 Molony, B. 2006. Summary of the biology, ecology and stock status of billfishes in the WCPFC, with a review of major variables influencing longline fishery performance. 1st Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, 18-19, August 2006. WCPFC-EB-2.

Molony, B. 2007. Overview of purse-seine and longline bycatch issues in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Inaugural Meeting of the Asia and Pacific Islands Bycatch Consortium, 15-16 February 2007, Honolulu, HI. 42 p.

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

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

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.

NC. 2017. Northern Committee thirteenth regular session summary report. Busan, Korea, August 28- September 1, 2017. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/NC13%20Summary%20Report%20adopted%20- %20Final%20%28Update%29.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. 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.

NZG. 2008. Fisheries (seabird sustainability measures-surface longlines) notice 2008 (No. F429). New Zealand Gazette 21 February 2008, No. 31. New Zealand Government, Wellington.

Oceanic Fisheries Programme. 2010. Non-target species interactions with the tuna fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session, 10-19 August, 2010, Nuku'alofa, Tonga. 59 p.

Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP). 2012a. Estimates of annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/ST IP-1.

Oro, D. and A. Martinez-Abrain. 2000. Ecology and behavior of seabirds. Marine Ecology - Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Available at: http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c09/E2-27-05-00.pdf

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

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

PIFSC. 2014. International team launches research on pelagic sharks in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA Pacific

76 Islands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Research Bulletin, June 2011.

Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communities: change of paradigms for conservation priorities. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074.

Polovina, J.J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E.A. and Woodworth, P. 2009. Increases in the relative abundance of mid- trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific 1996-2006. Fisheries Bulletin 107:523-531.

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Megaptera novaeangliae. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Rice, J. 2012. Alternate catch estimates for silky and oceanic whitetip sharks in Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC28-2012/SA-IP-12.

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

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013. Updates stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-03.

Rice, J., Harley, S., Maunder, M. and Aires Da-Silva, A. 213. Stock assessment of blue sharks in the north Pacific Ocean using stock synthesis. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-02. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013.

Roe, J.H., Morreale, S.J., Paladino, F.V., Shillinger, G.L. and Benson, S.R. et al. 2014. Predicting bycatch hotspots for endangered leatherback turtles on longlines in the Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society 281:20132559

Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impacts on predators with contrasting life histories. Ecological Applications 12:735-748.

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

SeafoodSource. 2017. WCPFC members agree to increase bigeye limits. SeafoodSource. Available at: https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/wcpfc-members-agree-to-increase-bigeye-limits

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

SPC. 2014. Tuna fisheries longline. Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Available at: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/tuna-fisheries/174-longline

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

77 Stevens, J. 2009. Prionace glauca. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39381/0

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

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 turtle population. Ecosphere 4:25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00348.1

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008a. Pseudorca crassidens. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008b. Peponocephala electra. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Feresa attenuata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Physeter macrocephalus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

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.

Tremblay,-Boyer, L., McKechnie, S., Pilling, G. and Hampton, J. 2017. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western 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

Tuck, G.N., Phillips, R.A., Small, C., Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N.L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R.M. and Arrizabalaga, H. 2011. An assessment of seabird–fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1628–1637

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

Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4:40.http://dx.doi.org/10.1980/ES12-00388.1

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

78 Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham E. & Walker N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy 36: 933–946.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2005. Conservation and management measure for North Pacific albacore. Conservation and Management Measure-2005-03. Second Session 12-16 December 2005.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2006. Western and central Pacific fisheries commission boarding and inspection procedures. Conservation and Management Measure 2006-08. Third Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 11-15 December 2006.

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

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 2008a. Conservation and management measure for bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation Management Measure 2008-01.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2008b. Conservation and management of sea turtles. Conservation and Management Measure 2008-03. Fifth Regular Session, 8-12 December 2008, Busan, Korea.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2009. Conservation and management for swordfish. Conservation and Management Measure 2009-03, Sixth Regular Session, Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia, 7-11 December 2009.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010c. Conservation and management measure for South Pacific albacore. Conservation and Management Measure-2010-051. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, December 6-10, 2010.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010a. Conservation and management measure for sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-12 December 2010.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010b. Conservation and management measure to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-06. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-10 December 2010.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012A. Conservation and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-01. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

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

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012e. Conservation and management measure to mitigate the impact of fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on seabirds. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-07. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

79 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012f. Conservation and management measure for oceanic whitetip shark. Conservation and Management Measure 2011-04. Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30 March 2011.

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

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012c. Conservation and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-02. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012d. Commission vessel monitoring system. Conservation and Management Measure 2011-02. Commission Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30 March 2012.

WCPFC. 2013a. Conservation and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-09. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013d. Conservation and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-02. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013c. WCPFC management objectives workshop 2. 28-29 November, 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013b. Conservation and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-01. Tenth regular session, December 2-6, 2013, Cairns Australia.

WCPFC. 2013e. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Summary Report. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August, 2013, Federated States of Micronesia.

WCPFC. 2013f. Conservation and management measure for silky sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-08. Commission Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December, 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013g. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013.

WCPFC. 2013h. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session summary report. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013.

WCPFC. 2014. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014.

WCPFC. 2016. Conservation and management measure to establish a multi-annual rebuilding plan for Pacific bluefin tuna. CMM 2016-04. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/Att%20Q_CMM%20for%20Pacific%20Bluefin%20Tuna.pdf

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm . Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304.

80 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

Williams, P, S.S. Kirby and S. Beverly. 2009. Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in the WCPO longline and purse seine fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-07.

Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longline fishery. Fishery Bulletin 100:876-880.

Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longline fishery. Fisheries Bulletin 100:876-880

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.

81 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species BLACK MARLIN Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium Fishbase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 44 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern No assessment for black marlin has been conducted in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified this species as Data Deficient with an unknown population trend (Collette et al. 2011). We have awarded a moderate score because of their IUCN classification.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Although no stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), there is information on catches and discard rates from observer programs. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes that this species could be threatened by capture in longline fisheries but fishing mortality rates in the WCPO are not available (Collette et al. 2011a). Reported catches of black marlin in longline fisheries in the WCPO ranged from 1,296 t to 2,289 t between 2000 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). These catches represent between 4% and 7% of the total catch during this time (OFP 2012a). Forty five percent of black marlin were discarded between 1992 and 2009 and of these 60% were dead in the South Pacific albacore fishery. Discard rates in the tropical longline fishery ranged from 0-6%, with a mortality rate of 35-73% (OFP 2010). We have awarded a moderate concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown and the species suffers high discard mortality rates.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data

82 from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

BLACK-BROWED ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation for Nature (IUCN) has classified black-browed albatross as Near Threatened with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014b). The total population size worldwide is estimated to be 700,000 breeding birds or 2.1 million individual birds (Birdlife International 2014b). The status in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

83 Low Concern Interactions between black-browed albatross and the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, although low in number, have been reported. For example, from 1980 to 2004, 22 black-browed albatross interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed south of 31S (Molony 2005) and between 1992 and 2009, 95% of black- browed albatross captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded and of those 71% were dead. Management measures have been adopted by most fleets to mitigate the incidental capture of seabirds in longline fisheries operating in the south Pacific region of the western and central Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

BLUE MARLIN Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium Fishbase assigned a moderate to high score of 52 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013) .

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified blue marlin as Vulnerable with a decreasing population trend (Collette et al. 2011b). The most recent population assessment in the Pacific Ocean was completed in 2013. Despite long term declines in the total biomass of the population, the

84 population has been increasing from the maximum sustainable levels (MSY) since the mid-2000's. The population is not considered overfished (BWG 2013). We have awarded a low and not very low concern score to account for the long term declines and uncertainty associated with the assessment.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern The last assessment for blue marline was conducted in 2013. Fishing mortality rates (F = 0.26) estimated in this assessment are currently below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY = 0.32). Based on these results, blue marlin are currently not subject to overfishing (BWG 2013). However, there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results so we have awarded a low instead of very low concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

85 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

BLUE SHARK Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Fishbase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern No assessment for blue sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region of the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) (WCPFC 2013h), which based on tagging data, differences in abundance and evidence of pregnant females in high latitudes in both the north and south Pacific Ocean, is likely a separate population from the north Pacific (Kleiber et al. 2009). Some trends in catch rates for various fisheries have been analyzed. In the South Pacific, catch rates declined until 2003 and have since increased to mid 1990’s levels. There has been no trend in the size or sex of blue sharks in any part of the WCPO over time (Walsh and Clarke 2011)(Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) consideres blue sharks to be Near Threatened globally (Stevens 2009). We have awarded a high concern score because no assessment has been conducted combined with the fact they have a high vulnerability score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern An updated assessment of blue sharks in the North Pacific was completed during 2014. Two different models were used in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the population (biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) of blue sharks is not overfished (B2011/BMSY=1.65 and SSB2011/SSBMSY=1.621) and that the population will remain above the level necessary to maintain the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). However, evidence including declines in median size and catch rates suggest declines in abundance of blue sharks in recent years (Clarke 2011) and there is uncertainty in the assessment of blue shark. We have therefore awarded a low rather than very low concern score.

86

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean including in the South Pacific region. No stock assessments have been conducted on this species in the South Pacific region (Kleiber et al. 2009). However, some information on catch levels is available. The estimated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 was 1,611 t (Lawson 2011)(Clarke 2011) and from 1992 to 2009, blue sharks made up 10% of the total bycatch in the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery (OPF 2010). During this time period, 30% of blue sharks were observed discarded in this fishery and of those only 7% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a high concern score because they are highly susceptible to longline capture and there are no management measures in place.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific and dominate shark catches in that region. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate estimated in 2011 (F2011) was around 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (ISCSWG 2014). Therefore overfishing is not occurring. However, there is uncertainty surrounding these results and previous assessments have indicated some issues with the data. We have therefore awarded a low instead of very low concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

87 < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

FLESH-FOOTED SHEARWATER Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), flesh-footed shearwater are classified as Least Concern and the population is considered stable (BirdLife International 2012c). This classification was due to this species extremely large range, and the large population size. In 2004, the global population was estimated to be more than 650,000 individuals (Brooke 2004). We have therefore awarded a low concern score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

88 SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Flesh-footed shearwaters appear to be incidentally caught in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific. For example, between 1980 and 2004, 124 flesh-footed shearwater interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed in waters south of 31S (Molony 2005). From 1992 to 2009, 92% of flesh-footed shearwaters captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded and of those 85% were dead (OFP 2010). Flesh-footed shearwaters have a large range and subsequently a large overlap with this fishery. Since this species has a high susceptibility to the fishery and fishing mortality rate are unknown, but mitigation measures have been adopted by many fleets in the southwest Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), we have awarded a moderate concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

GREEN SEA TURTLE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Very High Concern

89 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified green sea turtles as Endangered with a decreasing population trend. Wallace et al. (2013) identified populations of green sea turtles in the North Central Pacific Ocean to be at high risk. Green sea turtles have been listed on CITES since 1975 and are currently listed on Convention on International Trade of Endangered Speces (CITES) Appendix 1, meaning they are threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. The mean annual number of nesting turtles worldwide have decreased between 48% to 67% over the past 100-150 years (Seminoff 2004). Out of 27 known nesting sites in Oceania, 3 had an increasing trend, 2 had decreasing trends and 2 had stable trends, while trends at the remaining sites were unknown (Maison et al. 2010). We have awarded a very high score because of the IUCN classification.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern The incidental capture of green sea turtles is considered a major threat to their populations worldwide (Seminoff 2004). While green sea turtles are one of the more commonly caught turtle species in the south Pacific region (NMFS 2013) (Williams et al. 2009) the impact from bycatch to the population is low in the south central Pacific and western and central Pacific Ocean and those populations are considered to be at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). The American Samoa pelagic longline fishery reported the incidental capture of 42 green sea turtles during 2010, four times higher than any other speices (NMFS 2013). The Cook Island south Pacific albacore fishery also reports green sea turtles as one of the most commonly caught bycatch species (Gascoigne et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their use and effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a moderate concern score because bycatch in this fishery does not appear to be threatening the population, but impacts are not fully known.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20%

90 The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

GREY PETREL Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies grey petrels as Near Threatened with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2012d). The global population is estimated to be somewhat low, around 400,000, with a low estimate of 160,000 and a high of 1,200,000 (Brooke 2004). We have awarded a high concern score to account for the IUCN rating.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Between 1980 and 2004, 126 grey petrel interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed, primarily south of 31S (Molony 2005) and from 1992 to 2009 100% of incidentally capture grey petrels in the south Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and all of them were dead (OFP 2010). In New Zealand waters of the South Pacific, it has historically been one of the most commonly killed bird species in the tuna longline fishery, with estimates of 45,000 birds being caught during a the 1980's and 1990's (BirdLIfe International 2014d). However, New Zealand has implemented the use of several bycatch mitigation measures in tuna fisheries (NZG 2008). Incidental mortality in fisheries off the coast of Australia have also been reported (BirdLife International 2012d). We have awarded a moderate concern score because although bycatch has been reduced in New Zealand waters, information gaps in other areas suggest that this species should remain as moderate concern.

91 Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

LIGHT-MANTLED ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies light-mantled albatross as Near Threatened with a decreasing population trend. The total breeding population is estimated to be 19,000- 24,000 pairs or about 58,000 individuals (BirdLife International 2012s). We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern Specific longline fleets in the South Pacific that have reported this species as incidentally caught (in small amounts) in tuna fisheries include New Zealand and Australia (BirdLife International 2012f)(ACAP 2014a). Between 1980 and 2004, 38 interactions between light-mantled albatross and pelagic longline gear, primarily south of 31S, were observed (Molony 2005) and from 1992 and 2009, 100% of light-mantled albatross were

92 discarded dead in the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery (OFP 2010). Interactions are low, breeding areas have all adopted bycatch avoidance methods since 2000 and the majority of its foraging range is within the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marline Living Resources (CCAMLR) region (ACAP 2014a), so we have awarded a low concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WHITETIP SHARK Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Fishbase assigned a high to very high score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers oceanic whitetip sharks to be Vulnerable globally (Baum et al. 2006). The first stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012. Although results are reported in relation to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points, reference points to manage this stock have not yet been identified by the scientific committee or Commission. According to the assessment, the spawning biomass (mature fish) is estimated to be far below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield ( SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.153), indicating the stock is overfished (Rice and Harley 2012b}. We have awarded a high concern score because of the stock status.

93 Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern According to the first and only assessment conducted in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), fishing mortality far exceeds levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY with Fcurrent/FMSY = 6.694) and therefore overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2012b). It should be noted that the majority of oceanic whitetip sharks are caught in longline fisheries, compared to purse seine (Rice 2012). Recently the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission banned the capture and sale of oceanic whitetip sharks. We have therefore awarded a high and not critical concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

94 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers Olive Ridley sea turtles to be Vulnerable with a decreasing population trend. Olive Ridley turtles have been listed as Threatened on the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a). Along several beaches in Thailand, current estimates of the number of nests/km/day are around 20, while in Indonesia this number is 230. It is estimated that the annual nesting subpopulation on these Thai beaches have decreased from 97-98% over time, while in Indonesia they have increased substantially. Overall, in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean there has been a decrease in annual nesting female's of 92%, from 1,412 to 108 (Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008). We have awarded a high concern score because of the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern The incidental capture of olive Ridley turtles occurs worldwide, although the impact from other fisheries such as trawls and gillnets appear to have a larger negative impact compared to longlines (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Data related to incidental captures is scare due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (~1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). However, bycatch of olive ridleys is reported to be especially high in some albacore fisheries operating in the south Pacific region (Huang 2014) but not others ((Akroyd et al. 2012). Bycatch is thought to be a low threat to population in the west Pacific region and the population is at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013}. Bycatch mitigation

95 methods have been put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but there are issues with compliance and the effectiveness of these measures is unknown (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a moderate concern score because the population is depleted, but this fishery is not a major contributor.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

OPAH Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium Fishbase assigned a very high vulnerability of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Opah reach a maximum length of 200 cm and live at least 11 years (Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002). This is no information on their age at maturity. They are broadcast spawners and are a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life

96 history characteristics suggest a moderate level of vulnerability, so we have adjusted the score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern The status of opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a moderate score because of this and their moderate vulnerability score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 caught by longliners in the western and central Pacific Ocean, primarily around Australia and New Zealand, representing 9.3% of the "other fish" catch. "Other fish" represented 7.6% of the total catch (Lawson 2001). From 1992 to 2009, 23% of opah caught in the South Pacific longline fishery were discarded and of these 25% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a moderate concern score due to a lack of information.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opahs caught by longliners in this region, representing 9.3% of the "other fish" catch (Lawson 2001).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. However, some information on catches and discards are available through observer programs. For example, From 1992 to 2009, 3% of opah caught in longline fisheries operating north of 10N were discarded and of these 35% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a moderate score because the status of the population is unknown.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005).

97 The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

SALVIN'S ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

98 Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Salvin's albatross are considered Vulnerable and it is unknown whether their populations are increasing or decreasing. In 1998, it was estimated that 30,750 breeding individuals were present on the Bounty Islands and that this represented 99% of the global population. Based on this estimate, there are roughly 61,500 mature birds and 90,000 individuals (BirdLife International 2012h). We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Salvin's albatross are more commonly reported as incidentally caught by New Zealand tuna longliners than in other areas of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). For example, between 1996 and 2005, observers reported 150 interactions with this species abroad New Zealand longliners (BirdLife International 2012h). We have awarded a moderate and not high concern score because bycatch mitigation measures have been adopted by the New Zealand fleet (NZG 2008) and almost all of the breeding and foraging areas for this species occur in New Zealand waters (ACAP 2014c).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High

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

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern No population assesssment of shortfin mako sharks in the South Pacific region of the western and central Pacific Ocean has been conducted. The center of abundance for this species appears to be northwest of New Zealand (Lawson 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a high concern score because their population status is unknown and because of their high vulnerability score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern An assessment of shortfin mako sharks was conducted in the Northwest 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 (Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). No population assessment for shortfin mako sharks in the south Pacific has been conducted. We have awarded a high concern score because the population in the north Pacific was last assessed as near overexploited but no recent assessments have been completed and the south Pacific population is not assessed. In addition, shortfin mako sharks have a high vulnerability score and are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 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 2014). A stock wide assessment is planned for 2014, previously an assessment of shortfin mako sharks was conducted in the Northwest 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 (Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a high concern score because the population was last assessed as near overfished levels but no recent assessments have been completed. In addition, shortfin mako sharks have a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern No assessment of shortfin mako sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region. However, some information on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako

100 sharks were observed caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, representing 2.2% of the total catch. During this time period, 26% of shortfin mako sharks were discarded and of these 24% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a high concern score because information on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific are not available and the population is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no management is place to protect the species.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The 2009 assessment of shortfin mako sharks conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over past decade. A seperate analysis, not a stock assessment, indicated that there is no evidence for the impact of fishing on mako sharks in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011)(Clarke 2011). No assessment of shortfin mako sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region. However, some information on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako sharks were observed caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, representing 2.2% of the total catch. During this time period, 26% of shortfin mako sharks were discarded and of these 24% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a high concern score because information on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific are not available, the population is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no management is place to protect the species.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The 2009 assessment of shortfin mako sharks conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over past decade. A separate analysis of shortfin makeo, not an assessment, indicated no evidence for the impact of fishing on mako sharks in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011)(Clarke 2011). There are no management measures in place and fishing mortality rates may be too high, so we have awarded a high score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18%

101 (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

SILKY SHARK Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Fishbase assigned a high score of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers silky sharks to be Near Threatened globally (Bonfil et al. 2009). The first assessment of silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012 and updated during 2013 (Rice and Harley 2013). According to this model,

102 the spawning biomass (abundance of mature fish), levels consistently declined over the modeled time period (1995-2009). The spawning biomass has declined by 67% since 1995. The spawning biomass in 2009 was far below target levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY=0.70 95% CI 0.51- 1.23) and therefore the stock is overfished. We have awarded a high concern score because the SSB is below MSY.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern According to the 2013 updated silky shark assessment in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), fishing mortality rates in 2009 (the last year of the modeled period) exceeded levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY=4.48 (1.41-7.96)). This indicates that overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2013). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has recently banned the catch, landing and sale of silky sharks (WCPFC 2013f). The success of this measure is highly dependent on post- release survival of silky sharks. We have awarded a high concern score based on the high fishing mortality rates.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54%

103 for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross are classified as Near Threatened with a a stable to increasing population trend (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 estimates from 2000 concluded there were 275,000 birds (Cousins and Cooper 20000). Their status in the north Pacific Ocean is unknown, so we have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN status.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Black-footed albatross are one of the more commonly observed bird species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) with interactions primarily occurring in the North Pacific longline fisheries (Baird et al. 2013). Some studies have suggested the mortality associated with North Pacific tuna longline fisheries may threaten black-footed albatross. For example, research suggests that a mortality rates of 10,000-12,000

104 birds per year is needed to sustain this population and that mortality from pelagic longline fisheries may exceed this (Lewison and Crowder 2003)(Crowder and Myers 2001)(Arata and Naughton 2009). From 1992 to 2009, 100% of black-footed albatross caught in longline fisheries north of 10N were discarded dead (OFP 2010). The total estimated mortality of this species in the central north Pacific between 1994 and 2000 ranged from 5,200 to 13,800 birds (Gilman 2001). Other research has estimated mortality rates as high as 6000 black-footed albatross per year by the Japanese and Taiwanese fleets (BirdLife International 2014). Reducing sea-bird interactions in this region could improve their status. We have awarded a high concern score because seabirds are considered highly vulnerable and their stock status of high concern, current mortality rates are unknown but could be high, and while management measures have been adopted by some fleets to mitigate incidental capture in longline fisheries operating in the north Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), the best management practices that minimize seabird mortality are not required nor adopted by all fleets.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

LAYSAN ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened but with a stable population trend (BirdLife International 2012f). Globally, there are an estimated 591,000 breeding pairs or 1.18 million mature birds (Naughton et al. 2007). We have awarded a high concern score due to the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

105 NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern Laysan albatross have a very high overlalp within the northern region of the western and central Pacific Ocean (Baird et al.2 013). It has been estimated that pelagic longline vessels fishing in the North Pacific Ocean may kill around 8,000 laysan albatross a year, although in recent years these numbers have been much less due to the use of mitigation measures (Birdlife International 2012c). Between 1992 and 2009, 100% of incidentally captured Laysan albatross from the North Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and of these 67% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a moderate concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown but there are mitigation measures in place (Clarke et al. 2013).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

WANDERING ALBATROSS Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), considers the wandering albatross population to be Vulnerable with a decreasing population trend. The global population is around 20,100 mature individuals but the status of this species in the Western and cCentral Pacific Ocean is unknown (BirdLife International 2012l). We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN classification.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE

106 Moderate Concern Wandering albatross are threatened by longline fisheries, which have been identified as a leading cause of their global declines. This is primarily a factor of their large range, which makes them susceptible to capture by a variety of fleets (BirdLife International 2012l). Between 1980 and 2004, 107 interactions between wandering albatrosses and pelagic longline gear, primarily south of 31S, were observed (Molony 2005) and from 1992 to 2009 53% of incidentally captured seabirds died (OFP 2010). Wandering albatross are impacted by even low bycatch rates due to their small population size (ACAP 2014b). The majority of breeding area for this species occurs in South African territories (ACAP 2014b). Management measures have been adopted by many fleets in the southwestern Pacific Ocean to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds. However, these measures have not been adopted by all fleets operating in their breeding region (ACAP 2014b). Due to the impact from even low bycatch rates, combined with the fact that bycatch mitigation measures have not been fully adopted by all fleets, we have awarded a moderate concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WHITE-CHINNED PETREL Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a high vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable and

107 their populations are decreasing. The global population is estimated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the 1980's to 1,200,000 pairs currently. There are around 3 million mature birds (Brooke 2004)(BirdLife International 2012o). We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN listing.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern White-chinnel petrels are one of the most vulnerable bird species to bycatch in fisheries operating in the southern hemisphere (ACAP 2014dd).Estimates from the 1990's in the Australian longline fishery suggest over 800 white-chinned petrels were incidentally caught per year. In the New Zealand longline fishery, 14.5% of incidentally caught birds in longline (and trawl) fisheries between 2003-2005 were white-chinned petrels (BirdLife International 2012o). White-chinned petrels also have a very high mortality rate as a result of this incidental capture (OFP 2010). White-chinned petrels have a high areal and vertical overlap with pelagic longline gear (BirdLife International 2012). However, it should be noted that many fisheries outside of this region may also be contributing to a cumulative effect on population size (ACAP 2014d). For example, this is one of the most commonly caught species in the south Atlantic (Tuck et al. 2011). However, management measures to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds have been adopted by many fleets in the south Pacific (Clarke et al. 2013), so we have awarded a moderate and not high concern score.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

STRIPED MARLIN Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Medium Fishbase assigned a high vulnerability score of 56 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Sexual maturity is

108 reached between 140=180 cm and around 2 years of age. They can attain a maximum size of 300 cm and live 10-12 years ((Lee et al. 2012). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life history characteristics are more indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing, so we have adjusted the score.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern Striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean were assessed in 2011. The results of this model show a long term decline in biomass with the population in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) based reference points, the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore striped marlin is overfished (Lee et al. 2012) and we have therefore awarded a high concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Moderate Concern The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean was conduced in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. However there was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass estimates, primarily during the 1970's and 80's. Two biomass based reference points are used to determine the status of the population, Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37-1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32-2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1, suggesting striped marlin are approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012 ). We have awarded a moderate concern score because of uncertainty in their population status.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean was conduced in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. However there was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass estimates, primarily during the 1970's and 80's. Two biomass based reference points are used to determine the status of the population, SBcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37-1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32-2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1, suggesting striped marlin are approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012 ). Striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean were assessed in 2011. The results of this model show a long term decline in biomass with the population in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) based reference points, the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore striped marlin is overfished (Lee et al. 2012). We have awarded a high concern score due to the population status in the North Pacific.

109 Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern There has been a long term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990's longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high, F=0.76 from 2007-2009, about 24% above levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the time series (1975-2010). There are no target or limit reference points but compared to MSY based reference points,overfishing is occurring (Lee et al. 2012). We have therefore awarded a high score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE Low Concern A population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entire longline fleet has substantially affected the population size of striped marlin in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 mt), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality based reference point Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.58 (0.08-2.53) and so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012). We have awarded a low and not very low concern score to account for uncertainties in the model.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE High Concern There has been a long term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990's longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high, F=0.76 from 2007-2009, about 24% above levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the time series (1975-2010). There are no target or limit reference points but compared to MSY based reference points, overfishing is occurring (Lee et al. 2012).

A population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entire longline fleet has substantially affected the population size of striped marlin in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 mt), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality based reference point Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.58 (0.08-2.53) and so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012).

We have awarded a high concern score based high fishing mortality rates in the North Pacific.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate 36% of the total catch is

110 discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0-35%, for billfish from 3-44%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, sea birds and turtles (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates very by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi and opah have very low discard rates, <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates, >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the south Pacific albacore fishery indicates discard rates for tuna ranged from 3-100%, for billfish from 4-45%, for sharks and rays from 0-100%, 0-100% for other bony fish, 100% for marine mammals, 0-100% for sea birds and 71-100% for turtles (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINE < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Dicard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010}. Earlier estimates through 2009, indicated the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

111 Appendix B: Updated January 8, 2017

1.1 and 1.2 updated for Bigeye, Yellowfin, Bluefin and N. Pacific Albacore, 3.1 updated for Pacific Bluefin.

112