Blue shark, Shor in mako shark and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi)

Blue shark, Shor in mako shark and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus, Coryphaena hippurus South Atlan c, North Atlan c Pelagic longline July 12, 2016 Alexia Morgan, Consul ng Researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scien fic review, however, does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommenda ons on the part of the reviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Table of Contents Table of Contents About Seafood Watch Guiding Principles Summary Final Seafood Recommendations Introduction Assessment Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment Criterion 2: Impacts on other species Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem Acknowledgements References Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 8 14 26 34 37 38 44 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 sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommenda ons 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 ocean conserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this informa on against the program s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of Best Choices, Good Alterna ves or Avoid. The detailed evalua on 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 informa on include government technical publica ons, fishery management plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, and members of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces. Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each species changes, Seafood Watch s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on 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 origina ng from sources, whether fished 1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: How does fishing affect the species under assessment? How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? How effec ve is the fishery s management? How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem? Each criterion includes: Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs and the overall recommenda on 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 li le harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alterna ve/yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they re caught. Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 Fish is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates 4

Summary This report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlan c Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but also retain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommenda ons published in a separate Seafood Watch report. They are included as addi onal main species in this report because they occur in this fishery. The U.S. and Canadian longline fisheries are also assessed in a separate report. Blue and shor in mako sharks are long-lived species, which reach sexual maturity at a late age and produce a small number of young. In contrast, mahi mahi reaches sexual maturity at a young age and produces a large number of young. Blue shark popula ons in the North Atlan c appear to be healthy but their statuses in the South Atlan c are uncertain. Shor in mako sharks in the South Atlan c are healthy and, although there is some indica on that popula ons in the North Atlan c have improved over me, there is s ll a large amount of uncertainty surrounding their current statuses. Mahi mahi has not been fully assessed in the Atlan c, although the informa on that exists suggests that it has a stable popula on. The longline fisheries that target these species also capture a number of secondary target and bycatch species, including other shark species, sea turtles, and seabirds. Management measures to address seabird interac ons have been taken, but management of sea turtle interac ons con nues to be weak. We have included species that typically report 5% of more of the total catch or whose status, e.g., Endangered or Threatened, jus fies their inclusion in this report, per the Seafood Watch criteria. Longlines do not typically come in contact with bo om habitats but do capture excep onal species and management does not currently take this into account. These species are managed by the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT) within the Atlan c Ocean. Final Seafood Recommenda ons SPECIES/FISHERY Blue shark South Atlan c, Pelagic longline Blue shark North Atlan c, Pelagic longline Shor in mako shark South Atlan c, Pelagic longline Shor in mako shark North Atlan c, Pelagic longline Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) South Atlan c, CRITERION 1: IMPACTS ON THE SPECIES CRITERION 2: IMPACTS ON OTHER SPECIES CRITERION 3: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS CRITERION 4: HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM OVERALL RECOMMENDATION Yellow (2.644) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962) Green (3.831) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788) Green (3.831) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) 5

Pelagic longline Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) North Atlan c, Pelagic longline Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962) Summary All species included in this report caught by longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c Ocean have an overall recommenda on of Avoid. Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing opera ons have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Cri cal scores Good Alterna ve/yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High 2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Cri cal scores Avoid/Red = Final Score 2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Cri cal scores. 2 Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on for any fishery scored as a Very High for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 6

Introduc on Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on This report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlan c Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but also retain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommenda ons published in a separate Seafood Watch report. They are included as addi onal main species in this report because they occur in this fishery. The U.S. and Canadian longline fisheries are also assessed in a separate report. The longline fisheries included in this report are managed by the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT). Species Overview Mahi mahi is a highly migratory species found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Mahi mahi is typically found in pelagic habitats, where it forms schools and is commonly found associated with?oa ng objects. Mahi mahi is a top predator, feeding on small fish and squid (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue shark is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world s oceans in epipelagic and mesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and most abundant, with abundance increasing with la tude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squid species (ISCSWG 2014). Shor in mako shark is a highly migratory species of shark found in coastal and oceanic epipelagic waters worldwide. Shor in mako shark is found from 20 S to 40 N in the Atlan c Ocean. This species is an apex predator feeding on fish and cephalopods, among other prey (Froese and Pauly 2015). Produc on Sta s cs Catches of mahi mahi in the Atlan c (including the Mediterranean) have increased significantly since 2003. In 2003, 564 MT of mahi mahi were reported caught, followed by 2,632 MT in 2004. Catches peaked at 9,070 MT in 2010 and have since decreased to 2,607 MT in 2013 (ICCAT 2014). Blue shark catches in the North Atlan c, where the majority of blue sharks are caught, have increased in recent years. Since 2008, catches in the North Atlan c have been over 30,000 MT, with 37,137 MT reported in 2013. Almost all of this catch is from longline fisheries. Catches in the South Atlan c have increased through 2011 (34,926 MT) but have since declined to 19,314 MT in 2013. The majority of these catches also come from the longline?eet (ICCAT 2014). Catches of shor in mako shark in the North Atlan c have been fairly stable since the mid-2000s. In 2012, 3,635 MT of shor in mako shark were landed in the North Atlan c. Catches in the South Atlan c, which typically represents less than catches in the North Atlan c, have been more variable over me. Catches peaked in 2003 (3,426 MT). Catches in 2013 were only 1,907 MT. The majority of catches in both regions come from longline fisheries (ICCAT 2014). Importance to the US/North American market. The majority of mahi mahi imported to the United States comes from Ecuador (26%), Chinese Taipei (22%), and Peru (21%) (NMFS 2015). In 2010, U.S. landings made up less than 5% of the mahi mahi available in the U.S. marketplace that year (NMFS 2010). Import sta s cs for sharks are not species-specific. During 2014, imports of fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smaller amounts imported from Canada, China, Costa Rica, and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealand and China (NMFS 2015). Common and market names. Shor in mako and blue sharks are also known as shark, and mahi mahi as dolphinfish. Primary product forms These species are sold in fresh and frozen forms. 7

Assessment This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at h p://www.seafoodwatch.org. Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Score 2.2=Red or High Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal Criterion 1 Summary BLUE SHARK Region / Method South Atlan c Pelagic longline North Atlan c Pelagic longline Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score 1.00: High 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow (2.644) 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green (3.831) DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) Region / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score South Atlan c Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green (3.831) North Atlan c Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green (3.831) SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK Region / Method South Atlan c Pelagic longline North Atlan c Pelagic longline Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green (3.831) 1.00: High 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow (2.644) Blue sharks and shor in mako sharks are a long lived species, which a ain sexual maturity at a late age and produces a small number of young. Blue shark popula ons are considered healthy. Mahi mahi are assessed along with several other species and their current status is uncertain. Shor in mako sharks in the north Atlan c are likely not overfished, although there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results. In the south Atlan c, their popula ons appear to be healthy. 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 characteris cs 8

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 characteris cs that make it neither par cularly 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 food chain). High The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduc on rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) and geographic range. Factor 1.2 - Abundance 5 (Very Low ) Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low ) Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate ) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High ) Popula on 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 ) Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality 5 (Very Low ) 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 contribu on to the mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality). 3.67 (Low ) 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 contribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthy and the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught). 2.33 (Moderate ) Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High ) 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 (Cri cal) Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing. BLUE SHARK Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability, PELAGIC LONGLINE, PELAGIC LONGLINE High FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blue shark reaches sexual maturity around 4 7 years of age and reaches a maximum size and age of 380 cm and 16 years, respec vely. Blue shark gives birth to live pups every 1 2 years (ISCSWG 2014). These life 9

history characteris cs also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure. Ra onale: Life history characteris c Paramater Score Age at maturity 5-10 years 2 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Average maximum length Reproduc ve strategy >300 cm Live bearer 1 1 Trophic level >3.25 1 Total average score 1.4 Factor 1.2 - Abundance, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Blue shark in the South Atlan c was last assessed in 2015. Two models were used in this assessment and showed conflic ng results. The Bayesian surplus produc on model indicated that blue shark in the South Atlan c is not overfished, being between 196% and 203% of levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In contrast, the state space model indicated that the popula on could be overfished and was only between 78% and 129% of MSY levels (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a moderate concern score due to the conflic ng informa on in the current assessment., PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Blue shark in the North Atlan c was last assessed in 2015. Two different models were used to determine the status of blue shark in the North Atlan c. Both models indicated that the popula on is most likely not overfished. The Bayesian surplus produc on model indicated that the biomass in 2013 was between 196% and 205% of levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The Stock Synthesis III model indicated that the spawning stock in 2013 was 135% to 345% of levels needed to produce MSY (ICCAT 2015). Overall, assessment results are uncertain (i.e., level of absolute abundance varied by an order of magnitude between models with different structures) and should be interpreted with cau on. We have therefore awarded a low concern and not very low concern score. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Blue shark has one of the highest suscep bili es to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the South Atlan c. The 2015 assessment used two models to determine fishing mortality rates on blue shark in the South Atlan c. The Bayesian surplus produc on model indicated that fishing mortality rates were below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F 2013/F M SY = 0.01 0.11) and therefore overfishing is not occurring. But the state space model indicated that overfishing could be occurring (F 2013/F M SY = 0.54 1.19) (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a moderate concern score due to the conflic ng results of the 2015 assessment., PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Blue shark has one of the highest suscep bili es to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the North Atlan c. But according to the 2015 assessment, overfishing is not occurring. Two models were used to assess fishing mortality rates of blue shark in the North Atlan c. Both indicated that fishing mortality rates are currently 10

below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F2013/FMSY = 0.04 050 and 0.15 to 0.75) (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a low concern score because it appears that overfishing is not occurring, but not a very low concern score to account for large amounts of uncertainty. DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability, PELAGIC LONGLINE, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Mahi mahi reaches sexual maturity between 35 and 55 cm in length and within the first year of life. The maximum size and age reached is 210 cm and 4 years of age. It is a broadcast spawner and high-level predator (Froese and Pauly 2014). These life history characteris cs also suggest a moderate level of vulnerability to fishing. Factor 1.2 - Abundance, PELAGIC LONGLINE, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Mahi mahi is assessed along with 13 other small tunas in the Atlan c. Currently, there is not enough informa on to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). A separate preliminary a empt at a stock assessment for mahi mahi in the Caribbean and for the U.S. fishery was conducted in 2006. The results suggested that catch rates had been fairly stable over the 10-year study period and that the popula on was likely near virgin levels in both areas (Parker et al. 2006). In addi on, the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers mahi mahi a species of Least with a stable popula on trend. We have awarded a low concern score due to the IUCN status and the results of the preliminary assessment indica ng that the popula on was likely near virgin levels. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality, PELAGIC LONGLINE, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Mahi mahi makes up a small propor on of small tuna catches in the Atlan c Ocean. No assessment has been conducted due to a lack of data (ICCAT 2012a). Mahi mahi are caught by a variety of gears (Colle e et al. 2011d). In the South Atlan c, catches increased considerably during the early to mid-2000s but have begun to decline again in recent years (FAO 2013). Fisheries are not considered to be a major threat to this species (Colle e et al. 2011d). We have awarded a low concern score because it is a non-target species and fisheries are not considered to be a major threat. SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability, PELAGIC LONGLINE, PELAGIC LONGLINE High FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Shor in mako shark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can a ain a maximum size of 325 375 cm and live up to 40 years. It is a top predator and gives birth to live young (ISC 2015). These life history 11

characteris cs also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing based on the Seafood Watch produc vity and suscep bility table (PSA = 1). Factor 1.2 - Abundance, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low The last assessment for shor in mako shark in the South Atlan c was conducted in 2012. The results of this assessment indicated that the biomass was above B M SY and that the popula on is not overfished. Catch rate trends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between es mated biomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the es mated biomass, par cularly for this popula on. The current biomass to B M SY ra o was es mated to range between 1.36 and 2.16, and the current biomass to virgin biomass ra o ranged from 0.72 to 3.16 (ICCAT 2012g). Based on these es mates, the popula on is not overfished and we have awarded a low concern score., PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate The last assessment for shor in mako shark in the North Atlan c was conducted in 2012. The results of this assessment indicated that the biomass was above B M SY and that the popula on is not overfished. Catch rate trends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between es mated biomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the es mated biomass. The current biomass to B M SY ra o was es mated to range between 1.15 and 2.04, and the current biomass to virgin biomass ra o ranged from 0.55 to 1.63 (ICCAT 2012g). Based on these es mates, the popula on is not overfished. But the assessment was surrounded by a large amount of uncertainty (ICCAT 2014). The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers shor in mako shark to be Vulnerable (globally) and the Commi ee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) considers this species to be threatened (Cailliet et al. 2009) (COSEWIC 2006b). These classifica ons predate the most recent assessment. We have awarded a moderate concern score based on this classifica on combined with the high level of uncertainty surrounding the most recent assessment for shor in mako shark in the Atlan c Ocean. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlan c sharks indicate that shor in mako shark is one of the most suscep ble shark species to longline capture in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a). Fisheries in the South Atlan c catch around half the amount of shor in mako sharks as in the North Atlan c. The last popula on assessment indicated that fishing mortality was currently below FMSY levels. FMSY was es mated to range between 0.029 and 0.041, and the current fishing mortality to FMSY ra o was es mated to range between 0.07 and 0.40. Based on this assessment, overfishing is not currently occurring, but it was advised that current fishing mortality levels should be maintained un l a more reliable assessment is available (ICCAT 2012g). We have awarded a low concern score because overfishing does not appear to be occurring., PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlan c sharks indicate that shor in mako shark is one of the most suscep ble shark species to longline capture in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a). The majority of shor in mako sharks are caught in the North Atlan c compared to the South Atlan c Ocean. The last popula on assessment indicated that fishing mortality was currently below F levels. F was es mated to range from 0.029 to 0.104, and M SY 12M SY

M SY the es mated ra o of current fishing mortality rates to F M SY ranged from 0.16 to 0.92. According to these results, overfishing is not occurring. But there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the results of this assessment, and it was noted that fishing mortality should remain constant un l more reliable results are available (ICCAT 2012g). We have therefore awarded a moderate concern score. M SY 13

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 mul plied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Score 2.2=Red or High Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 sec on; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B. BLUE SHARK - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Red (1.000) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate Red (1.526) Red (1.526) Red (1.526) 3.67:Low Red (1.916) 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Red (2.159) Yellow (2.644) Yellow (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 3.67:Low Yellow (2.709) Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) 14

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) BLUE SHARK - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Red (1.000) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) 15

Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate Red (1.526) 3.67:Low Red (1.916) 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Red (2.159) Yellow (2.644) Yellow (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 3.67:Low Yellow (2.709) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000 Green (4.472) Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate 16 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Yellow (2.644)

Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Green (4.472) Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Red (1.000) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate Red (1.526) Red (1.526) Red (1.526) 3.67:Low Red (1.916) 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Red (2.159) Yellow (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 3.67:Low Yellow (2.709) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000 Green (4.472) Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 17 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) Cri cal (0.000) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow (2.644) Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) This report focuses on pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c Ocean. Several species of tuna, fish, sharks, sea turtles and sea birds are captured, some incidentally, in these fisheries. Bycatch of seabirds in the Atlan c occur in the highest amounts south of 30S, specifically for albatrosses, giant petrels and petrels. Few if any interac ons have been observed between pelagic longlines and seabirds north of 30S {Inoue et al. 2012}. We have included such species that either make up at least 5% of the total catch and are considered "main species" according to the Seafood Watch criteria or are a stock of concern, endangered etc.. Reported catches from the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas Task I database for 2011 were used to determine the main species. Other species were iden fied through the literature, which is cited in the tables below. The worst scoring species for the North Atlan c longline fishery is the Oceanic wh te p shark because of their stock status. For the South Atlan c fishery, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles along with wandering and yellow-nosed albatross, and white-chinned petrels are the worst scoring species due to their stock status. North Atlan cpelagic Species Jus fica on Source Oceanic white p shark <5%, depleted Cortes et al. 2012 Frigate tuna 6% reported catch 2011 (NE) ICCAT 2011 Hawksbill Depleted Wallace et al. 2013 Leatherback Depleted Wallace et al. 2013 Loggerhead Depleted Wallace et al. 2013 Olive ridley Depleted Wallace et al. 2013 South Atlan cpelagic 18

Species Jus fica on Source Leatherback loggerhead Grey-headed albatross Black-browed albatross 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) White-chinned petrel Depleted Depleted Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability Wallace et al. 2013 Wallace et al. 2013 Depleted Inoue et al. 2012 Depleted Inoue et al. 2012 Wandering albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012 White-chinned petrel Depleted Inoue et al. 2012 Yellow-nosed albatross High Depleted Inoue et al. 2012 Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds life history characteris cs support this classifica on. These characteris cs include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young. Factor 2.2 - Abundance High The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable with a decreasing popula on trend. The global popula on is es mated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the 1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). We have awarded a high concern score based on the IUCN status. 19

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality Cri cal The incidental capture of white-chinned petrels in longline fisheries is thought to be a factor in ongoing popula on declines (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). Between 1997 and 2009, 47 white-chinned petrels were observed as incidentally captured in longline fisheries in the South Atlan c, the fourth-most commonly observed species (Inoue et al. 2012). This species also has a high overlap with the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT) Conven on Area (Phillips et al. 2006). Bycatch mi ga on measures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c that meet best prac ces (Gilman 2011), but these measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We have therefore awarded a cri cal concern score. Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate < 20% Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0% 40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlan c, discard rates typically range from 10% 19% (Kelleher 2005). Loggerhead turtle Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability to fishing pressure due to their life history characteris cs (Seafood Watch 2013). These life history characteris cs include late age at maturity, long life span, and producing a small number of young. Factor 2.2 - Abundance Very High The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed on Appendix I of the Conven on on Interna onal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). The popula on of nes ng turtles in the Western North Atlan c has been declining since the late 1990s (NMFS 2009). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCN and CITES lis ngs. Very High The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed on Appendix I of CITES. Popula ons of nes ng turtles in Brazil (South Atlan c) increased between 1988 and 2004 (NMFS 2009). But it is unclear if this trend exists throughout the region. 20

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality Moderate The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle is considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). In the Atlan c Ocean, it has been es mated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentally caught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The majority of informa on available is from the U.S. pelagic longline fishery and the Canadian fishery to an extent. For example, it is es mated that the U.S. fishery catches 30,000 loggerheads a year, resul ng in 872 deaths per year (NMFS 2009b). The Canadian fishery caught 1,200 loggerhead turtles between 2002 and 2008 (Paul 2010). An assessment conducted during 2009 determined that there was not enough informa on to assess the effect of loggerhead mortality in individual fisheries (NMFS 2009b) (Paul 2010). But a metadata analysis found that bycatch impacts to this popula on are low (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlan c, but they do not meet best prac ces, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a moderate concern score because bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtle mi ga on measures do not meet best prac ces. Cri cal The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). In the Atlan c Ocean, it has been es mated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentally caught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The Brazilian and Uruguayan fisheries in the South Atlan c are reported to have high sea turtle bycatch rates, which may include loggerhead (Giffoni et al. 2008) (Sales et al. 2010). In the Southwest Atlan c, loggerhead has a low popula on risk but high impact from bycatch (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place but they do not meet best prac ces, such as hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a cri cal concern score because loggerhead is depleted in this area, bycatch from longline fisheries is a contribu ng factor, and adequate management measures are not in place. Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate < 20% Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0% 40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlan c, discard rates typically range from 10% 19% (Kelleher 2005). Leatherback turtle Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability to fishing pressure due to their life history characteris cs (Seafood Watch 2013). These life history characteris cs include late age at maturity, long life span, and producing a small number of young. 21

Factor 2.2 - Abundance Very High Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970 (NMFS 2012). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle as Cri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend in 2000 (Mar nez 2000). In addi on, leatherback turtle has been listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on if interna onal trade is not prohibited. In the Atlan c, the popula on size is es mated to be between 34,000 and 94,000 (TEWG 2007). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCN and CITES lis ngs. Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality Moderate Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtle, especially for juveniles and adults that can be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996). In the Northwest Atlan c Ocean, leatherback sea turtle has a low popula on risk and low bycatch impact from longline fisheries (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlan c, although these do not meet best prac ces (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a moderate concern score because \bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtle mi ga on measures do not meet best prac ces. Cri cal Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtle, especially for juveniles and adults that can be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996). Leatherback interac ons throughout the high seas of the Atlan c are known to occur but the total impact on its popula ons is not fully known. Within the Southwest Atlan c, there are high levels of leatherback bycatch because pelagic longline fishing is distributed throughout the region (TEWG 2007). In this region, leatherback sea turtle is at high risk and highly affected by incidental capture in longline fisheries, and in the southeast Atlan c, it is at a low risk but highly affected by longlines (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlan c, but they do not meet best prac ces, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a cri cal concern score because the popula on is depleted and adequate management measures are not in place. Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate < 20% Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0% 40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlan c, discard rates typically range from 10% 19% (Kelleher 2005). Oceanic white p shark Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability High 22

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Oceanic white p shark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can a ain a maximum length of 400 cm and live up to 22 years. Oceanic white p shark gives birth to live young and is a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life history characteris cs also suggest a high level of vulnerability to fishing. Factor 2.2 - Abundance Very High Stock assessments for oceanic white p shark throughout the Atlan c Ocean have not been conducted. It has been assessed via an Ecological Risk Assessment in 2008 and 2012, at which point it ranked 13th out of 20 in terms of produc vity, indica ng that it is more produc ve than other species (ICCAT 2012h). According to the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), oceanic white p shark is assessed as Cri cally Endangered, due to radical declines in popula on sizes over me (Baum et al. 2006). Published es mates of declines range from 70% 90% but the methods used in those studies have been ques oned (Burgess et al. 2007). We have awarded a very high concern scored based on its IUCN status and the fact that it is rapidly declining. Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality High Informa on on fishing mortality rates for oceanic white p shark in the Atlan c Ocean is not available (Baum et al. 2006). This is due to a general lack of data, making stock assessments very difficult. An Ecological Risk Assessment was conducted in 2012 and oceanic white p shark ranked 6th out of 20 species in terms of suscep bility to longline capture, meaning that it is highly suscep ble (Cortes et al. 2012). It should be noted that the majority of oceanic white p sharks are caught by longline compared to purse seines (Rice 2012). We have awarded a high concern score because of this high suscep bility and because there is a general lack of informa on, but not a cri cal concern score because its capture has recently been prohibited by the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT). Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate < 20% Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0% 40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlan c, discard rates typically range from 10% 19% (Kelleher 2005). Yellow-nosed albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds life history characteris cs support this classifica on. These characteris cs include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young. 23

Factor 2.2 - Abundance Very High Yellow-nosed albatross is considered Endangered by the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) with a decreasing popula on trend. A large and rapid popula on decline has occurred over three genera ons (72 years). Currently, there are only an es mated 13,900 breeding pairs, or 27,800 mature individuals (BirdLife Interna onal 2012b). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCN status. Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality Cri cal Yellow-nosed albatross is one of the most common incidentally caught seabird species in pelagic longlines, and this incidental capture is considered to be a cause of popula on declines (BirdLife Interna onal 2012b). Within the Atlan c longline fisheries, it was es mated that, from 2000 to 2006, 48,500 seabirds were incidentally caught and of these, 57% were albatross species and 17% were yellow-nosed albatross. The highest catch rates occurred in the South Atlan c, where the impact of the pelagic longline fisheries is likely accoun ng for popula on declines of this species (Jimenez et al. 2012). Yellow-nosed albatross was also reported as one of the most commonly observed incidentally captured seabirds in the Taiwanese pelagic longline fishery (Yeh et al. 2012). These bycatch es mates are considered to be at a level to cause concern for vulnerable albatross popula ons (Klaer 2012). Bycatch mi ga on measures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c that meet best prac ces (Gilman 2011), but measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We have therefore awarded a cri cal concern score. Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate < 20% Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0% 40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlan c, discard rates typically range from 10% 19% (Kelleher 2005). Wandering albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds life history characteris cs support this classifica on. These characteris cs include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young. Factor 2.2 - Abundance Very High The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross to be 24