Seafood Watch Seafood Report

Seafood Watch Seafood Report Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri (Image Duane Raver, Jr.) Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions Final Report 12/22/03 Updated 11/27/06 Robert Mazurek Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium

About Seafood Watch and the Seafood Reports 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 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 the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch program by emailing seafoodwatch@mbayaq.org. The program s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. 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, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Fisheries Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each 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 (831) 647-6873 or emailing seafoodwatch@mbayaq.org. Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch 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 and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 1

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 3 II. Introduction...5 III. Analysis of Seafood Watch Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure.7 Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks..7 Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch.9 Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems 15 Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime.15 IV. Overall Recommendation and Seafood Evaluation...17 V. References...19 2

I. Executive Summary Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) is a pelagic fish found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters, including the western Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Wahoo reaches sexual maturity at a young age, experiences a relatively short life span, is highly fecund, and spawns multiple times each year. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) classifies the stock status of wahoo as unknown. There are no long-term or short-term biomass trends available for wahoo. Wahoo is caught using hook and line or longline gear; both gear types are thought to have little or no impact on marine habitats. The quantity of bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hook and line and longline fisheries is considered moderate. However, the composition of longline bycatch is of grave concern as it regularly includes threatened, endangered, or protected species. In 1999, NMFS determined that the longline fisheries were likely to adversely affect the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS 1999a). Since this finding, NMFS has implemented several regulatory measures to reduce bycatch, and since these measures have been implemented, declines in sea turtle bycatch have been observed. Wahoo is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic, as well as the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. Managers currently only collect fishery-dependent data for wahoo. Table of Sustainability Ranks Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability Status of Stocks Nature of Bycatch Habitat & Ecosystem Effects Management Effectiveness About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: A seafood product is ranked Best Choice if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern. A seafood product is ranked Good Alternative if the five criteria average to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the Status of Stocks and Management Effectiveness criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern. A seafood product is ranked Avoid if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above. 3

Overall Seafood Recommendation: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid 4

II. Introduction Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) is a pelagic fish found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters (FAO 2003). In the western Atlantic, wahoo ranges from the east coast of the United States through Columbia, the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean (SAFMC 2003). Wahoo is especially abundant during the winter months along the north coast of western Cuba (FAO 2003). It is caught off the coasts of North and South Carolina primarily during the spring and summer (April-June and July-September), and off the coasts of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands year-round. In the eastern Caribbean, wahoo is caught between December and June, and in Bermuda between April and September (SAFMC 1998). In the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, commercial fisheries for wahoo consist primarily of hook and line (including handline, troll, rod and reel, and electric reel) and longline gear. The hook and line commercial fishery is conducted similarly to the recreational hook and line fishery. The longline fishery consists of vessels that target primarily highly migratory pelagic species such as swordfish, with incidental catch of dolphinfish and wahoo, and vessels that target dolphinfish directly. The recreational wahoo fishery typically accounts for more than 80% of the total yearly domestic landings for this species (Figure 1) (NMFS 2006a). MSY calculations described in this report are for total domestic catch of wahoo. 900 800 700 Commercial catch (mt) Recreational (mt) Metric tons (mt) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 1. Commercial and recreational catch of wahoo in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fisheries (Data from NMFS 2006a). 5

Availability of Science There is very little information available on wahoo, including estimates of biomass and fishing mortality. Market Availability Common and market names: Wahoo is sold as wahoo, or by its Hawaiian name, ono. Seasonal availability: Wahoo is available year-round (PSG 2002). Product forms: Wahoo landed domestically is usually sold fresh as whole fish or fresh fillets (NMFS 2001a). Import and export sources and statistics: Wahoo is not listed as a separate species in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) foreign trade database, thus imports and exports of this species are unknown (NMFS 2006a). In the U.S., the majority of the wahoo catch is from Hawaii (81%), and it is also landed in several southeastern states (Figure 2) (NMFS 2006a). 3% 2%2% 2% Hawaii 10% Louisiana Florida - west coast North Carolina Florida - east coast Texas 81% Figure 2. U.S. catch of wahoo in 2004 (Data from NMFS 2006a). 6

III. Analysis of Seafood Watch Sustainability Criteria Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure Wahoo has resilient life history characteristics as it is thought to mature at a young age (4-5 months) and exhibits high fecundity (Table 1) (SAFMC 2003). They are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters (FAO 2003). There have been few investigations into wahoo life history characteristics or stock structure and most information comes from a single study conducted by Hogarth (1976). Wahoo appear to be very fast-growing, attaining a length of over 99 cm in their first year. According to Hogarth (1976), estimates of size at maturity, determined from catches off the coast of North Carolina, are 86 cm FL for males and 101 cm FL for females. Fecundity estimates range from 560,000 eggs (for a 6.13 kg wahoo) to 45 million eggs (for a 39.5 kg wahoo) (Hogarth 1976). Hogarth (1976) determined that the spawning season extends from June through August with peak spawning in June and July. Table 1. Life history information for wahoo. Species Range Worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters Intrinsic Rate of Increase Age at Sexual Maturity 86 cm FL for males and 101 cm FL for females Longevity Special Behaviors Fecundity Sources Unknown Unknown Attracted to FADs Spawns 560,000-45 million eggs (Hogarth 1976; SAFMC 2003) Synthesis Wahoo is thought to reach sexual maturity at a young age. They are prolific spawners and are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. It is concluded, therefore, that wahoo are resilient to fishing pressure and conservation concern regarding their vulnerability ranks low. Inherent Vulnerability Rank: Resilient Moderately Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks The commercial catch of wahoo is incidental to fishing for dolphinfish or other pelagic species. To date, a comprehensive stock assessment for wahoo has not been conducted, making it difficult to discern the status of the stock, its age, size and sex distribution, or the appropriate level of fishing effort. Officially, NMFS classifies the wahoo stock as unknown and it is unknown if overfishing is occurring (Table 2) (NMFS 2006b). Furthermore, no data are available to assess long-term or short-term trends in stock abundance and CPUE data are not available. 7

Without the guidance of a stock assessment, NMFS has developed a proxy maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for the total Atlantic fishery (both commercial and recreational) of 640 mt to 739 mt based on a 5 to 10 year range of median catch through 1999 (SAFMC 2003). No MSY or MSY proxy is available for the Gulf of Mexico fishery. Table 2. Stock status of wahoo. Classification Status Unknown B/B MSY Unknown (MSY proxy is 640-739 mt) Occurrence of Overfishing F/F MSY Abundance Trends/CPUE Age/Size/Sex Distribution Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown High Degree of Uncertainty in Stock Status Sources SAFMC 2003 SFW Rank Unknown Synthesis NMFS classifies wahoo as unknown and it is unknown if overfishing is occurring. There are no long-term or short-term biomass trends available for wahoo, and no stock assessment has been conducted. Because of the high uncertainty and lack of data on the wahoo stock, the conservation concern regarding the status of these stocks ranks unknown. Status of the Stocks Rank: Healthy Unknown Poor Critical 8

Criterion 3: Nature of Bycatch In the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the commercial fishery for wahoo consists primarily of longline or hook and line gear (hand line, troll, rod and reel, and electric reel). Wahoo is caught incidentally in the longline fishery targeting highly migratory species (HMS) such as tunas and swordfish. Though both hook and line and longline methods are relatively selective, they can cause the death of a range of species, from endangered and protected sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, to sharks and juvenile fish (NMFS 2001c; Kitchell et al. 2002; Baum et al. 2003; Hinton 2003; SAFMC 2003). The 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for HMS longline fisheries in the Atlantic concludes that the proposed management measures in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherbacks, but not the existence of the other turtle species that are taken as bycatch in this fishery. NMFS jeopardy finding was based on estimated annual mortalities in the U.S. fishery of approximately 200 leatherbacks, continuing indefinitely (NMFS 2004). Non-target animals inadvertently approach (or are attracted to) baited hooks from both hook and line and longline gear and may become hooked or entangled in the gear, causing them to be injured or drowned (NMFS 2001b). Hook and line gear is used in the majority of wahoo landings. Information from the hook and line fishery (based on observer data), reports from the public, and stranding data from the Atlantic show that all species of sea turtles have been impacted by this gear (SAFMC 2003); these interactions, however, are minimal relative to the impact of the longline fisheries. Since these data sources are descriptive in nature, consistent information regarding the type of hook and line fishery or species targeted is lacking (SAFMC 2003). Within longline fisheries, interactions with sea turtles and seabirds occur more frequently with shallow-set techniques that target dolphinfish and swordfish than with deep-set techniques that target tunas (Figure 3) (NMFS 2001b), as the bait sinks more slowly and stays closer to the surface with shallow set than with deep-set gear. Shallow set longlines are known to have bycatch rates as much as 10 times greater than tuna sets (Crowder and Myers 2001; NMFS 2001b; Cousins et al. 2002), but mortality is thought to be lower than deep-set fishing, since the hooks remain within reach of the surface, sometimes enabling a hooked or entangled turtle to breathe. Although the shallow-set gear increases the chance of hooked turtles being released alive, post-release survival estimates are not sufficiently known (SAFMC 2003). 9

Figure 3. Gear configuration for pelagic longline sets targeting swordfish vs. tuna (Figure from NMFS 2001c). The domestic longline fishery consists of approximately 199 boats targeting various HMS in the Atlantic; wahoo is caught incidentally in this fishery. Bycatch of billfish, undersized swordfish, and sea turtles have been of concern for many years because of the impact to the stocks of these species (NMFS 2000). North Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, bluefin tuna, Atlantic sailfish, bigeye tuna, northern albacore tuna, and the large coastal shark (LCS) complex are all considered overfished (NMFS 2003a) and are taken by Atlantic HMS fisheries on a regular basis (NMFS 2000). Furthermore, several sea turtles are listed as endangered or threatened and are caught incidentally in these fisheries (NMFS 2000). In 2000, NMFS estimated that the pelagic longline fleet in the Atlantic interacted with 1,256 loggerhead and 769 leatherback sea turtles (NMFS 2003b). Sea turtle mortality associated with the HMS fishery, along with a long term plan to increase sea turtle populations, is included in the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP (also known as the HMS FMP) (NMFS 2001c). However, mortalities associated with the directed longline fishery for dolphinfish have yet to be incorporated into this plan (SAFMC 2003). Since 1999 the domestic longline fishery in the Atlantic has implemented several measures to reduce bycatch, including time/area closures to reduce discards of bluefin tuna and undersized swordfish, permanent closures, limited access for swordfish and shark fisheries, gear restrictions, and outreach programs (e.g., providing information on the use of circle hooks, live vs. dead bait, etc.) (NMFS 2000; SAFMC 2003). The area closures (Figure 4), along with other restrictions, such as limited access and a prohibition of drift gillnets, has significantly reduced the size of the U.S. longline fleet (NMFS 2003b). 10

Figure 4. Areas closed to pelagic longline fishing (Figure from NMFS 2001c). Marine Mammal Interactions Pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic are considered Category I fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A Category I fishery causes a serious injury/mortality rate of 50% or more of a stock s Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (SAFMC 2003). PBR is defined as the maximum number of animals that can be removed from the stock (by other than natural causes) while allowing the stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable level (NMFS 2001c). In 2000, there were 14 observed takes of marine mammals by pelagic longlines (NMFS 2003b), consisting mostly of small whales and dolphins. This number has been extrapolated to an estimated 403 mammals fleet-wide (32 common dolphins, 93 Rissa s dolphins, 231 pilot whales, 19 unidentified whales, 29 pygmy sperm whales). Though longliners frequently take, or interact with, marine mammals, many are released alive (NMFS 2003b). While large whales can also become entangled in longlines, federal observers in the Atlantic fishery have not recorded such incidents (SAFMC 2003). According to NMFS 2001 Biological Opinion, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery may affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the sperm, blue, fin, sei, humpback or northern right whale (NMFS 2001c). To further protect these large whales, as of August 1, 2000, specific actions have prohibited pelagic longline fishing in sensitive areas, including the Charleston Bump and the southeastern coast of Florida (NMFS 2001c). 11

Seabird Interactions Unlike studies conducted in the Pacific, few seabird/gear interaction assessments have been conducted for longline fisheries in the Atlantic (Lewison and Crowder 2003). Though incidental takes of seabirds have been recorded by fishery observers, these numbers have yet to be analyzed. According to NMFS (2003b), because interactions appear to be relatively low in Atlantic HMS longline fisheries, the adoption of immediate measures to protect seabirds is unlikely. There is a National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (NMFS 2001c), which was released in February 2001. This plan of action calls for detailed assessments of longline fisheries, and, if a problem is found to exist, for regulations that will reduce seabird bycatch within 2 years. Also, to address on-going concerns regarding seabird and fisheries interactions, NMFS recently initiated an Interagency Seabird Working Group (SAFMC 2003). The first meeting was held via video/teleconference January 15, 2002. The new initiative is looking to find practicable and effective solutions to seabird/fishery interactions (SAFMC 2003) Sea Turtle Interactions Green, hawksbill, loggerhead, leatherback, and olive ridley turtles are highly migratory (or have a highly migratory phase in part of their life history), making them susceptible to incidental catch in fisheries operating throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Populations of all Atlantic sea turtle species, especially leatherbacks and loggerheads, have declined precipitously over the last two decades (Crowder and Myers 2001). Leatherbacks, for example, declined worldwide from 115,000 adult females in 1982 to 34,500 adult females in 1994. Mexican leatherback nesting females numbered 70,000 in 1982 but only 250 in 1999. Costa Rica s Playa Grande leatherback nesting females numbered 1,367 in 1988 but only 117 nesting females in 1999 (Spotila et al. 2000). All five species of sea turtles are now listed as vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN, and their classification status under the 1973 U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is as follows: Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) Endangered/Threatened Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) Endangered/Threatened 1 According to NMFS (2001c), the loggerhead population in the Atlantic declined through the mid-1980s, however it is unknown whether or not this trend is continuing. The population of leatherback sea turtles is believed to have recently stabilized. Though the extent of sea turtle take is unknown in the commercial hook and line fishery, most mortality occurs when turtles are too large to be lifted on board a vessel, in which case removal of gear may be difficult if not impossible (SAFMC 2003). Gear left attached to a released sea turtle, such as trailing line from an ingested hook, may pose serious risks to the turtle (SAFMC 2003). Researchers from the Mediterranean have described an accordion effect which can occur if a turtle swallows monofilament that is still attached to an embedded hook (as described in NMFS 2001c). The turtle s intestines, as it attempts to pass the unmoving monofilament line, 1 The breeding populations of Mexico olive ridley turtles are currently listed as endangered, while all other ridley populations are listed as threatened. 12

coil and wrap usually killing the turtle (NMFS 2001c). Trailing line may also snag on floating or fixed objects further entangling the turtle (SAFMC 2003). Fishermen and observers are generally instructed to clip the line as close to the hook as possible when removal of the hook is not feasible (SAFMC 2003). It appears that many turtles caught in hook and line fisheries are released alive, though the condition and status of these turtles after release remains unknown (SAFMC 2003). Within the U.S. Atlantic HMS longline fishery, NMFS has estimated that in 1999, 991 loggerheads were caught and 23 were discarded dead (NMFS 2001c) (Table 3). Also, 1,012 leatherbacks were caught, all of which were released live (NMFS 2001c). Based on biological opinions issued on June 30, 2000, and June 14, 2001, NMFS implemented several emergency rules and finalized the biological opinion s required measures on July 9, 2002 (NMFS 2003b). The final rule closed the northeast distant statistical reporting area, modified how pelagic longline gear is set, required corrodible hooks, required the reporting of dead sea turtles, and required the posting of sea turtle handling and release guidelines (NMFS 2003b). In 2002, an experimental fishery found mackerel bait and reduced daylight soak time helped reduce sea turtle takes (NMFS 2003b). The fishery also experimented with different hook types, and found the use of circle hooks, in place of J hooks, reduced the severity of injury to sea turtles caught, as a lower percentage of the sea turtles were hooked in the throat. Percent Hooked in the Throat (NMFS 2001c) Standard J Hook 57% Offset J Hook 46% Circle Hook 11% The use of the circle hooks, however, did not decrease the number of sea turtles caught. NOAA Fisheries is currently analyzing the results from 2002 and determining what measures to test in the future. Various styles of hooks are used in the pelagic longline fisheries, and boats may fish several styles of hooks at any one time depending on target species and hook availability. The swordfish fishery uses standard J style hooks while the tuna fishery uses circle hooks. In 2001, after time/area closures were implemented, takes of sea turtles in the longline fisheries were reduced by 6% Atlantic-wide from the 1999-2000 average (NMFS 2003b). Analysis of sea turtle takes for the 2002 season is not yet available. It is too soon to determine if this 6% reduction in sea turtle takes in the U.S. fishery has had a significant impact on turtle populations. The U.S. fishery only accounts for 6.45% of swordfish catch in the Atlantic, and less than 3% of total tuna and marlin catch (NMFS 2003b). Most HMS fishing pressure in the Atlantic comes from international fleets, most of which do not provide data on bycatch. 13

Table 3. Observed and estimated sea turtle bycatch in the U.S. pelagic longline fishery (Table from NMFS 2003b) Synthesis The quantity of bycatch in the hook and line and longline fisheries is considered moderate. However, the composition of longline bycatch regularly includes threatened, endangered, or protected species in the longline fishery. NMFS has implemented time/area closures, closed Florida s east coat to longline fishing, modified how pelagic longline gear is set, required corrodible hooks in both the hook and line and longline fisheries, required the reporting of dead sea turtles, and required the posting of sea turtle handling and release guidelines. In 2001, these rules resulted in a 6% Atlantic-wide reduction in sea turtle takes in U.S. fisheries. But this reduction has not changed NMFS determination that these fisheries adversely impact sea turtles. Because of interactions with protected species, the conservation concern regarding bycatch ranks high. Nature of Bycatch Rank: Low Moderate High Critical 14

Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems According to reports from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Conservation Law Foundation, and NMFS (Collie 1998; Gordon, Scwinghamer et al. 1998; NMFS 1999a; Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003) hook and line and pelagic longline gear have little or no biological or physical impact on the benthic environment. Trolling vessels on occasion pass through weedlines or macroalgae rafts, such as sargassum, and damage potential protective cover for sea turtles, exposing them to predation, however such disturbances are considered minor impacts, and overall, dolphinfish and wahoo fisheries inflict little damage to marine habitats (SAFMC 2003). Furthermore, though the diets of oceanic pelagic species indicate that juvenile dolphinfish and wahoo serve as prey for many oceanic fish, there is no evidence to date that the removal of these species at current rates will disrupt the food web (SAFMC 2003). Synthesis Hook and line and pelagic longline gear have little or no biological or physical impact on the benthic environment. Though these fisheries operate over a large area, there is little damage to habitats and the resilience of the pelagic water column is considered high. Furthermore, though the diets of oceanic pelagic species indicate that wahoo, particularly juveniles, serve as prey for many oceanic fish, there is no evidence that the removal of these species will disrupt the food web. Conservation concern regarding the effect of fishing pressure on habitats and ecosystems is low. Effect of Fishing Practices Rank: Benign Moderate Severe Critical Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime Currently, domestic landings of wahoo in the Atlantic fall under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic, under the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the New England Fishery Management Council. Long-term and short-term trends in biomass have rarely been analyzed. Also, only fishery-dependent data on these species have been collected and no fisheryindependent stock assessments have been conducted. NMFS has decided to actively manage dolphinfish and wahoo under a new FMP. This FMP calls for the following regulatory actions (SAFMC 2003): Dealer, Vessel, and Operator Permits: Dealers and owners of commercial and for-hire vessels would be required to obtain federal permits from NOAA Fisheries to participate in the fishery, and to report their landing transactions. The qualifying criteria to obtain a vessel permit would establish a limited access system. Operators of 15

a commercial or for-hire vessel would be required to obtain a federal operator permit from NOAA Fisheries to participate in the fishery. These actions are intended to develop more accurate counts of the number of participants, and vessels in the fishery, and catch per vessel. Harvesting Restrictions: To maintain a healthy stock the proposed rule would establish numerous harvesting restrictions, including: (1) no sale provisions for the recreational fishery; (2) recreational bag limits of ten dolphinfish per person per day, not to exceed 60 dolphinfish per boat per day; (3) commercial trip limits of 3,000 pounds for dolphinfish caught north of 31 N. latitude and a 1,000 pounds for dolphinfish caught south of 31 N. latitude with no transfer at sea allowed; (4) commercial trip limits of 500 pounds for wahoo with no transfer at sea; (5) minimum size limits of 20 inches fork-length for dolphinfish; and (6) allowable gears and restrictions on use-specific gears. Framework Procedures: The proposed rule would establish a framework procedure by which the fishery management council could adjust certain management measures, such as stock status determination criteria, harvesting restrictions, and permit requirements, through an abbreviated rulemaking process. Bycatch regulations for the Dolphinfish and Wahoo FMP will be the same as outlined in the Emergency Actions enacted for the HMS fishery (NMFS 2000; SAFMC 2003). As discussed in the bycatch section of this report, measures have been implemented to reduce bycatch of protected species and undersized tuna and swordfish, but the plan s effectiveness has not yet been demonstrated. Enforcement of regulations will also be the same as those enacted for the HMS fishery. Management regulations for the HMS fishery are enforced by observer coverage and dockside monitoring. Synthesis Wahoo is currently managed under the FMP for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic. Long-term and short-term trends in biomass are not available. Also, only fishery-dependent data are collected though this information is rarely analyzed. Measures have been implemented to reduce bycatch of protected species and undersized tunas and swordfish, but the plan s effectiveness has not yet been demonstrated. Regulations are enforced by observer coverage and dockside monitoring. Since these species are currently not actively managed, management is considered to be only moderately effective. Effectiveness of Management Rank: Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical 16

IV. Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation Wahoo is a pelagic fish found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters, including the western Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Wahoo reaches sexual maturity at a young age, experiences a relatively short life span, is highly fecund, and spawns multiple times each year. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) classifies the stock status of wahoo as unknown, and there are no long-term or short-term biomass trends available for wahoo. Wahoo is caught using hook and line or longline gear; both gear types are thought to have little or no impact on marine habitats. The quantity of bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hook and line and longline fisheries is considered moderate. However, the composition of longline bycatch is of grave concern as it regularly includes threatened, endangered, or protected species. In 1999, NMFS determined that the hook and line and longline fisheries were likely to adversely affect the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS 1999b). Since this finding, NMFS has implemented several regulatory measures to reduce bycatch, but it is too early to determine conclusively if these regulations are helping to rebuild sea turtle stocks. Wahoo is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic, as well as the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. Managers currently only collect fishery-dependent data. Table of Sustainability Ranks Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability Status of Stocks Nature of Bycatch Habitat & Ecosystem Effects Management Effectiveness Overall Seafood Recommendation: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid 17

Supplemental Information Health consumption information on the Seafood Watch pocket guides is provided by Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense applies the same risk-based methodology as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to data from government studies and papers published in scientific journals. The Environmental Defense consumption advisory for wahoo is based on mercury contamination. The number of meals of wahoo that can safely be eaten each month is 2 for females, 2 for males, 1 for older children, and 1 for younger children. More detailed information about the Environmental Defense advisory can be found at http://www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=fishpage&group=wahoo. 18

V. References Baum, J. K., R. Myers, et al. (2003). "Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic." Science 299: 389-392. Collie, J. (1998). Studies in New England of Fishing Gear Impacts on the Sea Floor. Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England. E. M. Dorsey and J. Pederson. Boston, Conservation Law Foundation. Cousins, K. L., P. Dalzell, et al. (2002). Managing pelagic longline-albatross interactions in the North Pacific Ocean. Honolulu, Hawaii, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu HI 96813: 27. Crowder, L. and R. Myers (2001). A Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry. Philadelphia, PA, The Pew Charitable Trusts: 143. FAO (2003). Species Information Sheet: Acanthocybium solandri. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 2. Gordon, D. C., P. Scwinghamer, et al. (1998). Studies in Eastern Canada on the Impact of Mobile Fishing Gear on Benthic Habitat and Communities. Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England. E. M. Dorsey and J. Pederson. Boston, Conservation Law Foundation. Hinton, M. G. a. W. H. B. (2003). Assessment of Swordfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, IATTC Stock Assessment Report 2. La Jolla, CA, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission: 32. Hogarth, W. T. (1976). Life history aspects of the wahoo, Acanthocybium solanderi, from the coast of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina State: 107. Kitchell, J. F., T. Essington, et al. (2002). "The role of sharks and longline fisheries in a pelagic ecosystem of the Central Pacific." Ecosystems 5: 202-216. Lewison, R. L., and L. B. Crowder. 2003. Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird population. Ecological Applications 13:743-753. Morgan, L. E. and R. Chuenpagdee (2003). Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters, Pew Charitable Trusts: 168. NMFS (1999a). Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, and Sharks http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/hmsexesum.pdf. Silver Spring, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Division: 487. 19

NMFS (1999b). NOAA Fisheries EFH Workshop, Potential Physical Impacts to EFH in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean, National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS (2000). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks Fishery Management Plan, Reduction of Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/hmsdocuments.html. Silver Springs, MD, National Marine Fisheries Service: 127. NMFS (2001a). Environmental Impact Statement Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu, HI, National Marine Fisheries Service: 342. NMFS (2001b). Biological Opinion on the Fishery Management Plan for HMS in the Atlantic http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/hmsdocuments.html. Silver Springs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division: 128. NMFS (2001c). Biological Opinion Regarding Interaction with Endangered Species, NMFS Southwest Region Sustainable Fisheries Division, Endangered Species Act Section 7: 412. NMFS (2003a). NOAA Fisheries 2002 Report to Congress http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reports.html. Silver Springs, MD, National Marine Fisheries Service: 156. NMFS (2003b). 2003 SAFE Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms. Silver Springs, National Marine Fisheries Service: 267. NMFS (2004). Reinitiation of consultation on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for highly migratory species. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species. NMFS (2006a). Final consolidated Atlantic highly migratory species fisheries management plan. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed August 22, 2006. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/hmsdocument_files/fmps.htm. NMFS (2006b). Report on the status of the U.S. fisheries for 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed 2006. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/sosmain.htm#congress05. PSG (2002). Availability of Mahi Mahi (dolphinfish) http://www.pacseafood.com/, Portland, OR, Pacific Seafood Group 20

SAFMC (1998). Dolphin/Wahoo Workshop Report. Charleston, South Carolina, Prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC (2003). Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic Including a final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. Charleston, South Carolina, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in Cooperation with the New England Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council: 386. Spotila, J., R. Reina, et al. (2000). "Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction." Nature 405: 529-530. 21