Last updated on 7 May 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Sardinops sagax

SPECIES NAME(s)

South American pilchard

COMMON NAMES

cold stock, California Current population

According to the latest stock assessment report (Hill et al., 2011) sardine off the West Coast of North America is thought to consist of three subpopulations or stocks. A northern (“cold”) subpopulation (northern Baja California to Alaska), a southern subpopulation (outer coastal Baja California to southern California), and a Gulf of California subpopulation have been distinguished by population studies, although some uncertainty remains.


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Stock assessment is performed with a recent assessment model that facilitates the risk determination of the management scenarios.
  • Harvest control rules considered to be precautionary are in use in both the Canadian and U.S. fisheries.
Weaknesses
  • Sampling area for surveys is limited and results are linearly extrapolated to the entire stock (Hill et al., 2008).
  • There is uncertainty about stock structure and mixing with the southern stock.
  • There is no joint management agreement of the stock between the three fishing nations.
  • U.S. and Canadian estimates of their portions of the stock’s distribution sum 105% not considering the Mexican distribution, risking overharvesting.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

≥ 6

Fishers Compliance:

≥ 6

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 6

Future Health:

8


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS
  • Establish a trilateral committee to conduct the needed population genetics analysis to determine the existence of one or more stocks (metapopulations?) in the Baja California – Bering Sea region (Known as the Baja to Bering, B2B region in the North America Comission for Environmental Cooperation)
  • Based upon the results from the population genetics studies, develop the stock assessments at the proper scale in order to determine TAC and quota/fishing unit for the whole region despite the country of origin of the vessel(s)
  • Establish a comprehensive and transparent monitoring program to cover the whole distribution region to collect fishery dependent and independent data to evaluate the stocks, collect information on ETP species (emphasis on marine mammals and seabirds), bycatch and environmental impacts.
RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Contact fisheries authorities in the three countries to establish the trilateral fishery management committee.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
North-east Pacific Canada British Columbia Canada Purse seines
Mexico Ensenada Mexico Purse seines
US Pacific United States Purse seines
Surrounding nets without purse lines

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 22 August 2013

Strengths
  • Stock assessment is performed with a recent assessment model that facilitates the risk determination of the management scenarios.
  • Harvest control rules considered to be precautionary are in use in both the Canadian and U.S. fisheries.
Weaknesses
  • Sampling area for surveys is limited and results are linearly extrapolated to the entire stock (Hill et al., 2008).
  • There is uncertainty about stock structure and mixing with the southern stock.
  • There is no joint management agreement of the stock between the three fishing nations.
  • U.S. and Canadian estimates of their portions of the stock’s distribution sum 105% not considering the Mexican distribution, risking overharvesting.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 28 October 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators
  • Establish a trilateral committee to conduct the needed population genetics analysis to determine the existence of one or more stocks (metapopulations?) in the Baja California – Bering Sea region (Known as the Baja to Bering, B2B region in the North America Comission for Environmental Cooperation)
  • Based upon the results from the population genetics studies, develop the stock assessments at the proper scale in order to determine TAC and quota/fishing unit for the whole region despite the country of origin of the vessel(s)
  • Establish a comprehensive and transparent monitoring program to cover the whole distribution region to collect fishery dependent and independent data to evaluate the stocks, collect information on ETP species (emphasis on marine mammals and seabirds), bycatch and environmental impacts.
Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Contact fisheries authorities in the three countries to establish the trilateral fishery management committee.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 3 April 2013

A joint U.S./Mexico/Canada assessment workshop was held in 2010 but annual assessments are led by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), using both fishery and survey data. Fishery data include commercial landings and biological sampling from the six main regional fisheries (Ensenada, Southern California, Central California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia), modeled as two fleets. Surveys provide estimates of total and spawning biomass estimates, reproductive parameters and size and age composition data through annual egg surveys, aerial surveys and acoustic surveys (Hill et al., 2012). A survey in Canadian waters is not used in the assessment but is used to estimate biomass distribution in the area. There is high uncertainty associated with the extrapolation of biomass estimates to non-surveyed areas (DFO, 2012).

A Stock Synthesis 3 (SS3) likelihood–based age and length structured model has been used in the assessment, with updates, since 2007 (PFMC, 2011a). A stock assessment review panel periodically provides recommendations on the assessment, and uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are conducted to address identified issues and improve the quality of the assessment.

Discarding is not contemplated in the assessment but the practice is thought to be infrequent (Hill et al., 2011).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 3 April 2013

The NMFS establishes an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the U.S. fishery. The ABC was previously based on the fishery management plan harvest control rule (HCR) anddetermined as equal to the harvest guideline, but in 2010 U.S. managers implemented additional control rules for ABC and overfishing limit (OFL), based on the latest biomass estimate, estimated fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) and the portion of the biomass distributed in U.S. waters. The ABC further includes a buffer based on uncertainty in the assessment (PFMC, 2011a). The U.S. OFL for 2012 was determined to be 154,781 tons (177,909 tons when expanded to the whole stock) and the ABC ranged from 126,073 – 163,140 tons based on uncertainty buffers ranging from 20-45% probability of overfishing (Hill et al., 2011), corresponding to 144,911 – 187,517 tons for the whole stock. The 2012 assessment has not yet been formally disseminated but for 2013 an OFL of 103,284 tons for the U.S. (118,717 tons for the whole stock) and ABCs ranging from 76,287 – 98,716 tons, or 87,686 – 113,467 tons for the entire distribution, were calculated (Hill et al., 2012).

NMFS also defines priority data and research needs which include more complete sampling surveys, standardizing data collection and improving data exchange, obtaining more Mexican fishery and survey data, improving methods and error estimates of ageing (also recommended by the review panel), improving knowledge of sardine stock structure and exploring environmental covariates (PFMC, 2011a). Canadian scientists have advised for the re-evaluation of methods for extrapolating biomass estimates (DFO, 2012).

Recommendations for the Mexican fishery are for no increase in effort (SAGARPA, 2012).

Reference Points

Last updated on 03 Apr 2013

The NMFS defines Cutoff as the lowest level of estimated biomass at which directed harvest is permitted (PFMC, 2011a). Fraction (a proxy for FMSY) is an environment-based percentage of biomass above the Cutoff that can be harvested by the fisheries (based on a quadratic transformation of the running average sea-surface temperature but restricted to the range 5-15%). Fraction has consistently been set at 15% but FMSY has been estimated as 0.18 (Hill et al., 2012).

A biomass of 50,000 tons or less classifies the stock as overfished and leads to closure of the directed fishery whereas between 50,000 and 150,000 tons (the Cutoff) only the small live bait fishery is allowed to operate (PFMC, 2011b). A maximum harvest limit is set at 200,000 tons (PFMC, 2011a).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 3 April 2013

The spawning biomass is currently estimated at 435,351 tons and biomass at ages 1 and older at 659,539 tons. The biomass estimate for 2011 was revised downwards in 2012 and the current trend now shows a six-year decrease but remains well above the cutoff level (Hill et al., 2012). Recent biomass is thought to be around a fifth of the size it was before it declined and subsequently collapsed in the 1960s. This would appear to indicate that under favorable oceanographic conditions the stock could expand further. However the trend in recruits per spawner is decreasing so the stock may have reached a threshold under current environmental conditions (PFMC, 2011a). According to the revised definition used in the FMP of catches in excess of the OFL (PFMC, 2011b), for the latest catches (2011) overfishing would not be considered to be occurring in the U.S. fishery (46,745 tons<92,767 tons), but extending this definition to the international fishery, overfishing is occurring (137,801 tons>106,629 tons). On the other hand, the exploitation rate due to the whole fishery (15.07%) is at the target defined in the harvest control rules (15%).

Trends

Last updated on 03 Apr 2013

The 2011 and 2012 assessments produced shorter time series than previous assessments. Considering recent trends, spawning stock biomass increased from low levels in 1993 to a peak of over 1 million tons in 1999, then decreased to 488,000 tons in 2003. A rapid increase to over 1 million tons in 2006/2007 followed, and a decreasing trend has been observed since then, with 2012 spawning biomass reaching 435,351 tons (Hill et al., 2012). The 2006/07 peak was likely due to the very large 2003 recruiting class (DFO, 2010) following a poor run of years. The 2005 class was also large and the 2009 class was above recent levels but the 2010 and 2011 classes are close to the weakest in recent years. Recruitment is highly variable and affected by environmental processes, and the population is known from studies of fish scale deposition to have undergone large and lengthy variations in abundance over past centuries (Hill et al., 2012). The collapse of the stock that led to the 1960s closure is likely to have been due to an environmentally-linked decline exacerbated by the fishery (PFMC, 2013).

Total exploitation rate (catch/stock biomass) has in recent years shown an overall increasing trend, with the 2011 level the second-highest in the past 19-year series (Hill et al., 2012). A U.S. moratorium imposed in response to a decline in biomass was lifted in 1986 after 18 years (Hill et al., 2008). Landings increased slowly until the end of that decade and then increased steadily to over 160,000 tons in 2007/2008. The most recent catches have been around 140,000 tons. The Canadian commercial fishery was also closed during the stock collapse and was not reopened until 2002 (DFO, 2012).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 3 April 2013

The fishery is managed independently by the three nations, with no international plan agreed. Annual forums are organized (Tri National Sardines Forum) to coordinate fishery management and science but they have in recent years focused on stock assessments. Interest has however been shown in the past in coastwide management by the U.S.A. and Mexico (PFMC, 2011a).

The U.S. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) sets quota-based harvest guidelines in accordance with a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) control rule defined in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP), based on i) the latest biomass estimate, ii) a biomass harvest cutoff level, iii) the portion of the biomass distributed in U.S. waters, and iv) an environmentally determined fraction of the biomass that can be harvested, used as a proxy for FMSY. The environmental index considered is the running average sea-surface temperature, although a recent study suggests that a revised index is needed (McClatchie et al., 2011) and work is underway on this. The quotas are then seasonally allocated (PFMC, 2011a). The harvest guideline (HG) was determined as 109,409 tons for the U.S. fishery in 2012 (Hill et al., 2011), or 125,760 tons when considering the whole fishery. For 2013, considering the revised assessment, a 40% lower HG of 66,495 tons for the U.S. (Hill et al., 2012), or 76,431 for the whole fishery, was calculated but it is unclear if it has been formally adopted. Other measures may differ across states and include licenses, seasonal closures and incidental landing allowances (PFMC, 2009).

A conservation NGO is taking legal action, claiming the U.S. management plan decision rules are inadequate in protecting the stock and associated ecosystem components (Oceana v Bryson, NOAA & NMFS, 2011). Considering the role of small pelagic fish in the trophic web, a panel of scientists has advocated for conservative control rules in managing these stocks. For stocks with intermediate levels of knowledge, the use of B40% as a minimum biomass threshold and 0.5 FMSY is advised, and low knowledge stocks are advised to be managed to B80%, among other measures (Pikitch et al., 2012). A response by one of the harvest control rule authors rejects B40% as a realistic and effective Blim for the northern stock of Pacific sardine given the uncertainty and the importance of environmentalvariation on the stock, which will inevitably result in declines below this level (Parrish, 2012). Public comments received by the PFMC and respective responses including a partial response to the case asserting a lack of precaution of the HCR have been published.

A TAC is set in Canadian waters, based on results of the assessment and a harvest control rule. The Canadian HCR is also based on the latest biomass estimate, the estimated seasonal Canadian migration rate and a harvest rate approximating the U.S. FMSY proxy. Recommended maximum harvest for 2012 were 22,535 or 27,279 tons (the latter including inshore areas) (DFO, 2012); or 148,260 tons expanded to the whole stock, based on calculated migration rates. There is high uncertainty associated with the biomass extrapolation of estimates to non-surveyed areas and revision of the HCR has been recommended by scientists (DFO, 2012).

No quotas are set in the Mexican fishery but a minimum landing size is in place and fleet capacity is controlled (SAGARPA, 2012). The portion of the distribution in U.S. waters calculated by NMFS is questioned by Mexican managers (SAGARPA, 2006) and the sum of just the U.S and Canadian calculated portions of the stock exceeds 100%.

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 03 Apr 2013

No recovery plan is currently required, but a 10-year recovery to MSY program is foreseen in the U.S. fishery management plan (PFMC, 2011a).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 3 April 2013

U.S. landings have generally remained below harvest guidelines, with the exception of 2009, as in-season closures are enforced as these limits are approached. Closures were used in 2008-2010 due to large reductions in harvest guidelines (PFMC, 2011a).

Canadian catches in 2011 were 20,621 tons, below the TAC of 21,917 tons, and compliance in previous years was also strong, with no TACs overshoots (DFO, 2012).

Considering guidelines from the U.S. NMFS extended to the total stock, total landings exceeded advice by 60-80% in 2008-2010 due to reductions in ABC levels (equal to HGs for these years). Catches in 2011 were 36% above the ABC extended to the whole stock.

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 3 April 2013

A variety of marine mammals occur in sardine’s distribution area, and sardine are an important prey species for many including California sea lions Zalophus californianus, seals, harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena, dolphins and Sei whales Balaenoptera borealis (Hill et al., 2007; PFMC, 1998). NMFS holds Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations on a regular basis to ensure that threatened or endangered species are not being affected by federal fisheries. A 2010 biological opinion stated that the fishery was not a threat to any endangered or protected species (PFMC, 2011a). Considering direct effects, the California purse seine fishery is categorized as causing incidental mortality of marine mammals below 50% of potential biological removal level (PFMC, 1998) and no mortality was observed in a pilot observer program that reported one incident of harbour seal catch and 49 of sea lions (all recorded as released alive) during 306 trips from 2004 to 2008 (PFMC, 2011a). Interactions with sea otters are extremely rare (PFMC, 2013) but reporting and avoidance of interactions between vessels and sea otters is required under specific regulations (PFMC, 2011a). Indirect impacts on predators due to the fishery are less well estimated but are suggested to be unlikely (PFMC, 2013).

Many endangered and threatened seabirds (brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis, little tern Sterna albifrons, marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus and bald eagle Haleaetus leucocephalus) also feed on sardine (Hill et al., 2007) and forage fish availability has been shown to impact on seabirds in several ways. Species richness is a key issue as it permits prey switching by seabirds and other predators (Pew Environment Group, 2013; PFMC, 1998). Incidental catch of vulnerable seabirds is thought to be minimal (PFMC, 1998) and the 2004-2006 observer program reported reduced bycatch mortality of only unidentified gulls (PFMC, 2009). Further results from the California observer program from 2006 to 2008 reported no marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird bycatch in 199 trips (PFMC, 2009).

Bycatch of Pacific salmon is also a potential concern as many populations are listed under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA, 2013) but the 2010 opinion found that salmon were not likely to be affected by the U.S. fishery (PFMC, 2011a). Effects of Canadian salmon bycatch are under study (DFO, 2012).

Other Species

Last updated on 3 April 2013

Observer programs in the U.S. fisheries have found bycatch rates of other species to be low (PFMC, 2011a). The gear used targets schools and bycatch is mainly of other coastal pelagic species (northern anchovy Engraulis mordax, Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicus, jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus, Pacific herring Clupea pallasii pallasii and market squid Loligo opalescens), hake, sharks and salmon). Salmon bycatch is particularly an issue for northern fisheries (Washington, Oregon) and is under-reported in Washington state fisheries (PFMC, 2011a). In Oregon, grates are required to be used to sort larger fish from the catch; in other U.S. fisheries, larger fish can be released before on boarding the catch (PFMC, 2011a).

The Canadian fishery reports salmon, spiny dogfish, herring and squid bycatch, with salmon bycatch monitored and controlled by area or temporal closures but whose effects are said to be uncertain (DFO, 2012).

In the Mexican Ensenada fishery sardine is the target species but other small pelagics are also valued so bycatch rates are higher. The main bycatch species are northern anchovy, Pacific mackerel and jack mackerel (SAGARPA, 2006; 2012).

HABITAT

Last updated on 3 April 2013

Fishing has little effects on habitats as sardine are pelagic and contact of the gear with substrate is rare, meaning risk of damage to benthos or habitats is due only to lost gears (PFMC, 1998). The main effects on the ecosystem are indirect, through the removal of a prey species, and management policies should take this into account (PFMC, 1998). A consultation conducted by the NMFS in 2010 determined that the fishery was not adversely affecting critical habitat for any PET species (PFMC, 2011a).

In the U.S.A., the Pacific Council initiated the development of an Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Plan to act as an “umbrella” plan over the existing plans, assisting with research and policy and the production of reports on ecosystem status (PFMC, 2011a), and a draft plan has been produced (PFMC, 2013).

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 03 Apr 2013

Several areas south of Pt. Buchon, California are closed to roundhaul gear (purse seine and lampara nets) (PFMC, 2011a). Besides protecting natural reserves and declaring area closures for particular species, the Pacific Fishery Management Council has the authority to create habitat reserves closed to all fishing (PFMC, 1998). Currently 274 de facto Marine Protected Areas exist in the U.S. region of sardine’s distribution, but they rarely affect the use of marine habitats, most areas serving to safely merge tanker traffic (Grober-Dunsmore et al., 2008).

In Canadian offshore waters, two Marine Protected Areas and an Area of Interest fall within sardine’s distribution (DFO, 2009). Closures are also enforced in areas where there are bycatch concerns (DFO, 2012).

Offshore Mexican marine protected areas within the stock’s distribution include an insular Biosphere Reserve – Isla Guadalupe, where fishing is restricted, protecting California sea lions, Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi and northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris reproductive colonies (SAGARPA, 2012).

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Both Canadian and U.S. catch limits are set via harvest control rules, but no catch limits are is use in the Mexican fishery.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Both Canadian and U.S. managers follow scientific advice in setting catch limits. No limits are set in the Mexican fishery.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

No catch limits are set in the Mexican fishery but compliance with limits in U.S. and Canadian limits is strong. Total catches in the fishery are well above (36% above in 2011) scientifically advised catch limits as applied to the whole stock but there is no evidence of illegal practices.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Biomass is above the limit reference point, but no target reference point is set for the stock.

As calculated for 2011 data.

The score is 8.0.

This measures the Harvest rate as a percentage of the Target harvest rate U.

The Harvest rate is 0.151 (Y/SSB). The Target harvest rate U is 0.150 .

The underlying Harvest rate/Target harvest rate U for this index is 100%.

To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES
  1. The U.S. and Canadian fisheries are managed via harvest control rules but not the Mexican so score 1 has been determined qualitatively.
  2. Acceptable biological catch as determined for the U.S. fishery but not fractioned for the U.S. distribution, is represented here as the “Advised TAC”. From 2010 the ABC has been presented as several options; the least conservative 45% probability of overfishing option is represented here.
  3. A harvest guideline is used to limit catches in the U.S. fishery and a TAC is set for the Canadian fishery but no catch limits are set in the Mexican fishery so no TAC series is shown here and scores 2 and 3 are determined qualitatively.
  4. Spawning biomass is determined but biomass at ages 1+ is used for management purposes so is represented here. No target reference point is set so score #4 is also determined qualitatively.
  5. Exploitation rates are represented here in lieu of fishing mortality and have been compared to the exploitation fraction target in the U.S. harvest control rule to determine score 5.

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits
  1. CONANP, 2009. Sistema de Información Geográfica. Comision Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas [Accessed on 12 October 2009].http://www.conanp.gob.mx/sig/
  2. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2008. Stock assessment report on Pacific sardine. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/013.http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Publications/SAR-AS/2008/SAR-AS2008_013_E.pdf
  3. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2009. Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa-zpm/index-eng.htm
  4. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2012. Pacific Sardine 2011 Seasonal Biomass and Migration in British Columbia and Harvest Advice for 2012. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/026.http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_026-eng.pdf
  5. Grober-Dunsmore, R., D. Canny, M. D’Iorio, C. Wahle, L. Wenzel, L. Wooninck, 2008. State of the nation’s de facto marine protected areas. National Marine Protected Areas Center.http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/defacto_mpa_report_0608.pdf
  6. Hill, K.T., D E. Dorval, N.C.H. Lo, B.J. Macewicz, C. Show, R. Félix-Uraga, 2008. Assessment of the Pacific Sardine resource in 2008 for U.S. management in 2009. NOAA Agenda Item G.2.b.Supplemental Attachment 1.http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/1108/G2b_SUP_ATT1_1108.pdf
  7. Hill, K.T., E. Dorval, N.C.H. Lo, B.J. Macewicz, C. Show, R. Félix-Uraga, 2007. Assessment of the Pacific Sardine resource in 2007 for U.S. management in 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS.http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-413.PDF
  8. Hill, K.T., N.C.H. Lo, B.J. Macewicz, P.R. Crone, R. Feliz-Uraga, 2010. Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2010 for U.S. Management in 2011.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/I2b_ATT2_ASSMT_UPDATE_NOV2010BB.pdf
  9. Hill, K.T., P.R. Crone, N.C.H. Lo, B.J. Macewicz, E. Dorval, J.D. McDaniel, Y. Gu, 2011. Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2011 for U.S. Management in 2012, Pacific Fishery Management Council, SAFE Document June 2011, Appendix C: Pacific Sardine stock Assessment, 265 pages.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011_CPS_SAFE_Sardine_assessment_Appendix_C.pdf
  10. Hill, K.T., P.R. Crone, N.C.H. Lo, D.A. Demer, J.P. Zwolinski, B.J. Macewicz, 2012. Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2012 for U.S. Management in 2013.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/MAIN_DOC_G3b_ASSMNT_RPT2_WEB_ONLY_NOV2012BB.pdf
  11. McClatchie, S., R. Goericke, G. Auad, K. Hill, 2010. Re-assessment of the stock–recruit and temperature–recruit relationships for Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67(11): 1782-1790.http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/F10-101#.UVWL7xzOuSo
  12. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012. Fishwatch: Pacific Sardine, U.S. Seafood Facts. Pacific Sardine [Accessed on 29 March 2013]. http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/sardine/species_pages/pacific_sardine.htm
  13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013. Endangered and Threatened Marine and Anadramous [sic] Fish: List of Fish Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/fish.htm
  14. Oceana v John E. Bryson, NOAA & NMFS [2011]. Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/CPS-Complaint-Final.pdf
  15. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 1998. Amendment 8 (to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan) Incorporating a Name Change to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan.http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/fishery-management-plan-and-amendments/amendment-8/
  16. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2009. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic species fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation – 2009. Pacific Fishery Management Council.http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2009/0609/H1a_SUP_ELEC_ATT1_0609.pdf
  17. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2010a. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic species fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation- 2010, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 79 pages.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010_CPS_SAFE_Text_Final.pdf
  18. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2010b. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic species fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation-2010 (Tables – Appendix), Pacific Fishery Management Council, 60 pages. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010_CPS_SAFE_Tables_Final.pdf
  19. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2011b. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan As Amended Through Amendment 13.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/CPS_FMP_as_Amended_thru_A13_current.pdf
  20. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2011. Status of the Pacific Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 2011.http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011_CPS_SAFE_Text_FINAL.pdf
  21. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem – Public Review Draft, February 2013. (Document prepared for the Council and its advisory entities.)http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/H1a_ATT1_FEP_DRAFT_FEB13_ELECTRIC_APR2013BB.pdf
  22. Pew Environment Group, 2013. The State of the Science: Forage Fish in the California Current. Pew Ocean Science.http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Other_Resource/The%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20-%20Forage%20Fish%20in%20the%20California%20Current.pdf
  23. Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/files/Little%20Fish,%20Big%20Impact.pdf
  24. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion (SAGARPA), 2006. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsible en México: Evaluácion y Manejo.http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/documentos/publicaciones/pelagicos/libro_Rojo.pdf
  25. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion (SAGARPA), 2012. Carta Nacional Pesquera 2012.http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/documentos/publicaciones/CARTA%20NACIONAL%20PESQUERA/24082012%20SAGARPA.pdf
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    South American pilchard - North-east Pacific, Canada British Columbia, Canada, Purse seines

    comments powered by Disqus