Eastern Pacific - Ocean Wise...(2.71) Red (2.16) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.871)...

Bigeye Tuna, Skipjack Tuna, Yellowfin Tuna

Thunnus obesus, Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus albacares

Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium

Eastern Pacific

Purse Seine

December 8, 2014

Alexia Morgan, Consulting Researcher

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

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 originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important 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® 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 1-877-229-9990.

3

Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch 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 effective is the fishery’s management? • How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

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

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/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 three purse seine fisheries that operate in the eastern Pacific Ocean targeting yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna; unassociated, associated and dolphin sets. In the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, for unknown reasons, dolphins are associated with schools of large yellowfin tuna. Dolphin setting involves setting a purse seine around aggregations of dolphins and tuna, then releasing the dolphins. Tuna is caught by dolphin-setting by only a few nations – currently Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua.

Skipjack tuna populations appear to be healthy and fishing mortality rates are low, but yellowfin and bigeye tuna are overfished. In the eastern Pacific Ocean, these species are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. There are management measures in place specific to the purse seine fishery, including time/area closures and the use of 100% observer coverage on large vessels. However, while interim limit reference points have been defined for both species, there are no harvest control rules or target reference points in place. These three purse seine fisheries have different levels of bycatch associated with them; the associated fishery being the most problematic. Sharks, primarily silky and oceanic whitetip, bony fish and other tuna are incidentally captured in this fishery. The unassociated purse seine fishery typically has less bycatch, however, both manta rays and silky sharks are reported as bycatch and both species are of high concern. The dolphin-set fishery is highly controversial. Dolphin mortality from the 1950s to 1970s in dolphin set operations was very high, peaking at several hundred thousand dolphins per year. Strong management requirements under the Agreement of the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) have decreased dolphin mortality in the fishery by over 99% since the 1970s. Bycatch rates in the fishery are currently believed to be at a level that should allow dolphin populations to increase, and bycatch of all other species is very low. However, some scientists believe that the stress caused by repeated chase and capture of dolphins may reduce the dolphins’ reproductive success and prevent previously depleted populations from recovering.

Management measures in the associated fishery are considered ineffective due to the lack of compliance with all scientific advice, along with the lack of bycatch catch limits and use of best practice mitigation techniques. The unassociated and dolphin set fishery's management of bycatch is considered better because bycatch is much lower in these fisheries. Purse seine gears typically have little contact with bottom habitats, although fish aggregating devices (FADs) can be anchored to the bottom. The incidental capture of ecologically important species may be a concern, particularly in the associated fishery; however, management has

5

been very successful in reducing the mortality rates of dolphins caught in dolphin associated sets.

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Stock / Fishery Impacts on the Stock

Impacts on other Spp.

Management Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Skipjack Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Unassociated

Green (3.83) Red (1.41) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.817)

Yellowfin Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Unassociated

Yellow (2.71)

Red (1.41) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.583)

Bigeye Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Floating Object

Yellow (2.71)

Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Red (2.00) Avoid (1.664)

Skipjack Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Floating Object

Green (3.83) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Red (2.00) Avoid (1.814)

Yellowfin Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Floating Object

Yellow (2.71)

Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Red (2.00) Avoid (1.664)

Skipjack Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Dolphin Set

Green (3.83) Red (2.16) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (3.131)

Yellowfin Tuna East Pacific - Purse Seine, Dolphin Set

Yellow (2.71)

Red (2.16) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.871)

Scoring Guide

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

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

• Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

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

6

Table of Contents About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ..................................................................... 12

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 21

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 42

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 54

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 59

References .................................................................................................................................................. 60

7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report focuses on three purse seine fisheries (unassociated, floating object and dolphin sets) that target skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Overview of the species and management bodies

Skipjack, bigeye and yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the Pacific Ocean. There are four populations of yellowfin and bigeye and five of skipjack; found in the western and central Pacific Ocean, eastern Pacific Ocean, Atlantic (eastern and western for skipjack) and Indian Ocean. Juvenile yellowfin tuna and juvenile bigeye tuna tend to form schools with skipjack tuna that are found mostly in surface waters. Larger tunas are found in subsurface waters where they also form schools (ISSF 2013b). Globally, purse seines are the primary gear used to capture skipjack, and yellowfin tuna and longlines are used to catch bigeye tuna. Bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna catches have all increased substantially over time, peaking in the early 2000s for bigeye and yellowfin tuna and around 2009 for skipjack tuna (ISSF 2013b).

These tuna species are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Production Statistics

Catches of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) are significantly less than those from the western and central Pacific Ocean. However, catches in the EPO have been increasing over time, peaking in 2006 at over 300,000 t. Catches have since declined slightly to just under 300,000 t. The majority of these catches come from the purse seine fisheries (IATTC 2014).

8

Figure 1: Indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna in the EPO. OBJ: floatingobject fishery; NOA: unassociated fishery; CPDF: catch per day fished. All indicators are scaled so that their average equals one (IATTC 2014e).

Yellowfin tuna catches in the EPO peaked in 2002 at 443,458 t and have since decreased to just over 200,000 t in 2013. Over the years, catches have been variable. Purse seines catch the majority of yellowfin tuna in this region. Purse seine catches peaked at 412,286 t in 2002 and have since declined. In 2013, purse seines caught 216,847 t of yellowfin tuna in the EPO (IATTC 2014).

9

Figure 2: Historic and projected annual catches of yellowfin tuna by surface (top panel) and longline (bottom panel) fisheries from the base case while fishing with the current effort, the base case while fishing at the fishing mortality corresponding to MSY (FMSY), and the analysis of sensitivity to steepness (labeled h = 0.75) of the stock-recruitment relationship while fishing with the current effort. The large dot indicates the most recent catch (2013) (IATTC 2014g). Total catches of bigeye tuna in the EPO have varied over time, peaking during the early 1990s and reaching the highest level (148,557 t) in 2000. Since the mid-2000s, catches have been around 100,000 t, but declined to around 80,000 t in 2013 (IATTC 2014f). The majority of bigeye tuna in the region are caught with purse seine (mostly associated fisheries) gear. In 2013, purse seines caught 49,104 t of bigeye tuna in the EPO. (IATTC 2014).

Figure 3: Bigeye tuna catches (t) (LL = longline, PS=purse seine) in the EPO (1975-2012(IATTC 2014f)

10

Importance to the US/North American market

Yellowfin tuna within the IATTC Convention Area is imported primarily from Panama (26%) and Costa Rica (24%). Skipjack tuna is imported primarily from Panama. The majority of bigeye tuna was imported from Ecuador (86%) (NMFS 2014). Most tuna in the U.S. market is imported from other regions (primarily the Western and Central Pacific Ocean) and there is very little tuna imported to the U.S. from the dolphin-set fishery. Tuna from the dolphin-set fishery cannot be labeled as “dolphin-safe” in the U.S. according to federal law.

Figure 4: Yellowfin tuna imports, IATTC Convention Area, 2013 (country of origin) (NMFS 2014)

11

Figure 5: Skipjack tuna imports, IATTC Convention Area, 2013 (country of origin) (NMFS 2014)

Figure 6: Bigeye tuna imports, IATTC Convention Area, 2013 (country of origin) (NMFS 2014).

Common and market names

Skipjack tuna are alos known as ocean bonito and lesser tuna. In Hawaii, bigeye and yellowfin tuna are known as ahi, and skipjack is known as aku.

Primary product forms

Bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna are sold primarily in fresh and frozen forms.

12

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

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Criterion 1 Summary

BIGEYE TUNA Region / Method Inherent

Vulnerability Abundance Fishing

Mortality Subscore

East Pacific Purse Seine, Floating object

2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)

SKIPJACK TUNA Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

East Pacific Purse Seine, Dolphin Set

2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

East Pacific Purse Seine, Floating Object


3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

East Pacific Purse Seine, Unassociated


3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

YELLOWFIN TUNA Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)



3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)

13



3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)

Skipjack tuna populations in the EPO are healthy and fishing mortality levels are sustainable, but yellowfin and bigeye tuna are overfished.

Criterion 1 Assessment

BIGEYE TUNA

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating object

Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeye tuna's life history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reach sexual maturity around 100-125 cm, reach a maximum size of 200 cm, and live around 11 years (Davies et al. 2011)(Froese et al. 2013), and they are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteristics, we have awarded a score of ‘medium.’

14

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered. East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating object

High Concern

According to the last assessment of bigeye tuna in the EPO (2014), the spawning biomass (amount of fish capable of reproducing) had decreased to a record low level of 19% of an its unfished abundance level at the beginning of 2014. The spawning biomass (SB) was 5% below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBMSY). And thus, the population is slightly overfished, which is a change from the previous assessment results. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘high concern’ (IATTC 2014b).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

15

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating Object

Low Concern

Current fishing mortality rates (F) are slightly below levels that would produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY); catches are 24% below MSY levels and overfishing is not occurring. However, these estimates are highly uncertain due to assumptions made while conducting the last assessment (IATTC 2014b). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘low concern.’

SKIPJACK TUNA


Scoring Guidelines




East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set


East Pacific, Purse Seine, Unassociated

16

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Skipjack reach sexual maturity around 40 cm in size and reach a maximum size of 110 cm. The maximum age of skipjack is around 12 years of age. Sexual maturity is reached between 1 and 2 years of age. Skipjack tuna are broadcast spawners and moderate level predators (Froese and Pauly 2014).


Scoring Guidelines


• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished.

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.


• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered. East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set



Low Concern

Due to the complexity associated with skipjack tuna stock assessments, the latest assessment used indicators instead of the typical reference points based on the MSY, to determine the biomass. According to these indicators, biomass appears to have been increasing over the past 20 years and has been at high levels since 2003. There does not appear to be any indication the population is overfished, so we have awarded a score of ‘low concern’ (IATTC 2013c)(IATTC 2014b). We did not award a score of ‘very low concern’ due to the lack of reference points.


Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target

17

species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).





East Pacific, Purse seine, dolphin set



Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates have been increasing for skipjack tuna since the early 1990s, although decreases were seen in both 2009 and 2010. Increased fishing mortality rates are a concern for skipjack tuna, but they appear to have leveled off in recent years. The indicators used to determine the status of skipjack tuna in the EPO have not indicated any negative effects to the population from increased fishing (IATTC 2013c). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘low concern.’

YELLOWFIN TUNA


Scoring Guidelines



18





Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tuna reach sexual maturity by 100 cm in length, although growth rates vary by location, and 2-3 years of age. They can attain a maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least four years of age and perhaps as much as nine years. They are broadcast spawners and an important predators in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011)(Froesy and Pauly 2013). Although their life history characteristics may suggest a lower level of vulnerability, because their status is known, this inherent vulnerability score does not factor into the overall score. We have therefore scored according to FishBase.


Scoring Guidelines


• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished.

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.


• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered. East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set


19


High Concern

According to the 2014 assessment, the spawning biomass ratio (ratio of the spawning biomass to the unfished population) (SBP) was 0.26 at the start of 2014, which is below the MSY of 0.27, indicating the population is overfished. The current spawning biomass to the biomass that produces maximum sustainable yield ratio (S/SMSY) is 0.98. The results are complicated due to the uncertainty surrounding the productivity of yellowfin tuna, recruitment levels and MSY levels, which may have changed over time (IATTC 2014a)(IATTC 2014b). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ because yellowfin tuna are overfished.


Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).








Low Concern

20

Fishing mortality is currently estimated to be at levels that produce the MSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.83) and overfishing is not occurring. However, uncertainty surrounding the relationship between recruitment to the fishery and the current population, natural mortality and average size of older fish could mean fishing mortality rates are actually higher and above MSY levels (IATTC 2014a)(IATTC 2014b). Due to this high level of uncertainty we have awarded a score of ‘low’ instead of ‘very low concern.’

21

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


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

Criterion 2 Summary

Bigeye Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating Object

Subscore: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

Species Inherent Vulnerability

Abundance Fishing Mortality

Subscore

OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

SILKY SHARK High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

CALIFORNIA YELLOWTAIL Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

2.33: Moderate Concern

2.644

BIGEYE TUNA Medium 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

YELLOWFIN TUNA Medium 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

RAINBOW RUNNER Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

WAHOO Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

SKIPJACK TUNA Medium 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

22

Skipjack Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set




Subscore

SPINNER DOLPHIN High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

PANTROPICAL SPOTTED DOLPHIN High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Skipjack Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating Object




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

WAHOO Medium 3.00: Moderate

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

23

Concern SKIPJACK TUNA Medium 4.00: Low

Concern 3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Skipjack Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Unassociated




Subscore

MANTA RAY (UNSPECIFIED) High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Yellowfin Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set




Subscore

SPINNER DOLPHIN High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

PANTROPICAL SPOTTED DOLPHIN High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

24

Yellowfin Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Floating Object




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

WAHOO Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Yellowfin Tuna: East Pacific, Purse Seine, Unassociated




Subscore

MANTA RAY (UNSPECIFIED) High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

25


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Purse seine fisheries operating in the EPO target tunas, but also catch some incidental species including sharks, bony fish and marine mammals. The amount and type of bycatch depends on the type of purse seine fishery (i.e., unassociated, dolphin and floating object). We used information provided by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, on the amounts of individual bycatch species by fishery, to identify additional main species to be included in this report. The floating object fishery typically has the largest amount of bycatch and we have included several species that represent the most common bycatch species, as well as two common shark bycatch species. The most commonly caught bycatch species in the unassociated fishery (along with silky sharks) are included in this report. Management has done an exceptional job of reducing the incidental capture of dolphins in dolphin associated sets, but we have included the two main dolphin species of concern in this report. The individual species included for each of the three purse seine fisheries can be found in the table below. The worst scoring species for the unassociated fishery is the manta ray, due to its stock status and high capture rate. And for the floating object fishery, the worst scoring species is the oceanic whitetip shark due to its status. All species scored relatively well in the dolphin set fishery, with silky sharks as the lowest scoring species.

Unassociated

Species Justification Source

Silky Shark Vulnerable/Most Common Shark Bycatch Species IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Manta Ray Catch Numbers IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Dolphinfish Catch Numbers IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Rainbow Runner Catch Amount Hall and Roman 2013

26

Dolphin


Silky Shark Vulnerable/Most Common Shark Bycatch Species IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Spinner Dolphin Data Deficient/Most Common Dolphin Bycatch Species IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Spotted Dolphin Least Concern/Most Common Dolphin Bycatch Species IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Floating Object


Dolphinfish Catch Numbers IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Wahoo Catch Numbers IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Rainbow Runner Catch Numbers IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Silky Shark Vulnerable/Most Common Shark Bycatch IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d

Oceanic Whitetip Yellowtail

Vulnerable/Second Most Common Shark Bycatch Common Bycatch Species

IATTC 2012a; IATTC 2013d Hall and Martin 2013

Criterion 2 Assessment

BIGEYE TUNA


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)



Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However,

27

bigeye tuna's life history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reach sexual maturity around 100-125 cm, reach a maximum size of 200 cm and live around 11 years (Davies et al. 2011)(Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteristics, we have awarded a score of ‘medium.’





High Concern

According to the last assessment of bigeye tuna in the EPO (2014), the spawning biomass (amount of fish capable of reproducing) had decreased to a record low level of 19% of its unfished abundance level at the beginning of 2014. The spawning biomass (SB) was 5% below the level needed to produce the MSY (SBMSY), and so the population is slightly overfished, which is a change from the previous assessment results. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘high concern’ (IATTC 2014b).





Low Concern

Current fishing mortality rates (F) are slightly below levels that would produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), catches are 24% below MSY levels and overfishing is not occurring. However, these estimates are highly uncertain due to assumptions made while conducting the last assessment (IATTC 2014b). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘low concern.’

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate



28

< 20%

Purse seine fisheries have an average discard rate of just under 5% (0.4%–10%)(Kelleher 2005). In the EPO around 1% of all tunas are discarded in large (i.e., vessel size) purse seine fisheries, 7% of billfish and 17% of other fishes (IATTC 2013f). We have therefore awarded a score of 1.

CALIFORNIA YELLOWTAIL




Medium

FishBase has assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 69 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, California yellowtails life history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing pressure. California yellowtail reach sexual maturity at 3 years of age and 71 cm in size (CDFS 2001). The maximum size and age reached by California yellowtail is 1.5 m and 12 years respectively (Love 1996)(Collins 1973). California yellowtail are broadcast spawners and moderate level predators (Baxter 1960)(CDFG 2001). Based on these life history characteristics, we have awarded a score of ‘medium.’




Moderate Concern

No stock wide assessment of California yellowtail has been conducted in the EPO. In 2001, California investigated the coastal population through landings and catch per unit effort data. At that time, the population was deemed healthy (CDFG 2001). This species has not been assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Abundance information for California yellowtail throughout the EPO is not available, and so we have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’



29


Moderate Concern

An assessment conducted in Mexican waters found the population of California yellowtail to be fully exploited (SAGARPA 2010). However, fishing mortality rates for the entire population are unknown. Yellowtail are reported to have a frequency of occurrence rate in floating object purse seine fisheries of 10%–18% (1994-2009) (Hall and Roman 2013). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because they are vulnerable to purse seine fisheries and information on fishing mortality rates is unknown.



< 20%

Purse seine fisheries have an average discard rate of just under 5% (0.4%–10%)(Kelleher 2005). In the EPO, around 1% of all tunas are discarded in large (i.e., vessel size) purse seine fisheries, 7% of billfish and 17% of other fishes (IATTC 2013f). We have therefore awarded a score of 1.

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)





Medium

FishBase has assigned a moderate vulnerability of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).




30


Moderate Concern

No population assessments of dolphinfish in the Pacific Ocean have been conducted; however, the IATTC is in the beginning stages of developing a plan for assessing dolphinfish (among other species). The IUCN considers dolphinfish a species of Least Concern with a stable population trend (Collete et al. 2011). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because the stock has not been assessed relative to reference points, but is not considered to be a ‘high concern’ based on the vulnerability rating and IUCN listing.





Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates for dolphinfish in the EPO are not known, but the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is in the beginning stages of assessing them (IATTC 2013e). Dolphinfish are caught as bycatch in purse seine fisheries operating in the EPO (IATTC 2013e). Between 1993 and 2009, 998 dolphinfish were caught in dolphin sets, 4,551 in unassociated sets and 263,548 in floating object sets (IATTC 2012a). Compared to other bycatch species, dolphinfish have the highest capture probability, over 80%, on purse seine sets (IATTC 2012a). The IUCN does not consider there to be any major threats to dolphinfish from commercial fishing (Collete et al. 2011). Preliminary analysis show variable but somewhat steady catch per unit effort trends in abundance (IATTC 2013e). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘low concern’ because commercial fishing does not appear to be a major threat and the catch per unit effort has been somewhat stable over time.




< 20%

Purse seine fisheries have an average discard rate of just under 5% (0.4%–10%)(Kelleher 2005). In the EPO around 1% of all tunas are discarded in large (i.e., vessel size) purse seine fisheries, 7% of billfish

31

and 17% of other fishes (IATTC 2013f). We have therefore awarded a score of 1.

MANTA RAY




High

FishBase has assigned a very high vulnerability score of 78 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).




High Concern

Giant manta rays are considered Vulnerable by the IUCN with a decreasing population trend. Spinetail and smoothtail mantas are listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN (Clark et al. 2006)(White et al. 2006). Population sizes and the status of giant manta rays for individual areas is typically not known, but it is thought that sub-populations are small in size. Although widely distributed throughout the oceans, the populations are considered fragmented and highly dispersed. Subsequently, regional depletions are more likely for manta rays and it is highly likely that population declines have occurred in areas that are fished. It is suspected that the overall global population of giant manta rays has declined by 30% over the past 75 years (Marshall et al. 2011). Information on the population status of spinetail and smoothtail manta rays is not available (Clark et al. 2006)(White et al. 2006). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ based on the IUCN classifications.




High Concern

Although information on fishing mortality rates are not know for the EPO unassociated purse seine

32

fishery, manta rays are commonly reported as bycatch. For example, between 1993 and 2009 2,751 manta rays were captured in unassociated purse seine sets in the EPO (IATTC 2012a). Giant manta rays are caught by a variety of fishing gears through both targeted and incidental capture (Marshall et al. 2011). The average number of giant manta rays captured between 1993 and 2011 in purse seine fisheries (combined) was 103 individuals (IATTC 2013d). It is believed that fishing pressure on this species is likely to lead to population declines (Marshall et al. 2011). Spinetail and smoothtail manta rays are very susceptible to capture in net fisheries and it is not thought that their populations can handle significant fishing pressure (Clark et al. 2006)(White et al. 2006). The average number of spinetail and smoothtail manta rays caught in purse seine fisheries operating in the EPO between 1993 and 2011 was 171 and 330 respectively (IATTC 2013d). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ because populations of these species are depleted and there are no management measures in place to curb future mortality.



< 20%


OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK




High

FishBase assigned a high to very high score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).




33

High Concern

Assessments of oceanic whitetip sharks in the EPO have not been conducted, due mostly to a lack of information. They are classified globally as Vulnerable by the IUCN (Baum 2006). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ based on the IUCN status.




High Concern

Fishing mortality rates for oceanic whitetip sharks are not known in the EPO. Their capture probability in floating object purse seine sets has decreased over time from a high of 30% capture rate per set between 1994 and 1998 to less than 5% from 2004 to 2008. In addition, the number of oceanic whitetip sharks caught in purse seine sets has dropped dramatically over time, while catches of other species, such as silk sharks, have remained constant. Between 1993 and 2009, a total of 2,706 oceanic whitetip sharks were caught in floating object sets (IATTC 2012a). This equated to 0.5 mt/1,000 mt of tuna, but in 2012 this had dropped to close to 0 (IATTC 2014h). They are known to be susceptible to fisheries in other locations (ICCAT 2012). Although management measures are in place that prohibit their retention in the EPO (IATTC 2011c), these may not be sufficient to protect this species (i.e., post-release mortality could be an issue) and bycatch may be having a significant impact on the population. We have thus, awarded a score of ‘high concern’



< 20%


PANTROPICAL SPOTTED DOLPHIN


34



High

Marine mammals have a high vulnerability to fishing (Seafood Watch 2013).




Moderate Concern

The abundance of pantropical spotted dolphins in 2010 was estimated to be 911,177 and 911,830 individuals for the northeastern and western/southern populations respectively. Abundances have been fairly stable since the late 1970s, with slightly increasing trends for the eastern spinner and northeastern pantropical spotted dolphins over the past decade. Abundances were the highest during the 1960s and have not returned to those levels (IATTC 2009a)(IATTC 2012a). The IUCN has listed pantropical spotted dolphin as a species of Least Concern (Bearzi et al. 2012)(Hammond et al. 2012). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’




Moderate Concern

Total dolphin mortality in purse seine fisheries operating in the EPO has decreased significantly since peak levels occurred in the 1960s (IATTC 2012a). After the 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Dolphins and the subsequent 1999 Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program were put into place, mortality rates of dolphins decreased significantly. Mortality levels for all dolphins have been reduced from 132,000 in 1986 to less than 900 in 2012. The goal of both agreements was to reduce dolphin moralities in purse seine fisheries to levels approaching zero (IATTC 2013h). The stock mortality limit (SML) for pantropical spotted dolphins is 793 individuals for the northeastern and 881 for the western/southern populations. However, there is research suggesting that there are significant stress effects as well as the potential for reduced reproductive output as a result of incidental capture in these fisheries. These could be negatively impacting the ability of this species to recover (Cramer et al.

35

2008)(Keller et al. 2013)(Wade et al. 2007)(Edwards 2007). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’



< 20%


RAINBOW RUNNER





Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 41 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).





Moderate Concern

No assessments have been conducted in the EPO and so their status is unknown. We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’


36




Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates for rainbow runner are not available in the EPO, but this species is frequently caught in the floating object purse seine fishery and in the unassociated fishery. The average catch of rainbow runner is 66 t, with 50% coming from each of the two purse seine fisheries (Hall and Martin 2013). Between 1993 and 2009, 88,326 rainbow runner were caught in the floating object fishery (IATTC 2012a). The capture probability (percent of sets with capture) of rainbow runner has remained fairly stable, between 20% and 30%, from 1994 to 2008 for the floating object purse seine fishery, but only around 1% in the unassociated fishery (IATTC 2012a)(Martin and Roman 2013). However, this fishery is not a substantial contributor to overall mortality of this species, so we have awarded a score of ‘low concern.’




< 20%


SILKY SHARK






High

37

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).






High Concern

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has been working toward an assessment of silky sharks since 2009. A full assessment was attempted and the results presented in 2014. Due to issues with the historical time series of catches and the inability of the model to fit abundance series, the results were deemed uncertain (IATTC 2014d). The IUCN has classified silky sharks as Vulnerable in the eastern central Pacific and Near Threatened globally (Bonfil et al. 2009). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ based on the high inherent vulnerability and IUCN status.




Low Concern

Silky sharks are caught as bycatch in purse seine and longline fisheries operating in the EPO, but are also targeted, in small amounts, in some longline fisheries (IATTC 2013g). The most recent attempt at an assessment for this species indicated that the current fishing mortality rates are unknown (IATTC 2014d). There is no effective management in place in the EPO region and the population is of concern, however, the unassociated and dolphin set fisheries do not have a substantial impact on the population, and so we have awarded a score of ‘low concern.’


High Concern

Silky sharks are caught as bycatch in purse seine and longline fisheries operating in the EPO, but are also

38

targeted, in small amounts, in some longline fisheries (IATTC 2013g). The most recent attempt at an assessment for this species indicated that the current fishing mortality rates are unknown (IATTC 2014d). There is no effective management in place in the EPO region and the population is of concern, and so we have awarded a score of ‘high concern.’


Low Concern

Silky sharks are caught as bycatch in purse seine and longline fisheries operating in the EPO but are also targeted, in small amounts, in some longline fisheries (IATTC 2013g). The most recent attempt at an assessment for this species indicated that the current fishing mortality rates are unknown (IATTC 2014d). There is no effective management in place in the EPO region and the population is of concern, however, the unassociated and dolphin set fisheries do not have a substantial impact on the population, and so we have awarded a score of ‘low concern.’





< 20%


SPINNER DOLPHIN




High

Marine mammals have a high vulnerability to fishing (Seafood Watch 2013).

39




High Concern

In 2010, the abundances of spinner dolphins was 790,613 and 711,883 individuals for the eastern and whitebelly populations respectively. Abundances have been fairly stable since the late 1970s. Abundances were the highest during the 1960s and have not returned to those levels (IATTC 2009a)(IATTC 2012a). The IUCN has listed spinner dolphins as Data Deficient (Bearzi et al. 2012)(Hammond et al. 2012). We have awarded a score of ‘high concern’ because the population status is unknown and they have a high vulnerability to fishing.




Moderate Concern

Total dolphin mortality in purse seine fisheries operating in the EPO has decreased significantly since peak levels occurred in the 1960s (IATTC 2012a). After the 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Dolphins and the subsequent 1999 Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program were put into place, mortality rates of dolphins decreased significantly. Mortality levels for all dolphins have been reduced from 132,000 in 1986 to less than 900 in 2012. The goal of both agreements was to reduce dolphin moralities in purse seine fisheries to levels approaching zero (IATTC 2013h). For spinner dolphins, the stock mortality limit (SML) is 655 and 666 individuals for the eastern and whitebelly populations respectively (IATTC 2009a). However, there is research suggesting that there are significant stress effects as well as the potential for reduced reproductive output as a result of incidental capture in these fisheries. These impacts could be negatively impacting the ability of this species to recover (Cramer et al. 2008)((Keller et al. 2013)(Wade et al. 2007)(Edwards 2007). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’



40

< 20%


WAHOO




Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).




Moderate Concern

Wahoo are listed as a species of Least Concern by the IUCN. They are a widespread species in the EPO and there are no targeted fisheries for them, but they are caught as bycatch. No population assessments have been conducted in this region, so we have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern.’




Low Concern

Although no targeted fisheries occur for wahoo in the EPO, they are caught as bycatch in several fisheries, including purse seine fisheries. Catches in the region appear to have been increasing over the past 15 years (Collette et al. 2011c). Between 1993 and 2009, 118,372 wahoo were caught on purse seine sets made on floating objects (IATTC 2012a). Wahoo have one of the highest capture

41

probabilities, over 70%, of all incidentally captured bycatch species (IATTC 2012a). However, this fishery is not a substantial contributor to overall mortality for this species, so we have awarded a score of ‘low concern.’



< 20%


42

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

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

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy

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

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Management of Retained Species

Management of Non-Retained Species

Overall Recommendation


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


1.000 1.000 Red(1.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

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

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly

effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’

43

• 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion East Pacific Purse Seine, Dolphin Set

Moderately Effective






Highly Effective


Ineffective Moderately Effective





Highly Effective








Highly Effective

The United Nations Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on the high seas and within exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of the world’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters (Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010). Some RFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (i.e., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (i.e., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)). This report focuses on purse seine fisheries for tuna within the EPO Ocean, which are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. For this report we have scored this section for IATTC management. IATTC members: Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France, Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

http://www.fao.org/

44

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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



The IATTC has been tasked with developing target and limit reference points for tuna (ISSF 2013). Currently, interim limit and target reference points and harvest control rule have been defined for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna (IATTC 2012b)(ISSF 2014). Management measures specific to the purse seine fisheries include a mandatory closure for 62 days in 2014, 2015 and 2016, during one of two predefined time periods. However, if a fisheries observer is on board from the On-Board Observer Program of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), the vessels (182-272 metric tons carrying capacity) can make one 30 day trip during the specified closures dates. There is an additional time/area closure off the coast of Central and South America for purse seine vessels (IATTC 2013i). Purse seine vessels must retain and land all bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught (IATTC 2013i) and are prohibited from setting on data buoys in the EPO (IATTC 2010). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because of management measures in place for the purse seine fleet, and methods to deal with compliance are in place (to some degree) and work is being done to develop reference points and harvest control rules.


Ineffective

The IATTC has been tasked with developing target and limit reference points for tuna (ISSF 2013). Currently, interim limit and target reference points and harvest control rules have been defined for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin (IATTC 2012b). Management measures specific to the purse seine fisheries include a mandatory closure for 62 days in 2014, 2015 and 2016, during one of two predefined time periods. However, if a fisheries observer is on board from the On-Board Observer Program of the AIDCP, the vessels (182-272 metric tons carrying capacity) can make one 30 day trip during the specified closures dates. There is an additional time/area closure off the coast of Central and South America for purse seine vessels (IATTC 2013i). Purse seine vessels must retain and land all bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught (IATTC 2013i) and are prohibited from setting on data buoys in the EPO (IATTC 2010). IATTC's management of FAD fisheries does not currently include any limits on the number of FADs sets

45

allowed each year and updated reporting and verification measures are needed. Many vessels are using progressively more advanced FADs to increase their fishing efficiency. Temporary closures alone, without limits on FADs, has been shown to allow for an increase in overall catch and effort in the western and central Pacific Ocean. This has occurred in that region despite the fact that bigeye and yellowfin tuna populations cannot sustain much increase in catch or effort. High catch of bigeye and yellowfin juveniles in FAD fisheries has contributed to depleting these populations. Due to these deficiencies, combined with the inability of current measures to maintain healthy populations of yellowfin and bigeye tuna, we have awarded a score of ‘ineffective.’



The IATTC has been tasked with developing target and limit reference points for tuna (ISSF 2013). Currently, interim limit and target reference points and harvest control rule have been defined for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna (IATTC 2012b)(ISSF 2014). Management measures specific to the purse seine fisheries include a mandatory closure for 62 days in 2014, 2015 and 2016, during one of two predefined time periods. However, if a fisheries observer is on board from the On-Board Observer Program of the AIDCP, the vessels (182-272 metric tons carrying capacity) can make one 30 day trip during the specified closures dates. There is an additional time/area closure off the coast of Central and South America for purse seine vessels (IATTC 2013i). Purse seine vessels must retain and land all bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught (IATTC 2013i) and are prohibited from setting on data buoys in the EPO (IATTC 2010). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because management measures are in place for the purse seine fleet, as are methods to deal with compliance (to some degree) and work is being done to develop reference points and harvest control rules.

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

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


46




There is a multi-annual conservation program to monitor bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention Area. This is not a recovery plan. The conservation and management plan includes management measures for yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the EPO. The current resolution for 2014-2016 is an extension of the previous program that was from 2011-2013. While the biomass of bigeye tuna has dropped since 2005, when IATTC resolutions to address bigeye were first put into place, the current assessment indicates that at current fishing mortality levels the biomass is predicted to stabilize around maximum sustainable yield levels and are expected to increase above these levels for yellowfin tuna (IATTC 2014a)(IATTC 2014f). The current plan will be evaluated again during 2015 and 2016 to determine its success at maintaining populations of yellowfin and bigeye tuna. We have awarded a score of only ‘moderately effective’ because populations of both species have not been maintained at healthy population levels, but are expected to improve in the future under this conservation program.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

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



Yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna are assessed on a regular basis (IATTC 2013b)(IATTC 2013f). A variety of information, including catch and effort data, size (for some species) and biological information, is included in these assessments, although high levels of uncertainty surround the results. The IATTC conducts assessments for these three tuna species. An assessment of silky sharks is currently underway, but manta rays (unassociated fishery) have not been assessed (IATTC 2013g). We have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective’ because, although the majority of species included in this report have been assessed, there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding the results.



47

Yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna are assessed on a regular basis (IATTC 2013b)(IATTC 2013f). A variety of information, including catch and effort data, size (for some species) and biological information, is included in these assessments. The IATTC conducts assessments for these three tuna species. An assessment of silky sharks is currently underway, but assessments have not been conducted for the other species included in this report, so we have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’



Yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna are assessed on a regular basis (IATTC 2013b)(IATTC 2013f). A variety of information including catch and effort data, size (for some species) and biological information is included in these assessments, although high levels of uncertainty surround the results. The IATTC conducts assessments for these three tuna species. An assessment of silky sharks is currently underway, but manta rays (unassociated fishery) have not been assessed (IATTC 2013g). We have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective’ because, although the majority of species included in this report have been assessed, there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding the results.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

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





The IATTC scientific staff made the following recommendations to the Commission in 2013 and 2014 for tunas and sharks: 1. The current tuna management plan should be continued because there is evidence that fishing mortality for bigeye tuna may still be too high. In addition, yellowfin tuna longline catches should be reported monthly along with the bigeye catches, and countries reporting more than 500 t of yellowfin catch should provide reports to the IATTC. 2. The current management measures for Pacific bluefin tuna should be continued through 2014, (being limited to 5,000 t during the later half of 2014). 3. The current interim target and limit reference points should be adopted and extended to Pacific bluefin tuna and 4. A harvest control rule that requires effort to be reduced once fishing mortality exceeds the maximum sustainable yield should be adopted (IATTC 2013a). The Commission adopted

48

only some of this scientific advice, namely extending current management measures for tuna. We have therefore awarded a score of only ‘moderately effective.’

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

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





Information on catches of tuna and tuna-like species in the EPO is provided to IATTC through vessel logbooks, observer programs, unloading records, export/import records and from sampling programs (IATTC 2013f). There are several purse seine specific enforcement measures in place. For example, countries must report the names of purse seine vessels and the closure dates they will observe to IATTC. Countries are also responsible for taking legal and administrative actions necessary to implement closures and inform the IATTC director that such steps have been taken (IATTC 2013i). The compliance committee has noted that the amount of non-compliance has been reduced in recent years (IATTC 2014g). Vessels larger than 24 m in length must have a VMS in place (IATTC 2004). In terms of compliance with management measures, the IATTC has a permanent working group on Compliance with Conservation and Management Measures and has a standard questionnaire on compliance that is to be submitted by individual countries prior to Commission meetings. IATTC reviews the implementation of management measures and other obligations requested within resolutions. There is some transparency in this process, as the IATTC Review Committee is open to observers and documents are made available to member countries and observers. The Review Committee provides instances of non-compliance to the Commission, although there do not appear to be incentives for complying with measures (Koehler 2013). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly

49

Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.





IATTC management measures have not been successful for yellowfin tuna, but they have been successful at reducing bigeye tuna fishing mortality levels (IATTC 2013a), and skipjack tuna are healthy. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

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




Highly Effective

The IATTC allows for outside accredited observers, which can be made up of scientists, NGOs or other interested parties to attend meetings. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘highly effective.’

50

Bycatch Strategy

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce East Pacific Purse Seine, Dolphin Set

No No Moderately Effective

Highly Effective


Highly Effective


No No Ineffective Highly Effective

Ineffective Highly Effective


No No Moderately Effective

Highly Effective


Highly Effective

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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



Under the Agreement of the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), member countries are responsible for tracking tuna caught in dolphin sets to ensure no moralities to dolphins occurred during their capture. This is done through the use of fisheries observers who record whether or not any dolphin moralities occurred (IATTC 2003). The aim of this program is to reduce the incidental mortality of dolphins to levels approaching zero along with maintaining long-term stability of tunas (IATTC 1999). There is a 5% fin to body weight rule in place to minimize shark finning (IATTC 2005). Thus, while efforts to reduce bycatch of dolphins has been highly effective, best management practices for other bycatch species are not yet in place. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘moderate.’


Ineffective

Management measures in place for the associated purse seine fisheries include the suggestion that the deployment of purse seines on FADs is to be done according to a specific method in order to avoid entangling sharks, sea turtles or other bycatch species, and that any interactions be reported (IATTC 2012)(IATTC 2013l). However, this suggestion was just adopted in 2013 and it is unclear how many countries are actually complying with it. Any incidentally captured sea turtles must be released (IATTC 2007). It has been suggested that sea turtle and shark bycatch could be reduced by restricting setting on

51

FADs or through the implementation of bycatch avoidance/mitigation devices (Gilman et al. 2011), which have not been adopted by the IATTC. Abandoned FADs can also lead to ghost fishing (Beverly et al. 2012). In addition, IATTC has implemented a 5% shark fin rule, meaning shark fins can weight no more than 5% of the total sharks on board (IATTC 2005) and oceanic whitetip sharks are prohibited from being captured in the EPO (IATTC 2011c). However, there are no catch limits in place for bycatch species and many of these measures do not meet suggested best practices (Gilman et al. 2011). In addition, calls by the Scientific Committee to institute immediate precautionary measures for the protection of silky sharks are considered critical; especially measures that are complimentary to ones implemented by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (i.e., prohibiting retention), and have not been adopted (IATTC 2013g). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘ineffective.’



Management measures in place for the unassociated purse seine fisheries (other than dolphin sets) include the prohibition of catching oceanic whitetip sharks (IATTC 2011c) and the release of any incidentally captured sea turtles (IATTC 2007). In addition, it is prohibited to set a purse seine around a school of tuna associated with a whale shark (IATTC 2013l), or to encircle a sea turtle (IATTC 2007). Sea turtles must be immediately released. In addition, IATTC has implemented a 5% shark fin rule, meaning shark fins can weight no more than 5% of the total sharks on board (IATTC 2005). Also, oceanic whitetip sharks are prohibited from being captured in the EPO (IATTC 2011c). However, there are no catch limits in place for bycatch species and many of these measures do not meet suggested best practices (Gilman et al. 2011). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

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




Highly Effective

52

There is 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels larger than 363 t (IATTC 2009b). In 2012, it was estimated that 42 vessels out of a total of 209 were smaller than this (IATTC 2014e). We have therefore awarded a score of ‘highly effective.’

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

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



The Scientific Committee suggested that catching silky sharks should be prohibited for the purse seine fleet, but this measure was not adopted. However, other management measures have been adopted and bycatch in this fishery is low; and so we have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’


Ineffective

The Scientific Committee suggested that catching silky sharks should be prohibited for the purse seine fleet, but this measure was not adopted in 2013. The Scientific Committee recommended this measure again, in 2014, but at the time of this report, the Commission has not yet met. In addition to this measure, the Scientific Committee has advised handling guidelines for mobulid rays be adopted (IATTC 2014g). We have awarded a score of ‘ineffective’ because silky sharks are a key bycatch species in this fishery and the Commission has yet to take actions to protect them.



The Scientific Committee suggested that catching silky sharks should be prohibited for the purse seine fleet, but this measure was not adopted in 2013. The Scientific Committee recommended this measure again, in 2014, but at the time of this report the Commission has not yet met. In addition to this measure, the Scientific Committee has advised handling guidelines for mobulid rays be adopted (IATTC 2014g). However, other management measures have been adopted and bycatch in this fishery is low, so we have awarded a score of ‘moderately effective.’

53

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

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




Highly Effective

See harvest strategy section for detailed answer.

54

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

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


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Gear Type and Substrate

Mitigation of Gear Impacts

EBFM Overall Recomm.


5.00:None 0.00:Not Applicable

3.00:Moderate Concern

Green (3.873)


4.00:Very Low Concern

0.00:Not Applicable

1.00:Very High Concern

Red (2.000)


5.00:None 0.00:Not Applicable

3.00:Moderate Concern

Green (3.873)

Purse seine fisheries tend to have minimal contact with the bottom habitat, although FADs can be anchored to the bottom. However, they do incidentally capture some ecologically important species and the impact of this on the ecosystem is not known.

Justification of Ranking

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

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear

55

• 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand

• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.


None

Unassociated purse seines and those set on dolphins do not come in contact with bottom habitats (Seafood Watch 2013).


Very Low Concern

Although purse seine fishing typically does not result in the nets coming in contact with the bottom, anchored FADs could result in contact with the bottom (Beverly et al. 2012)(Seafood Watch 2013).


None

Unassociated purse seines and those set on dolphins do not come in contact with bottom habitats (Seafood Watch 2013).

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

56

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

• +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.

• +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats. East Pacific, Purse Seine, Dolphin Set



Not Applicable

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

• 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

57

• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.


Moderate Concern

Purse seine fisheries in the EPO catch several ecologically important groups, including other tunas and elasmobranchs. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role in how these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can lead to many problems such as a change in prey abundances, which can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers et al. 2007)(Duffy 2003)(Ferretti et aal. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In addition, post-release mortality rates of manta rays are unknown but could be significant (Hall and Roman 2013). IATTC has banned the capture of oceanic whitetip sharks and began an assessment of silky sharks in the EPO, which are the most common shark bycatch species. In addition, IATTC has objectives that address incorporating ecosystem considerations into management, and work has been done within IATTC to create ecosystem-based models and other types of analysis. IATTC considers management measures aimed at protecting dolphins, sea turtles and sea birds as addressing ecosystem considerations (IATTC 2012c). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because the fishery catches “exceptional species” and lacks policies to protect the ecosystem role of these species; however, scientific assessment is underway to account for these species’ ecological roles.


Very High Concern

Purse seine fisheries in the EPO catch several ecologically important groups, including other tunas and sharks. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role in how these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can lead to many problems such as a change in prey abundances, which can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers et al. 2007)(Duffy 2003)(Ferretti et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). Behavioral changes in tunas could be associated with the introduction of FADs into the Pacific region. These include increases in the biomass of tunas under FADs, reduced free-school abundance,

58

changes in school movement patterns, and structure and differences between the age and size of free and FAD associated schools (Fonteneau 1991, Menard et al. 2000a, Menard et al. 2000b, Josse et al. 1999, Josse et al. 2000). The negative long-term impacts of FAD fishing is difficult to evaluate due to insufficient qualitative data (Fonteneau et al. 2000) and therefore additional research should be undertaken to determine the potential effects of FADs on the ecosystem, including monitoring the number of FADs being used (Dagorn et al. 2012). IATTC has banned the capture of oceanic whitetip sharks and has begun an assessment of silky sharks in the EPO, which are the most common shark bycatch species. In addition, IATTC has objectives which address incorporating ecosystem considerations into management, and work has been done within IATTC to create ecosystem-based models and other types of analysis. IATTC considers management measures aimed at protecting dolphins, sea turtles and sea birds as addressing ecosystem considerations (IATTC 2012c). However, IATTC has not effectively managed FADs and there is some indication that FADs have the potential to serious negative impacts on ecologically important species. We have therefore awarded a score of ‘very high concern.’


Moderate Concern

Purse seine fisheries in the EPO catch several ecologically important groups including other tunas and elasmobranchs. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role in how these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can lead to many problems such as a change in prey abundances, which can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers et al. 2007)(Duffy 2003)(Ferretti et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In addition, post-release mortality rates of manta rays are unknown but could be significant (Hall and Roman 2013). IATTC has banned the capture of oceanic whitetip sharks and has begun an assessment of silky sharks in the EPO, which are the most common shark bycatch species. In addition, IATTC has objectives which address incorporating ecosystem considerations into management and work has been done within IATTC to create ecosystem-based models and other types of analysis. IATTC considers management measures aimed at protecting dolphins, sea turtles and sea birds as addressing ecosystem considerations (IATTC 2012c). We have awarded a score of ‘moderate concern’ because the fishery catches “exceptional species” and lacks policies to protect the ecosystem role of these species; however, scientific assessment is underway to account for these species’ ecological roles.

59

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

Seafood Watch® would like to thank six anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

60

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

Anderson, O. 2009. Albatross and petrel distribution within the IATTC area: an addendum. Seabird Technical Meeting of the IATTC Stock Assessment Working Group.

Anderson, O. 2009b. Estimating seabird bycatch rates in IATTC industrial longline fisheries. Seabird Technical Meeting of the IATTC Stock Assessment Workshop, 11 May 2009, La Jolla, Ca.

Baxter, J.L. 1960. A study of the yellowtail Seriola dorsalis (Gill). Fish Bulletin. 110:1-96

Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Hammond, P.S., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y. , Wells, R.S. Wilson, B. 2012. Stenella longirostris. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Beverly, S., D. Griffiths, and R. Lee. 2012. Anchored fish aggregating devices for artisanal fisheries in South and Southeast Asia: benefits and risks. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok 2012.

BirdLife International. 2012. Phoebastria nigripes. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.s

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

BirdLife International. 2012a. Diomedea epomophora. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

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

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001. Yellowtail, California's living marine resources: a status report. California Department of Fish and Game.

Clark, T.B., Smith, W.D. Bizzarro, J.J. 2006. Mobula thurstoni. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson,

61

R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. Yanez, E. 2011c. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. Yanez, E. 2011b. Istiophorus platypterus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. Yanez, E. 2011a. Coryphaena hippurus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collins, R.A. 1973. The status of the California yellowtail resource and its management. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 16:17

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

Cramer, K.L., Perryman, W.L. and Gerrodette, T. 2008. Declines in reproductive output in two dolphin populations depleted by the yellowfin tuna purse-seine fishery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 369:273-285.

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

Edwards, E. 2007. Fishery effects on dolphins targeted by tuna-purse seiners in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:217-227.

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

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

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

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

62

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

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y. , Wells, R.S. Wilson, B. 2012. Stenella attenuata. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

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

Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC). 2012. Conservation status and habitat use of sea turtles in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee, 15-18 May, 2012, La Jolla, CA

IATTC. 2014a. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013; Update of 2013 stock assessment. IATTC Document SAC-05-07. Available

IATTC. 2014b. Scientific Advisory Committee Fifth Meeting. La Jolla, California 12-16 May 2014.

IATTC. 2014d. A collaborative attempt to conduct a stock assessment for the silky shark in the eastern Pacific Ocean (1993-2010): Update report. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Scientific Advisory Committee Fifth Meeting Document SAC-05 INF-F.

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

IATTC. 2014f. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

IATTC. 2014g. Recommendations by the staff for conservation measures in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 2014. Document IATTC-87-03d.

IATTC. 2014h. Unpublished bycatch data. Provided by the Secretariat May 2014.

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

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013a. Meeting report. Scientific Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 29 April - 3 May 2013.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013b. Status of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2012 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-04b.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013c. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-04-06a.

63

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013d. Bycatch management. 4th Meeting of the Scientific Committee, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013e. Status of sailfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-07c.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013f. Fishery status report No. 11. Tunas and billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2012. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013g. Stock status of the silky shark in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, Ca.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013h. IATTC-International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). IATTC.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013i. Multiannual program for the conservation of tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean during 2014-2016. Resolution C-13-01.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013l. Collection and analyses of data on fish-aggregating devices. Resolution C-13-04.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013j. Resolution C-13-02 measures for the conservation and management of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 85th Meeting, Veracruz, Veracruz Mexico, 10-14 June 2013.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013k. Supplemental resolution on North Pacific albacore. Resolution C-13-03.

IATTC. 2012b. Reference points, decision rules and management strategy evaluation for tunas and associated species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee, 15-18 May, 2012. Available at: http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2012/May/PDFs/Reference-points-decision-rules-and-management-SAC-3.pdf

IATTC. 2012c. Ecosystem considerations. Document SAC-02-12.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2012a. Bycatch issues. 2nd Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee 9-14 May 2011, La Jolla, CA

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Status of swordfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2010 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-02-09.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolution to mitigate the impact on seabirds of fishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolution C-11-02.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011c. Resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks caught in association with fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area. Resolution C-11-10.

64

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolution on scientific observers for longline vessels. Resolution C-11-08.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2010. Recommendation prohibiting fishing on data buoys. Recommendation C-10-03.

IATTC. 2009b. Comparison of on-board observer programs in regional fisheries management organization. Document MOP-21-09, 21st Meeting of the Parties, 5 June 2009, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2009a. Updated estimates of Nmin and stock mortality limits. 7th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Board, 30 October, 2009, La Jolla, Ca.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolution to mitigate the impact of tuna fishing vessels on sea turtles. Resolution C-07-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2006. Review of seabird status and incidental catch in Eastern Pacific Ocean fisheries. Document BWG-5-05.a.i, Working Group on Bycatch, 5th Meeting.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005. Resolution on the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-05-03.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolution on the establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Resolution C-04-06.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2003. International Dolphin Conservation Program system for tracking and verifying tuna (amended). AIDCP tuna tracking system amended 11 October 23.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 1999. Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ISC. Report of the shark working group workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, 7-14 June, 2013.

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

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

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

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

65

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

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

Keller, N.M., Trego, M.L., Chivers, S.J. and Archer, F.I. 2013. Pregnancy patterns of pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) in the eastern tropical Pacific determined from hormonal analysis of blubber biopsies and correlations with the purse seine tuna fishery. Marine Biology 160:3113-3124.

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

Koehler, H.R. 2013. Promoting compliance in tuna RFMOS: A comprehensive baseline survey of the current mechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obligations and measures. ISSF Technical Report 2013-02. 53 pp.

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

Love, M. 1996. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific coast. Really Big Press. Santa Barbara, California

Martinez, A.L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Menard, F., Fonteneau, A., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V., Stequert, B. and Marchal, E. 2000b. Exploitation of small tunas by a purse-seine fishery with fish aggregating devices and their feeding ecology in an eastern tropical Atlantic ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:525-530.

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

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

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

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

NMFS. 2014. Commercial fisheries statistics: annual trade data by product, country/association. National Marine Fisheries Service.

66

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

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

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

Secretary of Agriculture, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA). 2010. National fisheries chart 2010. SAGARPA, National Fisheries Institute, Mexico.

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

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

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

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

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

Wade, P.R., Watters, G.M., Gerrodette, T. and Reilly, S.B. 2007. Depletion of spotted spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific: modeling hypotheses for their lack of recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343:1-14.

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

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

White, W.T., Clark, T.B., Smith, W.D. Bizzarro, J.J. 2006. Mobula japanica. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Eastern Pacific - Ocean Wise...(2.71) Red (2.16) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.871)...

Documents

Transcript of Eastern Pacific - Ocean Wise...(2.71) Red (2.16) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative (2.871)...