About this document

This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.


Introduction

  1. Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. This species is only targeted by the recreational fishery; the commercial fishery was closed in 1953. The species is targeted by individual anglers and commercial passenger fishing vessels. It is one of the most marine recreational fisheries in southern California and has enjoyed high catches for decades.

  2. Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. The species is most abundant in “small groups over inshore, low-relief areas and ecotone habitats adjacent to reefs. Adults form large spawning aggregations of several thousand fish over offshore sand flats from June through August.” (Erisman et al. 2011). Substrate, particularly in spawning season, is primarily sandy habitat, although aggregations do occur over small hard-bottom reef habitat (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/SCFRMP/Barred-Sand-Bass-Spawning).

  3. Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. Jarvis et al. 2010 Jarvis et al. 2014 Erisman et al. 2011 Miller and Erisman 2014


Fishery Characteristics

Longevity

Answered
Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7)
Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10)
Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20)
Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40)
Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80)
Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160)
Justification
Maximum reported age (according to FishBase): 31 years. (Shanks, A.L. and G.L. Eckert, 2005. Population persistence of California Current fishes and benthic crustaceans: a marine drift paradox. Ecol. Monogr. 75:505-524.)

Stock depletion

Answered
Crashed (D < 0.05)
Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1)
Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15)
Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3)
Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5)
Underexploited (0.5 < D)
Justification
Estimated biomass has declined 90% since 1980; therefore I assume depletion is at least 10% (see Figure 4a Erisman et al 2011.png).

Resilence

Answered
Not resilient (steepness < 0.3)
Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5)
Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7)
Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9)
Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness)
Justification
No estimate of steepness is available.

Historical effort pattern

Answered
Stable
Two-phase
Boom-bust
Gradual increases
Stable, recent increases
Stable, recent declines
Justification
Catch has been increasing while CPUE is relatively stable; both have crashed recently. Therefore, effort has been increasing until the last few years of the time series (see Figure 2 Erisman et al. 2011).

Inter-annual variability in historical effort

Answered
Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC))
Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%)
Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%)
Justification
Intermediate variance (see Spotted sand bass CPUE.xlsx).

Historical fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
Efficiency has likely increased with increasing technology (fish finders, GPS).

Future fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
I assume efficiency will increase at the same rate as in the past.

Length at maturity

Answered
Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5)
Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6)
Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7)
Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8)
Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9)
Justification
Love et al. 1996 found LM of 21.9 and 23.9 cm for males and females, respectively. This relates to Linf of approximately 75 cm (Love et al. 1996).

Selectivity of small fish

Answered
Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2)
Small (0.2 < S < 0.4)
Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6)
Large (0.6 < S < 0.8)
Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9)
Justification
Samples collected by angling in Love et al. 1996 suggest an intermediate selectivity of ~30cm. See also Figure 1: Miller and Erisman 2014.

Selectivity of large fish

Answered
Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1)
Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1)
Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75)
Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25)
Justification
Adult spawning aggregations are primarily targeted, making older fish relatively similar in vulnerability to intermediate sized fish.

Discard rate

Answered
Low (DR < 1%)
Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%)
Moderate (10% < DR < 30%)
Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%)
High (50% < DR < 70%)
Justification
A sizeable proportion are caught and released (see data at www.recfin.org). Estimates are 55% (Semmens et al. Mortality and Population Abundance of Three Species of Paralabrax off San Diego, California. https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/project/mortality-and-population-abundance-of-three-species-of-paralabrax-off-san-diego-california).

Post-release mortality rate

Answered
Low (PRM < 5%)
Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%)
Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%)
Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%)
High (75% < PRM < 95%)
Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%)
Justification
Initial mortality is estimated as 1.9% (https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/project/mortality-and-population-abundance-of-three-species-of-paralabrax-off-san-diego-california). Total release mortality has not been estimated.

Recruitment variability

Answered
Very low (less than 20% inter-annual changes (IAC))
Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%)
Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%)
High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%)
Very high (max IAC greater than 180%)
Justification
Low-moderate recruitment variability (see Figure 4a: Miller and Erisman 2014).

Size of an existing MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
There are no spatial closures for this species.

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
No justification was provided

Size of a future potential MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
No spatial closures are being considered.

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
No justification was provided

Initial stock depletion

Answered
Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15)
Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3)
Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5)
High (0.5 < D1)
Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1)
Justification
Barred sand bass were initially closed to commercial fisheries after fears of high depletion (Erisman et al. 2011), but the exact level of initial depletion is unknown.


Management Characteristics

Types of fishery management that are possible

Answered
TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit
TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit
Size limit
Time-area closures (a marine reserve)
Justification
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort.
Catch is limited using a 356 mm and 5-fish daily bag limit. New spatial closures are also in place (Semmens and Parnell 2015: Final Report: Mortality and Population Abundance of Three Species of Paralabrax off San Diego, California, R/OPCCFRW-3)

2. Describe historical management measures, if any.
250 mm minimum size limit and a 10-fish daily bag limit.

3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity.
“California Recreational Fisheries Survey is a multi-part survey. Field sampling is conducted at over 450 publicly accessible sites during daylight hours to gather catch, effort and demographic data. A telephone survey of licensed anglers is conducted to gather data on effort for all fishing modes and times, including those for which field observations of effort are not feasible (e.g., fishing at night and fishing from boats that return to private-access marinas). The data gathered from field sampling, the telephone survey of licensed anglers, sport fishing license sales and the mandatory CPFV logs are combined to estimate catch and effort.” (CDFW 2017)
This survey is reasonable for capturing precision data on catch and effort. Information on spatial distribution exists through numerous isolated studies (e.g. Mason 2008; Mason and Lowe 2010). However, there are no fisheries independent indices of abundance.
Mason, T. 2008. Home range size, habitat use, and the effects of habitat breaks on the movements of
temperate reef gamefishes in a southern California marine protected area. Master’s Thesis.
California State University Long Beach. 52 pp.
Mason, T.J. and C.G. Lowe. 2010. Home range, habitat use, and site fidelity of barred sand bass within a
southern California marine protected area. Fish. Res, 106:93–101.

4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement.


TAC offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
No TACs are implemented


TAC implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
No TACs are implemented


TAE offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
No effort limits are implemented.


TAE implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
No effort limits are implemented.


Size limit offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Much smaller (40% - 70% of recommended)
Smaller (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slightly smaller (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slightly larger (100% - 110% of recommended)
Larger (110% - 150% of recommended)
Much larger (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
Most fish are caught well above the minimum size limit. Only a small fraction fall below the minimum size limit. Catch data, downloaded from RecFIN show the change in size distribution of fish sampled from the fishery changed in 2014, when the minimum size limit was increased from 250 to 356. In each of those time periods, <10% was below the minimum length limit (see Barred sand bass lengths 2009-2018.xlsx).


Size limit implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
Size limit has only been changed once in recent years; from 250 to 356 in 2014.


Data Characteristics

Available data types

Answered
Historical annual catches (from unfished)
Recent annual catches (at least 5 recent years)
Historical relative abundance index (from unfished)
Recent relative abundance index (at least 5 recent years)
Fishing effort
Size composition (length samples)
Age composition (age samples)
Growth (growth parameters)
Absolute biomass survey
Justification
1. Provide the time series (specify years, if possible) that exist for catch, effort, and CPUE/abundance indices.
Recreational effort exists from 1963 (Erisman et al. 2011)
Recreational catch exists from 1963 (Erisman et al. 2011)
Recreational CPUE exists from 1963 (Erisman et al. 2011)

2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers).
Data are from an electronic database maintained by the LA Times and from the California Fish and Wildlife logbook data. Information on how the LA Times data were collected are not available; the link doesn’t work.

3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality.
Anglers are interviewed at landing sites along the coast and are intercepted in telephone interviews to provide a representative sample of catch and effort.

4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports.
Status of the species is relatively unknown because reference points are not available. The biology is reasonably well known through multiple studies on movement and basic biology (e.g. Jarvis et al. 2010; 2018).


Catch reporting bias

Answered
Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%)
Under-reporting (10% - 30%)
Slight under-reporting (0% - 10%)
Reported accurately (+/- 5%)
Slight over-reporting (less than 10%)
Justification
Misreporting is common in recreational fisheries, and I suspect this is the case here too. There are multiple sources of bias in recreational fisheries survey data, such as recall bias (catches are exaggerated as time goes on), avidity bias (higher catches are estimated than average because you are more likely to intercept avid anglers in creel sampling, because they fish more often), etc. See Sullivan 2003; Barrett et al. 2017.


Hyperstability in indices

Answered
Strong hyperdepletion (2 < Beta < 3)
Hyperdepletion (1.25 < Beta < 2)
Proportional (0.8 < Beta < 1.25)
Hyperstability (0.5 < Beta < 0.8)
Strong hyperstability (0.33 < Beta < 0.5)
Justification
Hyperstability does not seem to exist in CPUE of barred sand bass (Erisman et al. 2011).


Available data types

Answered
Perfect
Good (accurate and precise)
Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise)
Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise)
Justification
Methods used to assess barred sand bass catch and effort are reasonably well designed. Length and age samples exist, but they are sporadic across years - not routine but study-specific.


Version Notes

The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to so that it can be fixed!




tcar_-2019-11-26-10:25:40

Open Source, GPL-2 2019