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
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.
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).
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%)
|
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%)
|
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
|