# NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-468



# Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assessment of Fisheries Resources and Habitats

Jerald S. Ault, Steven G. Smith, Geoffrey A. Meester, Jiangang Luo, and James A. Bohnsack

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center 75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, Florida 33149

October 2001

# NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-468



# Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assessment of Fisheries Resources and Habitats

Jerald S. Ault 1 

# , Steven G. Smith 1 

# , Geoffrey A. Meester 1 

# , Jiangang Luo 1 

# , and James A. Bohnsack 2



# U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

October 2001

T his technical memorandum series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject to complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are expected to reflect sound professional work.

1 

# University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Miami, FL

2 

# NOAA/NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL

# N OTICE

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to the NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which woul d indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material menti oned herein or which has as its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of NMFS publication.



# T his report should be cited as follows:

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, G.A. Meester, J Juo, and J.A. Bohnsack. 2001. Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Asse ssment of Fisheries Resources and Habitats. NOAA T echnical Me m orandum NMFS-SEFSC-468. 15 6 pp.



# This report will be posted on the NMFS Southeast Fisher i es Science Center website at URL – http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/

Copies may be obtained by writing:

National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, Florida 33149

or

National Technical Information Service 5258 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000 <http://www.ntis.gov/numbers.htm>

ii

# iii 

# Executive Summary

Biscayne National Park (BNP) in southeastern Fl orida is a unique tropical marine environment of national significance, renown for its produc tive coral reef ecosystem, diverse natural resources, important fishing opportunities, and spec tacular scenic beauty. BNP’s coastal bay and coral reef habitats play a criti cal role in the func tion and dynamics of the larger Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem and contribute substantia lly to the multibillion dollar tourism and fishing industry. Park waters provide critical nursery habitats and food web links for many important commercial and recreational fishery resources including: bonefish, snook, tarpon, permit, pink shrimp, spotted seatrout, oysters, clams, blue crabs and stone crabs, baitfishes; and, numerous coral reef fishes that include snappers, groupers, gr unts, barracuda, spad efish, spiny lobster, parrotfish, surgeonfish and tri ggerfish. The production dynamics of these valuable natural resources are inextricably linked not only to fi shing and rates of exploitation but also to the spatial distribution and quality of bay waters and habitats, themselves greatly affected by growing human uses and management practices. Since BNP’s natural resources are intimately related to the broader regional ecosystem through water movements and animal migrations, any Park degradation will have cons equences well beyond its boundaries.

Fishery management strategies now being propos ed for BNP require precise spatial data and estimates of resource distribution and status pr ior to implementation of any spatial management policy. These data will facilitate concise and unambiguous baseline estimation of the Park resource status, provide critical inputs for models used to for ecast potential im pacts of policy changes, and enable design of an efficient samp ling program to monitor future performance of a given management policy.

In a proactive movement towards development of strategic planning, this report takes the first steps in establishing the quantita tive characterization and assessmen t of fisheries resources and habitats in BNP. The site characterization wa s based on an extensive overview and analysis of pertinent scientific and technical literature and biological, fishery, and physical databases relevant to the status and dynamics of fishery resources in Biscay ne National Park, Florida. The estimation and simulation modeling “process” invo lved database assimilation, visualization and mapping of fish-habitat linkages, and multispecies assessments. In the process, we developed a new approach to stock assessment of multispecies coral reef fisheries that compare status of stocks relative to Federal fishery management gui delines. Our assessment research focused on 3 data sets containing more th an 25 years of fishery-depend ent (1976-1999 via BNP recreational creel survey) and fishery-independent ( 1979-2000 via SCUBA diver visual census and rollerframe trawls) survey sampling in BNP. Dig ital maps were created for a variety of spatial “habitats” including bathymetry, benthic substrates, salinity and other water quality parameters that relate to fishery resource distributions and abund ances. Biological data were separated into 4 life-stage phases in terms of length for anal ysis: juveniles; pre-exploited; mature; and, exploited. Habitat data were co-plotted with species life-stage abundance and community diversity distributions to assess the spatial distribution and dynamics of fisheries and their dependence on habitats found in BNP. We noted:

C Biscayne Bay plays an important role as primary nursery area for many coastal bay and coral reef fishes and macr oinvertebrates (i.e., gray, mu tton, lane, schoolmaster and yellowtail snappers; bonefish, tarpon, permit, sharks, molluscs, sponges, snook, seatrout, and pink shrimp, blue crabs, and spiny lobste rs). Therefore, we conducted our analyses with respect to the relevant life stages of each species partitioned into four phases:

# iv 

# juvenile (from length of recruitment to size of sexual maturity); pre-exploited (recruitment length to minimum legal harvest size); mature (length of sexual maturity tomaximum size); and, exploited (minimum legal to maximum size). We found that thirtyfive (35) species of fish (a bout 11% of total BNP fishes) were present in all three survey types (TRAWL, CREEL, RVC), suggesting that there is use of habitats amongst lifestage phases. Fish diversity was lowest on the west ern fringe of Biscayne Bay (particularly at areas proximal to SFWMD canal outfalls and attendant freshwater influxes), increased moving seaward, and was highest in eastern BNP (areas on th e barrier coral reef system open towards the Straits of Florida). Th e diverse spatial patt erning of many species distributions reflects speciali zed ontogenetic use of certain habitats across the seascape. This suggests that a critical mosaic of in terconnected habitats may be essential for sustaining fishery resources and ecosystem productivity.

We used a systems science approach to c onduct a new multispecies assessment on exploited fishery resources found in BNP. The analyses used both fishery-i ndependent and fisherydependent data sources. We also acquired ex tensive biological and fishery information on population dynamics including age-growth, age (s ize) class distributi on, and natural mortality rates. We estimated new fishery indicator vari ables developed from fi shery-independent diver visual census data and fishery- dependent creel survey for 91 e xploited species to assess the current status of the stocks. However, the reliability of population dynamic parameter datasets for a number of these species were suspect, or unavailable. As a result, this study focused on 35 important reef fish species that reflected th e predominance of species and reliable population dynamics data. Commercial fisheries data we re also acquired, but were deemed generally unreliable. Combining population-dynamic parame ters and estimates of fisheries indices with the LBAR and REEFS assessment models facili tated evaluation of a series of fishery management benchmarks and estimated exploita tion levels. We compared these estimates of current stock biomass and fishing mortality levels to the Federal standards. The following points summarize our findings:

C For all of the harvested species analyzed, th e average sized fish within the exploited phase of these populations for the last 25 ye ars has remained rela tively constant and is very close to minimum harvest sizes, not natural historical unfished population size. Many species with extremely low average lengt h in the past have had very little change in average length even though new minimum size limits were imposed. The average size of black grouper is now 40% of what it wa s in 1940 and the spawning stock is now less than 5% of its historical unfished maximum.

C Overall, 77% of the 35 individual stocks th at could be analyzed are overfished. An analysis of the Spawning Potential Ratios ( SPR) of exploited reef fish shows that 13 of 16 grouper species, 11 of 13 snapper species, barracuda, and 2 of 5 grunt species for which there are reliable popula tion dynamics data are below the SPR that constitutes overfishing by Federal definitions (M agnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Conservation Act).

C Stock biomass is critically low for most of th e key targeted species within the recreational fishery. For example, the current level of fishing mortality for grouper stocks range from 3 to 10 times the exploitation level that would achieve Maximu m Sustainable Yield (MSY). Some stocks appear to have been chronically overfished since at least the late 1970's.

# v 

# C Exceptionally high and sustained exploitati on pressures have precipitated “serial overfishing” of key fishery resources. Smaller and less desirable species have consistently increased in the catch as larg er more vulnerable species are eliminated.

C The recreational fishing fleet in South Florida has grown at a near exponential rate since 1964 (a 444% increase in recreational boats from 1964 to 1998) with no limits on the number of boats allowed to fish. The rela tive effective vessel “fishing power” of the recreational fleet has quadrupled due to depth indicators and fish finders, global positioning systems, improved vessel designs, larger motors, and two-way radio communications.

C A proportion of the fish in ca tches observed at the Biscay ne NP boat ramps during creel

surveys are smaller than the minimum size limit for legal harvest. This is as high as 70% for yellowtail and mutton snapper! Inadequa te enforcement and knowledge of fishery regulations (reflected in preponderance of unde rsized “illegal” fish seen in creel catch size frequency distributions) and the extremely poor status of reef fi sh resources (BNP is the worst situation in the entire Keys) signal s eminent resource collapses. Enforcement needs to be stronger to discourage poachers.

C In fact, we also found that 13 of 35 species we analyzed have their minimum size of legal harvest set lower than the minimum size of sexua l maturity, that is, these fishes are being captured before they have ever had a chance to spawn.

C Little is known about a numbe r of highly-prized species like bonefish, tarpon and permit, despite the fact that they are the focus of ex tremely important recreational fisheries. For example, bonefish have undoubtedly been unde r sampled, as only seven (7) fish have been reported in 23 years of BNP creel samp ling, despite the fact th at bonefish support an enormous regional recreational fishery. There are no monitoring programs for pink shrimp despite the large inshore biomass of juvenile shrimp that fed a broad range of juvenile and adult fishes in the BNP ecosystem, but is also under heavy exploitation pressures from an intensive commercial bait -shrimp and recreationa l wing-net fishery. In addition, economically-important spiny lobs ter, blue crabs and stone crabs lack monitoring in BNP.

The history of fishery management actions by the State and Federal Fishery Management Council for Biscayne NP waters cl early reflects the char acteristics of trying to manage fisheries under increasing stress with conve ntional approaches. Actions have been taken only after declines have already occurred and were fina lly acknowledged. Actions are then usually only minimal and not at a level that ensures recovery will take place. (The history of increasingly more restrictive size limits pl aced on several grouper species un til the fishery for some was eventually closed is a prime example of failure in conventional management approaches). Fisheries are not sustainable in BNP under the pr esent levels of explo itation affecting stock status and habitat quality. We make the following recommendations:

C We believe that a broader, more integr ated strategy of monitoring, assessment and modeling is needed for effective fishery ma nagement in BNP. This comprehensive strategy must consider sampling of Bay, mangrove, coral reef, and pelagic fishery environments, and some consideration of ne w or enhanced use of data and technologies

# vi 

# (e.g., recreational creel and comm ercial catches, visual cens us, trawls and other nets, acoustics, LIDAR, etc.). There are severe limita tions to the use of a single survey geartype to conduct a meaningful synoptic study of fish and shellfish. The current, somewhat piecemeal, monitoring program must be reconf igured to meet assessment data demands. Monitoring efforts need to be integrated into a overarching design to facilitate short term fishery and “habitat” surveys. The analys is of a cost-effectiv e composite design for n key target species is needed. In the course of the design, some sp ecial attention must be given to the barrier islands, mangrove fringe, and pa tch reef environments of the Park which have been sparsely sampled to date.

C Envisaged ecosystem modeling and management endeavors must rely on a precise and cost-effective mechanism to understand and mana ge these valuable a nd essential fishery resources. Advanced monitoring efforts will also require refined resolution and precision of existing base habitat maps, including dire cted efforts to fill in data gaps. An experimental design to assess water quality e ffects of Everglades re storation on fishes in the “tide” will be important to develop. Mo nitoring activities shou ld be designed at a time frequency dependent on key process rates, and such these integrated data will be critical for monitoring the efficacy of pr oposed management alternatives, ultimately leading to design of a longer-term progr am of optimal sampling, monitoring and assessment of the coral reef fish comm unity and associated habitats in BNP.

C Many of BNP’s most important fishery reso urces have received li ttle attention (e.g., shellfish, bonefish, tarpon, snook, etc.). Ther e is great need to develop additional population dynamics models and conduct fi shery-independent surveys for these resources. This will require an improved cap acity at BNP to monitor fishery resources across the breadth of environments. Little to no information was available for bonefishtarpon, two mainstays of the highly valuable inshore recreational fishery, and broad knowledge gaps exist. There is an obvious need to protect “flats” environments from excessive use and degradati on, and to develop a quantitat ive reef and coastal fish community index which may help in dete rmining how close the “real” situation approximates “ideal” community structure.

The qualities that make BNP and the Florida Keys such venerable tourism and fishing destinations are eroding. Cl early, without some type of immediate proactive fishery management in BNP, collapse of many important fisheries resources is imminent. A multistock recovery strategy to sustainable ta rget levels is needed. This st rategy must address the great fleet fishing capacity and develop stra tegies to buffer exploitation in productive regions and reduce stress on key habitats The obvious system conn ectivity that links BNP with the rest of the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem means that long-term planning effo rts for BNP should also include close integration of e fforts with FKNMS, DTNP and th e State of Florida. Marine protected areas and research natural areas ar e being implemented regionally; these may be a necessary step to build sustainable fisheries and to conserve marine biodiversity. To facilitate recovery of the region’s precious natural resources, it is clearly in the best interests of BNP to strongly support marine reserve development and implementation in the Dry Tortugas and other suitable upstream candidate sites.

# vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

BNP Site Characterization: Fi sheries Resources and Habitats J.S. Ault, S.G. Smith, G.A. Meester, J. Luo, and J.A. Bohnsack



# Executive Summary ............................................................................................ iii

Table of Content s

................................................................................................ vi i

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Databases for Resource Assessment and Analysis.......................................... 6 2.1 Reef fish visual census (RVC)...................................................................... 6 2.2 Roller-frame trawl survey (TRAWL)............................................................ 7 2.3 Recreational fishery creel census (CREEL).................................................. 8 2.4 Supplemental fishery-dependent databases.................................................. 8 2.5 Biological and physical “habitat” databases................................................ 8 2.5.1 Benthic habitats and bathymetry.................................................... 9 2.5.2 Water currents and salinity dynamics........................................... 9

3.0 Overview of Species and Habitats.................................................................... 10 3.1 BNP fishery ecosystem................................................................................. 10 3.2 Species inventory and fishes at risk.............................................................. 10 3.3 Fish habitats and community diversity......................................................... 13 3.4 Water currents and juvenile recruitment pathways....................................... 19 3.5 Size distributions and spatial ontogeny for exploited species...................... 21 3.6 Quantitative assessment of habitat use......................................................... 37

4.0 Fishery Overview and Estimation of Stock Status Indices........................... 42 4.1 Fishing effort and regional human population growth................................. 42 4.2 Commercial landings.................................................................................... 42 4.3 Size at first captu re restrictions.................................................................... 47 4.4 Indicator variables of population status........................................................ 49 4.4.1 Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)........................................................ 49 4.4.2 Average size in exploited phase.................................................... 53 4.5 Non-compliance with fishery minimum size regulations............................. 57

5.0 Multispecies Fishery Stock Assessments........................................................ 60 5.1 Synthesis of population dynamics parameters............................................. 60 5.2 Estimation of total mortality rate from ‘average size’ statistics.................. 60 5.3 Management benchmarks analyses.............................................................. 66 5.3.1 Fishery yields and YPR................................................................ 68 5.3.2 Spawning potential ratios SPR..................................................... 68 5.3.3 Limit control rules........................................................................ 70 5.4 Baseline status of BNP exploited fish stocks.............................................. 73

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 78

7.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 83

8.0 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 87

# 1 1.0 Introduction Biscayne National Park (BNP), encompassing approximately 728 km 2 

# in southeastern Florida ( Figure 1 ), is a unique tropical marine environment of national significance, renown for its productive coral reef ecosystem, diverse natural resources, broad fishing opportunities, and spectacular scenic beauty. Explosive regional population growth and documented resource declines have raised concerns about the future of these resources. The NPS requires general management plans (GMP) for each national park unit. The GMP framework sets forth the management philosophy for decision making and problem solving in National Parks for the next 15 to 20 years to meet current and future conservation objectives and resource uses, while enhancing visitor experiences. In an effort consistent with the GM P framework and as an initial step leading towards development of a comprehensive fishery management plan for the Park, this report characterizes the current status of BNP’s fisheries resources and associated habitats. We view fisheries assessment and management from a systems science perspective (Ault 1996, Bohnsack and Ault 1996, Rothschild et al. 1996, Ault et al. 1998, Ault and Luo 1998, Bohnsack et al. 1999, Lindeman et al. 2000, Ault et al. 2000b) , illustrated in Figure 2 . In this approach, the fisheries assessment and management “system” is an organized set of scientific protocols and methods designed to achieve three main goals: (1) to understand fisheries resources and habitats within the context of the aquatic ecosystem; (2) to assess the impacts of human activities and economic drivers on th ese resources; and (3) to analyze and evaluate the degree of success of proposed and implemented management po licies in mitigating human impacts on fisheries resources. A systems science overview of BNP fisher ies resources is as follows. Located just south of Miami at the northernmost end of the Florida Ke ys, BNP’s coastal bay and coral reef habitats play a critical role in the function and dynamics of the larger Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem. The inshore waters of Biscayne Bay serve as a nursery area for larvae and juveniles of a wide variety of fish and shellfish. Many of thes e live and reproduce in barrier cora l reef and other offshore habitats as adults. The coastal bay environment also provides habitats for a number of highly prized gamefishes, such as bonefish, ta rpon and snook. Fish and shellfish populations in the Florida Keys region currently support a multibillion dollar tourist and fishing economy. Over the past several decades, public use of and conflicts over fishery resources have increased sharply, while some fishery catches from historically productive sn apper and grouper stocks have declined (Bohnsack et al. 1994). A recent quantitative retrospective a ssessment of the Florida Keys multispecies reef fish community showed that fishing mortality levels are very intense, that many stocks are "overfished", and that signs of overfishing have been evident sinc e the late 1970's (Ault et al. 1997a, 1998). A series of management actions, begun in the early- to mid-1980s, included establishing size, season, and bag limits on a number of species. Several species have been closed to harvest altogether. Habitats of fish and shellfish in the Florida Keys ecosystem, particularly those located in nearshore areas, have also been impacted and co mpromised by human activities. Over the last eight decades, the Florida Keys, Florida Bay and Bis cayne Bay have undergone dramatic changes in environmental conditions due to human alterati on of the natural hydrology in southern Florida. These changes are now the focus of an intensive effort to restore the ecosystem by returning the hydrology to more natural conditions (Harwell et al. 1998, RESTUDY www.acoe.jax.mil). Coastal bay nursery grounds will likely bear the brunt of the proposed changes in freshwater outflows to estuarine and marine environments. The combination of rapidly growing human populations, overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution and cha nges in regional water quality from Everglades “restoration” make the Keys region an "ecosystem -at-risk" as one of the nation's most significant,

# 2

# 3 Fishery Reserve Non-Fishery Reserve

LARVAL DISPERSAL Application



## Fisheries and Human Socioeconomic System

Aquatic Ecosystem

Fishery Resources & Habitats



## Resource Management & Managers Fisheries Risk Assessment & Information Management System

Survey Design & Implementation Data Assimilation & Statistical Analysis Population Dynamics Modeling Stock Assessment Bioeconomic Analysis & Modeling Management Policy Scenario Testing & Performance Analysis 

## Resource Management Policies Impacts

Sampling Surveys Data Sampling Surveys

Data

Policy Alternatives

Policy Analysis Results Figure 2: Conceptual overview of a systems science approach to fisheries assessment and management.

# 4 yet most stressed, marine resource regions under ma nagement of NOAA, the State of Florida, and the National Park Service (Ault et al. 1997a, 1998, 2000ab; Schmidt et al. 1999). The goal of this report is to formally empl oy the systems science approach to assess the baseline status of multispecies fishery resources in BNP circa 2000 ( Figure 3 ). The approach links the acquisition and assimilation of physical, biological and fishery databases to advanced statistical and modeling procedures to conduct multispecies st ock assessments. Therefore, the objectives of this report are:

• To assimilate BNP regional resource databases and overview both species and habitats.

• To estimate biological indicators of stock status from several sources of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent survey data (i.e., creel census, coral reef visual census, and rollerframe trawl survey).

• To synthesize and estimate a suite of population dynamics parameters for assessment model building.

• To conduct length-based multispecies stock asse ssments for key exploited fishery resources in BNP waters using our new methods, to compar e current estimates of exploitation to stateof-the-art fishery management benchmarks for fisheries sustainability, and to conduct a preliminary risk assessment of fishery management strategies for overfished stocks consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Conservation Act.

The results of the analyses presented in this report provide guidance and identify priorities for developing comprehensive General Management and Fishery Management Plans for Biscayne National Park. In addition, these results will fac ilitate strategic formulation of policy alternatives that optimize conservation and use of Park fishery resources, and the design of high precision information systems that enable evaluation of the likelihood of success of a given policy in achieving Park natural resource management goals.

# 5 Management Policy Formulation & Survey Design Recommendations Resource Databases for Assessment and Analysis

Habitat/Water Quality: Bathymetry Benthic Habitats Water Quality Sampling Hydrodynamics Model

Animals: Reef Fish Diver Visual Survey Roller Frame Trawl Survey Recreational Creel Census Recreational Headboat Landings Commercial Landings Population Dynamics Parameter Synthesis and Estimation

Length-Age Growth Model Weight-Length Relationship Max Size-Age Size-Age at Maturity Size-Age at First Capture Natural Mortality Rate Fishing Mortality Rate (F)

Multispecies Production Analysis

Yield in Weight at F Spawning Stock Biomass at F

Management Benchmark Analysis

Spawning Potential Ratio Limit Control Rule Analysis Overview of Species, Habitats, & Fisheries and Estimation of Biological Indicators

Habitat Spatial Distribution L Species Inventory & Diversity Catch, effort, CPUE Animal Spatial Distribution Animal Use of Habitats Figure 3.- Flow diagram of the systems science approach employed to assess Dry Tortugas region coral reef fishery resources. Solid lines depict analyses flow of this report, while dashed lines indicate future steps in fishery management plan developmen t.

# 6 2.0 Databases for Resource Assessment and Analysis We assimilated, analyzed and visualized a number of fishery-independent and fisherydependent survey databases on fishes and macroinve rtebrates in Biscayne National Park. Databases of physical and biological “habitat” features of BN P were also integrated into these analyses. In addition to the following descriptions, a brie f summary of each database is provided in Appendix A

. 2.1 Reef Fish Visual Census (RVC) Biological data from Biscayne National Park we re collected as part of a Florida Keys-wide fishery-independent sampling survey for reef fish conducted by NOAA Fisheries and University of Miami RSMAS scientists. The RVC (reef-fish visu al census) survey database for BNP, extracted from the Keys-wide survey database, covere d the years 1983 to 1992 and 1995 to 1999 for a total of 13 years. Data were collected by standard, non-destructive, in situ visual monitoring methods by highly trained and experienced divers using ope n circuit SCUBA (Bohnsack et al. 1999). Visual methods are ideal for assessing reef fishes in th e Florida Keys because of prevailing good visibility and management concerns requiring the use of low impact assessment methods. The method provides reliable quantitative estimates of species composition, abundance (density per plot), frequency-of-occurrence, and individual size compos ition for the reef fish community. Data are collected by a stationary diver centered in a random ly selected circular plot (Bohnsack and Bannerot 1986, Ault et al. 1998). Divers sample 7.5 m radius circular plots for 5 minutes attempting to count all fish observed within each imaginary cylinder ex tending from the bottom to the limits of vertical visibility (usually the surface). Divers begin each sample by facing in one direction and listing all species within the field of view. When no new species are noted, new sectors are scanned sequentially by rotating in one direction for the 5 min period. Several complete rotations were usually made for each plot. After the initial 5 min, data are then recorded on abundance and minimum, mean, and maximum lengths for each species listed. Depth, bottom composition, estimated percentage cover, and maximum relief are recorded for each plot from the polar perspective of the centrally located observer. A ca libration ruler held out perpendicularly at the end of a meter stick was used to reduce apparent magnification errors in size estimates. Divers periodically calibrate their sample radius estimates with either a meter stick or fiberglass tape. Species with few individuals (e.g. angelfish, barracuda, hogfish) are counted and their size estimated immediately. Highly mobile species that are unlik ely to remain in the area (e.g. sharks, carangids) are tabulated when first observed and then ignored. For common species (e.g. damselfish, wrasses, etc.) one 360 o 

# rotation is made for each species by working back up the list in reverse order of recording to reduce potential bias by avoiding c ounting a species when they were particularly abundant or obvious. The time required to record each sample averages 15-20 min (range 5-30), depending on the habitat. We used a two stage stratified random survey design to optimize sampling effort and choose sampling locations (Cochran 1977). Bottom features are first classified into habitat strata and mapped based on bottom structure and location. Th e Florida Keys sampling domain was partitioned into strata based on geographical location and hab itat characteristics. The Florida Keys domain is overlain in a Geographical Information System (GIS) with a grid of 1 km 2 

# cells. Each cell contains 25 blocks of 200 x 200 m which are the primary sample units. Block size was chosen such that divers can easily swim from a moored vessel to any location within the boundaries. Second stage sample stations are randomly positioned in each block. There are 226 non-overlapping possible 7.5

# 7 m radius fish sampling stations within each bloc k. Because of concerns about autocorrelation and safe diving practices, each fish samp ling station consists of the aver age of combined stationary point estimates from two individual divers (i.e., a “buddy pair”). From 1983 through 1999, a total of 863 diver stations were sampled in BNP. Annual and total sample sizes are given in Table 1

.

Table 1.- Sample size summary of fish sampling for Bi scayne National Park for fishery-independent stratified random trawl (TRAWL) surveys, two-st age stratified random visual census (RVC), and fishery-dependent BNP dock-intercept recrea tional creel (CREEL) surveys from 1976 to 1999.

Biscayne Bay Biscayne National Park Stratified Random Trawl Survey Reef Fish Visual Census & Recreational Creel Census

Month-Year TRAWL Year RVC CREEL

1976 1388 1977 2373 1978 2845 1979 2699 1980 2326 1981 2098 1982 3161 1983 18 2686 1984 2 535 1985 3 1191 1986 4 1146 1987 19 927 1988 114 609 1989 159 635 1990 141 737 1991 41 697 1992 63 703 April - May 1996 118 1993 620 August 1996 93 1994 844 Nov-Dec 1996 150 1995 68 366 March 1997 122 1996 36 541 September 1997 151 1997 79 417 November 1997 120 1998 79 396 Oct-Nov 1999 119 1999 37 Feb-March 2000 110

Totals 983 863 29,940



# 2.2 Roller-Frame Trawl Survey (TRAWL) Trawl sampling was conducted in Biscayne Ba y from Rickenbacker Causeway to Long Arsenicker Key in Biscayne Bay, FL, at depths greater than 1 m, using a habitat-based stratified random survey design (see Ault et al. 1999a for deta ils). Sampling was carried out exclusively at night to maximize the capture probability of shri mps, but captured about 120 finfish species. The survey employed a standard roller frame trawl used in the South Florida commercial live bait shrimp

# 8 fishery (cf., Serafy et al. 1997a). The trawl consists of a 10 mm squa re mesh net attached to a 3 m wide by 0.5 m high metal frame outfitted with a sl otted roller along the lower portion. At a given sampling station, two nets were towed simultaneously on either side of the sampling vessel. A station tow distance of 200 m yielded a tow area of 600 m 2 

# for each trawl net. Upon completion of a tow, captured fish and shrimp were processed separately for each trawl net. Pink shrimp were sorted from the total catch of fishes and other macroinvertebrates and brought back to the laboratory, where each individual was sexed and carapace length (CL) recorded as the distance from the postorbital margin to the posterior margin of th e carapace (Diaz et al. 2001). Individual fish were immediately identified and sized (to nearest mm total length TL) onboard, and then released back into the water. Water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and depth were measured at each sampling station. Sampling strata were delineated into distinct “habitats” based on a combination of depth, bottom substrate, and salinity zone. Eight “snapshot” surveys (2-3 weeks in duration) were performed in different seasons over the period from spring 1996 to winter 2000. Trawl station locations were randomly selected within each stra ta for each survey. The TRAWL survey database contains a total of 983 randomized trawl stations. Sample sizes for each seasonal survey are listed in Table 1

. 2.3 Recreational Fishery Creel Census (CREEL) Creel census interviews of recreational fishers at public launch ramps have been conducted by BNP personnel and volunteers using standardized data collection procedures since 1976 (Davis and Thue 1979, Harper et al. 2000). Data coll ection included a fishing party interview and biological sampling of landings conducted at the conclusion of each recreational fishing trip. Information on angler effort and catches were di stributed among areal partitions of BNP and detailed data collected included: date of trip, trip dur ation, number of anglers per vessel, hours fished, species, numbers and sizes of fish captured, numbers and species of fish released, targeted species, angler residence, trip origin, and party compositi on. Biological sampling consisted of recording fish lengths and numbers by species. The BNP CR EEL census database from 1976 to 1998 covers 23 years of information obtained from a tota l of 29,940 interviews of sportfishers ( Table 1 ) who fished either inside the Park boundaries or in the pelagic zone adjacent to the eastern Park boundary. Interviews of sportfishers who primarily fished in other areas outside the Park were not considered in our analysis.

2.4 Supplemental Fishery-Dependent Databases Other fishery dependent databases were used to supplement the three primary biological databases described above. The 1981-1995 NMFS headboat landings database (Bohnsack et al., 1994; Dixon and Huntsman, 1992) provided information on multispecies stock status in the greater Florida Keys-Dry Tortugas coral reef ecosystem , including but not limited to the BNP region. We also obtained commercial fishery landings reported for the statistical area covering Biscayne Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card Sound for 1986-1998. These were extracted from the NMFS general canvas landings database for the south Florida region (P. Eyo, NOAA SEFSC).

2.5 Biological and Physi cal “Habitat” Databases The principal physical and biological “habitat” data used in our analyses involved benthic substrate types, bathymetry, water quality, and hydrodynamics.

# 9 2.5.1 Benthic Habitats and Bathymetry Geographical information system (GIS) layers of bottom substrate classifications interpreted from aerial photographic surveys were provided by the Florida Marine Research Institute and Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management. Data for the Biscayne National Park region were extracted from the Fl orida Keys-wide database. Bottom types included multiple categories of coral reef, seagrass, hardbottom, and sand/rock substrates. Data layer coverages pertaining to land and shoreline delineations were also included. We acquired the National Ocean Service Hydr ographic Survey database of depth soundings for the Florida Coast (NOAA, Silver Spring, MD; NOS , Boulder, CO). Water depths at latitudelongitude point locations were extracted for the BNP region and gridded into GIS layers.

2.5.2 Water Currents and Salinity Dynamics Water current and salinity dynamics were described for the BNP region using a 2D finite element numerical hydrodynamic model (Wang et al. 1988). Model inputs include empirical information on winds, tides, water currents, canal discharges, salinities, rainfall, evaporation, overland water flow, and groundwater flow collected at various times and locations within the region for approximately 25 years of observations (Wang et al. 2001). The model was developed to describe the currents, residence times, salinity patte rns, and larval transport in the Biscayne Bay lagoonal system. The principal model outputs are water current vectors and salinity values along a horizontal spatial grid of resolution betw een 150 and 1000 m depending on the specific location in the model domain. The model was validated using point samples of surface, mid-water and bottom water quality parameters extracted from the DBHYDRO database provided by the South Florida Water Quality Management District. Data were utilized from 54 stations sampled within southern Biscayne Bay at 2-8 week time intervals during the period 1995-1998.

# 10 3.0 Overview of Species and Habitats The databases described in Section 2 were a ssimilated and analyzed to characterize the species and habitats of fish and shellfish (macroi nvertebrate) community in Biscayne National Park. In our assessments, we begin by documenting the comm unity structure in BNP, and then discuss and quantify the spatial and temporal relationships between fishery resources and habitats.

3.1 BNP Fishery Ecosystem Coastal fishes, particularly reef fishes and shellfish, are ideal indicators of environmental stress (e.g., fishing, habitat changes, etc.) because they are tightly linked to the southern Florida coastal ecosystem. Many important reef species di rectly use Biscayne Bay and inshore habitats as nursery and juvenile forage areas before migrating offshore to the coral reefs ( Figure 4A ). They are likely to be directly and indirectly impacted by the Everglades restoration efforts. Mature animals spawn at the deep edge of the bank reef s, and then their larvae are advected coastward where juveniles settle in lagoons and seagrass beds on barrier islands. Obvious examples include pink shrimp ( Farfantepenaeus duorarum ) spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ), barracuda ( Sphyraena barracuda ), hogfish ( Lachnolaimus maximus ), Goliath grouper ( Epinephelus itajara ), gray snapper ( Lutjanus griseus ), as well as several other snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), grunts (Haemulidae), spadefish (Ephippidae), surgeonf ish (Acanthuridae), triggerfish (Balistidae), parrotfish (Scaridae) and jacks (Carangidae). Ev en tarpon and snook are closely tied to Biscayne Bay as they extensively utilize reef habitats as adults. In most cases, however, the relative importance of different habitats in Biscayne Bay a nd offshore of the Keys has rarely been quantified for different reef or coastal species. Key aspects of the south Florida fishery eco system pertaining to BNP are diagramed in Figure 4B . Progressing from west to east, there are a wide variety of aquatic habitats spread over a relatively short distance. The western edge of BNP is lined with marsh and mangrove habitats which serve as the entry point for freshwater inflow to the Biscayne Bay environment via an extensive network of drainage canals. The Park’s eastern boundary is characterized by an oceanic pelagic zone dominated by the Gulf Stream ocean current. A subtropical coastal bay environment, leeward barrier islands, and an offshore coral reef system are situated in between these boundaries along a west-to-east gradient of increasing salinity. Animal surveys, described above, targeted three principal habitats, the coastal bay (TRAWL a nd CREEL), coral reef tract (RVC and CREEL), and near-shore pelagic (CREEL) zones.

3.2 Species Inventory and Fishes at Risk An overall species inventory for BNP was compiled by combining the following information from animal survey databases: (i) animals observe d in the RVC survey that were identified to genus and species by NOAA and RSMAS divers; (ii) anim als captured in the TRAWL survey that were identified to genus and species by RSMAS scientists; and (iii) animals captured and kept by sportfishers that were identified to genus and species by BNP scientists conducting the CREEL census. For the CREEL database, animals captured and released by sportfishers, and thus not positively identified by BNP scientists, were not included in the compilation because of the questionable reliability of these data. The overall compiled species inventory is provided in Appendix B . The three BNP animal survey databa ses contained 325 species of fishes and macroinvertebrates representing 77 different families ( Table 2 ).

# 11 Figure 4a. - Conceptual organization of the south Florida ecosystem and key attributes of “bay to reef” ontogeny for many important coastal fishes and shellfishes. (A) Linkages between animal lifestages and coastal habitat environments extending from freshwater and mangrove marshes on the western fringe to deep reef - pelagic environmen ts in the east. (B) Actual distribution of habitats in Biscayne National Park.

# 12 

# FreshwaterEvergladesRestoration 

# Figure 4b.- Biscayne National Park Fishery Ecosystem

# 13 Table 2.- Number of species, families, and species uni que to survey type within each dataset from three BNP fishery-independent (RVC, TRAWL) and fishery-dependent (CREEL) surveys.

RVC TRAWL CREEL Total

Species 182 155 143 325

Families 47 45 45 77

Unique Species 67 78 57

In addition, each survey database contained a substantial number of species not seen or captured in other surveys ( Table 2 ), reflecting differing survey targets with respect to habitats and species lifestages. The TRAWL survey targets juvenile and subadult pink shrimp, as well as smaller preexploited life stages of fishes, in the coastal bay environment. The RVC surv ey targets all life stages of fishes in coral reef habitats within the offs hore reef system. The CREEL census targets exploited life stages of animals in the coastal bay, offshore reef, and pelagic environments. At present, none of the fishes that inhabit BN P are on federal or Florida lists of threatened or endangered species. However, it is only very recently that marine fish species have been proposed for inclusion on national and internationa l rare or endangered animal lists (Musick 1998, 1999; Musick et al. 2000; Hudson and Mason 1996). This situation exists in part because: (1) there is societal and scientific doubt that marine fish species can become extinct, (2) the out of sight – out of mind concept; and, (3) they have traditionally been of lower conservation concern than their terrestrial counterparts. In 1996, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published rare/threatened marine species criteria and revised animal lists to include marine fish species. The IUCN list includes 18 species found in Biscayne National Park ( Table 3 ). Concurrently, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) has evaluated the risk of extinction for marine fish species using new quantitative criteria adopted by IUCN (Hudson and Mace 1996), and published a list of 82 marine fish species at risk in North America (Musick et al. 2000). Of these 82 marine finfish species, 22 are found in BNP.

3.3 Fish Habitats and Community Diversity Habitats of BNP were described in terms of bottom substrates ( Figure 5 ), bathymetry ( Figure 6 ) and seasonal salinity patterns ( Figures 7 and 8 ). The coastal bay-lagoonal environment of BNP exhibits a basin topography, with shallower (0-2 m) areas along the mainland (western) and leeward island (eastern) shorelines and deeper (2-4 m) areas in the central, mid-basin region. Bottom substrates of the coastal bay zone were grouped into three basic types: seagrass, hard bottom, and bare bottom (Figure 5) . Seagrass consisted of sandy or silt-clay sediments vegetated by the seagrasses Thallasia spp., Halodule spp., or Syringodium spp. Seagrasses in the coral reef tract were not identified to species. Hard bottom was characterized by a foundation of oolitic limestone covered by a thin sediment layer populated with a variety of soft coral and sponge species. Bare bottom was substrate generally devoid of larg e benthic organisms. Seasonal salinity patterns in the coastal bay zone ( Figures 7 and 8) highlight three broad regions with respect to magnitude and variability of salinity. The first region is lo cated in the eastern bay adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean

# 14 Table 3. - Draft list of marine and estuarine fish stocks at risk in Bisca y ne National Park and

surroundin g

waters. Source: Tom Schmidt, NPS. Su p erscri p t 1 

# b y common name indicates species were not observed in RVC surveys.

Family Common Name Scientific Name BNP Habitat Protection Criteria

Acanthuridae Gulf surgeonfish 1 

## Acanthurus randalli Coral, seagrass AFS vulnerable Balistidae Queen triggerfish Balistes vetula Coral reefs IUCN vulnerable Carcharhinidae Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus Coastal bays and reefs IUCN vulnerable Carcharhinidae Dusky shark 1 

## Carcharhinus obscurus Coral, grassbeds IUCN endangered Centropomidae Swordspine snook Centropomus ensiferus Mangrove, estuarine AFS vulnerable Centropomidae Fat snook 1 

## Centropomus parallelus Mangrove, estuarine AFS vulnerable Centropomidae Tarpon snook 1 

## Centropomus pectinatus Mangrove, estuarine AFS vulnerable Gobiidae Spot-tail goby Gobionellus stigmaturus Seagrass, tidal flats AFS vulnerable Gobiidae Orangespotted goby Nes longus Mud and sand bottoms AFS vulnerable Labridae Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Coral reefs, seagrass IUCN vulnerable Lutjanidae Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis Coral reefs, seagrass IUCN vulnerable Lutjanidae Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus Coral reefs, seagrass IUCN vulnerable Myliobatidae Spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari Coastal bays and reefs State of Florida protected

Pristidae Smalltooth sawfish 1 

## Pristis pectinata Coastal bays IUCN/AFS endangered, FL protected Scaridae Scarus guacamia Rai nbow parrotfish Coral reefs, seagrass IUCN vulnerable

Sciaenidae Blue croaker 1 

## Bairdella batabana hardbottoms, seagrass AFS vulnerable

Scombridae Bluefin tuna 1 

## Thunnus thynnus Oceanic IUCN endangered Serranidae Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Coral reefs IUCN/AFS critically endangered Serranidae Yellowedge grouper Epinephelus flavolimbatus Coral reefs AFS endangered Serranidae Jewfish Epinephelus itajara Coral reefs, mangroves AFS endangered, U.S./FL protected Serranidae Marbled grouper Epinephelus inermis Coral reefs IUCN vulnerable Serranidae Warsaw grouper 1 

## Epinephelus nigritus Coral reefs, hardbottoms IUCN/AFS critically endangered Serranidae Snowy grouper 1 

## Epinephelus niveatus offshore hardbottoms IUCN/AFS vulnerable Serranidae Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Coral reefs, seagrass AFS/IUCN threatened, U.S./FL protected Serranidae Blue hamlet Hypoplectus gemma Coral reefs AFS vulnerable Serranidae Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Coral reefs, hardbottoms AFS vulnerable Serranidae Yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca interstitialis Coral reefs, hardbottoms AFS vulnerable Serranidae Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis Coral reefs, seagrass AFS/IUCN vulnerable Serranidae Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Coral reefs, hardbottoms AFS vulnerable Syngnathidae Fringed pipefish 1 

## Anarchopterus cringe r Seagrass AFS vulnerable Syngnathidae Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus Seagrass IUCN vulnerable Syngnathidae Longsnout seahorse Hippocampus reidi Seagrass AFS/IUCN vulnerable Syngnathidae Dwarf seahorse Hippocampus zosterae Seagrass AFS/IUCN vulnerable Syngnathidae Oppossum pipefish 1 

## Microphis brachyurus Seagrass AFS vulnerable

# 15 Figure 5. - Diversity of BNP fish community (number of species per surveyed site as determined by TRAWL and RVC sampling methods) overlain on di gital map of benthic substrate types (green is seagrass, red is coral reef reefs, yellow is ha rdbottom mixed with seagrass, orange is hardbottom, light blue is mud or sand substrate.

# 16 Figure 6.- Biscayne Bay and BNP regional 3-dimensi onal bathymetery from Miami to North Key Largo. Depth scale (m) is shown in upper right. Sha llowest is red while deepest is blue. White line indicates boundary of BNP.

# 17

# 18

# 19 and is characterized by near-oceanic salinities thatvary little throughout the year. The second midbasin region is characterized by somewhat lower average salinities during the peak of the wet season (Jul-Sep) that also vary to a moderate degree. The third is a lower-s alinity region with high variability located in the western bay, an area influenced by freshwater discharges along the coastline from drainage canals. The reef environment extends eastward from the barrier island shallow (0-2 m) shoreline area to the deeper (>20-25 m) outer e dge of the coral reef tract ( Figure 5 ). Bottom substrates include large areas of seagrass, hard bottom, and bare sand categories; however, coral reefs are the most prominent substrate feature. Two types of coral reef communities are present in the BNP reef system, inshore patch reef and offshore platform ma rgin reef. The platform margin reef or ‘reef tract’ community is characterized by coral reefs that form a quasi-continuous offshore platform or shelf edge parallel to the axis of the Florida Curre nt. Inshore patch reefs are comprised of small and moderate size discrete coral communities that occur between the barrier island shoreline and the western edge of the platform margin reef. Sa linities are oceanic with ve ry little variability yearround in the reef and adjacent deeper pelagic environments ( Figures 7 and 8 ). Spatial point values of fish community species richness, a measure of diversity, were overlain on maps of bottom substrate ( Figure 5 ) and bathymetry (Figure 6) . Values in the coastal bay environment represent the number of fish sp ecies captured at an individual TRAWL station location (sampling area 1,200 m 2 

# ). Point values in the reef system represent the number of fish species observed by divers within a 200m by 200m primary sampli ng unit (area 40,000 m 2 

# ). For primary units sampled repeatedly over multiple y ears, point values represent the annual average species richness for the latest 3-year period. Although a comparable number of species were observed in the RVC and TRAWL surveys ( Table 2 ), diversity was substantially higher at reef sampling locations compared to bay sampling locations ( Figures 5 and 6 ). These differences are perhaps partly due to the smaller station sampling area and restricted gear size-selectivity of the TRAWL survey compared to the RVC survey. Within the bay, diversity was generally higher in mid-basin seagrass habitats. Low diversity was apparent in the southern bay hard bottom habitat and also in the highly variable salinity zone proximal to the mainland (Figures 5 and 8) . In the reef system, diversity was higher along the platform margin reef and somewhat lower in inshore patch reefs.

3.4 Water Currents and Juvenile Recruitment Pathways The hydrodynamics of Biscayne Bay have been well studied (Wang et al. 1988, Wang et al. 2001). Principal flows enter and exit the Bay th rough the Safety Valve, and Angelfish-BroadCaesar’s creeks ( Figure 9 ). Residence time in the Bay varies widely from several months in the more enclosed Barnes Sound, to on the order of a m onth in western parts of south Biscayne Bay, and to near zero in the vicinity of ocean inlets (e.g., Safety Valve). The hydrodynamic model was coupled to a biological dynamics model for the Lagrangian drift dynamics and recruitment of pink shrimp (Ault et al. 1999b, Wang et al. 2001). In model simulated larval drift and transport experiments, we placed particles (i.e., cohorts of shrimp and fishes) in the physical circulation model near the Safety Valve entrance. Both passive (driven only by advection by currents) and behavioral (swimming vertically) cohorts were used in transport simulations. Passive particles cycled in dr ift trajectories corresponding to tidal cycles ( Figure 9 ). Behavioral particles moved directly into prefe rred low salinity (~20 ppt) areas. Passive particles took twice as long to reach the Bay’s western shore line. Simulations of drift trajectories of pink

# 20

# 21 shrimp larvae and recruited juvenile shrimp spa tial abundance distributions were in good agreement with settlement patterns of live shrimp from synoptic sampling surveys (Ault et al. 1999a).

3.5 Size Distributions and Spat ial Ontogeny for Exploited Species The three animal survey databases were synthesized to describe spatial distributions of different life stages for species captured by sportfis hers in BNP. Life stage was viewed from both biological (juvenile, adult) and fishery (pre-exploite d, exploited) perspectives. For a given species, biological life stages were defined acco rding to length at sexual maturity (L

m 

# ), where juveniles<L

m 

#  adults. Fishery life stages were dema rcated using length at first capture (L

c 

# ), where pre-exploited<L

c 

#  exploited. Presence-absence maps were constructed from fishery-independent survey data (RVC and TRAWL) in the following manner. For the reef system, RVC primary unit point locations where a given species life stage was observed were indicated with a solid dot, whereas an open circle denoted sampling locations where the species life stage was not observed. A similar procedure was used for TRAWL station locations in the coastal bay system, with the exception that only stations where a species life st age was observed were plotted to avoid potential seasonal biases. To aid in the interpretation ofthe presence-absence maps, we developed lengthfrequency histograms comparing the size structur e for the TRAWL (coastal bay system) and RVC (reef system) surveys. Presence-absence maps and accompanying length-frequency histograms are shown for representative species in the exploited snapper-grouper-grunt complex: black grouper ( Figures 10 and 12B ), red grouper ( Figures 11 and 12A ), mutton snapper ( Figures 13 and 16A ), gray snapper ( Figures 14 and 16B ), yellowtail snapper ( Figures 15 and 16C ), white grunt ( Figures 17 and 19A ), and bluestriped grunt ( Figures 18 and 19B ). CREEL survey data provided very coarse spatial information on distributions of exploited life stages among the genera l coastal bay, reef, and pelagic environments of BNP functionally limiting its usefulness for spatially-explicit analysis. A list of gear-specific capture regions for sp ecies in the CREEL database is provided in Table 4 . For a given species, gears comprising >5% of database records and capture regions accounting for >10% of gear-specific records are listed. At least three distinct ontogenetic patterns of species’ habitat use in BNP are evident in the snapper-grouper-grunt fisheries complex ( Figures 10-19

, Table 4 ). Mutton snapper, gray snapper, and bluestriped grunt individuals appear to primar ily utilize habitats in the coastal bay environment as early juvenile nursery grounds, and then extend th eir spatial domain out to the reef system as late juveniles and adults. Yellowtail snapper and white grunt individuals seem to utilize both coastal bay and reef system habitats as early juvenile nurse ry areas, and remain in these general environments as late juveniles and adults. Early juvenile nur sery areas in BNP for red and black grouper have not been identified. Sampling surveys conducted in other areas of the Florida Keys indicate that nearshore shallow hard bottom habitats in the reef system may serve this function (personal communication, James Colvocoresses, Florida Marine Research Institute). This particular habitat has not been targeted to date by fishery independe nt surveys conducted in BNP. Late juvenile and adult groupers primarily utilize the reef system (re d grouper) or a mixture of bay and reef habitats (black grouper). Great barracuda, a top-level predator in BNP, occurs in all environments (bay, reef, pelagic) at both juvenile and adult life stages ( Figure 16D , map not shown). A summary list of species captured or seen in all three animal surveys (TRAWL, RVC, CREEL) is provided in Table 5 . We can infer the following characteristics for th ese species: they are subject to exploitation by sportfishers, they occur in both bay and reef system s, and they utilize coastal bay habitats as juvenile nursery grounds to some extent.

# 22

# 23

# 24 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

2 8 

# 1 4 2 0 2 6 3 2 3 8 4 4 5 0 5 6 6 2 6 8



# Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Red Grouper

n RVC 

# =38 L c 

# L m 

# (A)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

2 8 

# 1 4 2 0 2 6 3 2 3 8 4 4 5 0 5 6 6 2 6 8 

# Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Black Grouper

n RVC 

# =19 L c 

# L m 

# (B)

Figure 12.- Length frequency distributi ons for TRAWL (hatched bar) and RVC (solid bar) surveys in Biscayne National Park for: (A) red grouper; and (B) black grouper. Total number of individuals (n) observed in each survey, length at maturity (L

m 

# ), and length at first capture (L

c 

# ) are denoted for each species.

# 25

# 26

# 27

# 28 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Mutton Snapper

n RVC 

# =21 L c 

# L m



# n Trawl 

# =108

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Gray Snapper

n RVC 

# =1895 L c 

# L m



# n Trawl 

# =1925 

# (A)

(B)

Figure 16.- Length frequency distributions for TRAWL (hatched bar) and RVC (solid bar) surveys in Biscayne National Park for: (A) mutton snapper; (B) gray snapper; (C) yellowtail snapper; and (D) great barracuda. Total number of individuals (n) observed in each survey, length at maturity (L

m 

# ), and length at first capture (L

c 

# ) are denoted for each species

# 29 

# 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Length (cm)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

5 30 55 80 105 130 155 180 Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Yellowtail Snapper

n RVC 

# =3745

L c 

# L m



# n Trawl 

# =151Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Barracuda

n RVC 

# =412 L’ c 

# L m 

# n Trawl 

# =1

Figure 16.- (continued)



# (C)

(D)

# 30

# 31

# 32 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 Length (cm)

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 Length (cm)Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# White Grunt

RVC n RVC 

# =4056 L’ c 

# L m



# n Trawl 

# =9643Relative Frequency(proportion of n) 

# Bluestriped Grunt

n RVC 

# =3240 L’ c 

# L m



# n Trawl 

# =3312 

# (A)

(B)

Figure 19.- Length frequency distributions for TRAWL (hatched bar) and RVC (solid bar) surveys in Biscayne National Park for: (A) white grunt; and (B) bluestriped grunt. Total number of individuals (n) observed in each survey, length at maturity (L

m 

# ), and length at first capture (L

c 

# ) are denoted for each species.

# 33 Table 4 - Summary of CREEL survey catches by Family by gear types and capture regions where species were captured, as well as the principal gear responsible for the majority of captures in the recreational fishery survey.

Fishing Gears & Principal FAMILY Scientific Name Common Name Capture Regions Gear Groupers Serranidae Epinephelus adscensionis rock hind Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus cruentatus graysby Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus drummondhayi speckled hind Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Serranidae Epinephelus flavolimbatus yellowedge grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus fulvus coney Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus guttatus red hind Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus itajara Goliath grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus morio red grouper Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Epinephelus striatus nassau grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Mycteroperca bonaci black grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Mycteroperca interstitialis yellowmouth grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Mycteroperca microlepis gag Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Mycteroperca phenax scamp Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Serranidae Mycteroperca venenosa yellowfin grouper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Snappers Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis mutton snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus apodus schoolmaster Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus cyanopterus cubera snapper Hook & Line--Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus griseus gray snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus jocu dog snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus mahogoni mahogony snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Lutjanidae Lutjanus synagris lane snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line

# 34 Table 4.- (Continued) Fishing Gears & Principal FAMILY Scientific Name Common Name Capture Regions Gear Lutjanidae Ocyurus chrysurus yellowtail snapper Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Lutjanidae Rhomboplites aurorubens vermilion snapper Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Grunts Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis black margate Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus porkfish Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Haemulidae Haemulon album margate Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum tomtate Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Haemulon carbonarium ceasar grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Haemulidae Haemulon flavolineatum french grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Haemulon macrostomium spanish grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Haemulidae Haemulon parra sailors choice Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Haemulon plumieri white grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Haemulon sciurus bluestriped grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Haemulon striatum striped grunt Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Haemulidae Orthopristis chrysoptera pigfish Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Other Fish and Shellfish Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus hogfish Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Spearfishing Spearfishing--Reef Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda Hook & Line--Bay, Reef, Pelagic Hook & Line Sparidae Calamus bajonado jolthead porgy Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Sparidae Calamus calamus saucereye porgy Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Carangidae Caranx bartholomaei yellow jack Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Carangidae Caranx crysos blue runner Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Carangidae Caranx hippos crevalle jack Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Carangidae Caranx latus horse-eye jack Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Carangidae Caranx ruber bar jack Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix bermuda chub Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Balistidae Balistes capriscus gray triggerfish Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Balistidae Balistes vetula queen triggerfish Hook & Line--Reef Hook & Line Balistidae Cantherhines sufflamen ocean triggerfish Hook & Line--Reef, Pelagic Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Sciaenidae Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout Hook & Line--Bay Hook & Line Carangidae Trachinotus falcatus permit Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Carangidae Alectis ciliaris african pompano Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus dolphin Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line

# 35 Table 4.- (Continued) Fishing Gears & Principal FAMILY Scientific Name Common Name Capture Regions Gear Scombridae Sarda sarda atlantic bonito Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Scombridae Euthynnus alletteratus little tunny Hook & Line--Reef, Pelagic Hook & Line Istiophoridae Istiophorus platypterus sailfish Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Scombridae Katsuwonus pelamis skipjack tuna Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Scombridae Thunnus atlanticus blackfin tuna Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Scombridae Scomberomorus cavalla king mackerel Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Scombridae Scomberomorus maculatus spanish mackerel Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Scombridae Scomberomorus regalis cero Hook & Line--Bay, Reef, Pelagic Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Carangidae Seriola dumerili greater amberjack Hook & Line--Reef, Pelagic Hook & Line Spearfishing--Reef Lobotidae Lobotes surinamensis tripletail Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Palinuridae Panulirus argus Caribbean spiny lobster Lobster Diving--Bay, Reef Lobster Diving Scombridae Acanthocybium solandri wahoo Hook & Line--Pelagic Hook & Line Acanthuridae Acanthurus chirurgus doctorfish Hook & Line--Bay, Reef Hook & Line

# 36 Table 5.- Species captured or seen in all three fishery surveys (RVC, CREEL, TRAWL) during 1976-1999. Strong bay-to-reef ontogenetic linkages suggest candidate species list for "restoration" indicator species.

Common name Family Scientific Name

Groupers Black grouper Serranidae Mycteroperca bonaci Snappers Mutton snapper Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis Schoolmaster Lutjanidae Lutjanus apodus Yellowtail snapper Lutjanidae Ocyurus chrysurus Gray snapper Lutjanidae Lutjanus griseus Dog snapper Lutjanidae Lutjanus jocu Lane snapper Lutjanidae Lutjanus synagris Hogfish Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus

Grunts Porkfish Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus Tomtate Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum French Grunt Haemulidae Haemulon flavolineatum Sailors choice Haemulidae Haemulon parrai White grunt Haemulidae Haemulon plumieri Bluestriped grunt Haemulidae Haemulon sciurus

Other Reef Fishes Great barracuda Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda Atlantic spadefish Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber Ocean surgeonfish Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus Doctorfish Acanthuridae Acanthurus chirurgus Rainbow parrotfish Scaridae Scarus guacamaia Gray triggerfish Balistidae Balistes capriscus Ocean triggerfish Balistidae Cantherhines sufflamen Scrawled filefish Balistidae Aluterus scriptus Trunkfish Ostraciidae Lactophrys trigonus Sea bream Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis Littlehead porgy Sparidae Calamus proridens Sand perch Serranidae Diplectrum formosum Spotted moray eel Muraenidae Gymnothorax moringa Gray angelfish Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus arcuatus

Coastal Inshore baitfishes Ballyhoo Exocoetidae Hemiramphus bras iliensis Yellowfin mojarra Gerreidae Gerres cinereus Blue runner Carangidae Caranx crysos

Macroinvertebrates Caribbean spiny lobster Palinuridae Panulirus argus

# 37 3.6 Quantitative Assessment of Habitat Use Although the primary focus of this report is to conduct a multispecies stock assessment for exploited species in BNP, assessment and manageme nt of important habitats that provide critical support to animals is also a concern. Here we present a case study for the pink shrimp population in Biscayne Bay to demonstrate an analysis a pproach that provides a more detailed, quantitative understanding of habitat use by animals compared to the more qualitative overview presented above. Fishery-independent TRAWL survey data (Au lt et al. 1999a) were utilized to assess pink shrimp ( Farfantepenaeus duorarum ) habitat use in Biscayne Bay. Since a shift in spatial distribution occurs at the onset of sexual matura tion (Ault et al. 1999a), juvenile (6-17 mm carapace length) and subadult (>17 mm CL) life stages were an alyzed separately. Nine distinct “habitats” were delineated ( Figure 20, Table 6 ) by combining three bottom substrates (seagrass, hard bottom, bare bottom) with three east-west depth gradient s (mainland subtidal, 1-2 m; basin axis, >2 m; leeward subtidal, 1-2 m). We desi gnated a basic habitat unit as a 600 m 2 

# trawl station sampling unit. Drawing on resource selection theory (Manly et al. 1993), three measures of habitat use by pink shrimp were evaluated for each habitat type: (1) probability of use p (use), i.e., the proportion of habitat units occupied by at least one animal; (2) per unit amount of use, i.e., animal density (numbers per m 2 

# ); and (3) population amount of use, i.e., animal abundance (number of animals). A design-based framework (Cochran 1977) was used to estimate the mean and variance of each measure. The three measures in concert provide a fairly comprehensive understanding of differential use of habitats.

Table 6.- Description of habitat codes of Figure 20 , and the probability p of use of each habitat for juvenile and subadult pink shrimp in August and November 1996.

August 1996 November 1996

Habitat Substrate Depth (m) Cross-shelf Position Juvenile

p (use) Subadult

p (use) Juvenile

p (use) Subadult

p (use)

1 Seagrass 1-2 Mainland 1.0 0.750 1.0 1.0

2 Seagrass >2 Basin Axis 1.0 0.636 1.0 1.0

3 Seagrass 1-2 Leeward 1.0 0.813 1.0 1.0

4 Hardbottom 1-2 Mainland 1.0 0.545 1.0 1.0

5 Hardbottom >2 Basin Axis 1.0 0.400 1.0 1.0

6 Hardbottom 1-2 Leeward 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

7 Barebottom 1-2 Mainland 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

8 Barebottom >2 Basin Axis 1.0 0.500 1.0 1.0

9 Barebottom 1-2 Leeward 1.0 0.500 1.0 0.500



# Habitat-specific estimates of p (use) for two seasons are given in Table 6 . In late summer, just after the major period of postlarval immigration and settlement, p (use)=1.0 for juvenile pink

# 38 Figure 20. - Map of Biscayne Bay, Florida, showing ni ne habitat types. Habitat codes are as follows: SMS, seagrass mainland subtidal; SBA, s eagrass basin axis; SLS, seagrass leeward subtidal; HMS, hard bottom mainland subtidal; HBA, hard bottom basin axis; HLS, hard bottom leeward subtidal; BMS, bare bottom mainland subtidal; BBA , bare bottom basin axis; bare bottom leeward subtidal.Habitat codes are further defined in Table 6 . Habitat areas in km 2 

# are given in parentheses.

# 39 shrimp in all habitats. Even though subadult a bundance is quite low during this season, from 60% to 80% of seagrass habitat units contained at least one subadult shrimp, with lower p (use) in other habitats. In late fall, the period between r ecruitment into (summer) and emigration from (late winter) Biscayne Bay, p (use)=1.0 for both juveniles and subadults in nearly all habitats. These results indicate that virtually every habitat unit in the Bay is occupied by at least one juvenile and one subadult pink shrimp at this time. Habitat-specific mean density and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the late fall season are plotted in Figure 21 for juveniles ( Figure 21A ) and subadults ( Figure 21B ). The horizontal dotted line is the stratified random estim ate of overall mean density in Biscayne Bay. Mean density of juveniles was 3-4 times higher in mainland shallow seagrass (habitat 1) compared to the average Bay value. Juvenile density in ot her habitats was at or below the average Bay value. Subadult shrimp were found in highest densities in mainland and basin axis seagrass (habitats 1 and 2). Density was also above the Bay average in leeward seagrass (habitat 3) and mainland and basin axis hard bottom (habitats 4 and 5). Lowest dens ities of subadults occurred in leeward hard bottom (habitat 6) and bare bottom habitats (7-9). Results for population amount of use are expressed in terms of the proportion of the total population (abundance) that resides in a particular habitat ( Figure 22) . Approximately 80-90% of both juvenile and subadult pink shrimp in Biscayne Bay are found in mainland and basin axis seagrass (habitats 1 and 2), with 10-20% of the population distributed among the remaining habitats ( Figure 22A ). A formal test for habitat selection is made by comparing the population proportion

p (P) against the proportion of total area p (A) for a given habitat. Statistical differences between p (P) and p (A) were evaluated with a sta ndard t-test (significance level 

# " =0.05), with outcomes interpreted as follows:

p (P) > p (A): positive habitat selection;

p (P) = p (A): no selection;

p (P) < p (A): negative selection.

While 85% of juveniles are in habitats 1 and 2, th ey are clearly selecting habitat 1 over habitat 2 ( Figure 22A ). Subadult shrimp also exhibit positive se lection of habitat 1, but occupy habitat 2 in equal proportion p (P) to area p (A). Both life stages exhibit negative selection of bare bottom environments (habitats 7-9). Broad-scale factors underlying pink shrimp habitat selection are illustrated in Figures 22B and 22C , which group habitats in terms of bottom substrate ( Figure 22B ) and salinity zone-depth ( Figure 22C ). While juveniles exhibited positive selection for seagrass over other bottom types ( Figure 22B ), the selection of mainland shallow wate r environments without regard to bottom substrate is much more striking ( Figure 22C ). In contrast, subadult pink shrimp selected seagrass habitats irrespective of salinity zone and depth. Recruit shrimp (post-larvae) seem to settle on the western shore of Biscayne Bay in waters less than 1 m deep, then move seaward as they age, grow and mature (Ault et al. 1999a, G.A. Diaz, personal communication).

# 40 

# 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

123456789

HabitatDensity 

# 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

123456789

HabitatDensity



# Figure 21.- Mean density and corresponding 95% confidence intervals by habitat type for pink shrimp (A) juveniles and (B) subadults. The dashed horizontal line represents the stratified random estimateof mean density for the entire sampling domain (Biscayne Bay).

# 41 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

1234 567 89

HabitatRelative Frequency 

## *

*

* * * * * *

*

* *

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

sg hb bb

SubstrateRelative Frequency 

## *

*

* *

*



## 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

ms la ls

Cross ShelfRelative Frequency



## * *

* *



# Figure 22.- Population proportion p (P) of pink shrimp juveniles (hatched bars) and subadults (stippled bars) and corresponding proportion of habitat area p (A) (shaded bars) for (A) nine habitat types specified in Figure 20, (B) bottom substrate habitats, and (C) cross-shelf salinity zone-depth habitats. Asterisks denote significant differences (p<0.05) between p (P) and p (A). Seagrass is sg, hardbottom is hb, and barebottom is bb. Mainland is ls, basin axis is la, and leeward is ls.

# 42 4.0 Fishery Overview and Esti mation of Stock Status Indices In this section we review and analyze a hos t of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent databases and scientific and technical literature on fishery resources in BNP and the broader Florida Keys region. These results were then used to fac ilitate evaluation of the current and historical levels of fishery catch and effort. We also use these data to estimate CPUE (catch-per-unit-effort) and 

# L (average length of exploited phase individuals), two principal statistics or indicator variables essential to stock assessments.

4.1 Fishing Effort and Regional Human Population Growth South Florida reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys and BNP are exploited by large and diverse commercial and recreational fleets. These fleets have experienced dramatic growth over the last several decades (1964-1998) in both absolute numbers of registered vessels and in the relative “fishing power” of each of those vessels. The r ecreational fleet has dramatically grown since 1964 ( Figure 23 ). In Dade County, the number of regist ered vessels increased 2.83 times between 1964 (17,966 vessels) and 1998 (50,811). The five county area of south Fl orida including Dade, Monroe, Collier, Broward and Palm Beach counties, expe rienced a 444% increase in the nominal number of vessels over the same period of time (37,435 in 1994 to 166,343 in 1998). The commercial fleets have also grown over that same period, with a 1.65 times increase in the number of vessels registered in Dade County (1,242 to 2,046) and 1.97 times increase in the five county area (5,316 to 10,465). The growth of the fishing fleets is directly correlated with the growth of human populations in Florida ( Figure 24 ). The Sunshine State has experienced explosive growth over the past 160 years. During 1960 to 2000 Florida’s human population grew an astounding 223% (from 4.95 to 15.98 million persons)! During this same period, in addition to the sheer increase in both recreational and commercial fleet sizes, the relativ e effective vessel “fishi ng power” of these fleets has quadrupled due to better hydroacoustics (fis h finders and depth gauges), global positioning systems (GPS), improved vessel designs and propulsion systems, air conditioning, and more advanced and effective communication networks utilized by both recreational and commercial fishermen (Bohnsack and Ault 1996, Mace 1997). These increases in fleets sizes and effective fishing power have not only directly impacted multispecies fishery stocks through exploitation in BNP, but have negative indirect impacts through habitat degradation and destruction (Rothschild et al. 1994, Ault et al. 1997b). Exce ssive boat traffic from a growing fleet and the presence of jet skis on and near flats are disturbing “habitats” (e.g., flats environments) and premier sportfishes like bonefish, tarpon, permit and sharks, and causing a significant increase in manatees and turtles hit and killed by boaters. These conditions have fueled widespread user conflicts between recreational and commercial fishermen in south Florida waters through interactions precipitated by intensive use of gillnets, excessive bycatch from shrimp traw ls for food and “bait”, and over-use of baitfish resources compromising the sensitive ecological balance of predator-prey dynamics. Some mitigation has occurred (e.g., banning of jet skis in BNP circa 1998), but serious concern has arisen because of documented “serial overfishing” of reef fishery resources in the Florida Keys (Bohnsack et al. 1994, Ault et al. 1997, 1998).

4.2 Commercial Landings Commercial landings in weight by species reported for the area encompassing Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound for 1986-1999 are presented in Tables 7 and 8 . These data provide a good indication of the magnitude of commercial extractive activities in the coastal bay portion of

# 43

# 44

# 45 Table 7. - Commercial landin g s ( lbs ) b y s p ecies re p orted for the area encom p assin g

Bisca y ne Ba y , Car d Sound, and Barnes Sound for 1986-1996. Source: FFWCC and NOAA.

YEAR

SPECIES 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 G roupers, S nappers, G runts R e d G rouper 5 N assau G roupe r 14 G o li a th 708 Bl ac k G roupe r 1003 1048 42 32 15 30 G ag G rouper 618 36 9 17 G rouper, Oth er 7 510 G ray S nappe r 105 4 2197 1186 22 131 3 30 1123 M u tt on S napper 91 22 4 255 407 Y e ll ow t a il S nappe r 2698 3269 1147 1433 1859 1824 2507 2214 571 479 2190 S napper, Oth er 31 17548 10 405 167 H og fi s h 18 16 152 G run t S pp. 67 3757 866 59 77 100 11 7 176 327 Oth er Fi s h es Bl ue R unner 18 37 1364 530 C reva ll e J ac k 5 200 1195 6 J ac k

, Oth e r 32 10 16 205 P ompano spp. 2 71 84 270 129 Ki ng M ac k ere l 55 S pan i s h M ac k ere l 8 128 95 602 100 C ero 521 2 16 Fl y i ng fi s h spp. 72 924 155 22 C o bi a 87 10 G rea t B arracu d a 6

. 25 322 Sh ar k spp. 99 Whit e M ar li n 1094 T r i gger fi s h spp. 21 P orgy spp. 6 108 S po tt e d S ea t rou t 50 2301 395 58 S ea t rou t

, Oth er 25 15 S po t 1687 M u ll e t spp. 21544 20965 26961 11555 11765 16625 11375 15445 1419 5460 19081 M u ll e t R oe 530 23 1683 923 886 1193 S ar di ne spp. 1642 4563 B a itfi s h (h err i ngs, b a ll y h oo,, e t c ) 1895 4548 1739 194 460 3648 312 5002 Mi sc. Fi s h es 7193 10609 12906 11273 7358 592 3443 344 2430 186 M acro i nver t e b ra t es Bl ue C ra b s 278 2

. 5 72 1051 9725 36041 23777 41352 73836 St one C ra b s 6 3 326 895 108 167 419 1889 1778 5881 S p i ny L o b s t e r 1536 3645 2068 2029 4572 8615 7379 3716 1946 20192 18150 Pi n k Sh r i mp 1474 1257 2286

. 1 8499 17773 29458 37045 33655 58525 72849 135028 Mi sc. I nver t e b ra t es 150 S ponges G rass S ponge 11950 6190 2435 59 Sh eepswoo l S ponge 51813 42531 20241 279 Y e ll ow S ponge 12866 4295 1802 47

# 46 Table 8.- Commercial landin g s ( lbs. ) and dockside value ( dollars ) b y s p ecies re p orted for the area encom p assin g Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound for 1997-1999. Source: FFWCC and NOAA.

1997 1998 1999 Species Landings Value Landings Value Landings Value

Groupers, Snappers, Grunts Red Grouper 31 $65 Black Grouper 118 $200 Gag Grouper 45 $95 Rock Hind 83 $25 Gray Snapper 101 $209 4 $9 65 $135 Mutton Snapper 306 $558 Yellowtail Snapper 116 $250 895 $1,681 28 $63 Grunt spp. 2,169 $1,951 501 $422 217 $251

Other Fishes Blue Runner 1,435 $1,132 2,598 $2,838 33 $28 Crevalle Jack 18 $18 70 $70 King and Cero Mackerel 437 $672 Spanish Mackerel 491 $636 Flyingfish spp. 1,036 $134 Great Barracuda 208 $416 Shark spp. 104 $75 Parrotfish spp. 30 $45 Pinfish 113 $776 212 $1,647 145 $1,155 Sheepshead 36 $45 Spotted Seatrout 30 $60 Seatrout, Other 200 $140 Flounder spp. 15 $9 Spot 821 $698 Mullet spp. 24,830 $20,754 20,120 $19,643 26,118 $27,241 Sardine spp. 3,673 $2,401 220 $165 Misc. Fishes 410 $185 3,156 $1,988 4,674 $3,734

Macroinvertebrates Blue Crabs 89,135 $123,414 77,451 $105,690 117,858 $147,393 Stone Crabs 28,382 $45,245 19,244 $75,499 12,628 $55,422 Spiny Lobster 14,953 $69,031 4,107 $18,329 4,465 $19,307 Pink Shrimp 412,775 $1,225,735 412,265 $1,135,457 612,489 $1,343,564

TOTALS 579,542 1,492,876 $ 542,965 1,364,864 $ 779,157 1,598,965 $

# 47 Biscayne National Park. Unfortunately, commercial landings data specific to the offshore coral reef habitat of BNP are not available. The magnitude of commercial catches of groupers, snappers, and grunts in the coastal bay environment of BNP we re rather small throughout the reporting period, but nonetheless showed a declining trend. In contrast, commercial landings of macroinvertebrates generally showed an increasing trend. For pink shri mp in particular, this trend may partly be due to a fundamental change in data collection proce dures used by the State of Florida and reflect more complete reporting of catches by commercial fi shers in recent years (personal communication, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commissi on) which were functionally omitted early on. However, this increasing trend in recent years may also reflect increased fi shing power of the fleet and a redirection of fishing effort from declin ing finfish species resources to the much more lucrative macroinvertebrate species. Sponges were landed in significant quantities in the late 1980s and early 1990s prior to the ban on harvest imposed in BNP waters. The aggregate dockside value of commercial catches for 1997-1999 was approxima tely 4.7 million dollars . Macroinvertebrates (pink shrimp, blue crab, stone crab, and spiny l obster) accounted for 93% of the total dollar value.

4.3 Size at First Capture Restrictions To stem the tide of decreasing fisheries cat ches and resource productivity, the principal methods used by fishery resource managers for regulating and controlling fisheries impacts has traditionally been fish minimum size and fishing effort restrictions. Implementation of minimum size restrictions sets lower bounds on the sizes of fi sh allowed to be captured and in catches of the commercial and recreational fleets. The hist ory of implementation and use of minimum size regulations in south Florida and the Florida Keys is shown in Table 9. The fishery management system for south Florida and BNP was laissez faire prior to management measures implemented by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in 1983. In 1985 the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission was formed and began implementation of a series of size, bag limit and gear restrictions ( note: the history of Florida regulations is lis ted at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mfc/MFC-rulehist.htm). Some notable changes in size regulati ons pertaining to the reef fish complex are as follows. In 1985 (due to observed reductions in catches) 18 inch minimum size limits were set for several groupers (Goliath, red, nassau, black, gag, yello wfin), and 12 inch limits were set for several snappers (mutton, red, yellowtail) ( Table 9 ). By 1990, non-response of the Goliath grouper stock to recovery by any conventional management efforts prompted a complete catch moratorium, which is still in effect today. In 1990, the red snapper size limit was increased to 13" (20" in 1992), and the FMC added schoolmaster (10"), blackfin, gra y, dog, lane, silk, vermillion and queen snappers. Also in 1990, most groupers (and additionally yellowmouth and scamp) had minimum size limits increased to 20 inches. Hogfish size limits were set at 12" in 1994. Normally, size restrictions are implemented to prevent “growth overfishing” and to prevent capture of individual species of fish before they have reached their individual potential to produce yields (in weight) to the fishery. Variations in setting minimum size limits relates to the fact that different species (and taxa) grow at different ra tes and reach different maximum sizes (e.g., groupers grow to much larger sizes than grunts and are s ubstantially older). But probably a more important aspect of the setting of minimum sizes relates to the potential production of future generations of fish by the mature parent stock. That is, the minimum size of first capture by the fishery should ideally be set higher than the first size of sexual ma turity to ensure that each fish has a chance to produce offspring at least once in its lifetime.

# 48 Table 9.- Fishing regulations promulgated by SAFMC and FL FMC from 1985-present. Regulations shown are the minimum size of capture (inches) and the year the size limit is implemented. The last column shows the current size restrict ions. Ranges indicate size slot limits, and 'moratorium' means that the fishery for the species is completely closed.

1983 1984 1985 1987 1989 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 Current Groupers Goliath 18 moratorium closed Red 12" 18 20 20 Nassau 12" 18 20 moratorium closed Black 18 20 24 24 Yellowmouth 20 20 Gag 18 20 24 24 Scamp 20 20 Yellowfin 18 20 20 Black Sea Bass 8 10 10 Southern Sea Bass 8 8

Snappers Mutton Snapper 12 16 16 Schoolmaster 10 10 Blackfin 12 12 Red Snapper 12" 12 13 20 20 Yellowtail Snapper 12 12 Cubera 12 12 Gray 10 10 Dog 12 12 Mahogany 12 12 Lane 8 8 Silk 12 12 Vermilion 8 10-20 10 11" 11 Hogfish 12 12 Queen 12 12

Pelagics and Others Gray Triggerfish 12 12 Permit 10-20 10-20 Pompano 10 10-20 10-20 African Pompano 24 24 King Mackerel 20 24 24 Spanish Mackerel 12 12 Amberjack 28 28 Lesser Amberjack 14-20 14-22 14-22 Red Porgy 12 12 Snook 24 26-34 26-34 Lobster 3 3 Spotted Sea Trout 14-24 15-20 15-20 Tripletail 15 15

# 49 4.4 Indicator Variabl es of Population Status To understand the effects of fishing and envir onmental changes on fishery resources requires identification of a quantitative measure that reflect s the status of a population subjected to fishing or other environmental changes, that is, a stock assessment indicator variable. Because reef fishes integrate aspects of the coastal ocean environmen t over their lifetime, a r obust measure of population "health” or status can provide a sensitive indicator of direct and indirect stress on the stock, and perhaps the regional marine ecosystem (Fausch et al. 1990). The RVC and CREEL survey databases were utilized to produce annual estimates of two bi ological indicators, average catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and average length of exploited phase i ndividuals ( ) for 90 exploited and/or ecologically 

# L important species in BNP ( Appendix C ). A flow diagram illustra ting the data processing and analysis procedures employed for each survey is shown ( Figure 25 ).

4.4.1 Catch-per-Unit Effort (CPUE) 

# The average population size (in average numbers of fish during the time interval t 

#  t+1 ) during a given year t is written as

where N 0 

# (t) is the initial population size in year t , F(t) is fishing mortality rate, M is the natural mortality rate, and E is the exploitation rate (Ricker 1975). Catches (or yields in number Y N 

# (t) or weight Y

w 

# (t) ) are the product of fishing mortality and average populati on size. As a result, by allowing F = qf(t) , catch per unit nominal fishing effort f(t) provides a quantitative index of fish population size

where q is the fraction of the stock removed per unit of nominal fishing effo rt (Beverton and Holt 1956, 1957). The index provides an average m easure of relative population abundance when independent surveys of populations are made with gears or techniques where the individual effort units can be intercalibrated. For the RVC surv ey, CPUE is defined as the number of animals observed by a diver ( Y N



# ) per sampling station ( f

=1 station). Since f covers a fixed area of 176 m 2 

# in this survey, and q (a measure of capture or ‘observation’ efficiency) is presumed near 1.0 for reef fish divers, CPUE reflects actua l stock density (number per 176 m 2 

# ). For the CREEL survey, CPUE is the number of fish captured and kept ( Y N



# ) per person-hour of fishing ( f

). Since q is unknown in this case, CREEL CPUE is a relative index of stock abundance. The RVC survey sampled platform margin reef habitats consistently from year to year; however, this was not the case for inshore reefs, and data from these habitats were excluded from the analysis. The annual numbers of diver sta tions used for CPUE estimation are listed in Table 1

. For the RVC survey, annual mean CPUE was estim ated using a two-stage simple random sampling (SRS) design-based methodology following Cochran (1977) and shown in Appendix D1

. Estimation was carried out for three life stages of each species, juvenile (<L

m 

# ), adult ( 

#  L

m 

# ), and

# 50 fkdat3.sas

fkdat3a_bnp.sas fkdat3b_bnp.sas Creates basic numbers-at-length dataset from raw diver sampling data, all species in BNP region Reef Fish Visual Survey Raw Data

Creates L analysis dataset for BNP region Creates CPUE analysis dataset for BNP region platform margin reefs

rvc_lbar.sas Computes L by year, single species rfds1.sas Computes 2-stage SRS CPUE estimates by year, single species life stage

BNP Recreational Creel Census Raw Data

Excel spreadsheets Initial error checking and data cleanup

creelcpdat.sas Creates catch (number landed) and effort analysis datasets from raw interview catch-effort data, all species; includes extensive error checking and data cleanup procedures Computes L by year from raw interview length data, single species creellbar.sas

creelcpue.sas Computes SRS estimates of CPUE by year, single species and gear 

# Figure 25.- Data processing, analysis and synthesis flow diagram for estimation ( ) and CPUE 

# L from the reef fish diver visual survey (uppe r panel) and BNP recreational CREEL survey (lower panel). SAS source code for reef fish visual cen sus RVC is listed in Appe ndix D1. SAS source code for BNP recreational CREEL survey is listed in Appendix D2.

# 51 

# CPUE

n CPUE i

i 

# = 

# ∑ 1 exploited ( 

#  L

c 

# ), as defined by the following length intervals:

Life History Phase Interval Description Juvenile Phase L

r 

# –> L

m 

# Immature juveniles from the size of first recruitment to the size of first sexual maturity.

Mature Adult Phase L

m 

# –> L

 

# Size of first sexual maturity to the maximum size in the stock.

Exploited Phase L

c 

# –> L

 

# Size of first capture to the maximum size in the stock.

As shown above (sections 3.5 and 3.6), these intervals reflect logical ontogenetic groupings that pattern animals in space and time over the Bisca yne National Park seascape. In many cases, exploited phase CPUE estimates were computed using two different length at first capture L

c 

# values: ‘legal’ denotes the L

c 

# value regulated by law in a particul ar year, whereas ‘actual’ denotes a modified L

c 

# value (here referred to as L’

c 

# ) that sportfishers adhered to as determined from inspection of CREEL survey species length data (see section 4.5 for further discussion). The ‘actual’ exploited phase CPUE estimated from the RVC survey thus corresponds to the life stage comprising the CREEL survey CPUE estimates. The CREEL database required extensive processing and error checking before estimation of CPUE could be carried out in a reliable fashion (see Appendix D2 ). Interview records with missing or mis-coded key information—e.g., gear type, area fished, number of persons fishing—were necessarily excluded fr om analysis. CREEL data indicated three principal gear types (hook and line, spearfishing, and lobster diving), a nd three fishing regions (coastal bay, reef, and pelagic). The annual number of CREEL fishing trip interviews by gear and region considered in CPUE estimation are listed in Table 10 . A number of interviews recorded catch information for a general family category, e.g., unidentified snappers or groupers, rather than for a particular genus and species. Records containing combined catch es for a given species group (e.g., snappers) were excluded from CPUE estimation for a particular species (e.g., gray snapper) in that group. Annual average CPUE for CREEL survey species was estimated as follows:

where CPUE i 

# is catch per person-hour for trip i and n is sample size. For a given species, CPUE was estimated from fishing trips for the principal gear type and associated capture regions as listed in Table 4 . Sample size n ( Table 10 ) was thus the sum of fishing trip s for the principal gear over the capture regions inhabited by a given species. Th ese numbers reflect BNP personnel sampling efforts and are not necessarily proportional to true fishi ng effort. Regions not i nhabited by a species were not included in the estimation. The complete time series of annual CPUE es timates derived from both the RVC and CREEL surveys for 90 species are provided in Appendix C ( Tables C1-C90 , one table per species). A synthesis of these results for selected species is presented in Table 11 . For ease of interpretation, CREEL CPUE values are expressed as the expected time a party of four pers ons would need to fish (or dive) to land (capture and keep) one animal of a given species. Shorter fishing times thus reflect

# 52 higher stock abundance and longer fishing times reflect lower stock abundance. The fisherydependent CREEL and fishery-independent RVC a bundance indices corresponded quite well for the recent 1995-1998 period, showing the same rank order of reef fish species abundance with the exception of bluestriped grunt. Th e restricted sampling domain of the RVC survey compared to the more expansive capture regions of the CREEL cen sus may somewhat account for this discrepancy. Comparing CREEL estimates between the pe riods 1995-1998 and 1985-1988 sheds some light on stock abundance trends over the past 10-15 years in BNP ( Table 11 ). Lobster diving in BNP appears to have improved from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, as measured by the decrease in capture time and thus increase in CPUE. It is in teresting to note that establishment of the spiny lobster sanctuary, which eliminated lobster fishi ng in the coastal bay portion of BNP, occurred in 1984. Hook-and-line fishing for dolphin in the pelagi c zone, and for grunts (white and bluestriped) in bay-reef environments, has remained steady or improved slightly in the past 10-15 years. In contrast, reef fishing for snappers and groupers seems to have worsened to a lesser (gray and yellowtail snapper) or greater (mutton snapper and red grouper) degree over this time frame. Exploited phase black groupers have apparently been quite rare in BNP for some time.

Table 10.- CREEL survey sampling (number of recreationa l fishing trip interviews) by year, gear type (hook and line, spearfishing, and lobster diving) and region (bay, reef tract, and pelagic zone) from 1976 to 1998. The Bay portion of BNP was declared a lobster sanctuary in 1983.

Hook & Line Spearfishing Lobster Diving Year Bay Reef Pelagic Reef Bay Reef

1976 411 424 314 112 56 71 1977 574 714 446 324 139 176 1978 767 793 546 391 158 190 1979 861 713 511 340 106 168 1980 798 627 262 278 167 194 1981 505 653 340 335 53 212 1982 874 975 497 395 67 353 1983 999 795 387 304 51 150 1984 196 148 37 40 1 113 1985 339 455 236 100 1 60 1986 346 328 249 76 3 144 1987 282 282 167 60 4 132 1988 116 225 113 56 0 99 1989 119 217 130 46 0 123 1990 100 236 143 52 3 203 1991 79 257 195 45 2 119 1992 180 279 187 36 0 21 1993 173 231 134 45 0 37 1994 244 277 190 89 0 44 1995 103 122 60 34 2 45 1996 174 167 107 58 1 34 1997 118 137 98 37 1 26 1998 98 150 82 37 0 29

# 53 Table 11.- Comparison of CREEL and RVC exploited pha se (actual) CPUE estimates for selected species. Units for the CREEL census are expressed as the expected time a party of four persons would need to fish (or dive) to land one animal . RVC survey CPUE units are number observed per diver station. Values are 4-year averages for the time period indicated.

Species CREEL 90's 1995-1998 CREEL 80's 1985-1988 RVC 90's 1995-1998

spiny lobster 10 min 20 min —

dolphin 1 h 1 h —

white grunt 1 h 1 h 0.689

gray snapper 2.5 h 1.5 h 0.227

bluestriped grunt 3.5 h 4.5 h 0.605

yellowtail snapper 7 h 5.5 h 0.157

red grouper 23 h 11 h 0.016

mutton snapper 26 h 15 h 0.010

black grouper 71 h 100 h 0.000

4.4.2 Average Size in Exploited Phase 

# L To describe baseline status for a fish population in multispeci es community settings, a robust population dynamic variable is required to relate current trends in human and environmental stressors to expected future condition of the stocks over relatively broad spatial and temporal scales. A powerful choice is the metabolic-based pool variab le average size of animals (in either length or weight) in the exploited phase of the st ock (Beverton and Holt 1957, Gulland 1983, Ault 1988, Aultand Ehrhardt 1991, Ehrhardt and Ault 1992). ‘Average size’, denoted as , is a physiologicallybased variable that is a very sensitive indicator of direct and indirect stress on marine ecosystems (Ault et al. 1997a, 1998, Quinn and De riso 1999). The of a reef fish stock (or population if closed intra-breeding unit) is strongly correlated with population size in both numbers and biomass, and thus can be used as an indicator variable of population health. The formal definition of is

# 54 where t c 

# is minimum age at first capture, t

 

# is oldest age in the stock, N(a,t) is abundance for age class a , L(a,t) is length, and F(t) is the instantaneous fishing mortality rate at time t

. The use of in stock assessment has deep roots in traditional fisheries management (Beverton and Holt 1956, 1957, Ricker 1975). In general, it is well-known that is highly correlated with average population size, and so reflect s the rate of fishing mortality operating in thefishery. As fishing mortality rate increases, decreases at a rate proportional to the populationdynamic tolerance of a stock. Minimally, average si ze is greatest when fishing mortality is lowest (or near zero), and decreases as the rate increases ( Figure 26 ). Assuming that mortality occurs proportionally to stock age-size spatial distributions, will continue to decrease until at high exploitation rates it will be nearly equal to the minimum size of first captu re regulated by fishery management. Secondly, there exists a value of corresponding to a population size that produces maximum sustainable yields on a continuing basis. We computed ‘average length’ for each of th e principal data sources available for BNP. Estimates of the mean, variance, and 95% conf idence interval followed Sokal and Rohlf (1969). The complete time series of annual estimates of average length for the RVC and CREEL surveys for the period 1976 to 1999 are provided in Appendix C for 90 species. To understand the status of stocks in BNP relative to the greater Florida Keys ecosystem, we also computed from several region-wide survey databases, both fishery-independe nt (RVC surveys in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas) and fishery-dependent (headboat surveys in the Keys, Tortugas). The time series of estimates for six different types of survey data are plotted in Figure 27 for three primary and representative exploited species. We first note that species’ estimates of average size (e.g., black grouper, gray snapper, and yellowtail snapper) have been relatively constant for the past 25 years. This constant “average size” has been very close to the minimum size of first capture. Secondly, the estimates of average size have been lowest in BNP relative to the Keys and Dry Tortugas. The third item to note that reflects the effectiveness of traditional fishery management methods is that many species have had extremely low sizes of average length in the pa st, and that very little recovery of average length has occurred, even as minimum size limits were imposed. Estimates of average length for fishery-de pendent CREEL surveys and fishery-independent RVC surveys are extremely close for each of the three example species of Figure 27 , which is characteristic of the other 90+ species analyzed (Appendix C) . This would indicate that the two data sources are producing similar estimates of the effects of mortality on these stocks. An important factor in the use of the statistic to measure population mortality rates and to assess the effects of exploitation is that it can be reliably computed from both fishery-dependent and fisheryindependent data sources. Theoretically, the averag e size of fish in the exploited phase landed for any given exploited species should be equal to the average size in the exploited phase of the remaining population in the sea just after fishi ng. The greater the correlation between the two independent estimates of , the more robust ‘average length’ should be as an indicator of stock status subject to exploitation. This is a powerful conclusion in that it allows several independent observations of ‘average length’ to be computed and compared for consistency and reliability. Ourresults for BNP corroborate previous research which demonstrated close agreement between fisheryindependent RVC estimates of average length a nd fishery-dependent headboat survey estimates for Florida

# 55 Figure 26. - Theory of reduction of average length in the exploited phase with increasing fishing mortality for black grouper.

# 56

# 57 Keys reef fishes (Ault et al. 1997a, 1998).

4.5 Non-Compliance with Fish ery Minimum Size Regulations In computation of ‘average size’ statistics for further assessment of fishery management benchmarks, an alarming observation we noted in an alysis of the CREEL database was that a fairly high proportion of the catches returned to the BN P ramp by recreational fi shermen contained fishes that were smaller than the minimum size of firs t capture regulated by regional fishery management. This was particularly evident for several snapper species, e.g., mutton snapper, in which more than 70% of the fish landed were below minimum size ( Figure 28a,b ), but was also evident for hogfish ( Figure 28c ), gray triggerfish ( Figure 28d ), and a number of groupers and grunts.

# 58 

# Mutton Snapper

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YearAverage Length (mm)



# Legal

Actual 

# Yellowtail Snapper

200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 300.0 320.0 340.0 360.0 380.0

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YearAverage Length (mm)



# Legal

Actual



# L C 

# L C 

# (A)

(B)

Figure 28. - Impacts of non-compliance with regulated minimum size L

c 

# (dashed line) restrictions. The ‘average length’ in the exploitable phase estimated from the CREEL data is shown for: (A) yellowtail snapper; (B) mutton snapper; (C) gray triggerfish; and, (D) hogfish. The actual statistic L’

c 

# includes many individuals that are below L

c 

# , resulting in much lower estimates of average size(and higher fishing mortality rates) than if the law were enforced or received full compliance from recreational fishermen.

# 59 

# Hogfish

300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YearAverage Length (mm)



# Legal

Actual 

# Gray Triggerfish

200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YearAverage Length (mm)



# Legal

Actual



# L C 

# L C 

# (C)

(D)

Figure 28.- (continued)

# 60 

# 5.0 Multispecies Fishery Stock Assessments In this section, we conduct a formal quantitative assessment of exploited fish stocks in BNP and evaluate their current status with respect to established fishery mana gement benchmarks. An overview of the general assessment procedure, compri sed of 8 separate steps, is summarized in the flow diagram of Figure 29 . Steps 1 to 3 of the procedure were described in previous sections. This section details Steps 4 through 8.



# 5.1 Synthesis of Populat ion Dynamics Parameters To facilitate assessment of the multispecies fisheries resources in BNP, we conducted a thorough search of the scientific and technical literature (c.f., Claro 1994; FISHBASE, Froese and Pauly 2000) and our own databases to assemble a comprehensive suite of biological and population dynamic information that contains key rate paramete rs necessary for computing the relevant fishery management benchmarks for sustainability of resources. These parameters included age-growth, weight-length and weight-fecundity relationships, size-age at first recruitment, minimum size-age at first sexual maturity, maximum size-age, sex ratios and age (size) class distributions, natural mortality rates, and other key fisheries indices ( Tables 12 and 13 ). These data were required to run our suite of multispecies fishery stock assessment computer models (Ehrhardt and Ault 1992; FAO 1997, Ault et al. 1996, 1997a, 1998). Of the 91 exploite d and/or ecologically-important species we identified within the BNP databases, we found that the available population dynamics parameters varied widely in breadth and statistical quality. Th erefore, we classified each species’ parameter set according to a ‘parameter confidence’ rating that ranged from no data available (scored 0) to high confidence (scored 3). Given the disparity in quality between data sets available for various stocks, and in some cases the complete lack of critical population dynamic data, we feel some additional refinement of these critical data will be necessary in the longer run, as these data are required to assess exploitation effects and to determine the appropriate management strategies to achieve Park goals. Nonetheless, these data were essential to producing a baseline assessment of BNP multispecies fisheries resources.



# 5.2 Estimation of Total Mortality Ra te from ‘Average Size’ Statistics While persistent heavy fishing reduces the average fishable population size over time, it also leaves a distinguishing size-age structure signature on the exploited population, which provides a robust basis for mortality estimation ( Figure 30 ). We capitalized on this aspect of demographic theory by using the statistic to assess the current levels of exploitation of the multispecies fishery community in BNP. To estimate the total instantaneous mortality rate Z(t) given an estimate of , we used the following equation (Ault and Ehrhardt 1991; Ehrhardt and Ault 1992):

where L

c 

# is size at first capture, L

 

# is maximum size in the stock, K and L  

# are parameters of the von Bertalanffy equation, and t

is year. While no explicit formula exists for analytical estimation of Z(t)

,

# 61 Figure 29.- Flow chart showing the steps used in the multispecies reef fish assessment. See Ault et al. (1998) for additional details.

Begin Multispecies Assessment 

# ? Step 1: Conduct fishery surveys (RVC, CREEL, TRAW L, etc.) for fish community in year

t and intercalibrate sampling efficiency by species, site, and year. 

# ? Begin Management Analyses for species s 

# ?

Step 2: Using intercalibrated survey data, compute annual estimates of and associated 95% confidence intervals from size and abundance data integrated over the range of exploitable sizes. 

# ? Step 3: Compute CPUE by species by lifestage by year t for each data type. 

# ? Step 4: Use population dynamics parameters ( Table 10 ) to parameterize the LBAR (Ault et al., 1996) and REEFS (Ault et al. 1998) computer algorithms. 

# ?

Step 5: Use estimate in LBAR computer algorith m to estimate fishing mortality rates as for each species by year for th e several data sources, i.e., time series of RVC, CREEL and headboat data. 

# ?

Step 6: Use the REEFS numerical model to: (1) compute expected given the reported population dynamics and parameter values; (2) compute yield per recruit (YPR) and assess growth overfishing; and, (3) co mpute spawning stock biomass (SSB) for the fishery in unexploited and (for maximu m sustainable yield and current) exploited states (i.e., F =0, F=F msy 

# , and F = , respectively) and evaluate spawning potential ratio (SPR) to assess recruitment overfishing. 

# ?

Step 7: Use REEFS to compute and assess limit control rules. 

# ? Step 8: From these results make specific fisher y management recommendations on control strategies of F and L

c 

# consistent with eumetric fishing principles and the precautionary approach of the MSFMCA th at minimize the potential for overfishing. 

# ? Conduct next species analyses?

STOP

# 62 Table 12.- 

# Parameters, definitions and units for life ta ble variables common to the LBAR and REEFS numerical models used in simulation analysis of Florida Keys reef fish population dynamics. See Tables 13 for parameter values.

Parameter Definition Units

s Reef fish species (s=1, 

# á ,n) a Cohort age class (a=1,...,t

 

# )

t r 

# Age of recruitment months

L

r 

# Size at recruitment mm

t m 

# Minimum age of maturity months

L

m 

# Minimum size of maturity mm

t c 

# Minimum age of first capture months

L

c 

# Minimum size of first capture mm

t

 

# Oldest (largest) age years

L

 

# Largest (oldest) size mm

W  

# Ultimate weight kg

L  

# Ultimate length mm K Brody growth coefficient year -1



# t 0 

# Age at which size equals 0 years



# " WL 

# Scalar coefficient of weight-length function dimensionless ß WL 

# Power coefficient of weight-length function dimensionless W(a,t) Weight at age a at time t g L(a,t) Length at age a at time t mm N(a,t) Numbers at age a at time t number of fish M(a,t) Natural mortality rate at age a at time t year -1 

# F(a,t) Fishing mortality rate at age a at time t year -1 

# S(a) Survivorship to age a dimensionless Z(t) Total mortality rate in year t dimensionless 

# 

(a) Sex ratio at age a dimensionless B(a,t) Biomass at age a in year t kg

Y

w 

# (t) Yield in weight in year t mt SSB(t) Spawning stock biomass in year t mt SPR(t) Spawning potential ratio in year t mt6364

# 65

# 66 this can be achieved fairly easily using an iterative numerical algorithm called LBAR ( Appendix F ) developed by Ault et al. (1996) (also found in the FAO stock assessment library, FAO 1997). The algorithm provides a means to an unbiased estimator of total instantaneous population mortality rate Z(t) (Quinn and Deriso 1999). Estimation of instantaneous fishing mortality rate F(t) is accomplished by subtracting the rate of natural mortality M from the estimate. The statistic is robust to any population survey measure (i.e., visual census, creel, or headboat survey data). Iterative application of the mortality estimation method us ing annual estimates of provided time-series information on fishing mortality rates, and thus abundance, for all key species included in the analysis (see Appendix C ). This estimation procedure is explained in deta il in Ault et al. (1998). Current estimates of are given in Table 14

. 

# 5.3 Management Benchmarks Analyses To assess the status of the multispecies fishery based on the estimated rates of fishing mortality, we employed a population computer simulation model called REEFS (reef-fish e quilibrium exploitation fishery simulator) ( Appendix F ). The model was applied to 35 reef fish species in 5 families: groupers, Serranidae; snappers, Lutjanidae; grunts, Haemulidae; the hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus , Labridae; and, the great barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda , Sphyraenidae. These are among the primary fishery targets of the recreational and commercial fishing fleet s in the south Florida cora l reef ecosystem. Other species (e.g., bonefish, tarpon, spiny lobster, etc. ) lacked sufficient indices of population status ( Appendix C ) and/or population dynamics data ( Table 13 ) necessary for comprehensive quantitative stock assessments in BNP. The hogfish (or hog snapper) was grouped with snappers for analytical

purposes. The REEFS model is a size-based algorithm that embodies a stochastic age-independent model for ensemble number at a given length ( ) fo r the entire population (Ault and Rothschild 1991, Ault and Olson 1996, Ault 2001)

where R( 

# - -a) is recruitment, S(a) is survivorship at age a, 

#  (a) is sex ratio at age, and P(L a) is the probability of being length L given the fish is age a (Ault 1988, Ault and Rothschild 1992, Ault et al. 1997, 1998). The modeled fishing mortality rate of recreational and commercial fishers (or ‘viewing power’ of divers) was assumed to remove (sight) fish with a ‘knife-edged selectivity pattern’ (see Gulland, 1983) over the range of exploitable sizes

where the size of first capture L

c 

# is that regulated by regional fishery management. Species-specific population dynamics parameters ( Table 13 ) were used as model inputs. The REEFS model was configured to assess several fishery management decision making reference points, or benchmarks, including yield- per-recruit (YPR) and spaw ning potential ratio (SPR). These two reference points are relatively robust measures of potential yields and recruitment,67Table 14.-Full fishery management benchmark analysis for 35reef fish stocks in Biscayne National Park showing current estimates.Species with dashed boxes indicate current minimum size regulations are at or set lower than the minimum sexual maturity.Taxa Common name Ave. L F M K M/KLmLcLλSPRF/FmsyB/BmsyB0BmsyBnowGroupers 1Rock Hind 260.00 0.510 0.250 0.191 1.31 336.0 203.2 453.3 5.78 2.04 0.26 18367 4053 10612Graysby250.00 0.275 0.200 0.350 0.57 108.0 203.2 362.7 40.14 1.37 0.83 8824 4286 35423Speckled Hind 442.95 0.269 0.200 0.130 1.54 460.1 290.0 845.7 18.45 1.34 0.68 120668 32620 222654Yellowedge 509.582.0000.200 0.170 1.17 524.8 240.0 792.4 3.19 10.02 0.07 126653 58387 40375Coney280.00 0.645 0.180 0.145 1.24 185.1 203.2 647.8 8.41 3.58 0.25 22919 7859 19276Red Hind 279.14 0.146 0.180 0.207 0.87 247.0 203.2 382.8 44.25 0.81 1.18 19520 7350 86387Goliath 691.26 0.430 0.130 0.130 1.00 978.0 508.0 2178.3 1.27 3.31 0.05 5827829 1548036 739238Red 560.00 1.065 0.180 0.153 1.18 433.8 508.0 869.0 14.71 5.91 0.30 125310 60588 184349Warsaw 691.26 0.431 0.080 0.054 1.48 940.5 508.0 2178.3 1.17 5.39 0.05 6322926 1609331 7397010Snowy 493.072.0000.130 0.113 1.15 462.1 508.0 909.8 6.97 15.38 0.13 228770 125243 1593711Nassau 551.86 0.313 0.180 0.145 1.24 480.0 508.0 648.2 46.49 1.74 0.77 48595 29247 2259012Black 628.78 0.625 0.150 0.160 0.94 597.0 508.0 1153.4 5.91 4.17 0.16 532994 191373 3147613Yellowmouth 545.40 0.423 0.180 0.063 2.86 468.0 508.0 710.7 21.32 2.35 0.48 170878 76345 3642714Gag 569.84 1.258 0.230 0.149 1.54 657.0 508.0 1034.4 0.92 5.47 0.03 133456 41421 123415Scamp 470.252.0000.143 0.126 1.13 491.0 508.0 932.2 4.09 13.99 0.09 319185 138084 1306516Yellowfin 520.002.0000.180 0.170 1.06 524.8 508.0 792.4 3.99 11.11 0.08 151123 74204 6024Snappers 17Mutton 450.00 1.249 0.214 0.129 1.66 275.8 406.4 797.8 14.59 5.84 0.32 91558 42117 1335518Schoolmaster 280.002.0370.250 0.180 1.39 144.6 254.0 503.8 12.44 8.15 0.27 20614 9563 256519Blackfin 350.00 0.447 0.230 0.084 2.75 233.4 304.8 459.2 50.65 1.94 0.77 7317 4837 370620Red 356.00 1.898 0.190 0.162 1.17 303.5 508.0 901.6 1.78 9.99 0.05 146407 49553 260921Yellowtail 330.00 0.795 0.210 0.209 1.00 194.3 304.8 433.4 35.99 3.78 0.59 17173 10438 618122Cubera 488.65 0.495 0.150 0.140 1.07 407.3 304.8 1153.1 5.83 3.30 0.19 639420 196466 3728423Gray 300.00 0.966 0.300 0.136 2.21 230.2 254.0 556.5 14.70 3.22 0.36 17396 7077 255824Dog 358.71 0.588 0.330 0.100 3.30 298.0 304.8 568.5 27.91 1.78 0.64 19922 8627 556025Lane 245.00 0.573 0.300 0.097 3.09 202.3 203.2 418.3 23.26 1.91 0.57 7396 2998 172026Silk260.002.0000.230 0.092 2.50 303.7 304.8 512.0 7.10 8.70 0.13 23033 12217 163627Black 250.00 0.478 0.300 0.650 0.46 203.0 203.4 650.0 27.61 1.59 0.68 7356 2984 203128Vermillion 279.212.0000.300 0.206 1.45 310.9 254.0 532.9 0.50 6.68 0.01 11330 4081 5729Hogfish 330.00 1.639 0.250 0.190 1.32 195.5 304.8 515.4 19.86 6.56 0.38 32515 16857 6456Grunts 30Margate 270.00 0.995 0.374 0.174 2.15 324.4 203.2 578.4 4.72 2.66 0.18 17222 4550 81331Tomtate 206.392.0000.330 0.220 1.50 136.1 203.2 250.0 47.10 6.06 0.65 2533 1845 119332Sailors choice 235.00 0.760 0.430 0.220 1.95 100.4 203.2 320.1 48.81 1.77 0.80 3139 1926 153233Bluestriped 226.90 0.762 0.500 0.484 1.03 108.4 203.2 273.5 56.54 1.52 0.87 2269 1481 128334White 216.502.0000.370 0.186 1.99 174.0 203.2 410.9 11.64 5.41 0.27 8676 3695 1010Others 35Great barracuda 590.00 1.291 0.200 0.172 1.16 625.1 508.0 1151.0 1.81 6.46 0.05 140803 48491 2543

# 68 respectively. As such, they help to focus on biol ogical (size) and fishing (intensity) controls for managing current and future fishery production. We also used the REEFS stochastic simulation model to assess population risks relative to ‘limit control rules’ (e.g., NMFS 1999). Taken together, these management benchmarks characterize the status of stocks under exploitation relative to Federal fishery management standards. These analyses thus provide the basis for the assessmen t of the entire reef fish community, and indicate the efficacy of current fish ery management practices and their sufficiency to provide sustainable fisheries now and into the future.



# 5.3.1 Fishery Yields and YPR Since biomass B(a,t) is the product of numbers-at-age times weight-at-age, yield in weight Y

w 

# from a given species s was calculated as

Yield-per-recruit (YPR), or the lifetime yield exp ected from a single recruited individual, can then calculated by scaling yield to average recruitment.



# 5.3.2 Spawning Potential Ratios (SPR) Mature or spawning stock biomass SSB(t) is a measure of the stock’s reproductive potential or capacity to produce newborn, ultimately realized at the population level as successful cohorts or year classes. Spawning stock biomass is obtained by in tegrating over individuals between the minimum size of first maturity ( L

m 

# ) and maximum reproductive size (here assumed to be the maximum size L

 

# ) in the stock

Spawning potential ratio (SPR) is a contemporaneous management reference point that measures the stock’s potential capacity to produce optimum yields on a sustainable basis. SPR is a fraction expressed as the ratio of exploited spawning stock biomass relative to the equilibrium unexploited SSB

Resultant estimated SPRs are then compared to th e U.S. Federal standards which define 30% SPR as the “overfishing” threshold (Rosenberg et al., 1996). The relationship between YPR and SPR with respect to fishing mortality rate is shown for black grouper in Figure 31 . Note that the current estimates of F for black grouper place SPR and YPR well below optimal levels for sustainability of the fishery resource. An important attribute of the progression of average size as fishing mort ality increases is shown in Figure 32 for black grouper. Increasing exploitation successively eliminates older, more fecund size classes through a process known as “juvenescence”, which ultimately produces an overall younger stock (Ricker 1963, Ault 1988). This fact is extremely important in the context of stock and recruitment, since the fecundity potential of individuals increases exponentially with size. Such a phenomenon will be reflected by reductions of

# 69

# 70 the stock’s spawning capacity, which itself is related to the expectation of new recruits to sustain the population over the longer run. For black grouper, fi shing at the rate of mortality that produces “maximum sustainable yield” reduces the spawning potential ratio (the proportion of the virgin spawning biomass available) to about 36% ( Figure 31 ). Remarkably, the current estimated rate of fishing mortality has reduced the spawning potential ra tio to less than 5% of its historical maximum. From the perspective of ecological theory, this is an ominous result in terms of black grouper population stability and resilience. From the perspective of fish ers, a current 5% SPR implies that the average size of black grouper ( Figure 32 ) is 60% of what it once was (circa 1940). The summary of the SPRs for the Biscayne Nati onal Park exploited reef fish complex in Figure 33 shows that 13 of 16 groupers, 11 of 13 snappers, barracuda, and 2 of 5 grunts for which there are population dynamics data are below the SPR that constitutes overfishing by Federal definitions. Overall, 77% of the 35 stocks that could be analyzed were overfished.



# 5.3.3 Limit Control Rules The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) contains a set of National Standards for fishery conservation and management, the first of which states:

“Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”

The MSFCMA also required the Secr etary of Commerce to “establish a dvisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans”. These Guidelines (or national standard guidelines or NSGs) were published as a final rule in May 1998. Following the NSGs, Technical Guidelines were developed (NMFS 1999, Restrepo and Powers 1999) to translate the NSGs into usable scientific criteria so that scientific advice could be offered to the regional Fishery Management Councils to assist in implementing the MSFMCA. Key points arising were : (1) that maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is to be viewed as a limit (i.e., a threshold NOT to be exceeded); (2) that two measures were to be used to determine a fish stock’s management status, (a) the current fishing mortality rate relative to the fishing mortality rate that would produce MSY (denoted as F/F msy 

# ), and (b) the current amount of spawning biomass relative to the spawni ng biomass at MSY (denoted as B/B msy 

# ); (3) that there should be maximum standards of fishing mortality rates which should not be exceeded, called Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT); (4) that th ere should be a Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) under which a stock’s spawning biomass would be considered as depleted; and (5) that these criteria and measures should be linked together through “control rules” which specify actions to be taken (i.e., changes in management measures to a lter fishing mortality rates) depending upon the status of current spawning bi omass relative to B msy 

# and MSST and the status of the fishing mortality rate relative to F msy 

# and MFMT. To address these emerging fishery management benchmark criteria for BNP multispecies resources, we conducted a new cutting-edge analysis that established fishery limit control rules consistent with the “precautionary approach ” (NMFS 1999, Restrepo and Powers 1999, Darcy and Matlock 1999, Butterworth and Punt 1999). Criteria used to set target catch levels as explained above are explicitly risk averse . A risk averse Precautionary Approach would set OY (optimum yield) below MSY as a function of uncertainty. Thus, the greater the uncertainty, the greater the distance between the two. The precautionary approach to fisheries management requires avoidance of overfishing, restoration of already overfished stocks, explic it specification of management objectives including

# 7172

# 73 operational targets and constraints (e.g., target and limit reference points), taking account of uncertainty by being more conservative, and avoidance of excess harvest capacity. In addition, this approach requires formulation of decision rules that stipulat e in advance what actions will be taken to prevent overfishing and promote stock rebuilding. Limit reference points are designed to constrain e xploitation within safe biological limits so that stocks retain the ability to produce maximum sustainable yield. Overfishing is a level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the long-term capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. In this arrangement, the fish ing mortality rate which generates MSY should be regarded as the minimum standard for limit refe rence points. The limit MSST, minimum stock size threshold, is used to decide what level of fishing mortality indicates “overfishing”, and when the stock is in an “overfished” condition. If spawning bi omass drops below MSST, then the regional fishery management councils MUST take remedial actions to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks to MSY levels very rapidly (generally in 10 years or less). A graphical application of limit c ontrol rule theory is shown in Figure 34 for black grouper in BNP. The region defined by (A) represents a devel oping fishery where fishing mortality rates are below the level required to achieve MSY, and the stock biom ass is greater than the biomass at MSY. The (B) region defines an area where overfishing is occurring and passes up to the threshold rate that will lead to an overfished stock. The (C) region formally defi nes an overfished stock that violates principles of sustainability and that requires strong intervention by fishery management. The (D) region defines a stock under recovery where the current fishing mortality rate has been reduced to a level that promotes rebuilding of the resource over a 10 year time horizon. We used the natural mortality rate as a proxy for F msy 

# (e.g., Gulland 1983). These estimates of F msy 

# were then input to REEFS to estimate . We note that all the yearly estimates of the black grouper fishery show that substantial overfishing has occurred in BNP, and that most recent estimates pl ace the level of overfishing at 3-5 times the level of fishing required to produce maximum sustainable yi eld under Federal definitions (note that the 1981 estimate is dubious). Minimally, this means that fl eet effort would need to be reduced by some 80% to achieve the longer-term sustainability goals under th ese standards. However, it should be noted that the National Park Service standards may be even more conservative than those established under the MSFMCA, and thus effort reductions would have to be even more severe to achieve NPS goals for BNP. The limit control rule technique is demonstrated for black grouper ( Figure 34 ); but the process is reflective of the analyses for every fish stock or community member (groupers, snappers, grunts, etc.). Fishing mortality rates were estimated to be from 2 to 10 times higher than F msy 

# for 71% (i.e., 25/35) of the exploited species analyzed ( Figure 35 ). Moreover, the current levels of stock biomass are critically low for more than 70% of the key targeted species. The most current estimates and results are summarized in Table 14.



# 5.4 Baseline Status of BNP Exploited Fish Stocks Our results indicate that BNP reef fish populations are currently heavily fished ( Figures 33 and 35, Table 14 ). Despite using conservative assumptions, the estimated fishery exploitation rates we estimated suggest that many BNP and Florida Keys reef fish stocks are overfished according to definitions for U.S. fisheries (Rosenberg et al., 1996). Many desirable grouper and snapper stocks have extremely low spawning potential ratios (SPRs). More over, our analysis indicates that these stocks have experienced high rates of exploitation over at least the last two decades (see also Ault et al. 1998). The estimated average lengths in the exploitable phase from statistically independent data sources were

# 7475

# 76 highly comparable for groupers, snappers, and grunts, which supports their use in the multispecies assessment. The trends in average size for grouper, snapper and grunt stocks was relatively flat over the last 25 yr and close to the minimum exploitabl e length. The flatness is explained by considering expected from a modeled range of F in an analytical model, gi ven knowledge about current values of . The slope of on F is very shallow in the range of the analytical model, corroborating empirical estimates. Some stocks appear to have been chronically overfished since at least the late 1970's. There is also substantial corroborating evidence of these trends from our fishing effort and CPUE analyses. Total fishing effort has increased substantially because of greater average fishing power per vessel and a much larger recreational fishery fleet The arithmetic increase of recreational fishing vessels is an extremely important factor for any future assessments. However, absolute magnitude of the recreational fishi ng effect on reef fish stocks is poorly known because the recreational fleet is heterogeneously distributed across south Florida and the Keys seascape, and has been poorly sampled or studied to date. Inverse relationships between increased fishing effort (particularly by the recreational sector) and the long-term decreased aver age size and stock biomass of the most desirable species (e.g., groupers and snappers) are of particular concern. Declining CPUE trends observed in CREEL data also support our overfishing conclusions. We also noted similarities in key relationships within various taxa that separate out into somewhat discrete clusters when plotting maximu m size versus maximum age by species. This pattern suggests that species within the various taxa groupi ngs will likely respond to exploitation in a similar manner. The sensitivity to exploitation is highest for groupers, followed by snappers and then grunts. The Florida Keys reef fishery shows the classic pattern of serial overfishing, in which the more vulnerable species are progressively depleted (M unro and Williams, 1985; Russ and Alcala, 1989). The longest lived, latest maturing, and lowest mortality ( M ) stocks (i.e., groupers) are those first to experience significant declines in population biomass, followed in sequence by intermediate-lived (snappers), and finally by short-lived stocks (grunts). Within families, the inverse relationships between the spawning potential ratio and ex-vessel market price is consistent with serial overfishing (Ault et al. 1998). As expected, the most valuable snappers a nd groupers also tend to have the lowest spawning potentials. The process of serial overfishing has decimated th e grouper stocks and current levels of fishing mortality range from 3 to more than 10 times the e xploitation level that would achieve MSY. The only stocks at about the Federal target are rock hind, graysby, coney and red hind. This is because these species rarely reach a maximum size greater than about 16 inches in total length, and thus are not generally targeted by fishermen. However, given th e current extremely POOR status of the snappergrouper fishery in the Florida Keys and BNP, these species too are now becoming targets. The serial overfishing phenomenon is clearly reflected in the fact that snappers, and now grunts, stock sizes are falling below federal target levels under the precautionary approach of the MSFMCA. Now there are hardly any fish big enough or ma ture enough to support the waning resources, or to affect any hopes of system recovery given the pervasive increases in fishers and fleet fishing pow er. This is particularly distressing scenario when coupled with pervasive trends in increased coastal development, habitat degradation, and coastal pollution in south Florida. Our data suggest that there may have been substantial changes in the composition of the biomass and abundance of the reef fish community over th e past several decades. While many groupers and snappers have apparently declined in response to growing fishing effort, some grunts have increased in relative abundance. Claro (1991) noted a similar process in the Golfo de Batabano, Cuba, and

# 77 hypothesized that chronic over-harvesting of snappers resulted in community shifts in favor of grunts. Another indication of significant change shown by Ault et al. (1998) is the explosive growth of barracuda which may be explained by several factor s. First, there is little directed commercial orrecreational fishing for barracuda as food Keys-wide due to health concerns. Second, growth of catchand-release fishing by sport anglers and reduced emphasis on spearfishing may have substantially lowered barracuda mortality. Third, other top predators such as groupers, snappers and sharks have been intensively fished which appears to have lowered competition while barracuda still retain a large and possibly increasing prey base of grunts and ot her small fishes. Increased abundance and biomass of a top predator like barracuda could be a manageme nt concern if barracuda substantially impact reef fish community dynamics. For exam ple, excessive predation on popular sport fishes like snappers could counteract potential reductions in fishing mortality sought by traditional management. During the time frame of this study, numerous measures have been taken to reduce fishing mortality in state and federal waters. Fish trap s were progressively eliminated between 1980 and 1992 and numerous bag limits and minimum size limits were imposed. Fisheries were closed for queen conch (Strombus gigas ), Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara ), and Nassau grouper (E. striatus ). These actions are evidence of trends reported in this st udy. These management measures have been largely ineffectual to reduce the observed declining trends in stock sizes and productivity. The patterns of fishery size regulations in south Florida have followe d those characteristic of fisheries under stress, and reflect too little action too late. Ault et al. (1998) have shown the Florida Keys multispecies reef fisheries to have been seriously overfished since at least the late 1970s. Adjusting minimum sizes of first capture (L

c 

# ) and fishing mortality rates ( F ) may mitigate the apparent growth and recruitment overfishing conditions in the fishery. A striking result we discovered, however, was that 13 of 35 species we closely analyzed have the minimum size of first capture by the fishery set lower than the minimum size of first sexual maturity ( Table 14 )! However, traditional management actions alone are unlikely to be sufficient because they can be circumvented and habitually fail to effectively control fishing effort, partic ularly in an open access fishery (Bohnsack and Ault 1996, Ault et al. 1998). For example, bycatch mortality a nd high fishing effort from the expanding fleets can make size limits ineffective. In theory, every fish can be caught once it reaches minimum legal size resulting in insufficient mature adult survival. Th e problems we have identified have been compounded by a clear lack of compliance of fishery regulations by sportfishers, and the apparent lack of enforcement of existing regulations. Surprisingly, th ere has been little to no follow-up plan to evaluate whether regulations and policies invoked are achieving their intended results. What is needed is clear plan of action to ameliorate these trends in dec lining and to build sustaina ble fisheries and conserve marine biodiversity in the face of ecosystem changes and regional human population growth.

# 78 

# 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations In the report we conducted a baseline characteri zation and fishery management analyses using a new systems methodology comprised of adva nced methods in fish population dynamics, mathematical, and statistical modeling to provide a quantitative baseline assessment of the distribution and status of fishery resources and their essential habitats in BNP. We focused on explicit modeling of linkages between fish community distribution, abundance and size structure in relation to key “habitat” characteristics. As a re sult, precise estimates of the essential parameters are required to provide critical guidance for future cost-effective sa mpling and resource assessment efforts. A principal key to our ability to assess the multispecies reef fish stocks in BNP was the strategic use of ‘average size’ (in length) of fish in the exploitable phase of the population ( ) as a quantitative indicator of stock status and response to exploitation. The average length statistic is extremely robust to the data source from which the population estimation measure is made (i.e., RVC, CREEL or head boat survey data). In addition, by providing an enhanced and rigorous baseline reference point of reef fish stock status and spatial abundance for the multispecies community, this research will greatly facilitate the assessment of natural system variability versus regi onal changes that may result from proposed fishery and spatial ecological management strategies. Our principal findings with respect to problems with overfishing, habitat degradation, and fishery management were:



# C An analysis of the Spawning Potential Ratios ( SPR ) of exploited reef fish shows that 13 of 16 grouper species,11 of 13 snapper species, barracuda, and 2 of 5 grunt species for which there are reliable population dynamics data are below the SPR that constitutes overfishing by Federal definitions (Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Management Conservation Act).



# C For example, the average size of black groupe r is now 60% of what it was in 1940 and the spawning stock is now less than 5% of its historical unfished maximum.



# C Overall, 77% of the 35 individual stocks that could be analyzed are overfished.



# C The current level of fishing mortality for grouper stocks range from 3 to 10 times the exploitation level that would achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).



# C Stock biomass is critically low for more than 70% of the key targeted species within the recreational fishery.



# C Some stocks appear to have been chronically overfished since at least the late 1970's.



# C For all of the harvested species analyzed, th e average sized fish within these exploited populations for the last 25 years has remained rela tively constant and is very close to minimum harvest sizes (for 77% of those analyzed), not natural historical unfished population size.



# C Many species with extremely low average length in the past have had very little change in average length even though new minimum size limits were imposed.



# C The recreational fishing fleet in South Florida has grown at a near exponential rate since 1964 (a 444% increase in recreational boats from 1964 to 1998) with no limits on the number of boats

# 79 allowed to fish.



# C The relative effective vessel “fishing power” of the recreational fleet has quadrupled due to depth indicators and fish finders, global positioning systems, improved vessel designs, larger motors, and two-way radio communications.



# C Exceptionally high and sustained exploitation pr essures have precipitated “serial overfishing” of key fishery resources. Smaller and less desirable species have consistently increased in the catch as larger more vulnerable species are eliminated.

The following outlines critical habitat-animal relations hips, fishery management, policy alternatives and planning, survey design analysis, and fishery statis tics that underlie the portent of future problems:

Bay-to-Reef Dynamics.- Biscayne Bay and BNP is a very impor tant nursery environment. There are more than 325 fish and macroinvertebrate species in BNP, of these more than 150 of these species are under direct assault or subject to some form of fishing pressure fr om recreational commercial fishing activities that can have long-term deleterious social, economic and ecological consequences. More than 30 of these species are seen in all three existing su rvey mechanisms (RVC, creel and trawl surveys), but substantial size differences exist between species a nd areas of BNP. The species captured by all three gears use the entire seascape on their ontogenetic migrations from the bay-to-reef, making them excellent candidates for “key” indicator species that can assist evaluation of the impacts and successes of Everglades restoration on the sensitive and dynami c coastal environments of BNP. However, many species that are known to occur in th e Bay are rarely, if ever, found in the samples. This fact requires innovations in gear deployments, new technologies, and directed efforts to sample fringe environments like mangroves, channels, canals, tidal creeks, etc., to detect species such as pink shrimp (we know they use ALL habitats, as do bonefish, tarpon, snook, permit, black and silver mullet, jack crevalle and yellow jacks, anchovies and sardines, black- and white-tipped sharks, nurse sharks, bonnetheads, sheepshead, red and black drum, etc.). Florida wa ters have produced 13 of 16 standing world records for bonefish, and they may be one of the most lucrative fisheries in BNP. However, there is little or no information system available to document the status or sustainability of ma ny of these economic and ecologically important resources (i.e., bonefish-tarpon-permit). The Everglades restoration includes a comprehensive effort to understand and model the physical and biological processes of Florida Bay and it’s connectivity to the coral reef tract. As the restoration enters the implementation phase, it is essential to have effective monitoring programs to assess system changes and to run predictive models that guide decision making. Ensuring the sustained function and productivity of this unique environment through prudent use and strategic management decision making will result in substantial biological, eco logical and economic benefits to the scientific, commercial fishing and public co mmunities. Concern about overfishing, habitat degradation and progressively escalating resource use resulted in the establishment of the FKNMS in 1990. It is imperative that BNP management link up with the la rger regional efforts of NOAA, NPS and the State of Florida decision-making entities on the resource mana gement and sustainability issues critical to the Florida Keys. Fishes are extremely important to monitor with high precision, because in terms of the species composition, size/age structure, and fisher y catch and economic productivity, they are a direct public concern and an obvious measure of mana gement success (Bohnsack and Ault 1996, Ault et al. 1998, Meester et al. 1999).

# 80 Fishery Management Problems.- The history of fishery management actions by the State and Federal Fishery Management Council for BNP waters clearly reflects the characteristics of trying to manage fisheries under increasing stress with conventional a pproaches. Actions have been taken only after declines have already occurred and were finally acknowledged. Actions are then usually only minimal and not at a level that ensures recovery will take place. (Note: The history of increasingly more restrictive size limits placed on several grouper species until the fishery for some was eventually closed is a prime example of failure in conventional management approaches).



# C A proportion of the fish in catch es observed at the Biscayne NP boat ramps during creel surveys

are smaller than the minimum size limit for legal harvest. This is as high as 70% for yellowtail and mutton snapper!



# C 13 of 35 species closely analyzed have their minimum legal harvest size set lower than the minimum size of first sexual maturity.

In this way, our baseline computations allow BNP resource managers to determine and understand the current status of the fishery resources and habitats prior to consideration and implementation of fishery management alternatives (e.g., spatial protection zones (RNAs), catch and release only zones, etc.) that build sustainable fish eries. These baseline computations will also allow efficacy assessment of any fishery management altern atives applied in the short- or longer-term. As a result, this study forms the precursor to more intensive analyses of the multi species fish community in Biscayne National Park (BNP), and their connec tions with the broader south Florida coastal ocean ecosystem. Some particular recommendations for research and fishery management are:

Formulation of Policy Alternatives.- The tradition of open-access management systems coupled with risk-prone management decisions remains a prin cipal obstacle to achieving renewable resource sustainability (Rosenberg et al., 1993). Reversing adve rse trends in the reef fishery are likely to require other innovative approaches to controlling exploitation rates. Rothschild et al. (1996) recommended that fishery management maintain a systems view of the resources, emphasizing strategy over tactics. With this in mind, we recommend consideration of management alternatives that couple traditional management measures with a spatial network of “no take” marine reserves (Fogarty et al. 2001). Marine reserves provide an ecosy stem management strategy for achie ving long-term goals of protecting biodiversity while maintaining sustainable fisheries. The establishment of a network of small no-take reserves may be a first step. A key to the su ccess of this effort is a conscientious, continuous assessment program using integrated fishery-independe nt and fishery-dependent data to evaluate their effectiveness (Bohnsack and Ault, 1996, Ault et al. 1998). With adaptive management (e.g., Walters, 1986), improvements can be implemented over time.

Fishery Management Planning.- Fisheries in Florida were loosely managed prior to the formation of the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission in 1983. The Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Fishery Management Act explicitly defines a process for mana ging sustainable resources in the U.S. EEZ. The planning must be based in a ecosystem perspective. However, NPS preferred alternatives for Park status may likely be more conservative that the M SFMCA standards. In addition, management changes have been recently made as part of the Florid a Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and Dry Tortugas National Park (DTNP) management plans. The most important change is the use of spatial

# 81 protection including the establishment of 'no-take' marine protected areas or research natural areas initiatives (NPS 2000; www.coralreef.gov), and these strategies may be appropriate for Biscayne National Park resource management.

Survey Design Analysis.- This report also presents the qua ntitative bases required for future preparation of an optimal sampling design analysis that produces precise statistics required for future implementation of a robust fishery management plan for BNP. This research will lead to subsequent development of an efficient survey and monitoring design that optimizes in a cost-effective way the precision of estimates for key management variables to assess resource status and to evaluate management system efficacy. We recommend:

• Increasing the resolution and precision of base “habitat” maps for key environmental variables (i.e., salinity, benthic substrates, bathymetry, etc.).

• Developing “statistical” fish-habitat suitability models for individual populations, taxa, and community of inshore and reef fishes and macroinvertebrates. Use these models to optimize sampling survey designs for monitoring of tre nds with implementation of spatial management measures (Ault et al. 1999a, Ault and Luo 1998, Rubec et al. 1999, 2001).

• Conducting and analyzing broad sampling design issues such as key habitats presently not monitored (e.g., baywide, mangroves, reef fish (RVC and CREEL), pelagic environment) but which may provide critical signals for management.

An additional important attribute of this technology is that fishery-independent measures of stock status become even more important when spatial management strategies (i.e., such as marine protected areas or “no-take” marine reserves) are implemented, because these methods are capable of addressing estimation of population mortality rates from both w ithin the “closed” reserve areas and areas outside under exploitation without reliance on estimation of fi shery catch data, and does so in a non-intrusive and non-destructive way.

Fishery-dependent versus Fishery-independent Statistics.- Over time there will be an increasing need to rely on fishery-independent data because fi shery-dependent data will become less available and less useful as larger size limits, closed seasons, closed fishing areas, and prohibitions on species are imposed. Also, the shifting emphasis from commerc ial to recreational fishing in the Florida Keys makes collecting fishery-dependent data much more difficult and expensive. Fishery-dependent data has the potential to be biased by under-reporting and lack of cooperation on the part of the fishery itself. Although fishery-independent assessments can provi de reliable measures of reef fish abundance, population dynamics and community composition (Gunde rson, 1993), there have been few applications of the approach for optimizing the performance of multispecies fisheries in tropical coral reefs. We have therefore developed techniques and methods for the extraction of a useful indicator of reef fish stock health from fishery-independent and fish ery-dependent monitoring and assessment surveys. As a result, the quantitative multispecies stock assessment methods presented here should help provide a backbone for the future use of fishery-i ndependent and fishery-dependent assessment surveys in management decisions regarding fish stocks at broader levels. This could lead to development of spatial models of multicohort-multistock dynamics fo r BNP and the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem

# 82 following Ault and Olson (1996), Ault et al. (1999b), a nd Cosner et al. (1999). These estimates and models are then the precursors to more exacting management analyses like multispecies stock assessments and modeling of spatial management a lternatives. Furthermore, once determined these fundamental relationships could be embedded in a biophysical spatial simulation model (e.g., REEFS model has been generalized to incorporate sp ace as well as time Ault et al. 1999b, 2000; Meester 2000) to assess the consequences of preferred management alternatives for the Park, or to provide quantitative insights into the longer-term goals of maintaining ecosystem integrity, building sustainable fisheries, and conserving marine biodiversity that meet management targets and goals.



# Acknowledgments This research was conducted for BNP s upport under NPS grant No. CA-525000024. RVC data were available under support provide d from NOAA Fisheries, Florida Ke ys National Marine Sanctuary program (Grant No. NA67RJ0149), South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Prediction and Modeling Program (Grant No. NA67RJ0149), National Undersea Research Center (Grant No. 37NURPUNCW9926), and the University of Miami RSMAS. NOAA/FMRI provided digital benthic substrate habitat maps. Doug Harper of NMFS/ SEFSC provided commercial and recreational vessel registered vessel digital database. Joe O’Hop of FMRI and Pat Eyo of NMFS provided commercial fishing data. Gene Huntsman at NMFS Beaufort, NC, provided headboat survey data. John D. Wang of RSMAS provided salinity data from his 2-D finite element Biscayne Bay-northern Florida Keys coral reef tract hydrodynamic model. Guillermo A. Diaz of RSMAS provided technical assistance on the habitat use analyses. We also thank the Army Corps of Engineers (G rant No. DACW 39-94-K0032) and NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (Grant No. NA- 85-WCH0631) for support to conduct rollerframe trawl surveys; FISHBASE (www.fishbase.org) for access to population dynamic parameters; and, National Sea Grant College Program (Grant No. R-L/R-47B) for development support on fish-habitat models. Last, by not least, we thank a host of fo lks for technical assistance and reviews required to complete this exciting project including: Rick Clarke, Monica Mayr, Brian Lockwood, Jim Tilmant, Sherri Fields, Tom Schmidt, Pat Kenney, John Ho esterey, Richard Curry, Brenda Lazendorf, Sarah Bellmund and Matt Patterson of NPS; Gary Hickman of TVA; Ken Lindeman of Environmental Defense; Billy Causey, Ben Haskell and Brian Ke ller of FKNMS; and David McClellan, Anne Marie Eklund, and Joe Serafy of NMFS.

# 83 Literature Cited Ault, J.S. 1988. Nonlinear numerical simulation models for assessing tropical fisheries with continuously breeding multicohort populations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 242 p. Ault, J.S. 1996. A fishery management system approach for Gulf of Mexico living resources. In GIS Applications for Fisheries a nd Coastal Resources Management , Rubec, P.J. and O'Hop, J. (eds.). Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 43:106-111. Ault, J.S. 2001. Tropical multispecies fishery d ecision dynamics. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. (in preparation) Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A., and Meester, G.A. 1997a. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: retrospective (1979-1995) assessment of reef fish and the case for protected marine areas. Pages 385-395 in Developing and Sustaining World Fi sheries Resources: The State of Science and Management , D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds.). 2nd World Fisheries Congress Proceedings, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, 797 p. Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A. and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96(3):395-414. Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A., and S.L. Miller. 2000a. Mu ltispecies reef fish stock assessment in the Dry Tortugas. National Undersea Research Center UNCW Report 2000-19. 25 p. Ault, J.S., Diaz, G.A., Smith, S.G., Luo, J. and J.E. Serafy. 1999a. An efficient sampling survey design to estimate pink shrimp population abundance in Biscayne Bay, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(3):696-712. Ault, J.S., and N.M. Ehrhardt. 1991. Correction to the Beverton and Holt Z-estimator for truncated catch length-frequency distributions. ICLARM Fishbyte 9(1) :37-39. Ault, J.S., Luo, J., Smith, S.G., Serafy, J.E., Wang, J.D., Diaz, G.A., and R. Humston. 1999b. A spatial dynamic multistock production model. Canadian J ournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (Suppl. 1):4-25. Ault, J.S. and J. Luo. 1998. Coastal bays to coral reef s: systems use of scientific data visualization in reef fishery management. International Counc il for the Exploration of the Seas. ICES C.M. 1998/S:3. Ault, J.S., McGarvey, R.N., Rothschild, B.J., and J. Chavarria. 1996. Stock assessment computer algorithms. Pages 501-515 in Stock Assessment: Quantitative Methods and Applications for Small Scale Fisheries , Gallucci, V.F., Saila, S., Gustafson, D ., and B.J. Rothschild (eds.). Lewis Publishers (Division of CRC Press). Chelsea, Michigan, 527 p. Ault, J.S., Meester, G.A., Luo, J., Smith, S.G., and K.C. Lindeman. 2000b. Natural resources affected environment. In Dry Tortugas National Park: Draft General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement . 272 p. Ault, J.S. and D.B. Olson. 1996. A multicohort stock production model. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125(3):343-363. Ault, J.S., and B.J. Rothschild. 1991. A stochastic age-independent simulation model. International Council for Exploration of the Seas, Statistics Session. C.M./S5. 20 p. Ault, J.S., Serafy, J.E., DiResta, D., and J. Dandelski. 1997b. Impacts of commercial fishing on key habitats within Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park Report. 80p. Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1956. A review of me thods for estimating mortality rates in exploited fish populations, with special reference to sources of bias in catch sampling. Rapports et ProcèsVerbaux des Réunions, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 140:67-83.

# 84 Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations . Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fishery Investigations, Series II Volume XIX, 533 p. Bohnsack, J.A., and J.S. Ault. 1996. Management strategies to conserve marine biodiversity. Oceanography 9(1):73-82. Bohnsack, J.A. and S.P. Bannerot. 1986. A stati onary visual census technique for quantitatively assessing community structure of coral reef fishes. U.S. Dept. Co mmer., NOAA Tech. Report NMFS 41, 15 p. Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper, and D.B. McClellan. 1994. Fisheries trends from Monroe County, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54(3):982-1018. Bohnsack, J.A. and 18 coauthors. 1999. Baseline data on reef fi sh. NOAA Technical Memorandum 425. Butterworth, D.S., and A.E. Punt. 1999. Experiences in the evaluation and implementation of management procedures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:985-998. Claro, R. 1991. Changes in fish assemblages structur e by the effect of intense fisheries activity. Trop. Ecol. 32(1):36-46. Claro, R. 1994. Ecología de los peces marinos de Cuba . Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo, Mexico, 547 p. Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques . 2 nd 

# Edition. John Wiley & Sons. 428 p. Darcy, G.H., and G.C. Matlock. 1999. Application of the precautionary approach in the national standard guidelines for conservation and management of fisheries in the United States. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:853-859. Davis, G.E., and E.B. Thue. 1979. Fishery data management handbook–Everglades National Park. U.S. National Park Service. South Florida Research Center Report T-546. 77 p. de Sylva, D.P. 1976. Fishes of Biscayne Bay, Florida. In A. Thorhaug (ed.), Biscayne Bay:Past/Present/Future . Univ of Miami Symposium, April 1976. Miami, FL. Diaz, G.A., Smith, S.G., Serafy, J.E., and J.S. Ault. 2001. Allometry of the growth of pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duoarum in a subtropical Bay. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 132:141-148. Dixon, R.L., and G.R. Hunstman. 1992. Estimating catches and fishing effort of the southeastern United States headboat fleet, 1972-1982. U.S. Dept. Commer., NMFS Tech. Report, 23 p. and append. Ehrhardt, N.M., and J.S. Ault. 1992. Analysis of two length-based mortality models applied to bounded catch length frequencies. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121: 115-122. FAO. 1997. FAO-ICLARM stock assessment tools (FiSAT) . United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. (http://www.fao.org) Fausch, K.D., J. Lyons, J.R. Karr, and P.L. Angermeier. 1990. Fish comm unities as i ndicators of environmental degradation. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 8:123-144. Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2001. Fish Base: world wide web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, 06 February 2001. Gilbert, C.R. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol II. Fishes, University of Florida, Gainesville. Glynn, P.W., and J.S. Ault. 2000. A biogeographic analysis and review of the fa r eastern Pacific coral reef region. Coral Reefs 19:4-23. Gulland, J.A. 1983. Fish stock assessment: a manual of basic methods . FAO/Wiley Series on Food and Agriculture. Vol. 1, 223 p. Harper, D.E., Bohnsack, J.A., and B.R. Lockwood. 2000. Recreational fisheries in Biscayne National Park, Florida, 1976-1991. Marine Fisheries Review 62(1):8-26.

# 85 Hudson, E., and G. Mace. 1996. Marine fish and the IU CN Red List of Threatened animals. Report of the workshop held in collaboration with Wo rld Wildlife Fund (WWF) and IUCN at the Zoological Society of London, April-May 1996. WWF and IUCN, London. Huntsman, G.R. 1994. Endangered marine finfish: negl ected resources or beasts of fiction? Fisheries 19(7);8-15. Knight, G.R. 2000. Tracking list of rare, threaten ed, and endangered plants, animals and natural communities of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, FL. 80 p. Lindeman, K.C., Pugliese, R., Waugh, G.T. and J.S. Ault. 2000. Developmental pathways within a multispecies reef fishery: management applications for essential habitats and marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):929-956. Mace, P. 1997. Developing and sustai ning world fishery resources: state of science and management. Pages 1-20 in Developing and Sustaining World Fi sheries Resources: The State of Science and Management , D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant, a nd J.P. Beumer (eds.). Proc. Second World Fishery Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 797 p. Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., and D.L. Thomas . 1993. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies . Chapman & Hall. London. 177 p. Meester, G.A., J.S. Ault, and J.A. Bohnsack. 1999. Visual censussing and the extraction of average length as a biological indicator of stock healt h. Naturalista sicil. Vol. XXIII (Suppl.): 205-222. Meester, G.A. 2000. A mathematical programming and simulation-based approach to determining critical factors in the design of effective marine reserve plans for coral reef fishes. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Miami. 251 p. Munro, J.L. and D.M. Williams. 1985. Assessment and mana gement of coral reef fisheries: Biological, environmental, and socio-economic aspects. Proc. Fifth Intern. Coral Reef Congress. Tahiti. 4:544-578. Musick, J.A. 1998. Endangered marine fishes: criteria and identification of North American stocks at risk. Fisheries 23 (2):28-30). Musick, J.A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes. Fisheries 24(12):6-14. Musick, J.A., M.M. Harbin, S.A. Berkeley, G.H. Bu rgess, A.M. Eklund, L. Findley, R.G. Gilmore, J.T. Golden, D.S. Ha, G.R. Huntsman, J.C. McGovern, S.J. Parker, S.G. Poss, E. Sala, T.W. Schmidt, G.R. Sedberry, H.Weeks, and S.G. Wri ght. Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North Ameri ca (exclusive of Pacific Salmonids. Fisheries 25(11);6-30. NMFS. 1999. Control parameters and alternatives fo r control rules for selected stocks under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. NMFS Technical Memorandum. 44 p. NOAA. 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act amended through 11 October 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-23. NPS. 2000. Dry Tortugas National Park: Draft General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement . Denver Service Center. 272 p. Quinn, T.J., and R. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics . Oxford Univ. Press. 542 p. Restrepo, V.R., and J.E. Powers. 1999. Precautionary control rules in U.S. fisheries management: specifications and performance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:846-852. Ricker, W.E. 1963. Big effects from small causes: tw o examples from fish population dynamics. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 20:257-264.

# 86 Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretati on of biological statistics of fish populations . Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191, 382 p. Rosenberg, A (Convener), P. Mace, G. Thompson, G. Darcy, W. Clark, J. Collie, W. Gabriel, P. Goodyear, A. MacCall, R. Methot, J. Powers, V. Restrepo, T. Wainwright, L. Botsford, J. Hoenig, K. Stokes. 1996. Scientific review of definitions of overfishing in U.S. fishery management plans. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-17, 205 p. Rothschild, B.J., Ault, J.S., Goulletquer, P., and He 

# Ë al, M. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111(2&3):29-39. Rothschild, B.J., Ault, J.S., and Smith, S.G. 1996. A systems science approach to fisheries stock assessment and management. Pages 473-492 in Stock Assessment: Quantitative Methods and Applications for Small Scale Fisheries , Gallucci, V.F., Saila, S., Gustafson, D., and B.J. Rothschild (eds.). Lewis Publishers (Division of CRC Press). Chelsea, Michigan, 527 p. Rubec, P.J., Bexley, J.C.W., Coyne, M.S., Monaco, M., Smith, S.G., and Ault, J.S. 1999. Sustainability modeling to delineate habitat esse ntial to sustainable fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:108-133. Russ, G.R., and A.C. Alcala. 1989. Effects of intense fishing pressure on an assemblage of coral reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 56:13-27. Schmidt, T.W., Ault, J.S., and J.A. Bohnsack. 1999. Site characterization for the Dry Tortugas region: fisheries and essential habitats. Report to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and National Park Service. 113 p. plus appendices. Serafy, J.E., Lindeman, K.C., Hopkins, T.E., and Ault, J.S. 1997. Effects of freshwater canal discharge on fish assemblages in a subtropical bay: fi eld and laboratory observations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 160:161-171. Smith-Vaniz, W.F., J.A. Bohnsack and J.D. Williams. 1995. Reef Fishes of th e Florida Keys. Pages 279-284 in Our Living Resources. U.S. Depart ment of the Interior - National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. The pr inciples of practice of statistics in biological research . 2 nd 

# Ed. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, CA. Voss, G.L., F.M. Bayer, C.R. Robins, M.Gomon and E.T. LaRoe. 1969. The marine ecology of the Biscayne National Monument. Rept. to the NPS from the IMS, Univ. Miami, Miami, FL. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources . MacMillan Publishing Co. New York. 374 p. Wang, J.D., Cofer-Shabica S.V., and J. Chin Fatt. 1988. Finite element characteristic advection model. J. Hyd. Eng., 114(9):1098-1114. Wang, J.D., Luo, J., and J.S. Ault. 2001. Flows, salin ity, and biological transport in south Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science (in review)

# 87 

# List of Appendices

Appendix A.- Biscayne National Park regional databases used in the site characterization.

Appendix B.- Species list comprised of 325 species for Bi scayne National Park, ordered by family and Latin name. The number of each species within th e three surveys (reef fish visual surveys (RVC), CREEL survey, and TRAWL surveys) used to compute average length estimates is given under the appropriate column, a number greater than 0 indicates that the species is present in the survey. A 1* indicates that the species was present in the surve y, but no lengths were available. Highlighted rows indicate species for which further fisheries assessment is conducted.

Appendix C.- Indicators of stock status for BNP explo ited fisheries resources (about 90 species) for the period 1976 to 1999 as determined by the BNP Cr eel survey and the RVC survey databases: n is the number of survey samples; legal is computed using the minimum size of first capture regulated by fishery management. SE is the standard error of the mean estimate of ; Actual is computed from the minimum size of first capture dete rmined from Creel survey catches; CPUE is catch (number of fish) per person-hours fishing. CPUE for the RVC survey is: IM computed between the integral limits of L

r 

#  L

m 

# ; MAT is between L

m 

#  L

 

# ; and, Legal is L

c 

#  L

 

# .

Appendix D(1).- SAS programs used for processing reef fish visual census (RVC) data and estimating average length in the exploited phase and catch per unit effort.

Appendix D(2).- SAS programs used for processing recreational creel survey (CREEL) data and estimating average length in the exploited phase and catch per unit effort.

Appendix E.- LBAR FORTRAN computer programs, users guide, and data input files.

Appendix F.- REEFS FORTRAN computer programs, users guide, and data input files.

# 88 

# Appendix A Biscayne National Park Region Databases

(A) Benthic Habitat Databases

[1] NOAA/NOS Hydrographic Surveys

Source : NOAA Silver Spring, MD; NOS, Boulder, Colorado. Description : Depth soundings, NOS Hydrographic Survey Data Vol. 1, Ver. 4; Spatial Coverage : Depth soundings, Florida coast. Variables : Latitude, Longitude, Depth

[2] FMRI Florida Keys Benthic Habitats Survey

Source : Chris Friel and Frank Sargeant, FMRI St. Petersburg Description : Benthic habitat characterization interpreted from aerial photographic

surveys. Spatial Coverage : Entire Florida Keys region, including Biscayne National Park. Overview : GIS layers of bottom substrate classifications, generally limited to depths shallower than 30 feet. Variables : Multiple categories of coral reef, seagrass, hardbottom, and sand/rock benthic substrates; land and shoreline coverages.

(B) Water Quality Databases

[3] SFWMD Water Quality Sampling

Source : South Florida Water Quality Management District, DBHYDRO Database Description : Point samples of surface, mid-water and bottom water quality parameters. Time Frame : 1995-1998 Spatial Coverage : 54 sampling stations within southern Biscayne Bay. Variables : Station ID, Date, Latitude, Longitude, Depth, Temperature, Salinity, Nutrients.

[4] RSMAS / Wang Biscayne Bay Hydrodynamic Model

Source : John Wang, RSMAS Description : 2D finite element numerical model of water currents and salinity. Time Frame : 1995-1998 Spatial Coverage : South Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, Barnes Sound. Input Data : Information on winds, tides, water currents, canal discharges, salinities, rainfall, evaporation, overland water flow, groundwater flow. Model Outputs : Water current vectors and salinity, horizontal spatial grid resolution 150- 1000 m.

# 89 (C) Animals—Fishery Independent Databases

[5] NMFS / Bohnsack Reef Fishes Visual Census

Source : James Bohnsack, SEFSC, and Jerald Ault, RSMAS Description : Fishery-independent diver survey of reef fish population abundance and size structure using the Bohnsack and Bannerot (1986) stationary visual census technique. Time Frame : 1983-1992, 1995-1999 Spatial Coverage : 17 reef locations in the Biscayne National Park region. Sampling Overview : 863 total diver samples; 182 species; 47 families. Variables : Sample ID, Date, Reef ID, Latitude, Longitude, Depth, Bottom type, Reef habitat, Species, Abundance (number observed), Length (cm).

[6] RSMAS/ Ault Roller Frame Trawl Survey

Source : Jerald Ault, RSMAS Description : Stratified random fishery-independent roller frame trawl survey of macroinvertebrate and fish population abundance and size structure (Ault et al. 1999). Time Frame : 1996-1997, 1999-2000 Spatial Coverage : 983 station locations in southern Biscayne Bay. Sampling Overview : 983 total trawl samples; 155 species; 49 families. Variables : Sample ID, Date, Latitude, Longitude, Tow area, Depth, Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Habitat Type, Species, Catch, Length (mm).

(D) Animals—Fishery Dependent Databases

[7] BNP Recreational Creel Census

Source : Doug Harper, NOAA Fisheries SEFSC; Brian Lockwood, NPS BNP Description : Fishery-dependent dockside sampling survey conducted by BNP personnel of recreational fishing effort, species landings and size composition. Time Frame : 1976-1998 Spatial Coverage : BNP and surrounding area. Sampling Overview : 29,940 total interviews; 143 species; 45 families. Variables : Record ID, Date, Area, Gear, Effort, Species, Number landed, Length, Number released.

[8] NMFS Recreational Headboat Landings

Source : NMFS, Beaufort Description : Fishery-dependent sampling survey conducted by NMFS personnel of the species and size composition of the recreational headboat catch.

# 90 Time Frame : 1981-1995 Spatial Coverage : Florida Keys, including BNP region. Sampling Overview : 853 total trip samples; 275 species categories. Variables : Trip ID, Date, Area, Number of Anglers, Species, Catch in Numbers, Catch in Weight, Sex, Length, Weight.

[9] NMFS General Canvas Commercial Landings

Source : Pamela Eyo, NOAA SEFSC Description : Commercial sector landings data collected by NMFS Port Agents and the State of Florida trip-ticket system for harvested species. Time Frame : 1986-1999 Spatial Coverage : Water body code #944.2, encompassing Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound. Overview : 57 species categories. Variables : Year, Species, Total Catch (lbs.), Dockside Value (1997-99 only).

# 91 Appendix B. - Species list comprised of 325 species for Biscayne National Park, ordered by family and Latin name. The number of each species within the three surveys (reef fish visual surveys (RVC), CREEL survey, and TRAWL surveys) used to compute average length estimates is given under the appropriate column, a number greater than 0 indicates that the species is present i n the survey. A 1* indicates that the species was present in the survey, but no lengths were available. Highlighted rows indica te species for which further fisheries assessment is conducted. Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Acanthuridae A canthurus bahianus ocean surgeon 5897 2 1 Acanthuridae A canthurus chirurgus doctorfish 1553 34 20 Acanthuridae A canthurus coeruleus blue tang 4595 2 0 Albulidae A lbula vulpes bonefish 0 7 0 Antennariidae Histrio histrio sargassumfish 0 0 1 Apogonidae A pogon planifrons pale cardinalfish 0 0 1 Apogonidae A strapogon alutus bronze cardinalfish 0 0 1637 Apogonidae A strapogon puncticulatus blackfin cardinalfish 0 0 220 Apogonidae A strapogon stellatus conchfish 0 0 2 Apogonidae Phaeoptyx pigmentaria dusky cardinalfish 0 0 1 Atherinidae A therinomorus stipes hardhead silverside 0 0 8 Atherinidae Hypoatherina harringtonensis reef silverside 17500 0 0 Atherinidae Membras martinica rough silverside 0 0 11 Aulostomidae A ulostomus maculatus trumpetfish 285 0 0 Balistidae A luterus monocerus unicorn filefish 0 0 1 Balistidae A luterus schoepfi orange filefish 14 2 0 Balistidae A luterus scriptus scrawled filefish 114 11 18 Balistidae Balistes capriscus gray triggerfish 24 208 2 Balistidae Balistes vetula queen triggerfish 40 73 0 Balistidae Cantherhines macrocerus whitespotted filefish 15 0 0 Balistidae Cantherhines pullus orangespotted filefish 37 0 0 Balistidae Cantherhines sufflamen ocean triggerfish 25 321 2 Balistidae Melicthys niger black durgon 2 0 0 Balistidae Monacanthus ciliatus fringed filefish 0 0 2665 Balistidae Monacanthus hispidus planehead filefish 15 0 739 Balistidae Monacanthus tuckeri slender filefish 6 0 12 Batrachoididae Opsanus beta gulf toadfish 0 0 4480 Belonidae Tylosurus acus agujon (needlefish) 0 0 1 Belonidae Tylosurus crocodilus houndfish 0 42 0 Blenniidae Hypsobennius ionthas freckled blenny 0 0 1 Blenniidae Ophioblennius atlanticus redlip blenny 5 0 0 Blenniidae Scartella cristata molly miller 1 0 1 Bothidae Bothus lunatus peacock flounder 1 0 46 Bothidae Bothus ocellatus eyed flounder 2 0 47 Bothidae Bothus robins i twospot flounder 0 0 8 Bothidae Citharichthys arenaceus sand whiff 0 0 2 Bothidae Citharichthys macrops spotted whiff 0 0 20 Bothidae Citharichthys spilopterus bay whiff 0 0 1 Bothidae Paralichthys albigutta gulf flounder 0 1 4 Bythitidae Ogilbia cayorum key brotula 0 0 1 Bythitidae Petrotyx sanguineus redfin brotula 0 0 1 Callionymidae Diplogrammus pauciradiatus spotted dragonet 0 0 44 Carangidae A lectis ciliaris african pompano 0 24 0 Carangidae Caranx bartholomaei yellow jack 478 524 0 Carangidae Caranx crysos blue runner 474 1954 2 Carangidae Caranx hippos crevalle jack 0 80 0 Carangidae Caranx latus horse-eye jack 0 19 0 Carangidae Caranx ruber bar jack 3637 97 0 Carangidae Decapterus macarellus mackerel scad 1 32 0 Carangidae Elagatis bipinnulata rainbow runner 0 15 0 Carangidae Oligoplites saurus leatherjack 0 24 0 Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus bigeye scad 0 15 0 Carangidae Selene vomer lookdown 0 44 0 Carangidae Seriola dumeril i greater amberjack 2 107 0 Carangidae Seriola fasciata lesser amberjack 0 4 0 Carangidae Seriola rivoliana almaco jack 0 10 0 Carangidae Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano 0 2 0 Carangidae Trachinotus falcatus permit 2 24 0

# 92 Appendix B.- (Continued)

Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Carapidae Carapus bermudensis pearfish 0 0 1 Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus brevipinna spinner shark 0 1 0 Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus falciformis silky shark 0 1 0 Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark 0 7 0 Carcharhinidae Negaprion brevirostris lemon shark 0 3 0 Centropomidae Centropomus ensiferus swordspine snook 0 1 0 Centropomidae Centropomus undecimalis common snook 0 1* 0 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon capistratus foureye butterflyfish 809 0 3 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon ocellatus spotfin butterflyfish 495 0 0 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon sedentarius reef butterflyfish 353 0 0 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon striatus banded butterflyfish 154 0 0 Cirrhitidae A mblycirrhitus pinos redspotted hawkfish 4 0 0 Clinidae Malacoctenus macropus rosy blenny 1 0 0 Clinidae Malacoctenus triangulatus saddled blenny 1 0 0 Clinidae Paraclinus marmoratus marbled blenny 0 0 44 Clupeidae Harengula jaguana scaled sardine 10600 0 0 Clupeidae Jenkinsia majua little-eye herring 0 0 2 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena equisetis pompano dolphin 0 2 0 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus dolphin 0 6993 0 Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon variegatus sheepshead minnow 0 0 2 Cyprinodontidae Floridichthys carpio goldspotted killifish 0 0 3 Cyprinodontidae Lucania parva rainwater killifish 0 0 61 Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana southern stingray 11 0 0 Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates sharksucker 13 1 0 Echeneidae Remora remora remora 0 5 0 Elopidae Elops saurus ladyfish 0 27 0 Elopidae Megalops atlanticus tarpon 0 1* 0 Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber atlantic spadefish 276 36 3 Exocoetidae Chriodorus atherinoides hardhead halfbeak 0 0 4 Exocoetidae Hemiramphus balao balao 0 0 1 Exocoetidae Hemiramphus bras iliensis ballyhoo 547 38 1 Exocoetidae Hyporhamphus unifasciatus silverstripe halfbeak 0 0 10 Fistularidae Fistularia petimba red cornetfish 0 0 2 Fistularidae Fistularia tabacaria bluespotted cornetfish 1 0 0 Gadidae Urophycis regia spotted hake 0 0 2 Gasterosteidae Pungitius pungitius ninespine stickleback 0 0 1 Gerreidae Eucinostomus argenteus spotfin mojarra 0 0 232 Gerreidae Eucinostomus gula silver jenny 0 0 3160 Gerreidae Eucinostomus jonesi slender mojarra 0 0 50 Gerreidae Gerres cinereus yellowfin mojarra 32 18 5 Gobiidae Bathigobius curacao notchtongue goby 0 0 1 Gobiidae Coryphopterus dicrus colon goby 32 0 2 Gobiidae Coryphopterus glaucofraenum bridled goby 1294 0 24 Gobiidae Coryphopterus personatus masked goby 653 0 0 Gobiidae Coryphopterus punctipectophorus spotted goby 0 0 12 Gobiidae Gnatholepis thompsoni goldspot goby 92 0 0 Gobiidae Gobionellus saepepallens dash goby 0 0 1 Gobiidae Gobionellus shufeldti freshwater goby 0 0 1 Gobiidae Gobionellus stigmalophius spotfin goby 0 0 32 Gobiidae Gobionellus stigmaturus spottail goby 0 0 5 Gobiidae Gobiosoma bosc naked goby 0 0 1 Gobiidae Gobiosoma evelynae sharknose goby 1 0 0 Gobiidae Gobiosoma oceanops neon goby 96 0 0 Gobiidae Gobiosoma randalli yellownose goby 0 1 0 Gobiidae Gobiosoma robustum code goby 0 0 1 Gobiidae Ioglossus calliurus blue goby 12 0 0 Gobiidae Ioglossus helenae hovering goby 1 0 0 Gobiidae Microgobius microlepis banner goby 0 0 87 Gobiidae Nes longus orangespotted goby 0 0 2 Haemulidae A nisotremus surinamensis black margate 75 207 0 Haemulidae A nisotremus virginicus porkfish 1113 200 9

# 93 Appendix B.- (Continued)

Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Haemulidae Haemulon album margate 19 269 0 Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum tomtate 26483 97 73 Haemulidae Haemulon carbonarium ceasar grunt 354 81 0 Haemulidae Haemulon chrysargyreum smallmouth grunt 2104 4 0 Haemulidae Haemulon flavolineatum french grunt 5975 113 76 Haemulidae Haemulon macrostomium spanish grunt 113 35 0 Haemulidae Haemulon melanurum cottonwick 106 0 0 Haemulidae Haemulon parra sailors choice 187 594 61 Haemulidae Haemulon plumieri white grunt 10179 14499 3855 Haemulidae Haemulon sciurus bluestriped grunt 3628 4569 2350 Haemulidae Haemulon striatum striped grunt 5 78 0 Haemulidae Orthopristis chrysoptera pigfish 0 33 57 Holocentridae Holocentrus adscensionis squirrelfish 53 57 0 Holocentridae Holocentrus rufus longspine squirrelfish 58 0 0 Holocentridae Holocentrus vexillarius dusky squirrelfish 8 0 0 Inermiidae Inermia vittata boga 180 0 0 Istiophoridae Istiophorus platypterus sailfish 0 38 0 Istiophoridae Makaira nigricans blue marlin 0 1 0 Istiophoridae Tetrapturus albidus white marlin 0 2 0 Kyphosidae Kyphosus incisor yellow chub 0 44 0 Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatri x bermuda chub 1472 176 0 Labridae Bodianus pulchellus spotfin hogfish 5 0 0 Labridae Bodianus rufus spanish hogfish 188 39 0 Labridae Clepticus parrae creole wrasse 1148 0 0 Labridae Halichoeres bivittatus slippery dick 3200 14 0 Labridae Halichoeres garnoti yellowhead wrasse 4382 0 0 Labridae Halichoeres maculipinna clown wrasse 3150 0 0 Labridae Halichoeres pictus rainbow wrasse 6 0 0 Labridae Halichoeres poeyi blackear wrasse 6 0 0 Labridae Halichoeres radiatus puddingwife 318 66 0 Labridae Hemipteronotus martinicensis rosy razorfish 226 0 0 Labridae Hemipteronotus novacula pearly razorfish 13 0 0 Labridae Hemipteronotus splendins green razorfish 28 0 0 Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus hogfish 333 6510 163 Labridae Thalassoma bifasciatum bluehead 41819 0 0 Lobotidae Lobotes surinamensis tripletail 0 50 0 Lutjanidae Etelis oculatus queen snapper 0 9 0 Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis mutton snapper 22 1966 65 Lutjanidae Lutjanus apodus schoolmaster 1940 597 8 Lutjanidae Lutjanus buccanella blackfin snapper 0 16 0 Lutjanidae Lutjanus campechanus red snapper 0 25 0 Lutjanidae Lutjanus cyanopterus cubera snapper 0 11 0 Lutjanidae Lutjanus griseus gray snapper 2314 10688 594 Lutjanidae Lutjanus joc u dog snapper 11 58 2 Lutjanidae Lutjanus mahogoni mahogony snapper 16 32 0 Lutjanidae Lutjanus synagris lane snapper 82 409 242 Lutjanidae Lutjanus vivanus silk snapper 0 7 0 Lutjanidae Ocyurus chrysurus yellowtail snapper 3861 5243 142 Lutjanidae Rhomboplites aurorubens vermilion snapper 0 23 0 Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri sand tilefish 46 77 0 Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus yellow goatfish 580 5 0 Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus spotted goatfish 435 4 0 Muraenidae Gymnothorax funebris green moray 5 1 0 Muraenidae Gymnothorax miliaris goldentail moray 2 0 0 Muraenidae Gymnothorax moringa spotted moray 8 0 2 Muraenidae Gymnothorax nigromarginatus blackedge moray 0 0 10 Muraenidae Gymnothorax saxicola honeycomb moray 1 0 7 Muraenidae Gymnothorax vicinus purplemouth moray 1 0 0 Myliobatidae A etobatus narinari spotted eagle ray 1 0 0 Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus corniger longnose batfish 0 0 2 Opistognathidae Opistognathus aurifrons yellowhead jawfish 26 0 0

# 94 Appendix B.- (Continued)

Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Ostraciidae Lactophrys bicaudalis spotted trunkfish 13 0 4 Ostraciidae Lactophrys polygonia honeycomb cowfish 3 0 5 Ostraciidae Lactophrys quadricornis scrawled cowfish 15 0 784 Ostraciidae Lactophrys trigonus trunkfish 6 8 85 Ostraciidae Lactophrys triqueter smooth trunkfish 132 10 0 Palinuridae Panulirus argus Caribbean spiny lobster 1* 16764 1* Palinuridae Panulirus guttatus spotted spiny lobster 0 28 0 Pempheridae Pempheris schomburgki glassy sweeper 686 0 0 Penaeidae Penaeus duorarum pink shrimp 0 0 103896 Pomacanthidae Centropyge arg i cherubfish 1 0 0 Pomacanthidae Holacanthus bermudensis blue angelfish 172 0 0 Pomacanthidae Holacanthus ciliaris queen angelfish 174 2 0 Pomacanthidae Holacanthus tricolor rock beauty 697 0 0 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus arcuatus gray angelfish 899 2 11 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus par u french angelfish 194 0 0 Pomacentridae A budefduf saxat ilis sergeant major 7819 0 0 Pomacentridae Chromis cyanea blue chromis 1844 0 0 Pomacentridae Chromis insolata sunshinefish 6 0 0 Pomacentridae Chromis multilineata brown chromis 797 0 0 Pomacentridae Chromis scott i purple reeffish 18 0 0 Pomacentridae Microspathodon chrysurus yellowtail damselfish 1057 0 0 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus diencaeus longfin damselfish 89 0 0 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus fuscus dusky damselfish 720 0 0 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus leucostictus beaugregory 296 0 1 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus partitus bicolor damselfish 30183 0 1 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus planifrons threespot damselfish 1702 0 1 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus variabilis cocoa damselfish 700 0 1 Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltatri x bluefish 0 72 0 Portunidae Callinectes sapidus blue crab 0 4 0 Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus bigeye 4 84 0 Prosobranchia Strombus gigas queen conch 0 1* 0 Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum cobia 0 12 0 Rhincodontidae Ginglymostoma cirratum nurse shark 8 15 0 Scaridae Cryptotomus roseus bluelip parrotfish 145 0 8 Scaridae Nicholsina usta emerald parrotfish 0 0 593 Scaridae Scarus coelestinus midnight parrotfish 108 0 3 Scaridae Scarus coeruleus blue parrotfish 214 13 0 Scaridae Scarus croicensis striped parrotfish 8476 0 24 Scaridae Scarus guacamaia rainbow parrotfish 148 0 3 Scaridae Scarus taeniopterus princess parrotfish 3329 0 3 Scaridae Scarus vetula queen parrotfish 414 0 0 Scaridae Sparisoma atomarium greenblotch parrotfish 223 0 12 Scaridae Sparisoma aurofrenatum redband parrotfish 8321 0 1 Scaridae Sparisoma chrysopterum redtail parrotfish 317 0 629 Scaridae Sparisoma radians bucktooth parrotfish 31 0 128 Scaridae Sparisoma rubripinne redfin parrotfish 396 0 20 Scaridae Sparisoma viride stoplight parrotfish 3361 0 6 Sciaenidae Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch 0 0 2 Sciaenidae Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout 0 565 34 Sciaenidae Equetus acuminatus high-hat 55 0 26 Sciaenidae Equetus lanceolatus jackknife-fish 0 0 4 Sciaenidae Equetus punctatus spotted drum 13 0 0 Sciaenidae Equetus umbrosus cubbyu 3 0 0 Sciaenidae Odontoscion dente x reef croaker 18 0 0 Scombridae A canthocybium solandri wahoo 0 111 0 Scombridae A uxis rochei bullet mackerel 0 2 0 Scombridae Euthynnus alletteratus little tunny 0 140 0 Scombridae Katsuwonus pelamis skipjack tuna 0 41 0 Scombridae Sarda sarda atlantic bonito 0 87 0 Scombridae Scomberomorus cavalla king mackerel 0 198 0 Scombridae Scomberomorus maculatus spanish mackerel 1 132 0

# 95 Appendix B.- (Continued)

Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Scombridae Scomberomorus regalis cero 60 586 0 Scombridae Thunnus albacares yellowfin tuna 0 1 0 Scombridae Thunnus atlanticus blackfin tuna 0 27 0 Scorpaenidae Neomerinthe hemingwayi spinycheek scorpionfish 0 0 1 Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasiliensis barbfish 0 0 296 Scorpaenidae Scorpaena dispar hunchback scorpionfish 0 0 1 Scorpaenidae Scorpaena grandicornus plumed scorpionfish 0 0 16 Scorpaenidae Scorpaena inermis mushroom scorpionfish 0 0 3 Scorpaenidae Scorpaena plumieri spotted scorpionfish 7 0 6 Scyllaridae Scyllarides aequinoctialis spanish (shovelnose) lobster 0 33 0 Serranidae Diplectrum bivittatum dward sand perch 0 0 12 Serranidae Diplectrum formosum sand perch 2 160 94 Serranidae Epinephelus adscensionis rock hind 7 84 0 Serranidae Epinephelus cruentatus graysby 567 522 0 Serranidae Epinephelus drummondhay i speckled hind 0 5 0 Serranidae Epinephelus flavolimbatus yellowedge grouper 0 12 0 Serranidae Epinephelus fulvus coney 13 28 0 Serranidae Epinephelus guttatus red hind 15 234 0 Serranidae Epinephelus inermis marbled grouper 0 1 0 Serranidae Epinephelus itajara Goliath grouper 0 4 0 Serranidae Epinephelus morio red grouper 42 2093 0 Serranidae Epinephelus striatus nassau grouper 10 739 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus chlorurus yellowtail hamlet 1 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus gemma blue hamlet 100 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus guttavarius shy hamlet 3 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus indigo indigo hamlet 11 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus nigricans black hamlet 15 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus puella barred hamlet 50 0 0 Serranidae Hypoplectrus unicolor butter hamlet 320 0 0 Serranidae Liopropoma eukrines wrasse bass 1 0 0 Serranidae Mycteroperca bonaci black grouper 22 618 1 Serranidae Mycteroperca interstitialis yellowmouth grouper 2 48 0 Serranidae Mycteroperca microlepis gag 1 327 0 Serranidae Mycteroperca phena x scamp 2 13 0 Serranidae Mycteroperca venenosa yellowfin grouper 1 26 0 Serranidae Paranthias furcifer creole-fish 0 2 0 Serranidae Rypticus saponaceus greater soapfish 4 3 0 Serranidae Serranus baldwini lantern bass 5 0 1 Serranidae Serranus tabacarius tobaccofish 123 0 0 Serranidae Serranus tigrinus harlequin bass 464 0 0 Soleidae A chirus lineatus lined sole 0 0 39 Soleidae Gymnachirus melas naked sole 0 0 1 Soleidae Symphurus diomedianus spottedfin tonguefish 0 0 1 Soleidae Symphurus plagiusa blackcheek tonguefish 0 0 21 Soleidae Symphurus urospilus spottail tonguefish 0 0 1 Soleidae Trinectes insciptus scrawled sole 0 0 2 Sparidae A rchosargus rhomboidalis sea bream 3 113 42 Sparidae Calamus arctifrons grass porgy 0 64 65 Sparidae Calamus bajonado jolthead porgy 37 1642 0 Sparidae Calamus calamus saucereye porgy 159 725 0 Sparidae Calamus nodosus knobbed porgy 0 18 0 Sparidae Calamus penna sheepshead porgy 0 9 3 Sparidae Calamus proridens littlehead porgy 5 66 2 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 0 346 8163 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda 418 1841 2 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena picud illa southern sennet 0 0 1* Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewin i scalloped hammerhead 2 0 0 Sphyrnidae Sphyrna mokarran great hammerhead 0 4 0 Sphyrnidae Sphyrna tiburo bonnethead shark 0 28 0 Stromateidae Psenes maculatus silver driftfish 0 0 5 Syngnathidae Cosmocampus albirostris whitenose pipefish 0 0 180

# 96 Appendix B.- (Continued)

Survey FAMILY LATIN COMMON RVC CREEL TRAWL Syngnathidae Hippocampus erectus lined seahorse 0 0 253 Syngnathidae Hippocampus reidi longsnout seahorse 0 0 37 Syngnathidae Hippocampus zosterae dwarf seahorse 0 0 12 Syngnathidae Syngnathus floridae dusky pipefish 0 0 145 Syngnathidae Syngnathus louisianae chain pipefish 0 0 3 Syngnathidae Syngnathus pelagicus sargassum pipefish 0 0 1 Syngnathidae Syngnathus scovelli gulf pipefish 0 0 27 Synodontidae Synodus foetens inshore lizardfish 1 0 69 Synodontidae Synodus intermedius sand diver 10 0 0 Synodontidae Trachinocephalus myops snakefish 0 0 1 Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrata sharpnose puffer 618 0 3 Tetraodontidae Chilomycterus antennatus bridled burrfish 1 0 1 Tetraodontidae Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 1 0 71 Tetraodontidae Diodon holocanthus balloonfish 31 0 6 Tetraodontidae Diodon hystri x porcupinefish 12 0 1 Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides maculatus northern puffer 0 0 7 Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides nephelus southern puffer 0 0 1 Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides spengleri bandtail puffer 12 0 325 Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides testudineus checkered puffer 0 0 2 Triglidae Prionotus scitulus leopard searobin 0 0 27 Uranoscopidae Dactyloscopus tridigitatus sand stargazer 0 0 2 Urolophidae Urolophus jamaicensis yellow stingray 69 0 4 Xanthidae Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab 0 2 0

# 97 Appendix C1.- 

### rock hind Epinephelus adscensioni s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.001 1979 1 300.0 0.0 0.004 NO RVC SURVEY CONDUCTED 1980 3 400.0 57.7 0.001 1981 5 342.0 42.1 0.002 1982 11 303.6 23.2 0.005 1983 12 330.8 31.4 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 10 312.0 24.1 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 5 394.0 44.5 0.001 FIXED- 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 SITE 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 3 346.7 14.5 0.001 DESIGN 0 0.003 0.000 0.000 1989 4 342.5 48.7 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 2 295.0 25.0 0.001 1 320.0 0.0 0.005 0.000 0.000 1991 5 276.0 44.5 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 11 260.0 15.4 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 3 350.0 26.5 0.001 . . . . 1994 2 325.0 25.0 0.001 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 KEYS-WIDE 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 1 310.0 0.0 0.001 HABITAT 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0.000 STRATIFICATION 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 4 242.5 19.3 0.001 DESIGN 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 1 210.0 0.0 0.064 0.000 0.050

Appendix C2.- 

### graysb y Epinephelus cruentatu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 5 242.0 11.1 0.002 1979 10 277.0 14.6 0.007 1980 19 252.6 8.3 0.009 1981 48 256.7 5.8 0.011 1982 8 242.5 10.8 0.007 1983 52 251.2 5.2 0.010 7.0 221.4 0.9 0.194 0.194 0.194 1984 6 253.3 16.3 0.002 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 35 260.6 6.1 0.006 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 15 268.0 6.3 0.005 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 26 248.5 5.0 0.005 6.0 251.7 1.5 0.351 0.162 0.162 1988 59 256.6 4.1 0.017 13.0 226.2 0.9 0.206 0.070 0.070 1989 20 264.0 6.0 0.008 45.8 226.7 0.4 0.284 0.161 0.161 1990 50 248.6 4.5 0.019 32.0 227.2 0.8 0.376 0.133 0.133 1991 9 255.6 9.6 0.002 9.0 210.0 0.5 0.507 0.108 0.108 1992 7 267.1 14.1 0.002 6.0 231.7 2.8 0.387 0.062 0.062 1993 19 250.0 8.3 0.010 . . . . 1994 24 248.3 4.7 0.010 . . . . 1995 9 242.2 12.3 0.008 5.0 216.0 1.1 0.245 0.042 0.042 1996 15 250.0 7.7 0.012 4.0 250.0 3.5 0.208 0.056 0.056 1997 50 236.8 3.9 0.023 4.0 211.3 1.1 0.321 0.056 0.056 1998 6 236.7 9.2 0.002 3.5 248.6 2.9 0.140 0.053 0.053 1999 0.5 250.0 0.0 0.356 0.017 0.017

# 98 Appendix C3.- 

### speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhay i

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 0 0.000 1983 0 0.000 1984 0 0.000 1985 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 1986 1 550.0 0.0 0.000 1987 0 0.000 1988 1 410.0 0.0 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1990 0 0.000 1991 0 0.000 1992 0 0.000 1993 0 0.000 1994 0 0.000 1995 0 0.000 1996 1 500.0 0.0 0.002 1997 0 0.000 1998 1 290.0 0.0 0.001 1999

Appendix C4.- 

### yellowedge grouper Epinephelus flavolimbatus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 3 256.7 6.7 0.000 1983 7 497.1 23.8 0.003 1984 0 0.000 1985 0 0.000 1986 0 0.000 1987 0 0.000 1988 0 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1990 0 0.000 1991 0 0.000 1992 1 240.0 0.0 0.000 1993 1 630.0 0.0 0.000 1994 0 0.000 1995 0 0.000 1996 0 0.000 1997 0 0.000 1998 0 0.000 1999

# 99 Appendix C5.- 

### cone y Epinephelus fulvu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 1 250.0 0.0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 3 253.3 14.5 0.001 1983 1 220.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 4 312.5 34.2 0.001 2 250.0 2.0 0.000 0.081 0.054 1988 3 246.7 3.3 0.001 0 0.003 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1 350.0 0.0 0.000 0.004 0.004 1990 0 0.000 0 0.009 0.000 0.000 1991 0 0.000 0 0.040 0.000 0.000 1992 8 250.0 9.6 0.002 2 250.0 0.0 0.000 0.018 0.018 1993 2 255.0 15.0 0.001 . . . . 1994 1 280.0 0.0 0.000 . . . . 1995 1 300.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.005 0.000 1996 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 1 270.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 1 280.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C6.- 

### red hind Epinephelus guttatu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 2 280.0 10.0 0.004 1979 6 358.3 26.4 0.012 1980 21 309.5 10.1 0.009 1981 28 328.6 11.8 0.006 1982 25 308.8 14.4 0.015 1983 13 313.8 21.8 0.003 1 200.0 0.0 0.028 0.000 0.028 1984 6 345.0 27.7 0.004 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 43 224.0 11.2 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 9 280.0 16.2 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 11 302.7 13.1 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 20 302.0 8.7 0.009 0 0.007 0.000 0.000 1989 2 360.0 70.0 0.000 2 260.0 6.0 0.004 0.002 0.006 1990 3 320.0 17.3 0.001 2 250.0 0.0 0.010 0.000 0.010 1991 7 264.3 15.1 0.008 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 9 273.3 12.7 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 3 310.0 11.5 0.001 . . . . 1994 4 295.0 32.8 0.001 . . . . 1995 5 290.0 9.5 0.005 2 290.0 1.0 0.031 0.005 0.005 1996 5 302.0 17.7 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 2 300.0 20.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 10 347.0 21.8 0.002 1 200.0 0.0 0.008 0.000 0.008 1999 1 340.0 0.0 0.014 0.029 0.029

# 100 Appendix C7.- 

### marbled grouper Epinephelus inermis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 1977 0 1978 0 1979 0 1980 0 1981 0 1982 0 1983 1 440.0 0.0 1984 0 1985 0 1986 0 1987 0 1988 0 1989 0 1990 0 1991 0 1992 0 1993 0 1994 0 1995 0 1996 0 1997 0 1998 0 1999

Appendix C8.- 

### Goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 0 0 0.001 1980 0 0 0.000 1981 3 1170.0 225.0 3 1170.0 225.0 0.001 1982 0 0 0.000 1983 1 1010.0 0.0 1 1010.0 0.0 0.001 1984 0 0 0.000 1985 0 0 0.000 1986 0 0 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 1988 0 0 0.000 1989 0 0 0.000 1990 0 0 0.000 1991 0 0 0.005 1992 0 0 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 1994 0 0 0.000 1995 0 0 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 1999

# 101 Appendix C9.- 

### red grouper Epinephelus morio

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 307 347.6 6.1 307 347.6 6.1 0.004 1977 91 402.1 13.0 91 402.1 13.0 0.000 1978 115 431.1 8.5 115 431.1 8.5 0.009 1979 87 446.3 11.8 87 446.3 11.8 0.043 1980 133 434.6 9.2 133 434.6 9.2 0.025 1981 227 426.5 6.0 227 426.5 6.0 0.034 1982 80 413.8 12.9 80 413.8 12.9 0.019 1983 232 382.2 6.0 232 382.2 6.0 0.043 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 66 382.7 9.5 66 382.7 9.5 0.031 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 42 511.0 6.8 188 388.0 5.7 0.036 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 25 528.8 15.5 48 450.2 15.1 0.013 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 29 498.6 6.6 69 422.3 9.3 0.024 0 0 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 32 503.8 8.0 70 437.4 9.1 0.016 0 0 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 22 525.9 11.6 63 428.6 10.8 0.016 0 2 350.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 12 556.7 10.8 24 515.0 10.5 0.006 1 700.0 0.0 3 533.3 8.3 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 1991 10 559.0 9.9 13 543.1 11.5 0.006 0 0 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 30 592.3 14.4 36 576.1 13.4 0.012 0 1 450.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 14 555.7 9.1 32 513.1 8.2 0.020 . . . . . . 1994 31 563.9 8.0 39 547.9 8.2 0.011 . . . . . . 1995 9 544.4 12.8 13 525.4 12.1 0.008 0 0 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 10 562.0 8.7 12 551.7 10.0 0.017 0 1 450.0 0.0 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.015 1997 13 530.0 7.3 23 508.7 7.0 0.009 0 0 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 23 539.1 7.3 29 529.7 6.8 0.009 0 0 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 1 460.0 0.0 0.048 0.050 0.000 0.050



### Appendix C13.- 

## nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Y ear n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 99 439.7 13.2 99 439.7 13.2 0.001 1977 67 462.1 23.7 67 462.1 23.7 0.000 1978 98 444.6 8.8 98 444.6 8.8 0.001 1979 64 450.2 11.4 64 450.2 11.4 0.014 1980 91 427.0 8.9 91 427.0 8.9 0.012 1981 120 468.4 6.3 120 468.4 6.3 0.004 1982 26 450.8 22.5 26 450.8 22.5 0.007 1983 26 418.8 18.8 26 418.8 18.8 0 .002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 5 398.0 10.2 5 398.0 10.2 0. 002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 10 546.0 20.8 34 415.0 16.7 0 .005 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 7 601.4 9.6 14 489.3 32.2 0. 002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 7 555.7 54.1 11 491.8 43.4 0. 001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 7 512.9 16.0 14 446.4 22.3 0. 002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 9 528.9 15.1 12 496.7 20.6 0.002 1 460 .0 0.0 1 460.0 0.0 0. 002 0.000 0.002 0.002 1990 7 565.7 16.3 7 565.7 16.3 0.000 1 600.0 0.0 1 600.0 0.0 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 1991 1 650.0 0.0 1 650.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 2 515.0 5.0 2 515.0 5.0 0.000 1 600.0 0.0 1 600.0 0.0 0.018 0.009 0.009 0.009 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1994 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 1 640.0 0.0 1 640.0 0 .0 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.008 1998 2 590.0 20.0 2 590.0 20.0 0. 001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 102 Appendix C14.- 

### black groupe r Mycteroperca bonaci

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1 370.0 0.0 1 370.0 0.0 0.000 1977 11 603.6 51.5 11 603.6 51.5 0.000 1978 25 612.0 39.7 25 612.0 39.7 0.002 1979 59 555.9 19.7 59 555.9 19.7 0.007 1980 72 536.8 16.3 72 536.8 16.3 0.006 1981 93 585.2 17.6 93 585.2 17.6 0.005 1982 34 497.6 26.6 34 497.6 26.6 0.007 1983 46 541.5 27.3 46 541.5 27.3 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 29 602.1 35.2 29 602.1 35.2 0.005 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 20 584.5 23.4 53 450.8 17.5 0.006 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 10 587.0 20.3 14 532.1 28.9 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 11 613.6 39.0 18 517.2 38.0 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 9 571.1 50.3 15 501.3 38.5 0.001 0 4 380.0 27.0 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.018 1989 16 607.5 31.7 21 556.7 31.8 0.004 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 12 650.0 33.6 13 638.5 33.0 0.001 1 650.0 0.0 1 650.0 0.0 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 1991 4 702.5 79.2 5 662.0 73.5 0.000 0 0 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 7 688.6 27.9 7 688.6 27.9 0.000 1 650.0 0.0 1 650.0 0.0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 1993 7 624.3 32.4 7 624.3 32.4 0.001 . . . . . . 1994 11 677.3 20.8 11 677.3 20.8 0.002 . . . . . . 1995 7 708.6 27.9 7 708.6 27.9 0.005 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 10 706.0 20.7 11 687.3 26.5 0.003 0 0 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 12 610.8 15.2 13 602.3 16.4 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 9 663.3 24.2 9 663.3 24.2 0.006 0 0 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C15.- 

### yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca interstitialis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 1 530.0 0.0 1 530.0 0.0 0.000 1979 1 520.0 0.0 1 520.0 0.0 0.000 1980 5 406.0 24.8 5 406.0 24.8 0.001 1981 26 545.4 29.5 26 545.4 29.5 0.003 1982 1 780.0 0.0 1 780.0 0.0 0.000 1983 1 730.0 0.0 1 730.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 8 582.5 35.7 8 582.5 35.7 0 .000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.008 0.000 0.000 1991 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1994 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 103 Appendix C16.- 

### gag Mycteroperca microlepis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 5 486.0 110.7 5 486.0 110.7 0.000 1977 9 454.4 45.1 9 454.4 45.1 0.000 1978 37 566.8 25.8 37 566.8 25.8 0.002 1979 14 440.7 16.1 14 440.7 16.1 0.005 1980 34 442.4 13.8 34 442.4 13.8 0.002 1981 27 532.2 30.9 27 532.2 30.9 0.002 1982 34 375.0 14.4 34 375.0 14.4 0.008 1983 46 468.3 20.8 46 468.3 20.8 0.004 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 13 443.8 39.6 13 443.8 39.6 0.004 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 7 644.3 61.7 14 508.6 48.6 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 4 685.0 33.0 6 580.0 71.9 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 8 511.3 24.2 19 428.4 20.1 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 15 560.0 22.1 15 560.0 22.1 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 1 630.0 0.0 3 423.3 103.5 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 2 720.0 170.0 3 633.3 130.9 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1991 11 603.6 15.4 11 603.6 15.4 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 1 530.0 0.0 3 510.0 10.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 6 710.0 37.8 6 710.0 37.8 0.001 . . . . . . 1994 5 574.0 30.9 8 541.3 24.6 0.005 . . . . . . 1995 2 585.0 45.0 5 528.0 27.5 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 3 633.3 37.6 3 633.3 37.6 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 1 570.0 0.0 1 570.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C17.- 

### scamp Mycteroperca phena x

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 2 320.0 20.0 2 320.0 20.0 0.000 1980 3 346.7 6.7 3 346.7 6.7 0.000 1981 4 587.5 47.5 4 587.5 47.5 0.000 1982 0 0 0.000 1983 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 1 350.0 0.0 1 350.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1991 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1994 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 1 580.0 0.0 1 580.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.050 0.000 0.000

# 104 Appendix C18.- 

### yellowfin grouper Mycteroperca venenosa

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 5 564.0 52.8 5 564.0 52.8 0.006 1979 1 450.0 0.0 1 450.0 0.0 0.009 1980 10 401.0 11.1 10 401.0 11.1 0.002 1981 1 590.0 0.0 1 590.0 0.0 0.000 1982 8 640.0 45.5 8 640.0 45.5 0.012 1983 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 0 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1991 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1994 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C19.- 

### mutton snapper Lutjanus anali s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 134 409.6 13.7 134 409.6 13.7 0.000 1977 62 351.5 20.8 62 351.5 20.8 0.000 1978 70 445.3 18.8 70 445.3 18.8 0.004 1979 62 399.8 14.3 62 399.8 14.3 0.021 1980 138 477.8 11.9 138 477.8 11.9 0.022 1981 149 463.9 12.2 149 463.9 12.2 0.019 1982 64 402.5 17.0 64 402.5 17.0 0.015 1983 161 392.4 11.9 161 392.4 11.9 0.016 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 0.028 0.028 0.028 1984 64 396.9 15.4 64 396.9 15.4 0.017 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 55 408.9 14.3 67 381.0 13.8 0.006 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 51 413.5 14.5 69 371.2 13.8 0.012 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 82 424.1 12.8 198 325.1 8.0 0.029 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 62 397.4 14.2 80 367.3 12.7 0.018 4 382.5 69.3 5 364.0 56.8 0.000 0.048 0.044 0.048 1989 65 389.7 13.2 76 368.9 12.7 0.020 2 355.0 25.0 2 355.0 25.0 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.007 1990 67 404.6 10.4 78 385.6 10.4 0.017 3 360.0 20.8 3 360.0 20.8 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.009 1991 56 419.3 12.4 63 400.8 12.9 0.023 3 433.3 33.3 3 433.3 33.3 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.040 1992 82 391.1 9.6 94 376.6 9.3 0.022 1 400.0 0.0 4 292.5 37.3 0.027 0.018 0.009 0.036 1993 78 413.2 11.6 95 385.2 11.4 0.028 . . . . . . 1994 36 501.7 14.7 99 385.1 10.8 0.023 . . . . . . 1995 15 476.7 16.6 29 408.6 16.8 0.017 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 13 526.9 29.6 26 436.9 23.7 0.007 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 6 523.3 52.8 14 409.3 37.0 0.007 1 400.0 0.0 1 400.0 0.0 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.013 1998 14 517.9 34.5 23 445.2 29.0 0.007 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 1 450.0 0.0 1 450.0 0.0 0.013 0.025 0.025 0.025

# 105 Appendix C20.- 

### schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 4 305.0 26.0 4 305.0 26.0 0.002 1979 11 286.4 18.4 11 286.4 18.4 0.003 1980 15 264.7 12.5 15 264.7 12.5 0.004 1981 51 262.5 6.5 51 262.5 6.5 0.005 1982 12 267.5 5.2 12 267.5 5.2 0.004 1983 55 306.9 10.8 55 306.9 10.8 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 4 272.5 23.9 4 272.5 23.9 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 10 249.0 9.9 10 249.0 9.9 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 27 270.4 9.4 27 270.4 9.4 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 37 264.9 10.5 37 264.9 10.5 0.008 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 30 267.7 5.6 30 267.7 5.6 0.005 177 244.8 3.0 177 244.8 3.0 0.021 1.072 0.887 0.887 1989 45 264.0 4.8 45 264.0 4.8 0.013 123 269.7 3.4 123 269.7 3.4 0.225 0.587 0.403 0.403 1990 26 303.8 10.2 30 295.3 9.7 0.005 277 283.4 2.3 285 282.4 2.3 0.211 3.037 1.176 1.225 1991 15 288.0 11.5 18 280.0 10.4 0.003 9 297.8 12.9 9 297.8 12.9 0.021 0.281 0.094 0.094 1992 38 284.7 5.5 42 280.5 5.4 0.008 9 280.4 11.4 10 276.3 11.0 0.280 0.918 0.086 0.086 1993 17 286.5 7.6 19 281.6 7.5 0.006 . . . . . . 1994 57 272.8 3.3 61 270.7 3.2 0.011 . . . . . . 1995 14 281.4 9.9 16 276.3 9.3 0.011 33 285.2 5.0 33 285.2 5.0 0.045 0.842 0.379 0.379 1996 9 271.1 9.2 13 261.5 7.5 0.004 110 305.2 3.1 110 305.2 3.1 0.154 1.972 1.521 1.521 1997 16 270.6 4.0 18 267.2 4.3 0.007 61 301.1 4.9 64 298.2 4.9 0.125 1.308 1.021 1.071 1998 24 290.4 3.8 24 290.4 3.8 0.002 1 280.0 0.0 1 280.0 0.0 0.265 0.409 0.008 0.008 1999 0 0 0.013 0.050 0.000 0.000

Appendix C21.- 

### blackfin snappe r Lutjanus buccanella

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 1977 0 0 1978 0 0 1979 0 0 1980 4 315.0 9.6 4 315.0 9.6 1981 0 0 1982 0 0 1983 2 385.0 5.0 2 385.0 5.0 1984 0 0 1985 0 0 1986 0 0 1987 0 0 1988 0 0 1989 0 0 1990 0 0 1991 3 360.0 32.1 5 320.0 30.2 1992 0 3 233.3 3.3 1993 0 0 1994 0 0 1995 0 0 1996 0 0 1997 0 0 1998 0 0 1999

# 106 Appendix C22.- 

## red snapper Lutjanus campechanus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Y ear n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 1977 0 0 1978 0 0 1979 0 0 1980 0 0 1981 0 0 1982 0 0 1983 7 345.7 13.1 7 345.7 13.1 1984 0 0 1985 1 740.0 0.0 1 740.0 0.0 1986 5 356.0 6.0 5 356.0 6.0 1987 0 0 1988 0 0 1989 0 10 210.0 3.0 1990 0 0 1991 0 0 1992 0 0 1993 0 0 1994 0 0 1995 0 0 1996 0 0 1997 0 0 1998 0 0 1999

Appendix C23.- 

### yellowtail snappe r Ocyurus chrysurus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 237 231.7 2.4 237 231.7 2.4 0.002 1977 55 300.9 18.1 55 300.9 18.1 0.000 1978 171 245.7 3.9 171 245.7 3.9 0.032 1979 104 266.7 5.2 104 266.7 5.2 0.107 1980 341 268.7 3.7 341 268.7 3.7 0.153 1981 272 246.3 3.3 272 246.3 3.3 0.125 1982 175 245.0 3.8 175 245.0 3.8 0.141 1983 422 241.3 2.4 422 241.3 2.4 0.095 73 230.9 3.4 73 230.9 3.4 2.556 1.750 2.028 2.028 1984 165 251.0 3.1 165 251.0 3.1 0.070 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 137 331.0 3.4 338 290.9 2.3 0.085 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 47 344.5 7.1 98 303.8 5.3 0.021 0 0 0.429 0.143 0.000 0.000 1987 91 345.5 5.4 131 322.9 4.8 0.025 0 3 266.7 8.8 0.324 0.270 0.000 0.081 1988 79 331.6 4.4 179 297.9 3.1 0.047 3 346.7 29.1 10 288.0 15.3 1.837 0.379 0.008 0.040 1989 41 339.5 7.8 118 292.0 4.3 0.043 8 328.8 17.7 153 259.2 1.8 1.059 1.334 0.026 0.419 1990 93 324.6 2.9 174 300.5 2.6 0.040 47 321.0 3.6 171 279.2 2.3 3.085 1.308 0.190 0.683 1991 78 342.4 5.8 137 310.3 4.6 0.043 4 312.5 12.5 12 277.2 8.6 3.845 0.488 0.048 0.136 1992 130 343.3 4.8 250 308.4 3.5 0.046 0 0 1.288 0.109 0.000 0.000 1993 158 323.4 1.8 305 298.9 1.8 0.093 . . . . . . 1994 139 321.5 2.5 386 289.3 1.6 0.078 . . . . . . 1995 23 333.9 7.9 93 282.8 3.8 0.048 0 2 265.0 5.0 2.141 0.120 0.000 0.016 1996 52 320.8 3.1 122 293.7 2.7 0.030 1 300.0 0.0 36 258.2 2.2 1.669 0.861 0.014 0.500 1997 21 317.1 3.9 54 290.4 3.6 0.019 1 310.0 0.0 5 266.0 11.7 1.321 0.221 0.013 0.077 1998 44 339.8 14.3 118 293.8 6.3 0.048 0 3 250.0 0.0 0.323 0.127 0.000 0.038 1999 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.292 0.086 0.013 0.013

# 107 Appendix C25.- 

### gray snapper Lutjanus griseus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 549 255.9 2.9 549 255.9 2.9 0.008 1977 209 237.0 3.2 209 237.0 3.2 0.000 1978 293 271.8 4.1 293 271.8 4.1 0.026 1979 234 253.3 3.5 234 253.3 3.5 0.285 1980 496 262.8 2.8 496 262.8 2.8 0.281 1981 635 285.4 2.9 635 285.4 2.9 0.241 1982 339 262.9 3.6 339 262.9 3.6 0.197 1983 1108 260.6 1.9 1108 260.6 1.9 0.254 4 250.0 0.0 4 250.0 0.0 0.000 0.111 0.111 0.111 1984 501 251.2 2.7 501 251.2 2.7 0.298 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 1138 254.5 1.8 1138 254.5 1.8 0.201 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 438 265.0 3.1 438 265.0 3.1 0.114 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 555 254.7 2.1 555 254.7 2.1 0.161 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 335 272.3 3.1 335 272.3 3.1 0.111 35 229.7 5.2 35 229.7 5.2 0.091 0.057 0.106 0.106 1989 440 272.5 2.9 440 272.5 2.9 0.157 135 227.7 2.9 135 227.7 2.9 0.135 0.074 0.120 0.120 1990 179 318.2 4.9 193 312.5 4.7 0.041 163 293.7 3.8 232 277.7 3.1 0.058 0.074 0.074 0.074 1991 175 303.0 4.1 185 299.6 4.0 0.063 4 307.5 7.5 4 307.5 7.5 0.688 0.042 0.042 0.042 1992 321 290.6 2.7 328 289.5 2.7 0.074 24 310.4 12.1 27 302.5 11.5 0.979 0.201 0.187 0.198 1993 366 300.6 2.8 390 296.9 2.8 0.154 . . . . . . 1994 539 297.5 2.5 574 294.0 2.4 0.124 . . . . . . 1995 221 299.2 3.2 234 295.9 3.2 0.107 12 276.1 9.8 14 271.0 8.7 1.334 0.076 0.031 0.055 1996 301 281.4 2.1 318 279.2 2.0 0.087 6 286.7 5.6 6 286.7 5.6 0.239 0.083 0.083 0.083 1997 199 303.0 4.4 211 299.4 4.3 0.088 73 277.0 3.0 73 276.7 3.0 0.375 0.356 0.348 0.356 1998 258 302.4 3.8 276 298.3 3.7 0.135 29 281.7 5.5 30 281.0 5.5 0.773 0.417 0.409 0.417 1999 0 1 240.0 0.0 0.438 0.050 0.000 0.050

Appendix C26.- 

### dog snapper Lutjanus joc u

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 2 600.0 20.0 2 600.0 20.0 0.004 1980 4 300.0 33.4 4 300.0 33.4 0.004 1981 16 393.1 46.9 16 393.1 46.9 0.009 1982 3 226.7 3.3 3 226.7 3.3 0.007 1983 3 593.3 31.8 3 593.3 31.8 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 8 272.5 26.7 8 272.5 26.7 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 2 470.0 250.0 2 470.0 250.0 0.004 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 8 376.3 35.1 8 376.3 35.1 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 2 415.0 175.0 2 415.0 175.0 0.001 2 350.0 0.0 2 350.0 0.0 0.000 0.008 0.008 1990 2 400.0 70.0 2 400.0 70.0 0.001 1 350.0 0.0 1 350.0 0.0 0.000 0.004 0.004 1991 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 0.010 0.010 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1994 1 420.0 0.0 1 420.0 0.0 0.002 . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.109 0.000 0.000 1996 1 430.0 0.0 1 430.0 0.0 0.004 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 108 Appendix C27.- 

### mahogony snapper Lutjanus mahogon i

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 0 0 0.000 1980 0 0 0.000 1981 0 0 0.000 1982 2 440.0 10.0 2 440.0 10.0 0.000 1983 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 12 213.3 12.3 12 213.3 12.3 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 3 316.7 24.0 3 316.7 24.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0 0.000 2 225.0 25.0 2 225.0 25.0 0.008 0.000 0.008 1989 2 380.0 10.0 2 380.0 10.0 0.000 4 257.5 40.5 4 257.5 40.5 0.011 0.008 0.015 1990 2 320.0 10.0 2 320.0 10.0 0.000 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 0.008 0.004 1991 2 380.0 50.0 2 380.0 50.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . 1994 4 350.0 24.8 4 350.0 24.8 0.000 . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.028 0.000 0.000 1997 1 370.0 0.0 1 370.0 0.0 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.015 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C28.- 

### lane snapper Lutjanus synagri s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 9 241.1 13.6 9 241.1 13.6 0.010 1979 6 300.0 13.4 6 300.0 13.4 0.009 1980 32 253.4 5.8 32 253.4 5.8 0.016 1981 35 239.4 8.5 35 239.4 8.5 0.013 1982 18 225.0 9.4 18 225.0 9.4 0.013 1983 26 235.0 8.7 26 235.0 8.7 0.011 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 5 202.0 8.6 5 202.0 8.6 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 49 241.4 9.6 49 241.4 9.6 0.007 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 18 242.2 11.6 18 242.2 11.6 0.005 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 43 242.1 7.7 43 242.1 7.7 0.009 3 230.0 0.0 3 230.0 0.0 0.027 0.081 0.081 0.081 1988 46 229.8 6.2 46 229.8 6.2 0.014 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 21 255.7 11.8 21 255.7 11.8 0.008 15 293.6 12.9 15 293.6 12.9 0.015 0.045 0.056 0.056 1990 13 236.2 5.7 15 230.0 6.5 0.002 0 0 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 1991 24 236.7 6.4 26 233.1 6.4 0.009 5 216.8 8.9 5 216.8 8.9 0.028 0.056 0.069 0.069 1992 5 240.0 14.1 6 231.7 14.2 0.001 3 300.0 11.5 3 300.0 11.5 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.009 1993 8 251.3 21.6 9 244.4 20.2 0.001 . . . . . . 1994 5 240.0 11.8 5 240.0 11.8 0.002 . . . . . . 1995 1 290.0 0.0 1 290.0 0.0 0.009 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 4 207.5 7.5 5 204.0 6.8 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 1 250.0 0.0 1 250.0 0.0 0.006 0.017 0.017 0.017 1998 0 0 0.000 1 255.0 0.0 1 255.0 0.0 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.008 1999 2 273.3 109.1 2 273.3 109.1 0.050 0.075 0.125 0.125

# 109 Appendix C29.- 

### silk snapper Lutjanus campechanus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 1977 0 0 1978 0 0 1979 0 0 1980 0 0 1981 0 0 1982 0 0 1983 0 0 1984 0 0 1985 5 244.0 2.4 5 244.0 2.4 1986 0 0 1987 0 0 1988 2 260.0 20.0 2 260.0 20.0 1989 0 0 1990 0 0 1991 0 0 1992 0 0 1993 0 0 1994 0 0 1995 0 0 1996 0 0 1997 0 0 1998 0 0 1999

Appendix C31.- 

### vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 0 0 0.000 1980 0 0 0.000 1981 1 250.0 0.0 1 250.0 0.0 0.001 1982 13 260.0 14.3 13 260.0 14.3 0.003 1983 0 0 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 1985 6 208.3 8.3 6 208.3 8.3 0.000 1986 1 290.0 0.0 1 290.0 0.0 0.000 1987 1 270.0 0.0 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 1988 0 0 0.000 1989 0 0 0.000 1990 0 0 0.000 1991 0 0 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 1994 0 0 0.000 1995 0 0 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 1999

# 110 Appendix C32.- 

### hogfish Lachnolaimus maximu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 389 335.8 4.8 389 335.8 4.8 0.515 1977 157 369.2 7.8 157 369.2 7.8 0.558 1978 360 368.7 5.1 360 368.7 5.1 0.663 1979 84 361.3 11.7 84 361.3 11.7 0.554 1980 231 361.3 7.0 231 361.3 7.0 0.579 1981 687 354.8 3.3 687 354.8 3.3 0.719 1982 189 349.9 6.6 189 349.9 6.6 0.567 1983 773 349.9 3.1 773 349.9 3.1 0.706 13 227.1 5.6 13 227.1 5.6 0.201 0.354 0.354 0.354 1984 145 345.9 5.9 145 345.9 5.9 0.690 1 250.0 0.0 1 250.0 0.0 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 1985 457 357.7 4.2 457 357.7 4.2 0.543 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 310 378.0 6.0 310 378.0 6.0 0.500 0 0 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 215 321.4 5.1 215 321.4 5.1 0.546 4 242.5 14.4 4 242.5 14.4 0.027 0.108 0.108 0.108 1988 264 323.2 4.2 264 323.2 4.2 0.497 25 252.0 7.2 25 252.0 7.2 0.028 0.111 0.111 0.111 1989 212 349.8 9.4 211 341.6 4.7 0.615 27 259.6 8.7 27 259.6 8.7 0.045 0.075 0.075 0.075 1990 342 310.9 3.4 342 310.9 3.4 0.666 31 274.8 7.6 31 274.8 7.6 0.039 0.080 0.080 0.080 1991 197 323.4 5.4 197 323.4 5.4 0.404 7 297.1 37.8 7 297.1 37.8 0.135 0.088 0.088 0.088 1992 263 318.6 4.2 263 318.6 4.2 0.648 18 265.0 18.9 18 265.0 18.9 0.235 0.133 0.133 0.133 1993 184 328.9 6.0 184 328.9 6.0 0.882 . . . . . . 1994 299 351.0 3.2 426 328.2 2.9 0.887 . . . . . . 1995 103 362.7 7.8 121 349.8 7.2 0.579 5 390.0 55.7 8 342.5 40.8 0.073 0.071 0.030 0.050 1996 178 345.1 3.7 205 335.9 3.7 0.792 1 370.0 0.0 3 293.3 39.3 0.000 0.056 0.014 0.042 1997 95 354.6 6.8 109 344.0 6.5 0.510 1 305.0 0.0 7 263.1 8.8 0.198 0.083 0.008 0.054 1998 116 349.1 4.4 138 338.0 4.3 0.389 1 320.0 0.0 3 274.0 19.7 0.043 0.053 0.000 0.023 1999 2 310.0 17.3 4 284.3 20.8 0.231 0.164 0.056 0.102

Appendix C33.- 

### black margate A nisotremus surinamensis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.001 1979 4 337.5 37.7 0.006 1980 9 394.4 29.9 0.006 1981 20 332.0 15.1 0.020 1982 3 360.0 50.3 0.013 1983 10 387.0 23.1 0.010 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 3 383.3 46.7 0.010 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 14 343.6 13.5 0.044 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 17 344.7 25.0 0.013 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 13 430.8 25.6 0.024 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 21 335.7 15.0 0.022 11 338.2 19.2 0.049 0.020 0.061 1989 7 327.1 21.9 0.007 11 289.1 14.7 0.043 0.008 0.051 1990 21 339.5 10.5 0.013 22 332.3 10.6 0.058 0.020 0.078 1991 12 338.3 10.6 0.012 13 314.6 11.2 0.188 0.000 0.135 1992 14 340.0 11.4 0.032 2 295.0 5.0 0.019 0.000 0.019 1993 8 380.0 26.4 0.008 . . . . 1994 12 341.7 15.8 0.006 . . . . 1995 7 350.0 14.5 0.019 7 318.2 11.3 0.104 0.000 0.104 1996 7 361.4 12.0 0.011 1 250.0 0.0 0.014 0.000 0.014 1997 2 310.0 20.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 3 283.3 12.0 0.009 1 290.0 0.0 0.008 0.000 0.008 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 111 Appendix C34.- 

### porkfish A nisotremus virginicu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 31 298.4 9.6 0.000 1979 1 210.0 0.0 0.001 1980 1 250.0 0.0 0.005 1981 14 250.0 16.3 0.002 1982 5 236.0 6.8 0.001 1983 12 206.7 8.9 0.003 5 206.0 16.6 0.222 0.028 0.139 1984 0 0.001 2 230.0 0.0 0.000 0.500 0.500 1985 4 250.0 8.2 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 8 262.5 8.4 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 12 256.7 18.4 0.002 9 244.4 7.1 0.027 0.216 0.243 1988 3 250.0 20.0 0.001 103 220.6 4.0 0.398 0.171 0.507 1989 6 265.0 27.9 0.001 117 243.1 5.2 0.218 0.338 0.526 1990 12 252.5 6.4 0.003 96 234.3 5.9 0.195 0.140 0.290 1991 8 238.8 14.9 0.002 55 219.4 3.1 0.539 0.270 0.712 1992 20 219.0 7.4 0.004 35 207.7 6.8 0.443 0.131 0.328 1993 1 240.0 0.0 0.000 . . . . 1994 21 220.5 7.0 0.005 . . . . 1995 7 220.0 18.3 0.002 27 207.6 8.1 0.355 0.044 0.220 1996 15 216.0 8.9 0.004 9 206.7 18.3 0.128 0.042 0.126 1997 6 208.3 11.9 0.002 18 244.2 13.1 0.235 0.183 0.256 1998 4 222.5 14.4 0.002 17 230.3 12.3 0.142 0.142 0.225 1999 5 205.6 19.1 0.228 0.050 0.227

Appendix C35.- 

### margate Haemulon albu m

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 21 224.3 5.1 0.001 1979 6 345.0 47.8 0.003 1980 8 475.0 36.2 0.002 1981 12 337.5 26.7 0.002 1982 44 289.3 11.7 0.006 1983 18 365.6 29.0 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 3 236.7 14.5 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 20 266.0 16.4 0.003 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 21 323.3 22.8 0.006 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 21 316.7 20.8 0.004 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 5 320.0 40.4 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 7 282.9 28.5 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 17 270.0 17.2 0.004 7 323.9 46.4 0.026 0.004 0.030 1991 4 380.0 41.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 19 287.4 29.9 0.003 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 7 392.9 20.1 0.001 . . . . 1994 10 249.0 12.6 0.002 . . . . 1995 2 565.0 15.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 6 270.0 34.2 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 3 416.7 26.0 0.000 1 220.0 0.0 0.091 0.000 0.015 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 112 Appendix C36.- 

### tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 5 176.0 14.4 0.001 1981 1 170.0 0.0 0.000 1982 2 210.0 10.0 0.001 1983 8 168.8 4.4 0.002 1123 175.9 0.6 29.993 37.674 31.181 1984 0 0.001 0 0.000 3.750 0.000 1985 17 161.2 7.7 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 2 160.0 0.0 6.536 19.607 0.261 1987 7 171.4 4.6 0.001 988 192.3 0.9 18.904 52.204 26.709 1988 23 169.6 6.2 0.004 642 164.3 0.4 8.267 6.629 2.318 1989 6 176.7 2.1 0.003 1004 176.5 0.8 12.867 7.469 5.595 1990 24 180.8 6.8 0.009 296 152.4 0.6 7.514 3.429 1.203 1991 0 0.000 42 153.5 0.8 0.677 0.677 0.432 1992 0 0.000 20 180.0 0.0 5.745 1.190 0.227 1993 0 0.000 . . . . 1994 0 0.000 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 67 157.7 1.1 4.391 0.760 0.667 1996 0 0.007 66 199.2 0.8 6.482 0.944 0.917 1997 0 0.000 102 195.8 0.8 3.150 1.700 1.692 1998 0 0.000 177 174.6 1.9 3.264 2.521 2.266 1999 5 180.6 6.0 0.000 0.500 0.450

Appendix C37.- 

### ceasar grunt Haemulon carbonarium

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 1 240.0 0.0 0.000 1980 1 210.0 0.0 0.001 1981 0 0.000 1982 0 0.001 1983 1 200.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 3 313.3 41.8 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 9 217.8 12.4 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 6 206.7 15.6 0.000 8 202.5 5.6 0.052 0.008 0.037 1989 4 235.0 2.9 0.001 17 210.0 10.2 0.117 0.023 0.063 1990 17 187.6 6.4 0.003 33 208.8 4.3 0.112 0.039 0.138 1991 3 230.0 10.0 0.001 2 230.0 20.0 0.024 0.010 0.024 1992 2 295.0 5.0 0.000 9 173.3 6.3 0.040 0.009 0.018 1993 14 228.6 7.6 0.004 . . . . 1994 4 235.0 6.5 0.001 . . . . 1995 2 200.0 10.0 0.002 3 210.0 20.0 0.587 0.010 0.021 1996 6 233.3 9.9 0.002 4 237.5 19.3 0.278 0.042 0.056 1997 6 250.0 12.6 0.001 18 236.4 5.5 0.233 0.225 0.300 1998 0 0.000 8 207.6 9.9 0.341 0.053 0.117 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 113 Appendix C39.- 

### french grunt Haemulon flavolineatum

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.002 1980 0 0.000 1981 3 240.0 5.8 0.000 1982 4 185.0 6.5 0.003 1983 6 186.7 11.2 0.001 70 183.4 2.4 4.139 1.361 1.944 1984 1 220.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 42 243.1 5.8 0.009 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 14 226.4 8.4 0.004 34 173.6 0.9 4.821 1.607 4.821 1987 6 191.7 7.9 0.001 49 206.1 3.7 1.216 1.135 1.324 1988 10 172.0 4.4 0.001 78 172.1 2.1 3.322 0.105 0.364 1989 1 280.0 0.0 0.000 269 187.0 1.9 3.239 0.849 1.357 1990 5 184.0 10.3 0.001 165 176.3 1.7 2.363 0.227 0.613 1991 3 246.7 12.0 0.002 20 186.5 5.3 2.865 0.142 0.260 1992 2 185.0 5.0 0.000 15 164.0 2.7 4.280 0.011 0.151 1993 1 170.0 0.0 0.000 . . . . 1994 6 171.7 4.0 0.003 . . . . 1995 3 176.7 3.3 0.008 316 219.6 1.3 3.288 1.573 1.677 1996 0 0.000 40 178.4 0.9 2.121 0.403 0.549 1997 1 160.0 0.0 0.000 34 192.4 2.0 3.508 0.542 0.565 1998 1 160.0 0.0 0.001 13 206.9 7.3 3.000 0.152 0.197 1999 8 173.5 5.6 0.931 0.052 0.209

Appendix C40.- 

### spanish grunt Haemulon macrostomium

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 2 300.0 90.0 0.000 1980 0 0.000 1981 4 297.5 29.5 0.001 1982 4 292.5 24.3 0.001 1983 1 370.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 1 240 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 2 320.0 50.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 3 300.0 5.8 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 2 290.0 10.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 5 286.0 9.3 0.001 2 280.0 50.0 0.008 0.004 0.076 1989 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 19 231.6 10.2 0.113 0.017 0.023 1990 2 345.0 85.0 0.000 11 288.2 17.9 0.024 0.029 0.000 1991 1 290.0 0.0 0.000 2 230.0 0.0 0.056 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0.000 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 0.009 0.188 1993 0 0.000 . . . . 1994 2 240.0 10.0 0.000 . . . . 1995 2 275.0 45.0 0.000 2 235.0 15.0 0.071 0.000 1.016 1996 2 285.0 15.0 0.000 3 293.3 29.6 0.028 0.028 0.014 1997 0 0.000 7 300.7 7.9 0.006 0.108 0.000 1998 1 290.0 0.0 0.000 2 233.3 13.3 0.189 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0.013 0.000 0.022

# 114 Appendix C42.- 

### sailors choice Haemulon parra

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 2 205.0 5.0 0.001 1979 4 280.0 16.3 0.004 1980 19 232.6 9.5 0.005 1981 23 268.3 7.5 0.003 1982 0 0.002 1983 14 255.7 6.4 0.004 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 1 300.0 0.0 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 8 233.8 9.4 0.003 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 22 236.4 5.4 0.002 2 240.0 10.0 0.000 0.429 0.286 1987 48 266.5 4.2 0.007 3 260.0 10.0 0.000 0.081 0.081 1988 89 239.0 2.7 0.025 10 255.0 10.4 0.000 0.063 0.051 1989 37 263.0 6.0 0.014 25 231.0 7.8 0.000 0.109 0.065 1990 25 238.8 4.8 0.006 64 231.7 3.3 0.008 0.332 0.255 1991 18 241.7 5.3 0.007 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 0.035 0.010 1992 23 251.3 7.2 0.005 0 0.021 0.054 0.000 1993 33 241.8 3.9 0.017 . . . . 1994 33 244.5 5.6 0.007 . . . . 1995 50 222.4 2.9 0.019 3 216.7 16.7 0.000 0.047 0.036 1996 55 235.6 3.7 0.018 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 16 238.1 6.5 0.012 4 254.3 8.9 0.000 0.065 0.058 1998 22 237.3 7.2 0.013 1 260.0 0.0 0.000 0.132 0.008 1999 1 260.0 0.0 0.000 0.025 0.013

Appendix C43.- 

### white grunt Haemulon plumieri

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1039 205.7 0.8 0.085 1977 154 216.1 2.5 0.008 1978 371 223.7 1.4 0.195 1979 168 237.9 2.8 0.327 1980 433 228.0 1.6 0.345 1981 664 224.8 1.2 0.375 1982 164 221.0 2.1 0.371 1983 694 225.3 1.3 0.189 17 217.1 4.8 0.083 0.472 0.472 1984 320 215.5 1.6 0.173 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 1391 224.6 0.8 0.256 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 848 235.5 1.2 0.187 1 170.0 0.0 0.857 0.000 0.143 1987 706 237.4 1.3 0.184 47 227.0 5.4 0.520 1.155 1.264 1988 730 231.5 1.1 0.240 155 198.9 2.5 3.113 0.651 0.801 1989 584 224.9 1.1 0.202 521 205.0 1.6 2.854 1.065 1.128 1990 821 226.6 1.0 0.255 370 207.5 1.8 3.513 1.032 1.279 1991 414 221.1 1.3 0.117 95 210.9 2.1 0.396 1.210 1.266 1992 703 226.1 1.1 0.178 49 201.9 5.6 2.226 0.299 0.373 1993 953 220.3 0.8 0.308 . . . . 1994 968 221.1 0.8 0.277 . . . . 1995 383 219.6 1.2 0.227 196 189.7 2.0 12.014 0.538 1.613 1996 659 217.9 1.0 0.315 53 199.7 3.1 3.360 0.612 0.737 1997 382 219.9 1.1 0.183 81 222.0 3.8 2.700 1.115 1.242 1998 454 216.5 1.2 0.175 40 210.1 4.6 1.532 0.432 0.462 1999 10 192.6 7.3 1.125 0.215 0.316

# 115 Appendix C44.- 

### bluestriped grunt Haemulon sciurus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 394 214.7 1.3 0.050 1977 140 209.9 1.7 0.010 1978 122 245.3 3.4 0.043 1979 55 252.2 3.9 0.082 1980 168 242.5 2.1 0.067 1981 191 235.3 1.9 0.058 1982 112 241.4 2.5 0.131 1983 245 222.8 1.6 0.049 2 235.0 5.0 0.000 0.056 0.056 1984 183 230.8 2.1 0.061 1 230.0 0.0 0.000 0.250 0.250 1985 237 237.2 2.2 0.053 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 202 240.0 1.9 0.041 0 0.286 0.000 0.000 1987 288 235.5 1.6 0.069 17 241.2 4.1 0.081 0.459 0.459 1988 206 230.0 1.8 0.061 56 214.1 5.0 0.151 0.079 0.178 1989 167 234.1 2.0 0.042 304 224.5 1.9 0.640 0.637 0.861 1990 211 226.6 1.7 0.059 247 232.1 3.0 1.580 0.351 0.664 1991 180 228.8 2.2 0.055 146 208.2 1.6 2.628 0.715 1.998 1992 321 231.3 1.5 0.068 64 199.6 3.2 2.083 0.029 0.429 1993 189 225.3 1.6 0.066 . . . . 1994 233 225.3 1.5 0.054 . . . . 1995 130 226.1 1.9 0.064 23 223.0 5.1 1.208 0.135 0.188 1996 194 226.7 1.5 0.076 40 216.6 3.9 1.457 0.225 0.564 1997 156 220.6 1.6 0.073 91 265.8 4.7 2.152 1.206 1.433 1998 81 226.3 2.9 0.056 33 204.9 5.2 0.811 0.106 0.295 1999 6 190.3 8.4 0.496 0.010 0.126

Appendix C45.- 

### striped grunt Haemulon striatum

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.001 1980 0 0.001 1981 3 216.7 21.9 0.001 1982 0 0.000 1983 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 3 253.3 18.6 0.001 0 0.005 0.000 0.000 1991 1 250.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.042 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0.000 . . . . 1994 3 223.3 18.6 0.000 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 20 221.5 6.3 0.010 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 47 227.4 4.1 0.025 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 116 Appendix C46.- 

### pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 5 194.0 6.8 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.001 1980 2 265.0 5.0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 1 230.0 0.0 0.000 1983 9 232.2 5.2 0.002 1984 0 0.000 1985 0 0.000 1986 5 184.0 5.1 0.001 1987 2 225.0 55.0 0.001 1988 0 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1990 6 178.3 4.0 0.003 1991 0 0.000 1992 0 0.000 1993 0 0.000 1994 0 0.000 1995 0 0.000 1996 0 0.000 1997 0 0.000 1998 0 0.000 1999

Appendix C47.- 

### great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 179 553.1 13.9 0.040 1977 38 722.6 37.5 0.028 1978 138 622.8 18.0 0.028 1979 38 554.7 27.2 0.030 1980 88 581.0 23.2 0.053 1981 54 666.5 28.7 0.036 1982 44 583.2 39.4 0.038 1983 66 591.7 28.5 0.023 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 15 640.0 54.6 0.020 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 79 610.5 21.6 0.018 2 1300.0 15.0 0.000 0.333 0.333 1986 123 597.8 20.6 0.026 1 600.0 0.0 0.143 0.000 0.143 1987 116 534.8 13.6 0.038 1 1100.0 0.0 0.000 0.027 0.027 1988 35 636.6 37.0 0.018 22 871.8 8.0 0.027 0.030 0.057 1989 50 539.4 31.6 0.029 97 754.5 2.6 0.086 0.065 0.151 1990 69 646.1 19.1 0.024 124 857.8 2.9 0.086 0.142 0.228 1991 83 554.6 18.2 0.026 92 923.5 3.1 0.448 0.514 0.962 1992 81 638.6 24.9 0.025 6 733.3 16.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 73 650.0 24.1 0.022 . . . . 1994 114 576.3 20.1 0.028 . . . . 1995 47 516.2 26.4 0.027 25 886.0 5.6 0.179 0.097 0.204 1996 49 640.2 32.3 0.026 17 617.7 5.8 0.321 0.042 0.237 1997 53 592.8 28.0 0.024 3 824.0 15.3 0.071 0.017 0.038 1998 26 583.5 33.5 0.038 3 770.0 29.7 0.023 0.013 0.036 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 117 Appendix C48.- 

### j olthead porgy Calamus bajonado

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.018 1977 0 0.085 1978 27 317.4 12.8 0.145 1979 4 312.5 14.9 0.099 1980 29 285.2 9.9 0.082 1981 132 290.9 4.8 0.073 1982 86 305.8 5.7 0.039 1983 87 290.8 5.5 0.028 2 240.0 0.0 0.056 0.000 0.056 1984 104 286.8 6.3 0.048 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 229 318.7 4.2 0.039 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 43 319.1 10.8 0.009 0 0.286 0.000 0.000 1987 59 318.3 9.3 0.013 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 130 292.1 4.5 0.039 0 0.020 0.000 0.000 1989 80 323.4 6.5 0.023 6 233.3 1.1 0.013 0.000 0.002 1990 137 290.2 4.7 0.026 5 250.0 1.4 0.065 0.000 0.020 1991 77 281.9 4.3 0.023 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 144 304.3 4.6 0.038 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 58 298.4 8.2 0.018 . . . . 1994 69 297.1 5.8 0.016 . . . . 1995 24 282.9 10.9 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 24 291.3 12.1 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 23 310.0 10.2 0.009 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 43 280.9 9.0 0.022 0 0.013 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C49.- 

### saucereye porg y Calamus calamu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 31 303.9 10.1 0.017 1981 125 271.9 5.6 0.038 1982 26 262.7 9.5 0.004 1983 44 265.0 5.9 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 3 253.3 12.0 0.002 1 280.0 0.0 0.250 0.000 0.250 1985 144 268.9 3.7 0.020 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 46 283.0 6.8 0.006 2 290.0 0.0 0.286 0.000 0.286 1987 17 275.9 11.6 0.002 7 210.7 0.7 0.243 0.000 0.189 1988 6 266.7 29.9 0.002 0 0.081 0.000 0.000 1989 13 233.1 8.3 0.004 8 230.0 1.3 0.050 0.000 0.026 1990 48 254.8 6.0 0.014 9 222.2 0.7 0.138 0.000 0.033 1991 21 282.9 11.4 0.005 2 275.0 2.5 0.028 0.000 0.028 1992 33 287.9 7.7 0.008 0 0.032 0.000 0.000 1993 54 250.9 6.4 0.023 . . . . 1994 41 259.3 5.8 0.010 . . . . 1995 11 257.3 12.8 0.006 5 250.0 2.2 0.179 0.000 0.031 1996 13 242.3 7.7 0.005 1 260.0 0.0 0.028 0.000 0.014 1997 2 240.0 30.0 0.001 3 225.0 1.8 0.110 0.000 0.027 1998 2 270.0 10.0 0.001 0 0.076 0.000 0.000 1999 3 233.7 1.9 0.351 0.000 0.106

# 118 Appendix C50.- 

### yellow jack Caranx bartholomae i

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.001 1980 6 440.0 69.3 0.002 1981 46 435.4 18.5 0.007 1982 13 405.4 31.6 0.002 1983 23 452.6 34.6 0.003 65 300.7 6.2 2.056 0.000 1.806 1984 3 360.0 45.8 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 19 336.3 13.2 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 16 451.3 29.8 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 38 391.1 13.9 0.007 29 276.6 7.3 0.838 0.027 0.784 1988 44 389.5 18.6 0.010 19 340.0 15.4 0.558 0.004 0.187 1989 16 385.0 30.8 0.004 37 418.6 19.7 0.079 0.037 0.104 1990 45 399.8 18.5 0.006 61 385.4 11.6 0.063 0.043 0.106 1991 27 388.9 17.4 0.005 3 450.0 28.9 0.010 0.021 0.031 1992 52 382.3 12.2 0.009 71 250.0 0.0 0.060 0.000 0.000 1993 60 317.0 9.7 0.010 . . . . 1994 36 363.1 17.3 0.004 . . . . 1995 18 371.7 21.9 0.001 7 307.1 20.4 0.119 0.000 0.067 1996 15 372.0 21.7 0.003 1 330.0 0.0 0.014 0.000 0.014 1997 10 395.0 19.0 0.006 9 338.9 10.9 0.042 0.000 0.042 1998 14 330.7 9.4 0.006 7 303.2 26.5 0.114 0.015 0.030 1999 0 0.013 0.000 0.000

Appendix C51.- 

### blue runner Caranx crysos

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1 300.0 0.0 0.011 1977 1 440.0 0.0 0.007 1978 0 0.004 1979 0 0.015 1980 29 282.1 20.3 0.022 1981 113 260.7 6.3 0.042 1982 86 251.6 4.7 0.041 1983 155 250.7 3.9 0.033 22 303.6 20.6 0.611 0.000 0.611 1984 14 279.3 18.9 0.023 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 91 282.7 7.4 0.033 0 0.667 0.000 0.000 1986 237 260.1 4.5 0.047 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 183 259.5 3.7 0.045 2 210.0 10.0 0.054 0.000 0.054 1988 127 250.7 3.6 0.045 10 300.0 9.1 0.058 0.000 0.058 1989 102 263.0 5.1 0.031 91 223.5 5.0 0.079 0.000 0.079 1990 72 261.1 4.5 0.037 183 302.1 6.4 0.704 0.042 0.738 1991 78 245.4 5.4 0.027 0 0.028 0.000 0.000 1992 99 250.0 3.6 0.021 2 180.0 20.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 70 268.1 5.3 0.030 . . . . 1994 98 245.6 3.3 0.055 . . . . 1995 65 231.4 5.2 0.032 30 250.0 3.9 0.313 0.000 0.313 1996 99 241.6 3.2 0.035 23 300.0 0.0 0.319 0.000 0.319 1997 73 243.6 3.4 0.056 20 183.0 3.2 0.250 0.000 0.250 1998 136 246.1 3.2 0.098 4 257.1 11.1 0.045 0.000 0.045 1999 10 226.0 6.4 0.250 0.000 0.250

# 119 Appendix C52.- 

### crevalle jack Caranx hippos

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.004 1980 3 486.7 63.6 0.004 1981 0 0.002 1982 12 285.8 18.6 0.009 1983 13 400.8 26.0 0.009 1984 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 1985 2 245.0 45.0 0.001 1986 4 282.5 17.5 0.001 1987 5 340.0 41.5 0.001 1988 9 236.7 5.8 0.000 1989 3 320.0 110.0 0.001 1990 4 410.0 51.2 0.002 1991 0 0.000 1992 1 250.0 0.0 0.001 1993 3 433.3 83.5 0.002 1994 9 343.3 22.4 0.008 1995 2 260.0 10.0 0.000 1996 2 320.0 40.0 0.002 1997 1 390.0 0.0 0.000 1998 2 255.0 15.0 0.004 1999

Appendix C53.- 

### horse-eye jack Caranx latus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 1 290.0 0.0 0.001 1981 4 430.0 63.4 0.001 1982 1 310.0 0.0 0.000 1983 6 296.7 16.7 0.001 1984 0 0.000 1985 2 630.0 30.0 0.002 1986 2 425.0 85.0 0.001 1987 0 0.000 1988 0 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1990 0 0.000 1991 1 240.0 0.0 0.000 1992 0 0.000 1993 0 0.000 1994 0 0.000 1995 1 690.0 0.0 0.000 1996 0 0.000 1997 0 0.000 1998 0 0.000 1999

# 120 Appendix C54.- 

### bar jac k Caranx ruber

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 1 320.0 0.0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 2 525.0 125.0 0.000 1981 15 326.0 23.1 0.002 1982 1 320.0 0.0 0.001 1983 2 330.0 40.0 0.001 45 310.0 4.1 2.639 1.250 1.250 1984 0 0.000 0 3.500 0.000 0.000 1985 7 348.6 17.9 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 7 391.4 17.9 0.001 1 250.0 0.0 0.143 0.143 0.143 1987 8 350.0 21.2 0.001 1 320.0 0.0 3.568 0.027 0.027 1988 5 400.0 20.5 0.000 14 262.0 6.4 1.950 0.051 0.051 1989 1 280.0 0.0 0.000 77 255.2 2.1 1.694 0.297 0.297 1990 5 338.0 41.9 0.001 84 403.7 18.3 1.777 0.361 0.361 1991 4 270.0 0.0 0.001 8 266.3 6.0 1.901 0.092 0.092 1992 4 305.0 42.7 0.000 6 266.4 9.1 1.705 0.047 0.047 1993 9 331.1 26.1 0.006 . . . . 1994 11 367.3 14.9 0.000 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 20 286.9 13.2 1.226 0.190 0.190 1996 2 345.0 15.0 0.000 10 250.0 0.0 4.864 0.139 0.139 1997 5 344.0 21.6 0.001 4 295.0 19.8 0.167 0.021 0.021 1998 3 330.0 17.3 0.002 3 322.0 34.4 1.847 0.038 0.038 1999 2 312.5 108.3 0.061 0.163 0.163

Appendix C55.- 

### bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatri x

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.004 1980 6 340.0 49.3 0.010 1981 30 280.3 19.5 0.005 1982 21 264.3 11.7 0.006 1983 17 223.5 10.4 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 7 250.0 20.8 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 11 252.7 16.2 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 11 304.5 39.8 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 16 276.3 17.9 0.003 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0.000 186 285.1 3.8 0.840 0.000 0.833 1989 0 0.000 323 275.0 2.3 1.059 0.000 1.049 1990 1 250.0 0.0 0.002 74 275.8 4.7 0.314 0.000 0.298 1991 14 370.0 13.1 0.002 194 249.3 4.1 2.806 0.000 2.100 1992 6 278.3 23.3 0.001 8 298.8 20.6 0.055 0.000 0.046 1993 12 261.7 13.6 0.004 . . . . 1994 4 290.0 15.8 0.001 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 178 239.2 2.9 2.912 0.000 2.192 1996 0 0.000 132 256.8 4.2 2.602 0.000 1.836 1997 0 0.000 47 261.7 6.0 0.850 0.000 0.694 1998 19 280.0 14.3 0.016 26 223.4 10.5 0.591 0.000 0.392 1999 2 206.7 22.3 0.300 0.000 0.225

# 121 Appendix C56.- 

### gray angelfish Pomacanthus arcuatu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 2 350.0 0.0 0.306 0.056 1984 1 380.0 0.0 0.250 0.250 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.286 0.000 1987 5 392.0 15.0 0.162 0.135 1988 10 370.0 5.6 0.552 0.044 1989 18 371.8 6.9 0.358 0.028 1990 33 367.3 4.5 0.513 0.079 1991 0 0.334 0.000 1992 4 397.5 18.9 0.315 0.023 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 0 0.390 0.000 1996 3 360.0 10.0 0.399 0.042 1997 2 357.5 13.0 0.600 0.017 1998 3 365.0 12.7 0.174 0.021 1999 0 0.163 0.000

Appendix C59.- 

### blue parrotfish Scarus coeruleus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.028 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0.027 0.000 1988 0 0.075 0.000 1989 0 0.066 0.000 1990 0 0.106 0.000 1991 0 0.049 0.000 1992 0 0.048 0.000 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 0 0.070 0.000 1996 0 0.083 0.000 1997 0 0.008 0.000 1998 0 0.114 0.000 1999 0 0.074 0.000

# 122 Appendix C61.- 

### rainbow parrotfish Scarus guacamaia

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0.039 0.000 1989 5 650.0 0.0 0.060 0.011 1990 0 0.032 0.000 1991 0 0.014 0.000 1992 0 0.028 0.000 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 0 0.071 0.000 1996 0 0.083 0.000 1997 0 0.050 0.000 1998 0 0.087 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000

Appendix C62.- 

### princess parrotfish Scarus taeniopterus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.278 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 18 277.9 11.0 1.662 0.473 1988 14 277.1 13.9 0.689 0.064 1989 19 241.1 6.2 1.264 0.095 1990 6 280.0 15.3 5.579 0.025 1991 6 250.0 12.9 1.868 0.076 1992 30 259.3 5.0 3.395 0.295 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 1 280.0 0.0 1.224 0.005 1996 1 240.0 0.0 2.398 0.014 1997 1 250.0 0.0 1.506 0.015 1998 0 1.174 0.000 1999 2 300.8 33.3 0.218 0.058

# 123 Appendix C63.- 

### queen parrotfish Scarus vetula

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 4 405.0 21.0 0.081 0.108 1988 10 365.0 11.6 0.111 0.050 1989 39 383.1 7.1 0.362 0.135 1990 20 366.5 8.9 0.115 0.083 1991 13 377.7 10.2 0.256 0.141 1992 1 320.0 0.0 0.078 0.011 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 5 350.0 13.8 0.266 0.047 1996 8 337.5 6.2 0.264 0.111 1997 2 353.3 48.1 0.056 0.025 1998 9 340.0 11.7 0.341 0.129 1999 0 0.013 0.000

Appendix C64.- 

### greenblotch parrotfish Sparisoma atomarium

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0.000 0.000 1988 0 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0.033 0.000 1990 0 0.090 0.000 1991 0 0.146 0.000 1992 0 0.222 0.000 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 0 0.479 0.000 1996 0 0.139 0.000 1997 0 0.306 0.000 1998 0 0.273 0.000 1999 0 0.075 0.000

# 124 Appendix C65.- 

### redband parrotfish Sparisoma aurofrenatu m

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 15 186.7 4.9 1.806 0.417 1984 14 223.6 10.8 0.000 3.500 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 5 260.6 10.7 1.500 0.643 1987 27 216.8 9.0 1.811 0.730 1988 150 206.9 2.5 5.050 0.722 1989 266 208.5 1.9 4.712 1.072 1990 134 212.1 2.4 5.054 0.541 1991 46 198.9 3.8 3.938 0.569 1992 43 207.8 3.5 3.577 0.403 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 56 208.3 4.3 4.276 0.410 1996 64 219.1 4.1 6.514 0.885 1997 47 208.1 4.5 4.386 0.666 1998 27 218.2 6.7 5.706 0.409 1999 24 201.3 6.0 3.699 0.660

Appendix C65.- 

### redband parrotfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 15 186.7 4.9 1.806 0.417 1984 14 223.6 10.8 0.000 3.500 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 5 260.6 10.7 1.500 0.643 1987 27 216.8 9.0 1.811 0.730 1988 150 206.9 2.5 5.050 0.722 1989 266 208.5 1.9 4.712 1.072 1990 134 212.1 2.4 5.054 0.541 1991 46 198.9 3.8 3.938 0.569 1992 43 207.8 3.5 3.577 0.403 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 56 208.3 4.3 4.276 0.410 1996 64 219.1 4.1 6.514 0.885 1997 47 208.1 4.5 4.386 0.666 1998 27 218.2 6.7 5.706 0.409 1999 24 201.3 6.0 3.699 0.660

# 125 Appendix C68.- 

### redfin parrotfish Sparisoma rubripinne

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. Actual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.361 0.000 1984 0 0.250 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 2 360.0 40.0 0.270 0.054 1988 13 382.3 31.0 0.055 0.060 1989 46 347.0 6.7 0.309 0.182 1990 18 341.7 9.4 0.041 0.077 1991 2 425.0 25.0 0.093 0.021 1992 6 330.0 14.4 0.106 0.057 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 9 331.1 16.5 0.291 0.089 1996 6 365.0 15.2 0.328 0.083 1997 8 313.1 8.2 0.173 0.133 1998 6 317.5 8.8 0.265 0.091 1999 3 325.0 16.2 0.089 0.093

Appendix C69.- 

### stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 0 0.861 0.000 1984 0 0.250 0.000 1985 0 0.000 0.000 1986 0 0.000 0.000 1987 9 405.6 1.1 0.946 0.243 1988 43 410.2 0.4 1.776 0.167 1989 60 406.2 0.4 1.782 0.250 1990 57 414.9 0.4 1.980 0.240 1991 20 407.5 0.5 1.947 0.236 1992 5 400.0 0.0 1.644 0.037 1993

. .. 1994

. .. 1995 4 395.0 0.3 1.805 0.031 1996 2 400.0 0.0 2.987 0.028 1997 2 410.0 1.2 2.773 0.023 1998 2 400.0 0.0 2.314 0.030 1999 2 477.5 15.8 1.264 0.049

# 126 Appendix C70.- 

### grey triggerfish Balistes capriscus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 0 0 0.000 1980 1 220.0 0.0 1 220.0 0.0 0.002 1981 3 293.3 23.3 3 293.3 23.3 0.001 1982 15 373.3 28.6 15 373.3 28.6 0.006 1983 14 323.6 18.0 14 323.6 18.0 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 2 365.0 15.0 2 365.0 15.0 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 7 344.3 22.2 7 344.3 22.2 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 3 416.7 38.4 3 416.7 38.4 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 15 322.7 22.9 15 322.7 22.9 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 15 311.3 17.2 15 311.3 17.2 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 5 298.0 13.2 5 298.0 13.2 0.002 8 247.5 8.6 8 247.5 8.6 0.058 0.000 0.036 0.036 1990 8 315.0 14.3 8 315.0 14.3 0.001 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.004 1991 27 399.3 18.3 27 399.3 18.3 0.013 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 17 405.3 14.6 17 405.3 14.6 0.004 1 240.0 0.0 1 240.0 0.0 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.011 1993 28 352.5 11.3 28 352.5 11.3 0.013 . . . . . . 1994 17 386.5 10.3 25 341.6 15.1 0.008 . . . . . . 1995 3 400.0 30.6 4 367.5 39.0 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 3 366.7 14.5 4 340.0 28.6 0.001 0 1 250.0 0.0 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.014 1997 1 430.0 0.0 7 272.9 26.7 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 2 405.0 45.0 3 343.3 66.9 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C71.- 

### queen triggerfish Balistes vetula

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.001 1980 3 326.7 33.8 0.001 1981 7 337.1 20.0 0.001 1982 1 300.0 0.0 0.001 1983 7 337.1 15.8 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 3 360.0 60.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 2 285.0 45.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 6 325.0 16.9 0.002 1 260.0 0.0 0.027 0.000 0.027 1988 1 250.0 0.0 0.000 3 293.3 6.7 0.020 0.000 0.020 1989 7 317.1 6.1 0.004 8 323.8 8.4 0.021 0.000 0.021 1990 10 323.0 10.4 0.002 3 383.3 16.7 0.012 0.000 0.012 1991 4 325.0 17.6 0.001 2 360.0 10.0 0.072 0.000 0.021 1992 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 9 292.2 11.2 0.004 . . . . 1994 6 331.7 20.6 0.002 . . . . 1995 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 1 370.0 0.0 0.000 1 250.0 0.0 0.042 0.000 0.014 1997 3 286.7 29.1 0.005 1 305.0 0.0 0.027 0.000 0.015 1998 1 260.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 1 283.8 89.2 0.148 0.000 0.040

# 127 Appendix C72.- 

### ocean triggerfish Cantherhines sufflamen

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.011 1980 16 412.5 14.8 0.014 1981 44 436.8 10.7 0.005 1982 1 290.0 0.0 0.001 1983 23 443.0 12.4 0.008 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 1 420.0 0.0 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 19 386.8 23.8 0.004 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 28 439.6 9.7 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 20 364.0 14.2 0.003 1 420.0 0.0 0.000 0.027 0.027 1988 34 399.4 9.8 0.010 8 348.8 24.6 0.025 0.019 0.044 1989 16 426.3 13.4 0.005 5 382.0 15.6 0.010 0.012 0.022 1990 38 408.7 10.0 0.008 2 350.0 0.0 0.008 0.000 0.008 1991 5 346.0 43.4 0.001 1 400.0 0.0 0.000 0.010 0.010 1992 28 399.6 13.4 0.003 2 300.0 0.0 0.023 0.000 0.023 1993 12 421.7 19.3 0.003 . . . . 1994 4 490.0 56.1 0.001 . . . . 1995 12 398.3 13.1 0.008 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 6 430.0 12.4 0.001 1 300.0 0.0 0.014 0.000 0.014 1997 3 523.3 14.5 0.000 2 340.0 50.5 0.033 0.008 0.033 1998 6 428.3 36.6 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C74.- 

### doctorfish A canthurus chirurgus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 0 0.000 1983 1 230.0 0.0 0.001 41 239.8 4.6 2.632 1.146 1.146 1984 0 0.003 5 278.0 17.1 3.500 1.250 1.250 1985 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 4 220.0 10.8 0.001 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 6 255.0 8.5 0.001 9 293.3 21.5 0.216 0.243 0.243 1988 1 260.0 0.0 0.000 95 264.9 3.4 0.113 0.407 0.407 1989 4 252.5 36.4 0.001 106 247.6 3.8 0.219 0.234 0.234 1990 6 280.0 9.7 0.001 74 258.5 4.4 0.449 0.092 0.092 1991 0 0.000 8 208.8 6.4 0.774 0.105 0.105 1992 0 0.000 5 264.0 35.3 0.705 0.044 0.044 1993 0 0.000 . . . . 1994 0 0.000 . . . . 1995 3 243.3 3.3 0.001 13 216.2 4.7 0.583 0.097 0.097 1996 1 250.0 0.0 0.003 4 205.0 5.0 2.192 0.056 0.056 1997 3 246.7 14.5 0.001 22 221.9 7.7 1.549 0.282 0.282 1998 3 260.0 11.5 0.002 15 262.4 7.0 0.621 0.200 0.200 1999 7 223.6 12.9 2.027 0.232 0.232

# 128 Appendix C75.- 

### spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 33 357.3 9.2 0.002 1977 18 443.9 7.8 0.016 1978 43 374.0 8.6 0.034 1979 14 382.1 14.1 0.018 1980 34 412.1 11.6 0.011 1981 19 425.8 18.1 0.007 1982 144 375.3 5.2 0.028 1983 119 349.0 5.1 0.017 1984 31 356.1 9.2 0.024 1985 24 356.3 11.2 0.009 1986 9 372.2 17.7 0.003 1987 10 412.0 17.7 0.002 1988 0 0.000 1989 1 510.0 0.0 0.002 1990 0 0.000 1991 0 0.000 1992 7 381.4 6.7 0.016 1993 0 0.000 1994 2 360.0 10.0 0.008 1995 12 377.5 6.3 0.019 1996 0 0.000 1997 0 0.000 1998 9 407.8 9.2 0.011 1999

Appendix C76.- 

### permit Trachinotus falcatu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 1 1010.0 0.0 1 1010.0 0.0 0.000 1980 0 0 0.000 1981 3 643.3 63.3 3 643.3 63.3 0.001 1982 1 270.0 0.0 1 270.0 0.0 0.000 1983 3 723.3 26.7 3 723.3 26.7 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 2 585.0 85.0 2 585.0 85.0 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 1 710.0 0.0 1 710.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 1 580.0 0.0 1 580.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 3 476.7 27.3 3 476.7 27.3 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 6 573.3 40.1 6 573.3 40.1 0.001 2 500.0 0.0 2 500.0 0.0 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.008 1991 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 1 700.0 0.0 1 700.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1994 0 0 0.000 . . . . . . 1995 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 1 680.0 0.0 1 680.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

# 129 Appendix C77.- 

### african pompano A lectis ciliaris

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 1 680.0 0.0 1 680.0 0.0 0.001 1980 1 300.0 0.0 1 300.0 0.0 0.000 1981 0 0 0.000 1982 2 465.0 115.0 2 465.0 115.0 0.001 1983 1 500.0 0.0 1 500.0 0.0 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 1985 7 384.3 30.9 7 384.3 30.9 0.004 1986 3 526.7 80.9 3 526.7 80.9 0.006 1987 0 0 0.000 1988 1 620.0 0.0 1 620.0 0.0 0.001 1989 0 0 0.000 1990 2 800.0 10.0 2 800.0 10.0 0.001 1991 6 335.0 8.5 6 335.0 8.5 0.001 1992 0 0 0.000 1993 0 0 0.000 1994 0 0 0.000 1995 0 0 0.000 1996 0 0 0.000 1997 0 0 0.000 1998 0 0 0.000 1999

Appendix C78.- 

### dolphin Coryphaena hippuru s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 422 567.6 9.0 0.464 1977 167 612.9 12.9 0.299 1978 297 614.2 10.4 0.315 1979 118 642.9 20.3 0.242 1980 220 614.9 12.7 0.188 1981 493 567.9 8.7 0.386 1982 344 601.7 7.9 0.480 1983 248 661.9 13.3 0.302 1984 5 660.0 93.8 0.107 1985 561 583.3 4.9 0.335 1986 388 724.0 8.5 0.218 1987 148 614.9 14.5 0.151 1988 218 563.8 9.2 0.206 1989 493 532.3 5.8 0.552 1990 365 590.9 8.4 0.213 1991 448 590.4 7.0 0.222 1992 458 576.4 8.3 0.225 1993 443 527.9 6.2 0.304 1994 506 566.0 5.7 0.297 1995 166 657.5 13.8 0.258 1996 222 575.8 11.6 0.253 1997 202 538.2 10.1 0.290 1998 11 596.4 28.2 0.214 1999

# 130 Appendix C79.- 

### atlantic bonito Sarda sarda

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.023 1977 0 0.015 1978 0 0.010 1979 0 0.008 1980 7 475.7 16.6 0.012 1981 28 542.1 28.1 0.011 1982 4 422.5 68.0 0.005 1983 6 478.3 101.4 0.003 1984 0 0.000 1985 3 636.7 55.5 0.001 1986 28 425.4 31.8 0.010 1987 0 0.000 1988 0 0.000 1989 3 316.7 16.7 0.001 1990 0 0.000 1991 4 715.0 55.2 0.002 1992 1 670.0 0.0 0.000 1993 1 620.0 0.0 0.000 1994 0 0.001 1995 0 0.000 1996 0 0.000 1997 1 450.0 0.0 0.002 1998 0 0.000 1999

Appendix C80.- 

### little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.002 1980 0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 1 490.0 0.0 0.000 1983 13 578.5 25.1 0.002 1984 0 0.000 1985 4 677.5 70.8 0.001 1986 1 370.0 0.0 0.000 1987 12 503.3 44.5 0.003 1988 7 452.9 73.8 0.003 1989 6 651.7 40.0 0.002 1990 11 446.4 52.5 0.002 1991 11 569.1 50.4 0.002 1992 8 570.0 50.6 0.002 1993 15 444.0 35.5 0.007 1994 18 476.7 33.4 0.004 1995 2 475.0 175.0 0.001 1996 18 620.0 42.1 0.006 1997 2 490.0 180.0 0.001 1998 6 423.3 38.7 0.006 1999

# 131 Appendix C81.- 

### sailfish Istiophorus platypteru s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 1 1750 0 0.002 1977 0 0.001 1978 0 0.002 1979 1 1750.0 0.0 0.001 1980 2 1740.0 60.0 0.002 1981 1 1650.0 0.0 0.002 1982 2 1870.0 140.0 0.002 1983 4 1875.0 97.2 0.002 1984 0 0.000 1985 5 1708.0 75.6 0.001 1986 1 2450.0 0.0 0.001 1987 1 1870.0 0.0 0.001 1988 1 1590.0 0.0 0.002 1989 1 1670.0 0.0 0.001 1990 1 1590.0 0.0 0.000 1991 1 1750.0 0.0 0.001 1992 0 0.001 1993 1 1780.0 0.0 0.000 1994 2 1615.0 35.0 0.001 1995 1 1600.0 0.0 0.002 1996 1 1700.0 0.0 0.001 1997 0 0.000 1998 0 0.000 1999

Appendix C82.- 

### skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.002 1980 0 0.000 1981 0 0.000 1982 0 0.000 1983 11 590.9 21.1 0.002 1984 1 500.0 0.0 0.003 1985 0 0.000 1986 0 0.000 1987 3 660.0 47.3 0.002 1988 1 640.0 0.0 0.000 1989 0 0.002 1990 7 625.7 25.4 0.002 1991 0 0.000 1992 5 560.0 10.5 0.003 1993 2 530.0 20.0 0.001 1994 3 606.7 58.1 0.002 1995 0 0.000 1996 2 585.0 55.0 0.003 1997 1 650.0 0.0 0.001 1998 1 610.0 0.0 0.000 1999

# 132 Appendix C83.- 

### blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 0 0.000 1979 0 0.000 1980 1 580.0 0.0 0.005 1981 0 0.001 1982 3 520.0 65.1 0.003 1983 2 460.0 20.0 0.001 1984 0 0.002 1985 1 730.0 0.0 0.001 1986 7 588.6 71.9 0.002 1987 0 0.000 1988 0 0.000 1989 0 0.000 1990 1 800.0 0.0 0.001 1991 0 0.000 1992 1 780.0 0.0 0.000 1993 5 594.0 51.0 0.004 1994 1 320.0 0.0 0.001 1995 0 0.000 1996 0 0.000 1997 2 560.0 0.0 0.002 1998 2 365.0 15.0 0.006 1999

Appendix C84.- 

### king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 42 741.7 20.4 42 741.7 20.4 0.000 1977 11 733.6 35.3 11 733.6 35.3 0.000 1978 6 720.0 58.0 6 720.0 58.0 0.001 1979 6 721.7 79.4 6 721.7 79.4 0.005 1980 9 834.4 42.2 9 834.4 42.2 0.010 1981 10 757.0 66.1 10 757.0 66.1 0.007 1982 11 821.8 36.4 11 821.8 36.4 0.007 1983 9 731.1 26.4 9 731.1 26.4 0.006 1984 0 0 0.007 1985 7 931.4 75.3 7 931.4 75.3 0.003 1986 2 910.0 40.0 2 910.0 40.0 0.002 1987 9 747.8 48.9 9 747.8 48.9 0.009 1988 4 800.0 59.6 4 800.0 59.6 0.002 1989 6 668.3 30.2 6 668.3 30.2 0.004 1990 16 848.1 52.9 16 848.1 52.9 0.009 1991 13 773.8 27.1 13 773.8 27.1 0.006 1992 3 740.0 49.3 3 740.0 49.3 0.002 1993 11 788.2 41.9 11 788.2 41.9 0.004 1994 9 860.0 65.0 9 860.0 65.0 0.004 1995 2 875.0 105.0 2 875.0 105.0 0.005 1996 4 845.0 38.6 4 845.0 38.6 0.009 1997 1 1090.0 0.0 1 1090.0 0.0 0.000 1998 3 880.0 90.7 3 880.0 90.7 0.003 1999

# 133 Appendix C85.- 

### spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatu s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 28 571.4 14.2 0.000 1977 11 606.4 38.5 0.000 1978 4 575.0 32.8 0.002 1979 3 410.0 10.0 0.002 1980 4 505.0 42.5 0.011 1981 13 533.8 25.1 0.005 1982 18 567.8 21.8 0.019 1983 2 495.0 65.0 0.003 1984 0 0.002 1985 3 400.0 15.3 0.001 1986 2 660.0 160.0 0.012 1987 8 463.8 30.2 0.007 1988 1 460.0 0.0 0.002 1989 0 0.000 1990 1 450.0 0.0 0.001 1991 11 550.0 38.7 0.006 1992 9 533.3 21.8 0.003 1993 3 606.7 58.1 0.002 1994 2 415.0 25.0 0.001 1995 3 516.7 18.6 0.002 1996 0 0.000 1997 1 470.0 0.0 0.001 1998 1 510.0 0.0 0.000 1999

Appendix C86.- 

### cero Scomberomorus regali s

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.000 1977 0 0.000 1978 3 783.3 53.6 0.000 1979 22 495.0 18.9 0.007 1980 72 512.2 13.5 0.008 1981 59 508.8 12.2 0.009 1982 21 546.7 24.2 0.006 1983 31 521.3 19.4 0.004 3 566.7 6.0 0.111 0.000 1984 4 487.5 76.0 0.003 0 0.000 0.000 1985 29 491.0 19.7 0.002 0 0.000 0.000 1986 45 612.7 18.5 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 1987 61 482.0 10.6 0.010 1 500.0 0.0 0.027 0.000 1988 27 505.2 17.1 0.004 9 514.4 3.3 0.054 0.000 1989 8 558.8 35.8 0.002 3 463.3 1.3 0.009 0.000 1990 24 521.7 24.9 0.004 16 513.8 3.7 0.068 0.004 1991 12 480.8 33.8 0.002 7 562.9 9.3 0.108 0.000 1992 29 478.6 17.4 0.005 0 0.000 0.000 1993 57 498.1 10.4 0.013 . . . 1994 22 484.1 18.6 0.003 . . . 1995 17 511.2 20.8 0.005 4 525.0 9.7 0.036 0.000 1996 6 476.7 18.2 0.001 6 488.3 5.0 0.097 0.000 1997 11 495.5 34.1 0.002 0 0.006 0.000 1998 9 592.2 31.5 0.003 3 436.7 2.1 0.041 0.000 1999 0 0.000 0.000

# 134 Appendix C87.- 

### greater amberjack Seriola dumerili

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 1 1060.0 0.0 1 1060.0 0.0 0.000 1979 4 845.0 119.1 4 845.0 119.1 0.002 1980 4 877.5 76.6 4 877.5 76.6 0.003 1981 25 970.8 62.3 25 970.8 62.3 0.005 1982 11 1106.4 22.5 11 1106.4 22.5 0.002 1983 7 835.7 139.9 7 835.7 139.9 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1985 4 467.5 90.6 4 467.5 90.6 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1986 7 702.9 65.1 7 702.9 65.1 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1987 15 1058.7 50.9 15 1058.7 50.9 0.003 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1988 1 1020.0 0.0 1 1020.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1989 6 596.7 164.7 6 596.7 164.7 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1990 0 1 400.0 0.0 0.000 2 1675.0 155.0 2 1675.0 155.0 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.008 1991 8 1017.5 24.5 9 953.3 67.7 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1992 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1993 1 1000.0 0.0 1 1000.0 0.0 0.000 . . . . . . 1994 2 945.0 75.0 2 945.0 75.0 0.000 . . . . . . 1995 2 1110.0 110.0 2 1110.0 110.0 0.001 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1996 2 1050.0 20.0 3 900.0 150.4 0.002 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1997 0 1 670.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1998 1 1010.0 0.0 1 1010.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1999 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix C88.- 

### tripletail Lobotes surinamensis

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0 0.000 1977 0 0 0.000 1978 0 0 0.000 1979 0 0 0.000 1980 0 0 0.000 1981 4 380.0 44.2 4 380.0 44.2 0.004 1982 5 372.0 32.0 5 372.0 32.0 0.006 1983 0 0 0.000 1984 0 0 0.000 1985 1 370.0 0.0 1 370.0 0.0 0.000 1986 4 402.5 8.5 4 402.5 8.5 0.001 1987 0 0 0.001 1988 0 0 0.000 1989 3 366.7 47.0 3 366.7 47.0 0.001 1990 2 430.0 80.0 2 430.0 80.0 0.002 1991 7 434.3 26.4 7 434.3 26.4 0.002 1992 3 480.0 45.8 3 480.0 45.8 0.001 1993 2 350.0 50.0 2 350.0 50.0 0.002 1994 9 430.0 11.9 9 430.0 11.9 0.003 1995 1 480.0 0.0 1 480.0 0.0 0.003 1996 1 400.0 0.0 2 385.0 15.0 0.005 1997 0 1 340.0 0.0 0.001 1998 1 480.0 0.0 1 480.0 0.0 0.001 1999

# 135 Appendix C89.- 

### wahoo A canthocybium solandri

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lbar CPUE Lbar CPUE Year n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 0 0.001 1977 3 940.0 181.5 0.001 1978 3 860.0 113.6 0.002 1979 3 1066.7 23.3 0.006 1980 10 1056.0 67.0 0.004 1981 6 931.7 106.4 0.003 1982 8 1015.0 69.9 0.003 1983 4 1150.0 143.6 0.003 1984 2 1130.0 90.0 0.021 1985 4 1127.5 57.9 0.001 1986 8 1003.8 45.8 0.003 1987 5 1162.0 74.8 0.004 1988 7 985.7 63.8 0.008 1989 3 1150.0 75.1 0.001 1990 2 1015.0 5.0 0.003 1991 9 1134.4 43.5 0.005 1992 4 1055.0 26.3 0.002 1993 8 1183.8 91.3 0.006 1994 7 1002.9 79.8 0.004 1995 2 1095.0 25.0 0.003 1996 6 1045.0 86.1 0.005 1997 1 1200.0 0.0 0.002 1998 2 890.0 210.0 0.003 1999

Appendix C90.- 

### spiny lobster Panulirus Argus

CREEL Survey Data RVC Survey Data Lba r CPUE Lba r CPUE Yea r n Legal S.E. n Actual S.E. A ctual n Legal S.E. n A ctual S.E. IM Mat Legal A ctual 1976 313 838.9 3.5 313 838.9 3.5 1.067 1977 674 855.2 3.0 674 855.2 3.0 0.814 1978 1175 846.4 2.2 1175 846.4 2.2 0.880 1979 658 842.9 2.8 658 842.9 2.8 1.059 1980 1350 844.9 2.0 1350 844.9 2.0 0.944 1981 771 859.4 3.0 771 859.4 3.0 0.672 1982 1695 829.5 1.6 1695 829.5 1.6 0.926 1983 700 829.8 2.5 700 829.8 2.5 0.759 1984 624 836.3 2.5 624 836.3 2.5 0.603 1985 373 845.9 3.4 373 845.9 3.4 0.796 1986 1190 852.2 2.0 1190 852.2 2.0 0.813 1987 879 843.0 2.4 879 843.0 2.4 0.822 1988 732 835.7 2.3 732 835.7 2.3 0.761 1989 873 848.0 2.3 873 848.0 2.3 0.863 1990 1653 857.2 1.8 1653 857.2 1.8 0.780 1991 278 869.7 4.8 278 869.7 4.8 1.359 1992 107 854.4 7.2 107 854.4 7.2 1.523 1993 231 857.9 4.6 231 857.9 4.6 1.079 1994 295 861.6 4.8 295 861.6 4.8 1.443 1995 429 863.2 3.1 429 863.2 3.1 2.184 1996 329 859.4 4.3 329 859.4 4.3 1.416 1997 168 844.9 5.2 168 844.9 5.2 1.222 1998 130 869.5 8.1 130 869.5 8.1 1.375 1999136Appendix D1: SAS programs for processing reef fish visual census dataand estimating average length in the exploited phase andcatch per unit effort (seeFigure 21)./*program fkdat3.sas*//*processes FK reef fish 99 bio data*//*applies 2-stage numbers-at-length algorithm*//*bnp region, all species*/options nodate nonumber;data r1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf99/under5.txt';input smpcode$ 1-14 species$ 17-24 @33 catch@40 meansize @48 minsize @56 maxsize;run;proc sort;by species;quit;data s1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/species.prn';input species$ 1-8 latin$ 16-47 common2$ 49-77 family$ 79-99specnum 101-104 famnum 111-113 bbtrawl 121 creel 129 rvc 137;if rvc=1;keep species specnum;run;proc sort;by species;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data s2;merge r1 s1;by species;if catch=. then delete;run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables species;quit;*/proc sort;by smpcode;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data p1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf99/rf99_fkphys.txt';input month 1-2 day 4-5 yr 7-8 rfblk$ 10-16 stn 18 div$ 20smpcode$ 22-35 observ 37-38 @40 ddlat @50 ddlong @60 depthregkey 67 subreg 69 spa 71-72 reeftype 74;if yr=99 then yr=1999;else yr=yr;run;proc sort;by smpcode;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data m1;merge p1 s2;by smpcode;run;data m2;set m1;if stn=. then delete;if regkey=1;drop smpcode observ subreg spa species;run;/*proc print;quit;*/proc sort;by yr month day rfblk stn div specnum;quit;proc transpose out=m3;by yr month day rfblk stn div ddlat ddlong depth regkey reeftype;var catch;id specnum;quit;proc transpose out=m4;by yr month day rfblk stn div ddlat ddlong depth regkey reeftype;quit;data m5;set m4;specode=_name_;if catch=. then catch=0;drop _name_;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data m6;set m5;format ddlat ddlong 9.5;format depth 6.3;file '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/tmp1.txt';put yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn 20-21 div$ 23@25 ddlat @35 ddlong @45 depth regkey 52 reeftype 54specode$ 56-59 @61 catch;run;data m7;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/tmp1.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn 20-21 div$ 23@25 ddlat @35 ddlong @45 depth regkey 52 reeftype 54specnum 57-59 @61 catch;run;proc sort;by yr month day rfblk stn div specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data m8;merge m2 m7;by yr month day rfblk stn div specnum catch;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;137quit;*/data s3;set s1;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data m9;merge m8 s3;by specnum;if catch=. then delete;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r2;set m9;if meansize=. then meansize=0;else meansize=meansize;if minsize=0 then minsize=.;else minsize=minsize;if maxsize=0 then maxsize=.;else maxsize=maxsize;run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc univariate;var minsize maxsize;quit;*/data r3a;set r2;if minsize=.;L3=meansize;A3=catch;L1=.;A1=.;L2=.;A2=.;L4=.;A4=.;L5=.;A5=.;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;data r3b;set r2;if minsize ne .;if catch=1;L3=meansize;A3=catch;L1=.;A1=.;L2=.;A2=.;L4=.;A4=.;L5=.;A5=.;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;data r3c;set r2;if minsize ne .;if catch=2;L1=minsize;A1=1;L5=maxsize;A5=1;L2=.;A2=.;L4=.;A4=.;L3=.;A3=.;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;data r3d;set r2;if minsize ne .;if catch=3;L1=minsize;A1=1;L3=meansize;A3=1;L5=maxsize;A5=1;L2=.;A2=.;L4=.;A4=.;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;data r3e;set r2;if minsize ne .;if catch=4;L1=minsize;A1=1;L3=meansize;A3=2;L5=maxsize;A5=1;L2=.;A2=.;L4=.;A4=.;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;data r3f;set r2;if minsize ne .;if 5<=catch<=99;L1=minsize;A1=1;L3=meansize;A3=0.5*catch;L5=maxsize;A5=1;L2=(L3+L1)/2;A2=(catch-(A1+A3+A5))/2;L4=(L3+L5)/2;A4=A2;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;138run;data r3g;set r2;if minsize ne .;if catch>99;L1=minsize;A1=0.01*catch;L3=meansize;A3=0.5*catch;L5=maxsize;A5=0.01*catch;L2=(L3+L1)/2;A2=(catch-(A1+A3+A5))/2;L4=(L3+L5)/2;A4=A2;drop catch minsize meansize maxsize;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r4;set r3a r3b r3c r3d r3e r3f r3g;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r5a;set r4;if L1=. then delete;len=L1;abund=A1;keep yr month day regkey depth reeftype rfblk stn divddlat ddlong specnum species len abund;run;data r5b;set r4;if L2=. then delete;len=L2;abund=A2;keep yr month day regkey depth reeftype rfblk stn divddlat ddlong specnum species len abund;run;data r5c;set r4;if L3=. then delete;len=L3;abund=A3;keep yr month day regkey depth reeftype rfblk stn divddlat ddlong specnum species len abund;run;data r5d;set r4;if L4=. then delete;len=L4;abund=A4;keep yr month day regkey depth reeftype rfblk stn divddlat ddlong specnum species len abund;run;data r5e;set r4;if L5=. then delete;len=L5;abund=A5;keep yr month day regkey depth reeftype rfblk stn divddlat ddlong specnum species len abund;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r6;set r5a r5b r5c r5d r5e;run;proc sort;by specnum yr rfblk stn div len;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/proc means noprint data=r2;class specnum yr rfblk stn;var catch;output out=a1 mean=avnum sum=sumnum;quit;data a2;set a1;if _type_=15;drop _type_ _freq_;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r7;merge r6 a2;by specnum yr rfblk stn;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r8;set r7;if abund=0 then num=0;else num=(abund/sumnum)*avnum;run;/*proc univariate;var len num;quit;proc print;quit;*/data r9;set r8;format ddlat ddlong 9.5;format depth 6.3 len 6.1 num 10.3;file '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf99/fk99/fkdat3_99.txt';put yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn 20-28@30 ddlat @40 ddlong @50 depth regkey 57 reeftype 59species$ 61-68 specnum 70-72 @74 len @81 num;run;/*program fkdat3a_bnp.sas*//*processes BNP region reef fish data*//*creates lbar analysis dataset*//*all species*/options nodate nonumber;data b1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/fkdat3_7996.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 specnum 20-22@24 ddlat @34 ddlong @44 depth regkey 51 reeftype 53species$ 55-62 stn$ 64-72 @74 len @81 num;139if len>0;keep yr specnum species len num;run;data b2;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf9798/fkdat3_9798.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn$ 20-28@30 ddlat @40 ddlong @50 depth regkey 57 reeftype 59species$ 61-68 specnum 70-72 @74 len @81 num;if len>0;keep yr specnum species len num;run;data b3;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf99/fk99/fkdat3_99.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn$ 20-28@30 ddlat @40 ddlong @50 depth regkey 57 reeftype 59species$ 61-68 specnum 70-72 @74 len @81 num;if len>0;keep yr specnum species len num;run;data b4;set b1 b2 b3;run;proc sort;by specnum yr;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data b5;set b4;format len 6.1 num 10.3;file '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_lbardat.txt';put yr 1-4 species$ 6-13 specnum 15-17 @19 len @26 num;run;/*program rvc_lbar.sas*//*processes BNP region reef fish data*//*computes lbar*//*by species and year*/options nodate nonumber;data b1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_lbardat.txt';input yr 1-4 species$ 6-13 specnum 15-17 @19 len @26 num;if specnum=133;run;data r1;set b1;if yr<1985 and len<19 then delete;if yr>=1985 and len<30 then delete;/*if yr>=1990 and len<51 then delete;*//*if len>100 then delete;*/run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc univariate plot;var len;quit;*/proc means noprint vardef=wdf;class species yr;var len;weight num;id specnum;output out=r2 mean=lbar var=s2 sumwgt=n;quit;data r3;set r2;if _type_=3;se_lbar=sqrt(s2/n);format lbar 7.2 se_lbar 6.2;drop _type_ _freq_;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data y1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_yrts.txt';input yr id;run;data r4;merge r3 y1;by yr;if (yr<1993 or yr>1994) and (n=.) then n=0;else n=n;if specnum=. then specnum=133;else specnum=specnum;if species=' ' then species='OCY CHRY';else species=species;drop id;run;proc print noobs;var specnum species yr n lbar se_lbar;title ' ';quit;/*program fkdat3b_bnp.sas*//*processes BNP region reef fish data*//*creates cpue analysis dataset*//*all species, reeftypes 4-6*/options nodate nonumber;data b1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/fkdat3_7996.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 specnum 20-22@24 ddlat @34 ddlong @44 depth regkey 51 reeftype 53species$ 55-62 stn$ 64-72 @74 len @81 num;if reeftype>=4;keep yr specnum species len num rfblk stn;run;data b2;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf9798/fkdat3_9798.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn$ 20-28@30 ddlat @40 ddlong @50 depth regkey 57 reeftype 59species$ 61-68 specnum 70-72 @74 len @81 num;if reeftype>=4;keep yr specnum species len num rfblk stn;run;data b3;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/rf99/fk99/fkdat3_99.txt';input yr 1-4 month 6-7 day 9-10 rfblk$ 12-18 stn$ 20-28@30 ddlat @40 ddlong @50 depth regkey 57 reeftype 59species$ 61-68 specnum 70-72 @74 len @81 num;if reeftype>=4;keep yr specnum species len num rfblk stn;run;data b4;set b1 b2 b3;140run;proc sort;by specnum yr;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data b5;set b4;format len 6.1 num 10.3;file '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_cpuedat.txt';put yr 1-4 species$ 6-13 specnum 15-17 rfblk$ 19-25 stn$ 27-35@37 len @44 num;run;/*program rfds1.sas*//*2-stage SRS design, FK reef fish data*//*species-lifestage*/options nodate nonumber;data rd1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_cpuedat.txt';input yr 1-4 species$ 6-13 specnum 15-17 rfblk$ 19-25 stn$ 27-35@37 len @44 num;if specnum=232;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data rd2;set rd1;if len<87.7 then jnum=num;else jnum=0;if len=0 or len>=87.7 then anum=num;else anum=0;if len=0 or len>=35.0 then enum=num;else enum=0;/*if len=0 or (yr<1990 and len>=30) or(yr>=1990 and len>=51) then enum=num;else enum=0;*/run;/*proc print;quit;*/proc means noprint;class yr rfblk stn;var jnum anum enum;id species specnum;output out=r1 sum=j_abund a_abund e_abund;quit;data r2;set r1;if _type_=7;drop _type_ _freq_ ;run;/*proc print;quit;*/proc means noprint;class yr rfblk;var e_abund;id species specnum;output out=r3 mean=cpi var=vari;quit;data r4;set r3;if _type_=3;m=_freq_;if vari=. then vari=0;drop _type_ _freq_;run;/*proc print;quit;*//* *//*SRS scheme*//* */proc means data=r4 noprint;class yr;var cpi vari m;id species specnum;output out=r5 mean=avcp mean1 msum=sum1 varm nm var=s1 var1 var2;quit;data r6;set r5;if _type_=1;n=_freq_;s2=varm/n;keep yr species specnum avcp m n nm s1 s2;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data r7;set r6;mtot=226;ntot=978;fn=n/ntot;fm=m/mtot;vbar_cp=((1-fn)*s1/n)+((fn*(1-fm)*s2)/nm);se_cp=sqrt(vbar_cp);cv_cp=(se_cp/avcp)*100;std2=sqrt(s2);su=s1-(s2/Mtot);stdu=sqrt(su);if stdu ne 0 then mopt=std2/stdu;else mopt=0;format avcp se_cp 9.5;format m mopt 5.2;format cv_cp 6.2;run;data y1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/rvc_yrts.txt';input yr id;run;data r8;merge r7 y1;by yr;if (yr<1993 or yr>1994) and n=. then avcp=0;else avcp=avcp;if specnum=. then specnum=232;else specnum=specnum;if species=' ' then species='SPH BARR';else species=species;drop id;run;proc print noobs;var specnum species yr n m mopt nm avcp se_cp cv_cp;title 'SRS 2-stage';quit;141Appendix D2:SAS programs for processing BNP recreational creel surveydata and estimating average length in the exploited phaseand catch per unit effort (seeFigure 21)./*program creellbar.sas*//*processes creel fish length data, 1976-1998*//*computes lbar by species and year*/options nonumber nodate;data f1a;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_len_7687.prn';input month 7-8 day 14-15 yr 22-23 intnum 26-30 specode 33-36len 40-43 common$ 51-72 area 75;if area=0 then delete;drop common intnum;run;data f1b;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_len_8891.prn';input month 6-7 day 13-14 yr 21-22 intnum 25-29 specode 32-35len 40-43 common$ 52-71 area 74;if area=0 then delete;drop common intnum;run;/*proc print;quit;*/data f1c;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/CreelLen.txt';input obs 1-6 month 12-13 day 19-20 yr 24-27 area 32-33specode 40-43 common$ 49-69 len 72-74;if specode=9999 then delete;if area=. then area=37;else area=area;if area=17 or area=36 or area=37 then delete;if yr<1999;drop obs common;run;data f2;set f1a f1b f1c;if len=0 then delete;run;/*proc print;quit;*/proc sort;by specode;quit;data s1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creelspecies.prn';input specode specnum;run;proc sort;by specode;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data f3;merge s1 f2;by specode;if len=. then delete;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables specode;quit;*/data r1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/species.prn';input species$ 1-8 latin$ 16-47 common2$ 49-77 family$ 79-99specnum 101-104 famnum 111-113 bbtrawl 121 creel 129 rvc 137;if creel=1;keep species specnum;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data r2;merge r1 f3;by specnum;if len=. then delete;run;proc sort;by species;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data r3;set r2;if yr=76 then yr=1976;else if yr=77 then yr=1977;else if yr=78 then yr=1978;else if yr=79 then yr=1979;else if yr=80 then yr=1980;else if yr=81 then yr=1981;else if yr=82 then yr=1982;else if yr=83 then yr=1983;else if yr=84 then yr=1984;else if yr=85 then yr=1985;else if yr=86 then yr=1986;else if yr=87 then yr=1987;else if yr=88 then yr=1988;else if yr=89 then yr=1989;else if yr=90 then yr=1990;else if yr=91 then yr=1991;else yr=yr;if specnum=16;if yr<1994 and len<22 then delete;if yr>=1994 and len<30 then delete;/*if yr>=1990 and len<51 then delete;*//*if len>100 then delete;*/run;/*proc univariate plot;var len;quit;*/proc means noprint;class species yr;142var len;id specnum;output out=r4 n=n mean=lbar stderr=se_lbar;quit;data r5;set r4;if _type_=3;if se_lbar=. then se_lbar=0;format lbar 7.2 se_lbar 6.2;drop _type_ _freq_;run;data y1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/yr_ts.txt';input yr id;run;data r6;merge r5 y1;by yr;if n=. then n=0;else n=n;if specnum=. then specnum=16;else specnum=specnum;if species=' ' then species='BAL CAPR';else species=species;drop id;run;proc print noobs;title ' ';quit;/*program creelcpdat.sas*//*processes creel cpue data, 1976-1998*//*creates analysis dataset, all species*/options nonumber nodate;data c1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creelint_7687.prn';input @1 intid persons 17-18 eff_hrs 25-26 trgspec 31-36area 41-42 party 51-52 month 58-59 day 65-66 yr 73-74specode 76-80 catch 81-85;if eff_hrs=0 then delete;if area=17 or area>30 then delete;trip=intid*10;yr=yr+1900;type=0;drop intid;run;data c2;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creelint_8891.prn';input @1 intid persons 18-19 eff_hrs 26-27 trgspec 32-37area 42-43 party 53-54 month 60-61 day 66-67 yr 74-75specode 76-80 catch 81-85;if area=17 then delete;trip=intid*10;yr=yr+1900;type=0;drop intid;run;data c3a;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/Census_91-93.prn';input trip 3-8 specode 14-18 catch 26-30;if specode=. then specode=0;else specode=specode;run;proc sort;by trip;quit;data c3b;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/Trip_91-93.prn';input trip 2-7 month 9-10 day 12-13 yr 15-18 party 32-33persons 45-46 eff_hrs 56-57 trgspec 64-69 area 79-80;run;proc sort;by trip;quit;data c3;merge c3a c3b;by trip;if specode=. then specode=0;else specode=specode;if catch=. then catch=0;else catch=catch;if yr=. or yr>1993 then delete;if eff_hrs=. then delete;if area=17 then delete;if party=. then party=0;else party=party;type=0;run;data c4a;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/Census.prn';input trip 2-7 month 13-14 day 16-17 yr 19-22specode 28-32 catch 41-45;if specode=. then specode=0;else specode=specode;run;proc sort;by trip yr month day;quit;data c4b;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/Trip.prn';input trip 3-8 month 13-14 day 16-17 yr 19-22 party 37-38type 48-49 persons 61-62 eff_hrs 73-74 trgspec 81-86 area 95-96;run;proc sort;by trip yr month day;quit;data c4;merge c4a c4b;by trip yr month day;if specode=. then specode=0;else specode=specode;if catch=. then catch=0;else catch=catch;if eff_hrs=. then delete;if yr<1993 or yr>1998 then delete;if party>7 or party=. then party=0;else party=party;if type=. then type=0;else type=type;if area=17 or area=36 or area=37 then delete;run;data c5;set c1 c2 c3 c4;143run;proc sort;by yr month day trip;quit;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables yr party type area;quit;*//*proc univariate plot;var trip catch;quit;*/proc sort;by specode;quit;data s1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creelspecies.prn';input specode specnum;run;proc sort;by specode;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data c6;merge s1 c5;by specode;if specnum=. then delete;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables specode;quit;*/data r1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/reefsamp/species.prn';input species$ 1-8 latin$ 16-47 common$ 49-77 family$ 79-99specnum 101-104 famnum 111-113 bbtrawl 121 creel 129 rvc 137;if creel=1;keep species specnum family;run;proc sort;by specnum;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data r2;merge r1 c6;by specnum;run;proc sort;by species;quit;/*proc print;quit;*/data r3;set r2;if party=0 then delete;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data f1;set r3;if specnum=269 and party<6;if trgspec=1211 then lob=0;else lob=1;keep specnum yr trip lob;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data f2;merge f1 r3;by yr trip;if lob=1 then delete;if lob=0 then party=7;else party=party;drop lob;run;data f3;set f2;if (specnum=266 or specnum=270 or specnum=271) and party<6;if trgspec=1211 then lob=0;else lob=1;keep specnum yr trip lob;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data f4;merge f3 f2;by yr trip;if lob=1 then delete;if lob=0 then party=7;else party=party;drop lob;run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables species*party;quit;*/data f5;set f4;if party>5;if specnum=700 then unk=1;else unk=0;if specnum=266 then con=1;else con=0;if 269<=specnum<=271 then lob=1;else lob=0;if unk=0 and con=0 and lob=0 then fsh=1;else fsh=0;run;proc means noprint;class yr trip;var lob fsh con unk;id party;output out=f6 sum=lob fsh con unk;quit;144data f7;set f6;if _type_=3;if lob>0 and fsh=0 then gear='DL';else if lob=0 and fsh>0 then gear='DF';else if lob>0 and fsh>0 then gear='DM';else if lob=0 and fsh=0 and con>0 then gear='DC';else gear='DU';keep yr trip gear;run;data f8;merge f5 f7;by yr trip;if gear='DU' and trgspec=1211 then gear='DL';else if gear='DU' and (trgspec=0 or trgspec=9999) then gear='DM';else if gear='DU' and 5300<=trgspec<=8800 then gear='DF';else if gear='DU' and trgspec=20 then gear='DC';else gear=gear;if gear='DU' or gear='DC' then delete;drop lob fsh unk con;run;data f9;set f4;if party<=5;if trip=. then delete;gear='HK';run;data f10;set f8 f9;if specnum=700 then species='UNK SPE.';run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data u1;set f10;if specnum=700 then unk=1;else unk=0;if specnum ne 700 then oth=1;else oth=0;run;proc means noprint;class yr trip;var unk oth;output out=u2 sum=unk oth;quit;data u3;set u2;if _type_=3;if unk>0 and oth=0 then crct=1;else crct=0;keep yr trip crct;run;data u4;merge f10 u3;by yr trip;if crct=1 and catch>0 then delete;drop crct;run;data a1;set u4;if area=16 or 24<=area<=25 or 34<=area<=35 then delete;if 1<=area<=4 or 7<=area<=11 or area=18 or 20<=area<=22or area=27 or area=31 or area=38 then reg='BAY';else if area=5 or area=19 or area=23 then reg='REF';else if area=6 or area=26 then reg='PEL';else if 12<=area<=14 or area=28 or area=32 then reg='BRF';else if area=15 then reg='PRF';else if 29<=area<=30 or area=33 then reg='BPL';else reg='UNK';if reg='BPL' then delete;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data a2;set a1;if 87<=specnum<=98 or specnum=100 or specnum=123or 125<=specnum<=126 or 129<=specnum<=133 or specnum=269or 198<=specnum<=203 or 214<=specnum<=218 or specnum=227or specnum=706 or specnum=724 or specnum=731 then reef=1;else reef=0;if specnum=34 or 37<=specnum<=38 or specnum=286or specnum=290 or specnum=303 or 306<=specnum<=307or 193<=specnum<=194 or specnum=309 then pela=1;else pela=0;if reef=0 and pela=0 then mixd=1;else mixd=0;run;proc means noprint;class yr trip;var reef pela mixd;output out=a3 sum=reef pela mixd;quit;data a4;set a3;if _type_=3;if reef>0 and pela=0 then spc='R';else if pela>0 and reef=0 then spc='P';else if reef>0 and pela>0 then spc='B';else spc='U';keep yr trip spc;run;data a5;merge a1 a4;by yr trip;if spc='B' and (reg='BAY' or reg='BRF') then delete;if spc='B' and (reg='PEL' or reg='REF') then reg='PRF';else reg=reg;if spc='P' then reg='PEL';else reg=reg;if spc='R' and (reg='PEL' or reg='PRF') then reg='REF';else reg=reg;run;proc sort;by gear species reg;quit;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;by gear;tables species*reg;quit;*/data a6;145set a5;file '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_catch.txt';put yr 1-4 trip 6-11 specnum 13-15 species$ 17-24 catch 26-30;run;data z1;set a5;if specnum=713 and catch>0 then trig=1;else trig=0;if specnum=702 and catch>0 then jack=1;else jack=0;if specnum=706 and catch>0 then grunt=1;else grunt=0;if specnum=722 and catch>0 then chub=1;else chub=0;if specnum=724 and catch>0 then snap=1;else snap=0;if specnum=729 and catch>0 then tuna=1;else tuna=0;if specnum=731 and catch>0 then group=1;else group=0;if specnum=711 and catch>0 then porgy=1;else porgy=0;run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables specnum*pres;quit;*/proc means noprint;class yr trip;var trig jack grunt chub snap tuna group porgy;id persons eff_hrs gear reg;output out=z2 sum=trig jack grunt chub snap tunagroup porgy;quit;data z3;set z2;if _type_=3;drop _type_ _freq_;run;/*proc print;quit;*//*proc freq;tables gear*reg;quit;*/data z4;set z3;file '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_effort.txt';put yr 1-4 trip 6-11 gear$ 13-14 reg$ 16-18 persons 20-21eff_hrs 23-24 trig 26 jack 28 grunt 30 chub 32 snap 34tuna 36 group 38 porgy 40;run;/*program creelcpue.sas*//*processes creel cpue data, 1976-1998*//*computes CPUE by year*//*single species and gear*/options nonumber nodate;data c1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_catch.txt';input yr 1-4 trip 6-11 specnum 13-15 species$ 17-24 catch 26-30;format species $char8.;run;data c2;set c1;if specnum=232;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data e1;infile '/us4/sgsmith/bnp/creel/creel_effort.txt';input yr 1-4 trip 6-11 gear$ 13-14 reg$ 16-18 persons 20-21eff_hrs 23-24 trig 26 jack 28 grunt 30 chub 32 snap 34tuna 36 group 38 porgy 40;effort=persons*eff_hrs;drop persons eff_hrs;run;proc sort;by yr trip;quit;data e2;merge c2 e1;by yr trip;run;/*proc print;quit;*//* *//*hook and line*//* */data r1h;set e2;/*if porgy=1 then delete;*/if gear='HK';if specnum=. and (reg='BRF' or reg='PRF') then delete;if reg='REF' or reg='BRF' or reg='PRF' or reg='BAY' or reg='PEL';if specnum=. then specnum=232;else specnum=specnum;if species=' ' then species='SPH BARR';else species=species;if catch=. then catch=0;else catch=catch;cpue=catch/effort;/*if cpue>3 then delete;*/keep yr trip specnum species gear cpue;run;/* *//*diving gears*//* *//*data r1d;set e2;if group=1 then delete;if gear='DF' or gear='DM';if specnum=. and gear='DM' then delete;gear='DV';if specnum=. and (reg='BRF' or reg='PRF') then delete;if reg='REF';if specnum=. then specnum=218;else specnum=specnum;if species=' ' then species='MYC VENE';else species=species;if catch=. then catch=0;else catch=catch;146cpue=catch/effort;if cpue>20 then delete;keep yr trip specnum species gear cpue;run;*//*proc print;quit;*//*proc univariate plot;var cpue;quit;*/proc means noprint;class specnum yr;var cpue;id species gear;output out=r2 n=n mean=avcp var=varcp;quit;data r3;set r2;if _type_=3;vbar_cp=varcp/n;se_cp=sqrt(vbar_cp);if avcp>0 then cv_cp=(se_cp/avcp)*100;else cv_cp=0;run;proc print noobs;var specnum species gear yr n avcp se_cp cv_cp;quit;147Appendix E. -PROGRAM LBARC******************************************************************C COMPUTES Z FROM THE LENTH-BASED FORMULA OF *C EHRHARDT, N.M. and J.S. AULT. 1992. *C Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:115-122. *C ~/mab/lbar/lbar.f *C *C******************************************************************open(unit=4,file='lbar_gr_black.dat',status='old')READ(4,*)XLINF,XLL,XK,XM,ITS,XFREAD(4,*)TL,TC,T0READ(4,*)XLC,XLBARXZ=XM+XFWRITE(6,*)'CALCULATING MORTALITY ESTIMATE'C*****EHRHARDT & AULTDO 1000 I=1,ITSZ=I*.0001X1=((XLINF-XLL)/(XLINF-XLC))**(Z/XK)X2=((Z*(XLC-XLBAR))+(XK*(XLINF-XLBAR)))/$ ((Z*(XLL-XLBAR))+(XK*(XLINF-XLBAR)))XX=X2-X1IF(XX.LE.0) GOTO 10101000 CONTINUE1010 WRITE(6,*)'COMPLETED MORTALITY ITERATIONS'ZERR=((Z-XZ)/XZ)*100.C*****BEVERTON & HOLTZBH=(XK*(XLINF-XLBAR))/(XLBAR-XLC)ZERBH=((ZBH-XZ)/XZ)*100.C*****SSENTONGO & LARKINY=-ALOG(1.-XLBAR/XLINF)YC=-ALOG(1.-XLC/XLINF)ZSL=XK*(1./(Y-YC))ZSLERR=((ZSL-XZ)/XZ)*100.XLLO=XLINF*(1.-EXP(-XK*((TC)-T0)))XLHI=XLINF*(1.-EXP(-XK*((TL)-T0)))XF2EA=Z-XMWRITE(6,*)'XLLO = ',XLLO,'XLHI = ',XLHIWRITE(6,*)WRITE(6,*)'INPUT PARAMETERS:'WRITE(6,*)'LINF = ',XLINF,' L-LAMBDA = ',XLLWRITE(6,*)'LC = ',XLC,' K = ',XKWRITE(6,*)'LBAR = ',XLBAR,' Z = ',XZWRITE(6,*)WRITE(6,*)'E&A Z EST = ',ZWRITE(6,*)'ESTIMATED ERROR E&A = ',ZERRWRITE(6,*)'ESTIMATED F = ',XF2EAWRITE(6,*)c WRITE(6,*)'B&H Z EST = ',ZBHc WRITE(6,*)'ESTIMATED ERROR B&H = ',ZERBHc WRITE(6,*)c WRITE(6,*)'S&L Z EST = ',ZSLc WRITE(6,*)'ESTIMATED ERROR S&L = ',ZSLERR9999 STOPEND148Appendix F. - PROGRAM REEFSC***********************************************************************CC MAIN PROGRAM MODULE OF REEFS.C Reef fish Equilibrium Exploitation Fishery SimulatorC SIMULATES STOCHASTIC CONTINUOUS RECRUITMENT, GROWTH ANDC MORTALITY LIFE HISTORIES FOR EXPLOITED MARINE FISH STOCKS.C Version of May 27, 1997. Modified September 1998.CC Dr. Jerald S. AultC University of MiamiC Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric ScienceC Division of Marine Biology & FisheriesC 4600 Rickenbacker CausewayC Miami, Florida 33149C (305)361-4884 phC (305)361-4791 faxC ault@shark.rsmas.miami.eduC***********************************************************************INTEGER ZZ,X,SMOSCOMMON P(492,492),Z(492,492),A(492,492),XM(492,492),F(492,492),$ R(492),RN(492,492),YN(492,492),YW(492,492),MFRCOMMON/A/XAKV,T0,ULINF,WINF,MRM,TR,MFCCOMMON/B/FRQ(40),SE(492),SLT(492)COMMON/C/POPLEN(1000),SYLND(1000),XLENPT(1000),TSL(1000),$ TSY,TSLC,SALC,NTOTLICOMMON/D/XDLENPT(1000),DPOP(1000),DYPD(1000),TDL(1000),$ TYD,TPD,TDLC,DALCCOMMON/E/PD(492,35),PDY(492,35),XLD(492,35)COMMON/S/XE(492),WT(492),BIOM(492),POPP(492),TLC(492),$TL(492),TWC(492),AL,PBIRTH(492),ALC,AVWT,AFBM,AFPN,FPJ,$CX(492),ACBIR(492),RPJ,YWJ,PPA,BMJ,PJ,SSB,$YNJ,TOTLC,TOTLP,TOTWC,PJCX,CXT,ACBT,FEC(492),FBMJ,$FRPJ,LL,S(492,12),TAC(492),AAC,ALPGTCDIMENSION FM(492),F1MF(492),SXR(492),RA(492),RC(492),*SLT1(492),BIT(492),BIRTHS(492),*RBIOM(492),AP(492),AYW(492),AYN(492),FP(12),AM(12),XMU(5),*ST(492,4)OPEN(UNIT=16,FILE='vb.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=15,FILE='fpr.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=14,FILE='ypr.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=13,FILE='select.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=12,FILE='styldn.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=11,FILE='lenfreq.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=10,FILE='yldpr.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=9,FILE='avlength.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=8,FILE='probden.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=7,FILE='length.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE='repro.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=4,FILE='lendist.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=3,FILE='frac.dat',STATUS='OLD')C OPEN(UNIT=2,FILE='fec.dat',STATUS='OLD')OPEN(UNIT=1,FILE='snapper_gray.dat',STATUS='old')WRITE(*,*)'Initializing continuous-time data arrays***'read (1,*) NDT,MOS,NTL,MFR,MFC,MRM,NFOT,NROTread (1,*) NOUT,NAVA,NLL,NOPT,NDIST,NAMP,NPLOT,NSRCHread (1,*) ULINF,WINF,XAKV,T0,XNM,FMORT,ALPHA,BETAread (1,*) EQUIL,TR,PER,PARM1,PARM2,XNMF,DTLread (1,*) ALSLB,BLSB,A4,B4,NYPR,PPAMAXread (1,*) XNTS,NFRANGE,fstep,LLS,LOL,LUPdata (fp(i),i=1,12)/1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1./data (am(i),i=1,12)/1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1./data (FRQ(I),I=1,7)/.0009,.0016,.0027,.0045,.0072,.0108,.0159/data (FRQ(I),I=8,14)/.0222,.03,.0389,.0484,.0579,.0665,.0736/data (FRQ(I),I=15,19)/.0781,.0796,.0781,.0736,.0665/data (FRQ(I),I=20,24)/.0579,.0484,.0389,.03,.0222/data (FRQ(I),I=25,31)/.0159,.0108,.0072,.0045,.0027,.0016,.0009/cc 31 FORMAT(8I10)cc 33 FORMAT(3F15.0)cc 29 FORMAT(8F10.0)C***********************************************************************C INITIALIZE CONTINUOUS SIMULATION ARRAYSC***********************************************************************NS=0LL=0Y=0.AYNJ=0.XDT=float(NDT)DT=1/XDTNM=NTL*NDTNMC=NM+1IF(EQUIL.EQ.0) GOTO 444NMT=NM+MOSGOTO 445444 NMT=NM445 XMU(1)=0.0XAKV=XAKV/XDTNTS=INT(XNTS)XXNTS=XNTS/12.XXXNTS=1.0/XXNTSNTSS=INT(XXXNTS)T0=T0*XDTJ=1DO 199 I=1,NMXJ=FLOAT(I)XE(J)=1.-EXP(-XAKV*((XJ-0.5)-T0))c XE(J)=1.-EXP(-XAKV*((XJ)-T0))IF(XE(J))191,191,192192 SLT(J)=ULINF*XE(J)WT(J)=WINF*(XE(J)**B4)C WRITE(16,*)J,SLT(J),st(j,1)c WT(J)=A4*(SLT(J)**B4)IF(J.LT.MRM) GOTO 193LL=1IF(LL.EQ.1) GOTO 11000IF(LL.EQ.0) GOTO 1100111001 FEC(J)=ALPHA+(BETA*WT(J))11000 FEC(J)=ALPHA*(SLT(J)**BETA)GOTO 198191 SLT(J)=0.0WT(J)=0.0193 FEC(J)=0.0198 J=J+1199 CONTINUEDO 55 I=1,NMXI=FLOAT(I)SE(I)=ALSLB*(1.-EXP(-BLSB*(XI-0.5)))ccc SE(I)=ALSLB*((I)**BSLB)55 CONTINUEC**********************************************************************C NATURAL MORTALITY ARRAY *149C**********************************************************************DO 13 I=1,NMTDO 12 J=1,(MFR-1)XM(I,J)=0.012 CONTINUE13 CONTINUEC DO 34 I=1,NMTC XM(I,45)=(XNM/XDT)*0.36C 34 CONTINUEDO 40 I=1,NMTDO 35 J=MFR,NMTXM(I,J)=XNM/XDT35 CONTINUE40 CONTINUEGOTO 92C**********************************************************************C AVAILABILITY ARRAY *C**********************************************************************C SELECTIVITY PATTERNS *C VARIABLE NAME = NAVA *CC CONSTANT FOR ALL INTERVALS = 1 *C SEASONALLY AVAILABLE = 2 *C**********************************************************************92 IF(NAVA.EQ.1) GOTO 41IF(NAVA.EQ.2) GOTO 9141 DO 43 I=1,NMTDO 42 J=1,(MFC-1)A(I,J)=0.042 CONTINUE43 CONTINUEDO 50 I=1,NMTDO 45 J=MFC,NMA(I,J)=1.045 CONTINUE50 CONTINUEIF(LLS.EQ.0) GOTO 1566IF(LLS.EQ.1) GOTO 15601560 DO 1564 I=1,NMTDO 1562 J=LOL,LUPA(I,J)=0.1562 CONTINUE1564 CONTINUEC*****************************************************C SELECTION ARRAYS *C*****************************************************1566 READ(13,*)(ST(J,1),ST(J,2),ST(J,3),ST(J,4),J=1,NM)cc 1500 FORMAT(4F10.0)K=0LL=1DO 1505 I=1,NDTK=K+1DO 1504 J=1,NMs(J,I)=ST(J,LL)1504 CONTINUEIF(K.LT.3) GOTO 1505K=0LL=LL+11505 CONTINUEGOTO 200C**********************************************************************C SEASONAL AVAILABILITY *C**********************************************************************91 DO 107 I=1,NLLDO 106 M=1,12K=(I-1)*12+MIF(AM(M).EQ.0) GOTO 95IF(AM(M).EQ.1) GOTO 9795 X=KJ=1DO 96 JJ=X,1,-1IF(J.GT.NMT) GOTO 96A(JJ,J)=0.0J=J+196 CONTINUEGOTO 10697 X=KJ=1DO 98 JJ=X,1,-1IF(J.GT.NMT) GOTO 98A(JJ,J)=1.0J=J+198 CONTINUE106 CONTINUE107 CONTINUEGOTO 200C**********************************************************************C BIRTH RATE FUNCTION ARRAYS *C**********************************************************************C CALCULATION OF AGE(SIZE) SPECIFIC BIRTH RATES *C (NET MATERNITY LxMx) BY MANIPULATION OF THE *C FECUNDITY ON WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP *C**********************************************************************200 RHO=0.8XLAMBDA=0.8FECUN=0.0SMPFEC=0.0DO 201 JJ=1,MRMFEC(JJ)=0.0201 CONTINUEDO 206 JJ=MRM,NMFEC(JJ)=ALPHA*(WT(JJ)**BETA)IF(RHO.NE.XLAMBDA) GOTO 202IF(RHO.EQ.XLAMBDA) GOTO 203202 BIT(JJ)=FEC(JJ)*(((XLAMBDA**(JJ+1-MRM))-(RHO*** (JJ+1-MRM)))/(RHO-XLAMBDA))GOTO 205203 BIT(JJ)=FEC(JJ)*(JJ+1-MRM)*(RHO**(JJ-MRM))GOTO 205205 BIRTHS(JJ)=BIT(JJ)*((EXP(-XM(1,JJ)))**(JJ-1))FECUN=FECUN+FEC(JJ)206 CONTINUEDO 207 JJ=1,NMPBIRTH(JJ)=FEC(JJ)/FECUNPBIRTH(JJ)=PBIRTH(JJ)*100.SMPFEC=SMPFEC+PBIRTH(JJ)207 CONTINUEC**********************************************************************C FISHING MORTALITY ARRAY *C**********************************************************************C FISHING MORTALITY PATTERNS *C VARIABLE NAME = NFOT *C POPE'S (1971) METHOD = 1 *C CONSTANT FOR ALL INTERVALS = 2 *C SEASONAL FISHING STRATEGY = 3 *C**********************************************************************IF(NFOT.EQ.1) GOTO 21IF(NFOT.EQ.2) GOTO 60150IF(NFOT.EQ.3) GOTO 130C*****POPE'S MID-YEAR APPROXIMATION21 DO 20 I=1,NMTDO 19 L=1,14L1=0L1=(L-1)*12IF(I.EQ.L1) GOTO 18IF(I.NE.L1) GOTO 1918 DO 17 J=1,NMTF(I,J)=FMORT/XDT17 CONTINUEGOTO 2019 CONTINUEDO 15 J=1,NMTF(I,J)=0.15 CONTINUE20 CONTINUEGOTO 84C*****F CONSTANT EVERY INTERVAL60 DO 62 I=1,NMTDO 61 J=1,(MFC-1)F(I,J)=0.61 CONTINUE62 CONTINUEC DO 63 I=1,NMTC F(I,45)=(FMORT/XDT)*0.36C 63 CONTINUEDO 67 I=1,NMTDO 64 J=MFC,NMTF(I,J)=FMORT/XDT64 CONTINUE67 CONTINUEGOTO 84C*****SEASONAL FISHING MORTALITY STRATEGY130 DO 149 I=1,NLLDO 148 M=1,12K=(I-1)*12+MIF(FP(M).EQ.0) GOTO 131IF(FP(M).EQ.1) GOTO 135131 X=KJ=1DO 141 JJ=X,1,-1IF(J.GT.NMT) GOTO 141F(JJ,J)=0.J=J+1141 CONTINUEGOTO 148135 X=KJ=1DO 142 JJ=X,1,-1IF(J.GT.NMT) GOTO 142F(JJ,J)=FMORT/XNMFJ=J+1142 CONTINUE148 CONTINUE149 CONTINUEGOTO 84C**********************************************************************C RECRUITMENT ARRAYS *C**********************************************************************C RECRUITMENT DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS *C VARIABLE NAME = NROT *C *C DISCRETE = 1 *C CONTINUOUS UNIFORM = 2 *C TRIGONOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION = 3 *C BETA DISTRIBUTION = 4 *C *C TR = TOTAL ANNUAL MAGNITUDE OF RECRUITMENT *C**********************************************************************84 IF(NROT.EQ.1) GOTO 86IF(NROT.EQ.2) GOTO 87IF(NROT.EQ.3) GOTO 88IF(NROT.EQ.4) GOTO 90C*****DISCRETE ANNUAL RECRUITMENT86 NNTL=NTL+1DO 71 I=1,NNTLDO 70 J=1,NDTIF(J.NE.1) GOTO 68IF(J.EQ.1) GOTO 6969 L=(I-1)*12+JR(L)=TRGOTO 7068 L=(I-1)*12+JR(L)=0.070 CONTINUE71 CONTINUEGOTO 79C*****CONTINUOUS UNIFORM RECRUITMENT87 DO 85 I=1,NMTR(I)=TR/XDT85 CONTINUEGOTO 79C*****TRIGONOMETRIC RECRUITMENT *************************************C VARIABLE NAME = PER *C PER = 12 (BIMODAL ANNUALLY) *C PER = 24 (UNIMODAL ANNUALLY) *C********************************************************************88 PI=3.1415927AMPL=(2*PI)/PERSUM=0.S2=0.S3=0.DO 188 J=1,12RA(J)=SIN(AMPL*J)RA(J)=ABS(RA(J))SUM=SUM+RA(J)188 CONTINUEDO 187 J=1,12RC(J)=RA(J)/SUMS2=S2+RC(J)187 CONTINUELCOUNT=0DO 189 I=1,NTLS3=0.K=0.DO 186 J=1,12K=LCOUNT+JR(K)=RC(J)*TRS3=S3+R(K)186 CONTINUELCOUNT=LCOUNT+12189 CONTINUEIF(MOS.EQ.0) GOTO 79DO 184 J=NMC,NMTKK=J-NMR(J)=RC(KK)*TR184 CONTINUE151K=0.GOTO 79C***********************************************************************C BETA DISTRIBUTION *C *C PARAMETERS OF THE BETA DISTRIBUTION *C PARM1 = ALPHA 1 *C PARM2 = ALPHA 2 *C***********************************************************************90 PI=3.1415927A1P=PARM1-1.A2P=PARM2-1.A3P=(PARM1+PARM2)-1.XN1F=EXP(-A1P)*(A1P**A1P)*(SQRT(2*PI*A1P))XN2F=EXP(-A2P)*(A2P**A2P)*(SQRT(2*PI*A2P))XN3F=EXP(-A3P)*(A3P**A3P)*(SQRT(2*PI*A3P))BETADS=(XN1F*XN2F)/XN3FGOTO 221c SUM=0.c S2=0.c DO 220 J=1,12c TIME=J/12.c RA(J)=((TIME**A1P)*((1-TIME)**A2P))/BETADSc SUM=SUM+RA(J)c 220 CONTINUEc DO 219 J=1,NDTc RC(J)=RA(J)/SUMc S2=S2+RC(J)c 219 CONTINUEc LCOUNT=0.c NNTL=NTL+1c DO 218 I=1,NNTLc S3=0.c K=0.c DO 217 J=1,12c K=LCOUNT+Jc R(K)=RC(J)*TRc S3=S3+R(K)c 217 CONTINUEc LCOUNT=LCOUNT+12c K=0.c 218 CONTINUEc IF(MOS.EQ.0) GOTO 79c DO 216 J=NMC,NMTc KK=J-NMc R(J)=RC(KK)*TRc 216 CONTINUEc GOTO 79C******************************************************C CONSTRAINED BETA WRT TIME *C******************************************************221 XCON=6.SUM=0.S2=0.DO 222 J=1,NDTTIME=J/XCONIF(J.GT.XCON) GOTO 226RA(J)=((TIME**A1P)*((1-TIME)**A2P))/BETADSWRITE(*,*)TIME,RA(J)SUM=SUM+RA(J)GOTO 222226 RA(J)=0.222 CONTINUEDO 223 J=1,NDTRC(J)=RA(J)/SUMWRITE(*,*)J,RC(J)S2=S2+RC(J)223 CONTINUELCOUNT=0.NNTL=NTL+1DO 225 I=1,NNTLS3=0.K=0.DO 224 J=1,NDTK=LCOUNT+JIF(J.GT.XCON) GOTO 227R(K)=RC(J)*TRWRITE(*,*)I,J,R(K)GOTO 224227 R(K)=0.GOTO 224c S3=S3+R(K)224 CONTINUELCOUNT=LCOUNT+12K=0.225 CONTINUEIF(MOS.EQ.0) GOTO 79DO 236 J=NMC,NMTKK=J-NMR(J)=RC(KK)*TR236 CONTINUEC******************************************************C STATIONARY CONDITIONS*C******************************************************79 WRITE(*,*)'CALCULATING STATIONARY VECTORS'IF(NYPR.EQ.0) GOTO 80WRITE(*,*)'YPR SIMULATION'write(*,*)NTL,NTSSXFM=0.MTL=NTL*NTSS+1DO 490 NF=1,NFRANGEIF(NF.GT.1) GOTO 491FMX=0.GOTO 492491 XFM=XFM+1.FMX=XFM*fstep492 NTC=0DO 480 KK=1,MTLYPR=0.FPR=0.IF(KK.GT.1) GOTO 493MFC=0XMFC=0.GOTO 494493 MFC=MFC+NTSXMFC=XMFC+XXNTS494 WRITE(*,*)'YPR AT',FMX,XMFC,'(',MFC,')'DO 479 I=1,NMTDO 475 J=1,(MFC-1)F(I,J)=0.A(I,J)=0.475 CONTINUE479 CONTINUEDO 470 I=1,NMTDO 465 J=MFC,NMTF(I,J)=FMX/XDTA(I,J)=1.0465 CONTINUE152470 CONTINUEIF(MFC.LT.MFR) GOTO 463DO 1010 K=1,NMTSMOS=1CALL DYNSIM(K,SMOS)1010 CONTINUEGOTO 462463 YPR=0.FPR=0.GOTO 464462 YPR=YWJ/R(NM)FPR=SSB/PPAMAXc 464 WRITE(*,*)FMX,SLT(MFC),XMFC,YPR,FPR464 XKK=0.1358T00=-0.863UUL=722.32SLL=UUL*(1.-EXP(-XKK*(XMFC-T00)))WRITE(14,*)FMX,XMFC,SLL,YPRWRITE(15,*)FMX,XMFC,SLL,FPR480 CONTINUE490 CONTINUEGOTO 400180 WRITE(*,*)'NORMAL SIMULATION'DO 1000 K=1,NMSMOS=1CALL DYNSIM(K,SMOS)1000 CONTINUEK=NMif(NMT.GT.K) GOTO 230SMOS=1CALL LAPD(K,SMOS,NAMP,NDIST)CALL SCANDET(K,NM,DTL)C*****Non-equilibrium switchNEQ=1IF(NSRCH)230,230,229229 CALL SCANPB(K,NM,NDIST,DTL)WRITE(6,*)'RETURNED SCANPB'230 GOTO 3000C******************************************************C DYNAMIC CONDITIONS *C******************************************************3799 WRITE(6,3800)3800 FORMAT(7X,'CALCULATING TRANSITIONAL VECTORS'//)DO 4000 K=NMC,NMTSMOS=SMOS+1CALL DYNSIM(K,SMOS)if(K.LT.NMT) GOTO 250CALL LAPD(K,SMOS,NAMP,NDIST)CALL SCANDET(K,NM,DTL)WRITE(*,*)'RETURNED FROM SCANDET',NSRCH,KNEQ=1IF(NSRCH)250,250,249249 CALL SCANPB(K,NM,NDIST,DTL)WRITE(*,*)'RETURNED FROM SCANPB'250 GOTO 3000C*********************************************************************C WRITING TO DATA FILES *C*********************************************************************c*****No Path to Statementsc X=Kc J=1c DO 820 I=X,1,-1c XXXX=Jc IF(J.LT.MFR) GOTO 819c 815 xj=j/12.c WRITE(4,811)xj,BIOM(J)c 811 FORMAT(f7.2,3x,f7.2)C WRITE(2,813)SLT(J),PD(J,K),NPLOTc 813 FORMAT(F15.4,F15.5,I5)c 819 J=J+1c 820 CONTINUEc DO 830 J=1,NTOTLIC WRITE(4,828)XLENPT(J),POPLEN(J),KC WRITE(11,828)XDLENPT(J),DPOP(J),Kc 830 CONTINUEc 828 FORMAT(F15.5,F15.5,I5)c KKK=NM+100c DO 899 J=1,NTOTLIC WRITE(11,828)XDLENPT(J),DYPD(J),KKKc 899 CONTINUEC WRITE(11,848)TDLC,TYD,DALCc 848 FORMAT(7X,'TDLC = ',E12.6,5X,'TYD = ',E12.6,/,c $7X,'DETERMINISTICALLY AGGREGATEDc $AVG LENGTH IN CATCH = ',F15.5)c KKKK=NM+200c DO 901 J=1,NTOTLIC WRITE(12,828)XLENPT(J),SYLND(J),KKKKc 901 CONTINUEC WRITE(12,849)TSLC,TSY,SALCc 849 FORMAT(7X,'TSLC = 'E12.6,5X,'TSY = ',E12.6,/,c $7X,'STOCHASTICALLY AGGREGATEDc $ AVG LENGTH IN CATCH = ',F15.5)c WRITE(11,836)TPD,TYD,TSY836 FORMAT(5X,'TOTAL POPN NUMBERS = ',E18.7,/5X,$ 'TOTAL YIELD IN NUMBERS = ',E18.7,/5X,$ 'TOTAL STOCHASTIC YIELD IN NUMBERS = ',E18.7)C**********************************************************************C TRANSITIONAL OUTPUT MODULE *C**********************************************************************3000 IF(NEQ)3002,3002,30013001 MR=KIF(R(MR).EQ.0) GOTO 3902YPR=YWJ/R(MR)YNPR=YNJ/R(MR)GOTO 39033002 MR=NMIF(R(MR).EQ.0) GOTO 3902YPR=YWJ/R(MR)YNPR=YNJ/R(MR)GOTO 39033902 YPR=0.YNPR=0.3903 WRITE(5,1590)K1590 FORMAT(7X,'MONTH = ',I5)IF(NOUT.EQ.0) GOTO 3008IF(NOUT.EQ.1) GOTO 15911591 WRITE(5,1592)1592 FORMAT('AGE',5X,'LENGTH',6X,'WEIGHT',6X,'POPN NO.',$9X,'AVG NO.',6X,'BIOMASS')X=KJ=1DO 1700 I=X,SMOS,-1WRITE(5,1640)J,SLT(J),WT(J),P(I,J),RN(I,J),BIOM(J)WRITE(16,1640)j,slt(j),wt(j),rn(i,j),yn(i,j),yw(i,j)1640 FORMAT(I3,3X,F8.3,2X,F8.3,2X,E13.7,2X,E13.7,2X,E13.7)153J=J+11700 CONTINUEWRITE(5,1701)PJ,RPJ,BMJ1701 FORMAT('TOTAL',21X,E13.7,2X,E13.7,2X,E13.7//)1491 WRITE(5,1492)1492 FORMAT('AGE',8X,'YIELD NO.',5X,'YIELD WT.',7X,'FMORT',7X,'SELECT')X=KJ=1DO 1400 I=X,SMOS,-1WRITE(5,1350)J,YN(I,J),YW(I,J),F(I,J)*A(I,J),S(J,1)1350 FORMAT(I3,3X,E13.7,2X,E13.7,4X,F6.4,4X,F6.4)J=J+11400 CONTINUEWRITE(5,1401)YNJ,YWJ1401 FORMAT('TOTAL',1X,E13.7,2X,E13.7//)WRITE(5,1710)FMORT,XNM,MFC,AL,ALPGTC,ALC,AVWT,AAC,$SLT(MFC),SLT(NM)1710 FORMAT('ANNUAL F = ',F12.6,5X,'ANNUAL M = ',F12.6/,$'AGE OF FIRST CAPTURE = ',I3/,$'AVG LENGTH IN THE POPN = ',F13.6/,$'AVG LENGTH IN THE POPN >TC = ',F13.6/,$'AVG. LENGTH IN THE CATCH = ',F13.6/,$'AVG. WEIGHT IN THE CATCH = ',F13.6/,$'AVG. AGE IN THE CATCH = ',F13.6/,$'Length at first capture = ',f13.6/$'Maximum Length class in the catch = ',f13.6/)WRITE(5,1712)YPR,YNPR1712 FORMAT('YIELD IN WEIGHT PER RECRUIT = ',F15.8/,$'YIELD IN NUMBER PER RECRUIT = ',F15.8//)WRITE(5,3021)FPJ,FRPJ,FBMJ3021 FORMAT('FISHABLE TOTAL POPN SIZE = ',E13.7/,$'FISHABLE AVG. POPN SIZE = ',E13.7/,$'FISHABLE AVG. POPN BIOMASS = ',E13.7)WRITE(5,3022)AFPN,AFBM,TR,SSB,PPA3022 FORMAT('AVG. FISHABLE POPN NUMBERS PER RECRUIT = ',F13.7/,$'AVG. FISHABLE POPN BIOMASS PER RECRUIT = ',F13.7/,$'ANNUAL RECRUITMENT = 'F12.0/,'SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS =',F12.0/$'STOCK FECUNDITY = ',E15.8)X=KJ=1DO 3090 I=X,1,-1IF(J.LT.MFR) GOTO 3089xj=j/12.WRITE(4,3087)xj,SLT(J),BIOM(J)3087 FORMAT(2(f7.2,3x),f10.2)3089 J=J+13090 CONTINUEGOTO 39993008 WRITE(5,3010)3010 FORMAT(7X,'CONDENSED TRANSITIONAL OUTPUT:',//)WRITE(5,3020)PJ,BMJ,SSB3020 FORMAT(7X,'POPULATION ABUNDANCE = ',F12.3,/,7X,$'POPULATION BIOMASS = ',E14.7,/,7X,'SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS = ',$E14.7)WRITE(5,3030)YWJ,YNJ3030 FORMAT(7X,'YIELD IN WEIGHT = ',$E14.7,/,7X,'YIELD IN NUMBERS = ',E14.7)WRITE(5,3040)AL,ALC3040 FORMAT('AVG LENGTH IN TOTAL POPN = ',F8.4,/,7X,$'AVG. LENGTH IN CATCH = ',F8.4)WRITE(5,3050)AVWT3050 FORMAT(7X,'AVG. WT. IN CATCH = ',F8.4,/)WRITE(5,3055)R(K),YPR3055 FORMAT(7X,'RECRUITMENT = ',F10.5,/,$7X,'YIELD PER RECRUIT = ',F9.4,//)3060 IF(JTRANS.NE.12) GOTO 4000IF(JTRANS.EQ.12) GOTO 31013101 WRITE(5,3100)3100 FORMAT(7X,'AGE',8X,'POPN. NO.',3X,'Yweight',5X,'Ynumber')X=KJ=1DO 3005 I=X,SMOS,-1WRITE(5,3004)J,AP(J),AYW(J),AYN(J),SLT(J)3004 FORMAT(7X,I3,2X,F10.2,5X,F12.3,5X,F12.3,5X,F12.3)J=J+13005 CONTINUEWRITE(5,3110)ABMJ,ASSB,APJ3110 FORMAT(//,7X,'BIOMASS = ',E14.7,/,7X,'SPAWNING BIOMASS = ',$E14.7,/,7X,'POPULATION SIZE = ',E14.7)WRITE(5,3120)ATOTWC,AYNJ3120 FORMAT(7X,'YIELD IN WEIGHT = ',E14.7,//,7X,'YIELD IN NO. = ',$E14.7)IF(AYNJ.LE.0) GOTO 3128c AALC=ATOTLC/AYNJc AAVWT=ATOTWC/AYNJGOTO 31293128 AALC=0.AAVWT=0.3129 WRITE(5,3130)AALC,AAVWT3130 FORMAT(7X,'AVG. LENGTH IN CATCH = ',F8.4,5X,'AVG. WEIGHT IN$CATCH = ',F8.4)WRITE(5,3140)YPR3140 FORMAT(7X,'ANNUAL YIELD PER RECRUIT = ',F9.6,//)JTRANS=0.3999 NS=NS+1IF(MOS.EQ.0) GOTO 4001IF(NS.GT.MOS) GOTO 4001IF(NS.EQ.1) GOTO 3799IF(MOS.GE.1) GOTO 40004000 CONTINUE4001 STOPENDSUBROUTINE DYNSIM(K,SMOS)C**********************************************************************C CENTERED DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS *C**********************************************************************C *C CALCULATION OF CONTINUOUS RECRUITMENT LOOPS *C *C**********************************************************************DIMENSION XOMEG(4),RM(300)INTEGER K,X,SMOSCOMMON P(492,492),Z(492,492),A(492,492),XM(492,492),$ F(492,492),$ R(492),RN(492,492),YN(492,492),YW(492,492),MFRCOMMON/A/XAKV,T0,ULINF,WINF,MRM,TR,MFCCOMMON/B/FRQ(40),SE(492),SLT(492)COMMON/S/XE(492),WT(492),BIOM(492),POPP(492),TLC(492),$TL(492),TWC(492),AL,PBIRTH(492),ALC,AVWT,AFBM,AFPN,FPJ,$CX(492),ACBIR(492),RPJ,YWJ,PPA,BMJ,PJ,SSB,$YNJ,TOTLC,TOTLP,TOTWC,PJCX,CXT,ACBT,FEC(492),FBMJ,$FRPJ,LL,S(492,12),TAC(492),AAC,ALPGTCdata RM1,RM2/-5.5,.171/XOMEG(1)=1.0154XOMEG(2)=-3.0XOMEG(3)=3.0XOMEG(4)=-1.0TOTLP=0.TOTLC=0.TOTAC=0.TOTWC=0.YWJ=0.YNJ=0.BMJ=0.RPJ=0.FBMJ=0.FRPJ=0.FPJ=0.PJ=0.AVGL=0.EYPR=0.SSB=0.PPA=0.AL=0.ALC=0.AVWT=0.AVWT2=0.AFBM=0.AFPN=0.AAC=0.TLPGTC=0.ALPGTC=0.X=KJ=1c write(*,*)'in dynsim',' k = ',K,R(K)IF(LL.GT.1) GOTO 99LL=199 DO 500 I=X,SMOS,-1BIOM(J)=0.POPP(J)=0.TL(J)=0.TLC(J)=0.TWC(J)=0.IF(I-X)110,120,110120 P(I,J)=R(K)Z(I,J)=XM(I,J)+(A(I,J)*F(I,J)*S(J,LL))P(I,J+1)=P(I,J)*(EXP(-Z(I,J)))IF(Z(I,J))83,83,83c RN(I,J)=(P(I,J)/Z(I,J))*(1.0-EXP(-Z(I,J)))GOTO 83110 Z(I,J)=0.Z(I,J)=XM(I,J)+(A(I,J)*F(I,J)*S(J,LL))P(I,J)=P(I,J-1)*EXP(-Z(I,J-1))IF(Z(I,J).EQ.0.) GOTO 111RN(I,J)=0.RN(I,J)=(P(I,J)/Z(I,J))*(1.0-EXP(-Z(I,J)))RPJ=RPJ+RN(I,J)GOTO 83111 YN(I,J)=0.RN(I,J)=0.83 IF(J.LT.MFR) GOTO 150RM(J)=1./(1.+EXP(-(RM1+RM2*SLT(J))))RM(J)=1.BIOM(J)=WT(J)*RN(I,J)*RM(J)IF(J.LT.MRM) GOTO 112SSB=SSB+BIOM(J)POPP(J)=RN(I,J)*FEC(J)PPA=PPA+POPP(J)112 BMJ=BMJ+BIOM(J)PJ=PJ+P(I,J)TL(J)=RN(I,J)*SLT(J)TOTLP=TOTLP+TL(J)IF(J.LT.MFC) GOTO 150FPJ=FPJ+P(I,J)FBMJ=FBMJ+BIOM(J)FRPJ=FRPJ+RN(I,J)c VSUM=0.c DO 109 IV=1,4c VN=IV-1c IF(Z(I,J).EQ.0) GOTO 109c VSUM=VSUM+XOMEG(IV)*EXP(-VN*XAKV*((J-1)-T0))/c $(Z(I,J)+VN*XAKV)*(1-EXP(-(Z(I,J)+VN*XAKV)))c 109 CONTINUEYW(I,J)=0.YN(I,J)=0.YW(I,J)=A(I,J)*F(I,J)*S(J,LL)*RN(I,J)*WT(J)c YW(I,J)=A(I,J)*F(I,J)*S(J,LL)*P(I,J)*WINF*VSUMYWJ=YWJ+YW(I,J)YN(I,J)=A(I,J)*F(I,J)*S(J,LL)*RN(I,J)YNJ=YNJ+YN(I,J)TLC(J)=YN(I,J)*SLT(J)TLPGTC=TLPGTC+RN(I,J)*SLT(J)XX=FLOAT(J)TAC(J)=YN(I,J)*(XX-0.5)c TAC(J)=0.TOTAC=TOTAC+TAC(J)TOTLC=TOTLC+TLC(J)TWC(J)=YN(I,J)*WT(J)TOTWC=TOTWC+TWC(J)150 J=J+1500 CONTINUEIF(RPJ) 430,1000,430430 AL=TOTLP/RPJIF(YNJ)431,1000,431431 ALC=TOTLC/YNJAAC=TOTAC/YNJAVWT=TOTWC/YNJAFBM=FBMJ/TRAFPN=FRPJ/TRALPGTC=TLPGTC/FRPJLL=LL+1IF(LL.LT.13) GOTO 1000LL=01000 RETURNENDSUBROUTINE LAPD(K,SMOS,NAMP,NDIST)C**********************************************************************C LENGTH @ AGE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS *C**********************************************************************DIMENSION PDM(492),PDYLD(492)COMMON P(492,492),Z(492,492),A(492,492),XM(492,492),F(492,492),$ R(492),RN(492,492),YN(492,492),YW(492,492),MFRCOMMON/B/FRQ(40),SE(492),SLT(492)COMMON/E/PD(492,35),PDY(492,35),XLD(492,35)INTEGER SMOSX=KJ=1DO 1 I=1,311 CONTINUEc GOTO 991155DO 990 I=K,SMOS,-1PDM(J)=P(I,J)PDYLD(J)=YN(I,J)DO 970 KK=1,NDISTIF(KK.LE.15) GOTO 968IF(KK.EQ.16) GOTO 967IF(KK.GT.16) GOTO 966968 XTEMP=FLOAT(16-KK)*0.2XLD(J,KK)=SLT(J)-XTEMP*SE(J)*NAMPPD(J,KK)=PDM(J)*FRQ(KK)PDY(J,KK)=YN(I,J)*FRQ(KK)IF(XLD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970IF(PD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970XX=FLOAT(J/12)WRITE(7,*)XLD(J,KK),PD(J,KK),XXGOTO 970967 XLD(J,KK)=SLT(J)PD(J,KK)=PDM(J)*FRQ(KK)PDY(J,KK)=PDYLD(J)*FRQ(KK)IF(XLD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970IF(PD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970XX=FLOAT(J/12)WRITE(7,*)XLD(J,KK),PD(J,KK),XXGOTO 970966 XTEMP=FLOAT(16-KK)*0.2XLD(J,KK)=SLT(J)+XTEMP*SE(J)*NAMPPD(J,KK)=PDM(J)*FRQ(KK)PDY(J,KK)=PDYLD(J)*FRQ(KK)IF(XLD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970IF(PD(J,KK).LE.0.) GOTO 970XX=FLOAT(J/12)WRITE(7,*)XLD(J,KK),PD(J,KK),XX970 CONTINUE980 CONTINUEJ=J+1990 CONTINUE991 X=FLOAT(K)J=1RETURNENDSUBROUTINE SCANDET(K,NM,DTL)C**********************************************************************C SEARCHING ROUTINE FOR SCANNING DETERMINISTIC *C POPULATION LENGTH DISTRIBUTION *C**********************************************************************COMMON P(492,492),Z(492,492),A(492,492),XM(492,492),F(492,492),$ R(492),RN(492,492),YN(492,492),YW(492,492),MFRCOMMON/B/FRQ(40),SE(492),SLT(492)COMMON/D/XDLENPT(1000),DPOP(1000),DYPD(1000),TDL(1000),TYD,$ TPD,TDLC,DALCWRITE(*,*)'ENTERED SCANDET'XLMAX=0.XLMIN=0.NTOTLI=0.RANGEL=0.XMINLEN=0.XMAXLEN=0.TYP=0.TPD=0.TDLC=0.DALC=0.TYD=0.XLMAX=SLT(NM)+50.0*SE(NM)XLMIN=SLT(MFR)-12.0*SE(MFR)XLMIN=INT(XLMIN)XLMAX=INT(XLMAX)IF(XLMIN.GE.0) GOTO 1958XLMIN=0.1958 NTOTLI=INT((XLMAX-XLMIN)/DTL)WRITE(*,*) 'CALCULATED # OF LENGTH INCREMENTS'RANGEL=XLMAX-XLMINDO 1955 ZZ=1,NTOTLIDPOP(ZZ)=0.DYPD(ZZ)=0.TDL(ZZ)=0.IF(ZZ.NE.1) GOTO 1940XMINLEN=XLMINXMAXLEN=XLMIN+DTLGOTO 19421940 XMINLEN=XMAXLENXMAXLEN=XMINLEN+DTL1942 XDLENPT(ZZ)=(XMAXLEN+XMINLEN)/2.X=KJ=1DO 1950 I=X,1,-1IF(J.LT.MFR) GOTO 1949IF(SLT(J).LE.XMAXLEN) GOTO 1947GOTO 19491947 IF(SLT(J).GE.XMINLEN) GOTO 1945GOTO 19491945 DPOP(ZZ)=DPOP(ZZ)+P(I,J)DYPD(ZZ)=DYPD(ZZ)+YN(I,J)TDL(ZZ)=TDL(ZZ)+(YN(I,J)*XDLENPT(ZZ))1949 J=J+11950 CONTINUETYD=TYD+DYPD(ZZ)TPD=TPD+DPOP(ZZ)TDLC=TDLC+TDL(ZZ)IF(DPOP(ZZ).LE.0) GOTO 1955WRITE(12,*)XDLENPT(ZZ),DYPD(ZZ)1955 CONTINUEWRITE(*,*)'COMPLETED SEARCH LOOP'if(TYD.LE.0.) goto 2000DALC=TDLC/TYD2000 WRITE(6,*)TDLC,TYD,DALCRETURNENDSUBROUTINE SCANPB(K,NM,NDIST,DTL)C**********************************************************************C SEARCHING ROUTINE FOR SCANNING *C PROBABILISTIC LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS *C**********************************************************************COMMON P(492,492),Z(492,492),A(492,492),XM(492,492),F(492,492),$ R(492),RN(492,492),YN(492,492),YW(492,492),MFRCOMMON/B/FRQ(40),SE(492),SLT(492)COMMON/C/POPLEN(1000),SYLND(1000),XLENPT(1000),TSL(1000),$ TSY,TSLC,SALC,NTOTLICOMMON/E/PD(492,35),PDY(492,35),XLD(492,35)write(*,*)'Entered SCANPB'TSY=0.TSLC=0.SALC=0.XLMAX=0.XLMIN=0.NTOTLI=0.RANGEL=0.XMINLEN=0.XMAXLEN=0.156XLMAX=SLT(NM)+50.0*SE(NM)XLMIN=SLT(MFR)-12.0*SE(MFR)XLMIN=INT(XLMIN)XLMAX=INT(XLMAX)IF(XLMIN.GE.0) GOTO 958XLMIN=0.0958 NTOTLI=INT((XLMAX-XLMIN)/DTL)WRITE(*,*)XLMAX,XLMIN,NTOTLI,DTLRANGEL=XLMAX-XLMINDO 955 ZZ=1,NTOTLIPOPLEN(ZZ)=0.SYLND(ZZ)=0.TSL(ZZ)=0.IF(ZZ.NE.1) GOTO 940XMINLEN=XLMINXMAXLEN=XLMIN+DTLGOTO 942940 XMINLEN=XMAXLENXMAXLEN=XMINLEN+DTL942 XLENPT(ZZ)=(XMAXLEN+XMINLEN)/2.X=KJ=1DO 950 I=X,1,-1DO 949 KK=1,NDISTIF(J.LT.MFR) GOTO 949IF(XLD(J,KK).LE.XMAXLEN) GOTO 947GOTO 949947 IF(XLD(J,KK).GE.XMINLEN) GOTO 945GOTO 949945 SYLND(ZZ)=SYLND(ZZ)+PDY(J,KK)POPLEN(ZZ)=POPLEN(ZZ)+PD(J,KK)TSL(ZZ)=TSL(ZZ)+(PDY(J,KK)*XLENPT(ZZ))949 CONTINUEJ=J+1950 CONTINUETSY=TSY+SYLND(ZZ)TSLC=TSLC+TSL(ZZ)IF(POPLEN(ZZ).LE.0.) GOTO 955WRITE(11,*)XLENPT(ZZ),SYLND(ZZ)cc WRITE(11,*)XLENPT(ZZ),POPLEN(ZZ)955 CONTINUEIF(TSY.LE.0.) GOTO 1000SALC=TSLC/TSY1000 RETURNEND