BY THE CENTER FOR SHARK RESEARCH,

RESOURCE INFORMATION RESEARCH ON THE BLACKTIP SHARK AND OTHER COASTAL SHARKS BY THE CENTER FOR SHARK RESEARCH, 2000-2001 FINAL REPORT NOAA/NMFS GRANT NA07FM0459 SUBMITTED To: NOAAlNMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries Highly Migratory Species Division 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 SUBMITTED By: Robert E. Hueter Center for Shark Research Mote Marine Laboratory FEBRUARY 28, 2002 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report 817 This document is printed on recycled paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................... 1 PROJECT INFORMATION................... 2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND EXPENDITURES........ 3 Work Accomplishments.............................................. 3 Primary Project Tasks........... 3 Summary of Results.............................................. 3 Field Research in Quintana Roo, Mexico........................... 3 Field Research in Western Gulf of Mexico..... 14 Offshore Large Shark Surveys....................... 21 Fishery Ecosystem Modeling......... 24 Florida Coastal Relative Abundance Surveys... 26 Age/Growth Studies.............. 55 Tagging Database.................... 56 Response to NMFS Needs..................................... 58 Publications and Conferences............ 58 Major Findings and Conclusions............... 60 Expenditures..................................................... 62 SIGNATURE..................................... 62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mote Marine Laboratory's Center for Shark Research (CSR) is an independent, international research center established by the U.S. Congress in 1991 and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study and public understanding of sharks, skates and rays. In 2000-2001, the CSR continued its mission to conduct scientific studies on sharks in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAAlNMFS) to respond to the agency's need for biological data in order to manage shark fisheries. The primary emphasis of this research and information program involved biological assessments of sharks as a fishery resource. This project addressed major gaps in our resource information base for the blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus), a common large coastal shark species inhabiting nearshore waters of the U.S. east coast. To assist NMFS in its objective to rebuild this important fishery, the primary research activities undertaken by the CSR in this project were new studies on the stock structure, life history, ecology and population biolog'y of the blacktip shark and other large and small coastal sharks inhabiting state and federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. This research was conducted primarily in the Gulf of Mexico off the U.S. coast (Florida and Texas), along the U.S. southeastern Atlantic coast (South Carolina) and along the Mexican Gulf coasts of Tamaulipas and Quintana Roo. New technology in the form of archival and satellite tags were deployed on large sharks of the region. The work in Mexico was conducted in collaboration with the Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP). The CSR also served as a center for the public understanding and communication of information on sharks and for national and international exchanges on issues relating to shark biology. Through these various activities the CSR significantly advanced the course of shark research and fisheries conservation and management in 2000-01, and continued to serve as a productive partnership between Mote Marine Laboratory and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 1

PROJECT INFORMATION Award Number: NA07FM0459 Amount of Award: Federal $ 150,000 Match $ 25,848 Total $ 175,848 Project Title: Resource Information Research on the Blacktip Shark and other Coastal Sharks by the Center for Shark Research, 2000-2001 Recipient: Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida Award Period: July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 Period Covered by this Report: July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 (Final Report) 2

SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND EXPENDITURES Work Accomplishments Primary Project Tasks: The following primary tasks were scheduled for this project: a. Shark field research in Quintana Roo, Mexico; b. Shark field research in the western Gulf of Mexico along the Texas/Mexico coast; c. Offshore large shark surveys; d. Fishery ecosystem modeling; e. Florida relative abundance surveys of coastal sharks; f. Studies of shark age and growth; g. Maintenance and analysis of CSR shark-tagging database; h. Response to NMFS requests for information; i. Communication of scientific results through publications and conferences. Summary of Results: a. Field Research in Quintana Roo, Mexico CSR shark nursery studies and fishery surveys were continued in the Gulf of Mexico coastal waters of Mexico during the project period, in cooperation with NMFS and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP) in response to a research initiative of the MEXUS/Gulf program. One field trip to the Gulf coast of Mexico was conducted by CSR and INP staff on May 29 to June 7, 2001, to Laguna Yalahau on the northern coast of Quintana Roo. On previous trips to the area by CSR personnel the lagoon has been found to be a productive shark nursery, particularly for the blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus). The following report, filed with the help of CSR Senior Biologist John Tyminski who led this year's field trip, summarizes the activities and findings of this trip: Trip Objectives: 1) Collect fin clips (75) from neonate and young-of-the-year (YOY) blacktips (C. limbatus) to contribute to population genetics studies of the blacktip shark. 2) Utilizing the aid of artisanal fishermen, conduct a Peterson Mark-Recapture study to estimate the number of blacktip pups in the lagoon. 3) Collect data and pay rewards from the previous year's recaptures and generally continue to strengthen our relationship with the local fishermen, fisheries officials, other researchers, and the local people by further conveying our research goals in the area. 3

Methods: The first field day (May 30) was used as a training day to ensure all field personnel were performing the necessary field activities in an identical manner (Le. net checking, tagging, releasing, data collection, fin clipping etc.). On this day we utilized only one boat and split the crew into morning and afternoon shifts. A sufficient number of sharks was captured this first day to confidently proceed with two boats on the subsequent days. The boats fished in the manner typical of previous years where the nets were, ideally, set through turbid areas ("turbios"), thoughtto be places of denser concentration of blacktip sharks. This was not always possible as heavy cloud cover and rough conditions did not always permit the efficient sighting of these murkier areas. When possible, the two boats worked as a team to systematically traverse the lagoon in order to locate the most productive fishing areas. The areas sampled were mostly confined to the western end of the lagoon (Fig. 1). For the purpose of the Peterson Mark-Recapture study, fishing/tagging began May 30 and continued each day until the late afternoon of June 2. No fishing was conducted on the following day (June 3) to allow the tagged sharks to re-distribute in the lagoon as per the study design. Fishing resumed in the early morning of June 4 and was concluded in the afternoon of June 6. As in previous years, fishing was conducted with the assistance of local commercial fishermen (Fig. 2) and all live sharks were tagged and released by CSR and/or INP biologists (Fig. 3). Figure 1. Gill net sampling sites (71 sets) in Laguna Yalahau in 2001.... '.1.If." 4

Figure 2. Mexican artisanal commercial fisherman setting gillnet for small sharks in Laguna Yalahau. Figure 3. CSR biologist releasing tagged neonate blacktip shark in Laguna Yalahau. Summary of Results: General: Number of Gillnet Sets Conducted - 71 Number of Gillnet Sets Catching Sharks - 60 Total Number of Sharks Caught - 271 (Table 1) Total Number of Sharks Tagged - 239 (Table 1) Number of 8ycatch Species - 37 (Table 2) Table 1. Sharks collected in Laguna Yalahau, Quintana Roo, Mexico, May/June 2001. (PCl = precaudal length; Fl = fork length; STl = stretch total length; CONDITION = release condition from 1-5, where 1 is best) Sample' SCIENTIFIC NAME SEX PCl (cm) Fl(cm) Tl (cm) STl (em) TAG. WEIGHT (kg) CONDITION M337 Carcharhinus limbatus M 47 51 60 64 M2001 1.6 1 M337 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 59 60 M2002 1.4 2 M337 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 48 60 61 M2003 1.4 2 M339 Carcharhinus limbatus F 41 46 54 57 M2004 1.3 2 M339 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 50 60 62 M2005 1.6 3 M339 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 59 60 1.4 5 M339 Carcharhinus limbatus M 48 53 65 67 M2006 1 M340 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 61 63 M2007 1.5 3 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 49 61 62 M2027 1.4 1 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 63 M2009 1.6 4 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 I 52 63 65 M2008 1.8 1 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 49 59 60 M2010 1.4 3 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 47 58 59 M2011 1.4 3 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 51 63 64 M2012 1.6 3 M342 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 50 62 63 M2013 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 47 58 60 M2014 1.3 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 49 54 67 68 M2015 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 64 M2016 1.8 1 5

M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 58 60 1.5 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 60 61 M2018 1.5 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 60 61 M2019 1.5 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 60 62 M2020 1.5 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 48 60 61 M2021 1.6 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 47 56 58 M2022 1.4 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 48 58 60 M2023 1.4 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 48 58 61 M2024 1.4 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus 43 49 60 61 M2025 1.4 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 62 63.5 M2026 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 64 65 M2028 1.8 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 49 53 66 67 M2029 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 64 65 M2030 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 60 61 1.5 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 49 60 62 1.3 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 61 M2031 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 59 60 M2032 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 61 M2033 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 61 M2034 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 51 61 62 M2035 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 47 52 63 64 M2036 1.8 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 60 61 1.4 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 63 M2038 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 61 62 M2039 3 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 63 M2040 4 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 58 59 M2041 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 60 61 M2042 4 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 49 61 62 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 62 63 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 62 64 M2043 2 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus M 48 53 63 65 1.7 5 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 M2017 1 M343 Carcharhinus limbatus F 47 52 63 65 M2044 1.7 2 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 47. 55 58 M2045 1.3 1 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus M 47 52 64 65 M2052 1.8 1 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 59 62 5 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 61 63 M2046 1.4 3 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 61 62 M2047 1.4 4 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 48 58 61 M2048 1.5 2 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 46 56 58 M2049 1.3 1 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 52 64 65 M2050 2 3 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 62 63 M2051 1.7 2 M344 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 49 58 60 M2053 1.5 3 M345 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 48 58 60 M2054 1.4 3 M345 Carcharhinus limbatus M 48 52 64 65 M2055 1.7 3 M345 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 64 M2056 1.9 3 M346 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 63 M2057 1.8 1 6

M346 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 62 64 M2058 2 3 M346 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 50 60 62 M2059 1.7 1 M346 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 63 M2060 1.6 1 M346 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 44 49 60 62 M2061 1.7 4 M346 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 45 50 62 63 M2062 4 M346 CBrcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 63 64 M2063 1.7 3 M346 CBrchBrhinus lilt' :~ J":S M 43 47 56 59 M2066 1.4 4 M346 CarchBrhinus limt. ::us I M 47 53 64 65 M2064 1.8 3 M346 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 45 50 63 64 5 M346 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 61 62 M2065 1.8 3 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 46 50 63 64 M2251 1.5 1 M347 CarchBrhinus limbatus M 45 50 63 64 M2300 1.7 1 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 48 61 62 M2252 1.7 4 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 50 62 63 M2253 1.5 2 M347 CarchBrhinus IimbBtus M 48 52 66 67 M2254 3 M347 CBrcharhinus limbbtus M 46 49 61 62 M2255 3 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 48 60 61 M2256 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 47 55 59 M2257 2 M347 CBrchBrhinus limbatus M 44 49 61 63 M2258 4 M347 Carcharhinus limbbtus F 45 49 61 62 M2259 4 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 48 54 66 67 M2260 1 M347 CBrcharhinus limbatus F 44 48 60 61 M2261 4 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus M 45 50 63 64 M2262 3 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 50 62 63 M2263 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 62 63 M2264 3 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus 42 48 58 59 M2265 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 47 60 61 M2266 1 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 63 64 M2267 3 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 49 62 63 M2268 3 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 49 55 66 68 M2269 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 48 60 61 M2270 3 M347 CarchBrhinus limbbtus M 44 49 60 63 M2271 2 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus M 45 50 61 63 M2272 1 M347 CarchBrhinus limbbtus M 48 51 63 65 M2273 1 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 62 63 M2274 2 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus M 46 51 63 65 M2275 4 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 58 60 M2276 1 M347 CarchBrhinus limbatus F 48 52 65 66 M2277 4 M347 CarchBrhinus limbatus M 43 47 58 59 M2278 2 M347 CBrchBrhinus limbatus M 44 49 60 62 M2279 1 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 46 51 63 64 M2280 4 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 60 62 M2281 4 M347 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 48 60 61 M2282 1 M347 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 43 48 60 61 M2283 1 M348 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 60 62 M2284 1 M348 CarchBrhinus limbatus M 44 49 59 61 M228~ 1.5 2 M348 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 52 60 63 M2286 1 M348 Carcharhinus IimbBtus F 42 49 57 60 M2287 1.5 1 7

M348 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 50 60 62 M2288 1.7 4 M349 Carcharhinus limbatus M 48 52 62 65 M2289 1.8 2 M349 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 52 60 64 M2290 1.7 1 M349 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 59 61 M2291 1.8 4 M349 Carcharhinus limbatus M 47 51 64 66 1.7 5 M350 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 62 63 1.6 5 M350 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 51 63 64 1.8 5 M351 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 62 64 1.7 5 M351 Carcharhinus limbatus F 48 53 63 64 M2292 3 M351 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 47 58 60 M2293 3 M352 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 58 61 M2067 1.3 1 M353 Garcharhinus limbatus M 45 49 60 62 M2037 1.4 1 M354 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 50 62 64 M2068 1.5 3 M354 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 48 58 61 M2069 1.5 3 M354 Carcharhinus limbatus F 47 51 62 64 M2070 1.7 2 M355 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 48 58 60 M2071 1.4 3 M356 Carcharhinus limbatus M 48 52 62 65 M2072 1.8 2 M356 Carcharhinus limbatus F 47 52 61 64 M2073 1.7 2 M356 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 62 63 M2074 1.6 4 M357 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 62 63 M2294 1.7 3 M358 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 62 63 M2295 1.6 4 M358 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 50 61 62 M2296 3 M359 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 62 63 M2297 1.9 3 M359 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 60 62 M2298 4 M361 Carcharhinus limbatus M 47 52 64 65 M2299 3 M361 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 60 61 M2301 3 M363 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 64 M2075 2 1 M363 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 63 64 M2076 1.6 3 M363 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 62 M2077 1.6 2 M364 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 49 59 61 M2078 1.6 2 M365 Carcharhinus limbatus F 47 51 60 63 M2079 1.5 1 M365 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 62 63 1.7 5 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 47 58 60 M2080 1.2 3 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 M2081 1.8 2 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 61 1.3 5 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 60 61 M2082 1.4 3 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 62 64 M2083 1.5 1 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus M 46 51 62 64 M2084 1.5 3 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 59 61 M2085 1.3 I 2 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 62 64 M2086 1.7 3 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 52 63 65 1.6 5 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 48 57 60 1.3 5 M366 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 50 61 63 1.6 5 M367 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 48 60 61 M2087 1.4 1 M367 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 48 59 60 M2088 1.3 4 M367 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 61 62 M2089 1.5 2 M368 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 47 58 59 M2090 1.5 2 M369 Carcharhinus limbatus F 40 44 53 55 M2302 1 2 8

M369 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 46 51 61 63 M2304 1.7 3 M369 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 59 62 M2305 1.7 1 M370 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 59 61 M2307 1.7 1 M370 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 42 48 55 57 M2308 1.4 1 M370 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 48 56 60 M2309 2 M370 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 46 52 61 64 1.8 5 M371 Carcharhinus Iimbatus I F 44 50 61 62 M2130 1.7 4 M371 Carcharhinus limt atus F 43 48 58 60 M2311 1.4 4 M372 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 48 57 60 M2134 4 M372 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 48 58 60 M2312 4 M372 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 49 60 61 M2313 3 M373 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 51 60 63 M2315 1 M373 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 41 47 57 59 M2316 4 M373 Carcharhinus Iimbatus 43 49 57 59 M2317 1 M373 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 49 59 60 M2320 4 M373 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 62 63 M2321 4 M373 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 44 49 58 60 M2318 3 M373 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 49 59 61 M2319 4 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 47 57 59 M2091 1.5 4 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 47 53 65 67 1.9 5 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 44 48 60 61 M2092 1.5 4 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 45 51 61 64 1.8 5 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 49 59 61 1.6 5 M375 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 50 62 64 2 5 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 47 52 63 66 1.9 5 M375 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 47 57 59 1.4 5 M375 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 47 58 60 M2093 1.4 3 M375 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 51 61 63 M2094 1.4 3 M376 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 61 63 M2095 1.6 3 M377 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 45 50 62 63 M2096 1.3 3 M379 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 47 52 62 64 M2097 1.8 2 M379 Carcharhinus limbatus F 48 53 65 67 M2098 2 4 M380 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 49 61 62 M2303 2 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 49 61 62 M2322 1.5 1 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 44 49 60 61 M2323 1.7 2 M382 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 49 59 60 M2324 2 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 43 47 59 60 M2325 1 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 44 50 62 63 M2326 4 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 42 47 58 59 M2327 4 M382 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 48 60 61 M2328 2 M382 Carcharhinus limbatus M383 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 45 49 61 62 M2329 3 M383 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 49 60 61 1.5 5 M384 Carcharhinus limbatus M 41 46 58 59 M2330 1 M384 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 44 50 62 63 M2331 3 M385 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 46 51 61 63 M2332 1.7 3 M385 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 49 61 62 M2334 3 M386 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 47 56 58 M2099 1.3 2 9

M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 47 53 65 66 M2100 2 2 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 49 59 60 M2151 1.5 2 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 39 43 55 56 M2163 1 1 M387 Carcharhinus limbatus M 37 41 51 52 M2153 0.8 4 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 46 51 64 65 M2152 1.8 2 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 42 46 57 58 M2154 1.3 1 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 47 52 64 66 M2156 1.9 4 M387 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 46 51 63 64 M2155 1.6 1 M388 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 43 48 60 61 M2157 1.4 3 M389 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 48 60 62 1.5 5 M389 Carcharhinus limbatus F 41 47 57 58 M2158 1.4 1 M389 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 I 49 61 63 M2159 1.7 4 M390 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 50 62 64 M2161 1.8 2 M390 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 42 47 59 60 M2160 1.6 4 M390 Carcharhinus limbatus M 42 49 60 62 M2162 1.3 3 M390 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 43 47 59 60 M2170 1.4 4 M390 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 47 58 60 M2169 2 M390 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 48 52 73 75 M2168 1.8 3 M391 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 45 49 61 62 M2164 1.6 2 M391 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 41 44 57 58 M2165 1.5 2 M392 Carcharhinus limbatus M 38 42 53 54 M2333 2 M392 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 M2335 3 M392 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 M2336 3 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 46 52 61 62 M2337 4 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 40 44 55 56 M2338 2 M395 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 61 62 M2339 1.7 4 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 41 45 56 58 M2344 4 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 41 46 56 57 M2340 2 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 46 50 62 63 M2343 4 M395 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 44 49 60 61 M2342 4 M395 Carcharhinus limbatus F 41 44 56 57 M2341 1 M396 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 49 60 62 M2345 1.5 4 M397 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 50 63 64 M2346 2 M397 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 38 43 51 53 M2347 2 M397 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 51 63 64 M2348 4 M398 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 45 50 61 63 M2166 1.9 1 M398 Carcharhinus limbatus F 46 50 62 63 M2167 1.7 4 M398 Carcharhinus limbatus F 45 51 63 64 M2171 1.8 4 M399 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 46 51 63 f -- M2177 1.7 3 M399 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 43 48 60 t -; M2176 1.7 2 M400 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 46 51 62 64 M2175 1.6 4 M400 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 50 62 64 M2172 1.5 2 M402 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 48 54 65 67 M2173 1.9 3 M403 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 49 60 61 M2349 1.5 1 M403 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 49 61 62 M2350 1.5 1 M403 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 51 62 63 M2101 1.7 2 M403 Carcharhinus limbatus M 41 45 57 58 M2102 1.4 2 M404 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 45 49 61 62 M2103 1.6 2 10

M406 Carcharhinus limbatus M 47 M406 Carcharhinus limbatus M 45 M406 Carcharhinus limbatus F 40 M406 Carcharhinus limbatus F 44 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus F 41 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus M 41 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus F 43 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus F 42 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus 46 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus M 43 M407 Carcharhinus limbatus M 44 52 50 44 49 46 46 48 50 49 48 51 48 49 63 65 M2104 1.8 2 62 63 M2105 1.5 4 54 55 M2106 1 61 62 M2107 1.5 1 56 57 M2108 1.4 2 57 58 M2109 1.3 2 59 60 M2110 1.5 4 61 62 M2111 2 60 61 M2112 2 58 59 M2113 2 63 64 1.8 5 60 61 1.4 5 61 62 M2114 1.5 3 Peterson Mark-Recapture Study: Sampling Effort 1: Sharks Caught = 180 Sharks Tagged = 159 Sampling Effort 2: Sharks Caught 102 Sharks Tagged = 91 Recaptures from Effort 1 = 11 (2 of which were recaptured twice) Population Size = (Number Tagged in Effort 1) X (Number Caught in Effort 2) Number of Tag Recaps from Effort 1 = (159 X 102) / 11 = 1,474 pups (compared to 934 estimated in 2000) This estimate requires refining (e.g. immediate post-release mortality from release condition needs to be estimated and incorporated into the analysis) for scientific publication. However, in general with the 2000 and 2001 estimates, it appears that somewhere around 1,000 blacktip pups use Yalahau Lagoon as a pupping and primary nursery area. Refinement of this figure will allow us to estimate the potential productivity of such areas and understand the importance of these essential habitats for rebuilding depleted shark populations. Bycatch: All vertebrate bycatch was measured (FL or OW in cm) and/or counted for all sets performed. There were 37 species documented encompassing 34 teleost, 2 ray, and 1 sea turtle species (Table 2). 11

Table 2. Bycatch captured during Yalahau field collections, 2001 Common name Scientific name N Min FL (cm) Max FL (cm) Bream Sea Archosargus rhomboidalis 349 20 29 Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus 305 30 46 Catfish, Gafftopsail Bagre marinus 200 21 51 Sailors Choice Haemulon parrai 64 27 31 Jack, Crevalle Caranx hippos 34 29 48 Grunt, White Haemulon plumieri 27 26 33 Snook Centropomus undecimalis 22 45 69 Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 11 22 30 Hogfish Lachno/aimus maximus 10 27 34 Pompano Trachinotus carolinus 10 25 32 Cowfish, Scrawled Lactophrys quadricomis 6 14 23 Permit Trachinotus falcatus 5 19 34 Snapper, Cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus 5 34 42 Bluefish Pomatomus sa/tatrix 4 44 46 Guitarfish, Atlantic Rhinobatos lentiginosus 4 47 56 Burrfish, Striped Chilomycterus schoepfi 3 27 27 Catfish, Hardhead Arius felis 3 23 36.5 Seatrout, Spotted Cvnoscion nebulosus 3 37 58 Ladyfish E/ops saurus 2 34 38 Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 2 20 21 Bumper Chloroscombrus chrvsurus 1 24 24 Cobia Rachvcentron canadum 1 54 54 Filefish Balistidae 1 34 34 Filefish, Unicorn Aluterus monoceros 1 28 28 Flounder, Gulf Paralichthvs albigutta 1 32 32 Jack, Horse-e-.e Caranx latus 1 35 35 Kingfish, Southern Menticirrhus americanus 1 38 38 Leathe~acket Oligoplites saurus 1 22 22 Lookdown Selene vomer 1 18 18 Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus 1 45 45 Mojarra Gerreidae 1 21 21 Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 1 34 34 Ray, Spotted Eagle Aetobatus narinari 1 45 45 Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mvdas 1 - - Searobin Prionotus spp. 1 - - Snapper, Mutton Lutjanus analis 1 36 36 Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis 1 48 48 Fin Clips: A total of75 fin clips were collected from neonate and YOY blacktips. These will be utilized by geneticist Dr. Ed Heist, Southern Illinois University, and his graduate students in collaborative studies to determine the population differences of Mexican vs. U.S. sharks. 12

Recaptures from Previous Years: A total of 71 tags from recaptured sharks were recovered during this trip. The majority were from last year's tagging (67) but a few were from 1998 (4) and 1996 (1). Unfortunately, there were few usable data associated with these older recaptures so we could not confirm whether these sharks returned to the lagoon to be recaptured or were merely the result of tags that had been kept in hand for years. This unprecedented number of recaps came from only seven fishermen (or at least reported from only seven). In general, the data from many of these recaptures were extremely poor or in several cases, clearly fraudulent. The obvious explanation for this is that many of these fishermen caught the sharks while fishing illegally inside the lagoon (which is supposed to be off-limits to the net fishermen in the spring and summer), undoubtedly soon after we completed ourtagging last year. Consequently, only half rewards were paid where the data were clearly doubtful. It was explained to our contracted fishermen (and to the rest of the fishermen through them) that we would no longer pay rewards for recovered tags as a direct result of the poor data quality and underlying fact that our reward system may be providing incentive for fishermen to illegally fish the lagoon. This was further explained to the local PESCA official in Holbox (Eduardo Fuentes Rosel) so that he could further spread the word. This decision was met with no outward reservations or resentment from either the fishermen or the PESCA official. Meeting with Yalahau Environmental Group: While in Holbox, the CSR group was contacted by the director of Yum Salam (Jose Francisco Remolina), a Mexican environmental activist group involved in protecting the flora and fauna of various environmentally sensitive regions, with Yalahau being one of them. At a meeting with this group, a considerable amount of time was spent explaining to them the goals of this project. This group was genuinely interested in our research, but our impression was that they would have preferred to have been notified of our work in Yalahau in advance. They are concerned with the shark resource and would like to be able to work in conjunction with us to potentially invoke improved regulations and enforcement in and around Yalahau. We provided some information as to the times of the year when the shark resource in Yalahau would be most vulnerable to fishing effort. It was explained that we would be open to working together with Yum Salam but it would require permission of the INP and CSR directors. Further Observations: In previous years, we have noted evidence of a large shark fishery (carcasses, etc.) operating out of the north end of Holbox, but in general, this fishery has appeared to be much less active than it was in the early 1990's and before. Last year, our fishermen claimed that this fishery (using longlines) is landing significant numbers of large sharks including blacktips. This year we observed that there were 20 or more boats baiting up in preparation to apparently catch large fish. On one particular day, we observed a couple of large sharks being loaded into trucks, at least one of which was a large dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus (Fig. 4). 13

Figure 4. Large dusky shark at Holbox fish house. Since 1995, this project has collected data on 1,369 neonate and yay blacktip pups (Table 3). Recapture rate of tagged sharks has averaged 17.7%, which is about five times higher than the recapture rate of tagged sharks in U.S. waters, indicating very heavy fishing pressure on the young sharks in Mexico. Table 3. Summary CSRlINP blacktip tagging project activities in Yalahau, 1995-2001. Number of Blacktips Blacktips Number of Recapture Year, Gillnet Sets Caught Tagged Recaptures Percent (%) 1995 46 237 180 46 22.5 1996 71 266 214 50 23.4 1997 51 128 110 19 17.3 1998 51 162 153 23 15.0 2000 100 305 264 67 25.4 2001 71 271 239 Totals 390 1,369 1,160 205 17.7 b. Field Research in Western Gulf of Mexico To continue shark tagging studies in the western Gulf to assess exchange rate of sharks between U.S. and Mexican waters, a field trip was conducted November 13-20, 2000 to Matamoros, Mexico. This trip, again with collaborators from Mexico's INP, had the following objectives: 14

1) Collect any recaptured tags, collect associated data, and pay tag rewards; 2) Collect fin clips from YOY blacktips for population genetic studies; 3) Hire local fishermen to catch sharks, particularly YOY blacktips, to facilitate tagging; 4) Promote the tagging program in the fishing communities of Bagdad Beach and EI Mezquital, Mexico, by conversing with fishermen, hanging posters, and gaining the support of Pesca officials in Matamoros. Results of this trip are summarized as follows: Tag Recaptures: Five tags were recovered with three being Mote tags (spinner, blacktip, finetooth) and two being NMFS tags (both bull sharks). Two of the Mote tags were recovered in EI Mezquital while the other was found in Playa Bagdad. All Mote tags were from sharks originally tagged in Corpus Christi. Many people reported seeing NMFS tags in the past but most had thrown them away for one reason or another. One Mote tag was also reportedly thrown away. Efforts are underway to educate the fishermen about returning tags. Biological Data: The shark catches observed at Bagdad Beach on Nov. 14-15 comprised seven species including blacktip, Atlantic sharpnose, bull, sandbar, blacknose, finetooth, and smalltail. Sharpnose and blacktip made up about 98% of the catch (in equal proportions) while the other species were each represented by only a few individuals. All of the mature female sharpnose were pregnant and the observed embryos ranged in TL from 18.1 to 31.1 cm. Only one sandbar shark was observed but it was a mature female (230 cm STL). Fin clips were taken from 29 YOY blacktips for genetic analysis (Table 4). Additionallly, fin clip samples were taken from six bonnethead sharks for collaborative population genetic studies being conducted by Dr. Mahmood Shivji, Nova University. In addition to the work in Matamoros, Mexico in fall 2000, CSR scientists continued to work with sportfishermen along the Texas coast to tag sharks for studies of migration and exchange rate. A select group of trained fishermen are using CSR shark tags to tag sharks in Texas coastal waters, to extend CSR tagging efforts to the northwestern Gulf. In 2000-2001, 51 rod & reel trips (Table 5) resulted in the tagging of 168 sharks comprising six species (spinner, finetboth, bull, blacktip, sandbar and scalloped hammerhead) (Table 6). This effort continues to be a worthwhile activity to increase research efforts in the western Gulf and promote conservation-oriented practices among Texas sportfishermen. Table 4. YOY blacktip fin clips for genetic analysis from Bagdad Beach, Mexico, 2001. Sample # Sex pel (em) Fl(cm) Tl(cm) STl(cm) location 256 F 58 64 79 80 10-15 km offshore 258 M 59 66 79 80 10-15 km offshore 261 M 59 66 79 80 10-15 km offshore 286 F 61 68 82 84 12 km offshore 287 F 57 64 78 79 10-15 km offshore 288 M 57 64 77 79 10-15 km offshore 15

289 F 56 63 76 78 10-15 km offshore 290 F 57 53 79 80 10-15 km offshore 292 M 60 66 81 82 10-15 km offshore 293 F 60 67 82 83 10-15 km offshore 294 M 56 62 77 77 10-15 km offshore 371 M 56 62 76 77 10-15 km offshore 372 M 60.5 65.5 82.8 83.1 10-15 km offshore 373 F 59 66 80 81 10-15 km offshore 374 F 60 66 81 82 10-15 km offshore 374 M 58 64 77 78 12 km offshore 375 F 62 69 85 86 10-15 km offshore 376 F 60 66 81 82 12 km offshore 377 F 61 66 83 84 10-15 km offshore 378 F 56 63 76 77 12 km offshore 380 F 58 64 79 80 12 km offshore 381 M 54 60 73 74 12 km offshore 382 F 58 64 78 80 12 km offshore 383 F 56 62 76 77 12 km offshore 384 F 60 67 81 82 10-15 km offshore 385 M 58 - - 80 10-15 km offshore 386 M 53 59 73 74 12 km offshore 387 M 62 69 84 85 10-15 km offshore 388 M 55 60 74 75 10-15 km offshore Table 5. Rod & reel sample dates and locations of Texas sportfishermen, 2000-2001. Sample # Mo Da Yr Location Latitude Longitude Depth (ft.) 56 7 5 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 56.1 7 8 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 20 57 7 15 2000 Port Arthur-8mi SSE of Port Arthur 29'31.526N 93'49.623W 41 58 7 15 2000 Port Arthur-1 0.3 mi SSE of Port Arthur 29'29.457N 93'48.060W 38 59 7 15 2000 Port Arthur- Oil Rig 8 miles SSE of Port Arthur 29'31.640N 93'49.220W 41 60 7 26 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 60.1 8 15 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 61 8 31 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 62 9 11 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 63 9 12 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 64 9 22 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 65 9 24 2000 Co_rpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 66 9 25 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 67 9 28 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97' ~ 2. 98W 15 68 9 30 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'1!.98W 15 69 9 30 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'1298W 15 70 10 23 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 7 71 10 24 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 72 10 25 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 73 10 27 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 74 10 28 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 75 10 29 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 76 10 29 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 16

77 10 30 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 78 10 30 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 79 11 1 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 80 11 1 2000 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 81 3 6 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 82 3 22 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 83 3 31 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 84 4 3 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 9T12.98W 15 85 4 5 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 85.5 4 7 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 86 4 10 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 87 5 8 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 88 5 10 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 9T12.98W 15 88.5 5 11 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 89 5 14 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 89.1 5 14 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 90 5 15 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 91 5 18 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 92 5 24 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 92.5 5 27 2001 Corpus Christi-Caldwell Pier, PI. Aransas 27'49.557N 97'03.034W 15 93 5 28 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 94 5 29 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 95 5 29 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 95.1 6 1 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 95.2 6 4 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 96 6 8 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 9T12.98W 15 96.1 6 8 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 97 6 11 2001 Corpus Christi-Bob Hall Pier, Padre Is. 27'34.86N 97'12.98W 15 Table 6. Sharks caught, recorded, tagged and released by Texas sportfishermen. (REPRO = reproductive state: 1 = neonate; 1.5 = 'OY; 2 = 1 + ~-old juvenile; 3 = adult) Sample # SCIENTIFIC NAME SEX REPRO. PCl (cm) STl(cm) TAG # CONDo 56 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5-69 1365 1 56.1 Sphyma lewini M 1 36 55 1201 2 57 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 51 71 1366 1 57 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1 47 64 1367 1 57 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 52 71 1368 1 58 Carcharhinus limbatus 2 78 107 1369 1 59 Carcharhinus brevipinna M 1.5 51 70 1370 1 59 Carcharhinus limbatus I F 1.5 55 70 1371 1 59 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 53 73 1372 1 59 Carcharhinus brevi pinna M 1.5 54 74 1373 1 60 Carcharhinus brevipinna M 1.5 47 67 1374 2 60.1 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 48 62 1210 1 61 Carcharhinus brevipinna F 1.5 55 76 1375 1 62 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 88 112 1376 2 63 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 87 123 1377 1 64 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 55 78 1378 2 65 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 97 137 1379 1 66 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 53 74 1381 2 17

67 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 55 78 1380 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 54 76 1382 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 48 68 1383 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 55 75 1384 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 54 77 1385 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 55 76 1386 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 53 73 1387 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 51 73 1388 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 54 74 1389 1 67 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 55 78 1390 1 67 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 58 80 1391 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 54 76 1392 1 67 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 55 78 1393 1 67 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 85 118 1394 1 68 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 53 74 1395 1 69 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 56 77 1202 1 70 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 57 81 1396 2 70 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 60 84 1397 1 70 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 56 79 1398 1 70 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 58 82 1399 1 70 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 58 81 1400 1 70 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 58 82 1272 1 70 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 61 84 1273 1 71 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 55 78 1274 1 71 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 56 80 1275 2 71 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 61 85 1276 1 71 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 59 81 1277 1 71 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 55 79 1278 1 72 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 58 80 1279 1 72 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 57 81 1280 1 72 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 62 84 1281 1 72 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 55 78 1282 1 72 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 58 80 1283 1 72 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 59 81 1284 1 72 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 61 85 1285 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 55 75 1286 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 63 87 1287 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 54 75 1288 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 57 80 1289 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 57 78 1290 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 58 80 1291 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 60 85 1292 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 58 80 1293 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 60 84 1294 1 73 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 53 74 1295 2 73 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 57 80 1296 1 73 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 55 77 1297 2 73 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 61 84 1298 2 74 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 57 81 1299 1 74 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 59 82 1221 1 74 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 60 84 1222 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 57 79 1223 1 18

74 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 60 83 1224 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 58 82 1225 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 55 76 1226 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 59 81 1227 1 74 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 66 94 1228 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 57 79 1229 1 74 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 63 86 1230 1 74 Carcharhinus leucas M 2 100 139 1231 2 75 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 57 80 1232 1 75 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 54 75 1233 1 75 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 57 80 1234 1 75 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 56 74 1235 1 75 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 60 83 1236 1 75 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 61 85 1237 1 75 Carcharhinus leucas F I 2 105 144 1238 1 75 Carcharhinus leucas M 2 96 132 1239 1 76 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 53 74 1203 2 76 Carcharhinus limbatus F I 1.5 58 81 1204 1 76 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 63 86 1205 1 77 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 75 103 1206 1 78 Carcharhinus isodon F I 2 55 77 1240 1 78 Carcharhinus limbatus F I 2 65 90 1241 1 78 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 52 73 1242 1 78 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 55 77 1243 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 61 85 1244 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 57 79 1245 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus F I 1.5 58 82 1246 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 60 82 1247 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1.5 55 77 1248 1 79 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 60 83 1249 1 79 Carcharhinus Jeucas F I 2 103 144 1250 1 80 Carcharhinus limbatus F 1.5 61 85 1207 1 81 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 56 77 1701 1 82 Carcharhinus plumbeus F 2 67 92 1702 1 82 Carcharhinus isodon F 2 54 75 1703 1 82 Carcharhinus plumbeus F I 2 65 87 1704 1 82 Carcharhinus plumbeus F 2 67 93 1705 1 82 Carcharhinus isodon M 2 73 104 1706 1 83 Carcharhinus limbatus F I 2 73 100 1707 1 84 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 72 102 1708 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 60 85 1709 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 69 95 1710 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 67 92 1851 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 76 103 1852 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M I 2 76 104 1853 2 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 60 82 1854 2 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M I 2 78 106 1855 2 85 Carcharhinus isodon M 3 88 120 1856 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F I 2 60 83 1857 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 65 92 1858 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 66 93 1859 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 76 104 1860 1 19

85 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 62 85 1861 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 64 87 1862 1 85 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 62 86 1863 1 85.5 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 63 85 1891 1 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 78 108 1864 1 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 80 108 1865 2 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 75 104 1866 1 86 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 74 101 1867 1 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 80 108 1868 1 86 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 85 117 1869 1 86 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 77 106 1870 1 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 73 102 1871 2 86 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 63 86 1872 1 86 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 63 87 1873 1 86 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 59 83 1874 1 86 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 71 99 1875 1 87 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 62 86 1876 1 88 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 59 83 1877 1 88.5 Carcharhinus limbatus F 2 51 74 1892 1 89 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 45-1878 2 89.1 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 67 92 1941 2 90 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 2 60 83 1879 1 91 Sphyma lewini M 1 30 45 1880 1 91 Carcharhinus limbatus M 2 75 104 1881 1 91 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 62 88 1882 1 92 Sphyma lewini M 1 32 48 1883 2 92 Sphyma lewini M 1 32 47 1884 1 92 Sphyma lewini F 1 34 50 1890 2 92 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 39 55 1889 1 92 Sphyma lewini F 1 34 50 1888 1 92 Sphyma lewini F 1 33 48 1887 1 92.5 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 2 62 88 1942 1 93 Sphyma lewini F 1 31 47 1885 2 94 Sphyma lewini M 1-49 1886 1 94 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 44 61 1940 1 95 Sphyma lewini F 1 35 50 1893 1 95 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1 40 55 1894 1 95 Sphyma lewini F 1 35 50 1895 1 95.1 Carcharhinus Iimbatus M 1 43 60 1896 1 95.1 Carcharhinus limbatus M 1 38 53 1897 1 95.2 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 42 59 1943 1 95.2 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 43 59 1944! 1 96 Sphyma lewini M 1 33 48 1901 2 96 Sphyma lewini M 1 34 52 1902 1 96 Sphyma lewini M 1 37 52 1898 2 96.1 Carcharhinus Iimbatus F 1 43 60 1945 1 20

c. Offshore Large Shark Surveys A fishery-independent survey using MML's RN Eugenie Clark (Fig. 5) was conducted in June 2001, to initiate deployment of archival and satellite tags (Fig. 6) on large shark species of interest. Up to 20 drum lines were set repeatedly for two nights (June 26 & 27) in waters directly off Sarasota, FL, ranging from 3-9 miles offshore. A total of 24 large sharks of five species (bull, tiger, lemon, blacktip and nurse) were caught, measured, tagged and released (Table 7). Figure 5.. MML's 50-ft coastal research vessel Eugenie Clark, used for large shark surveys and deployment of CSR electronic tags.. ~~-! '. Il' I! ~ 21

Figure 6. Satellite tag attached to dorsal fin of large blacktip shark. Table 7. Sharks caught, tagged, and released near Sarasota, FL on June 26/27 from the RN Eugenie Clark as part of the initial phase of new CSR studies of large sharks. SCIENTIFIC NAME PCl Fl Tl STL Mote Roto Tag Pup Tag ELECTRONIC SEX REPRO (em) (em) (em) (em) M-Tag t t t TAG CONDITION Carcharflinus leucas M 2 152 163 197 202 T0244 R0148 - - 2 Carcharflinus leucas M 2 148 168 195 200 T0039 R0141 - - 1 Galeocerdo cuvier F 180 202 235 240 T0046 R0142 - - 2 Carcharflinus leucas F 3 151 168 202 208 T0040 R0150 - - 1 Neqaprion brevirostris M 2 152 166 190 196 T0050 R0178 - - 4 Negaprion brevirostris M 2 171 187 220 225 T0037 R0145 - - 2 Negaprion brevirostris F 186 203 239 248 T0042 R0179 - - 2 ~~_aprion brevirostris M 3 197 217 265 269 T0032 R0176 - - 2 Carcharflinus leucas F 2 144 156 182 193 T0235 R0135-2 Carcharflinus Iimbatus F 115 129 155 157 T0250 J1008 - Archival #3360 3 Carcharflinus leucas M 2 138 155 176 185 T0232 R0146 - - 2 Carcharflinus leucas F 3 181 198 - - T0236 R0187 - - 1 Carcharflinus leucas M 2 134 147 179 184 - - - - 5 Carcharflinus limbatus M 2 88 98 120 123 -- R0147 S10355-2 Carcharflinus limbatus F 120 133 158 161 - J1007 S10356 Archival #3339 3 Carcharflinus leucas M 3 - - 220 - - R0199-1 Carcharflinus Iimbatus M 3 125 138 160 170 -- - - - 5 Carcharflinus limbatus F 2 101 114 140 142 - R0184 S10358-1 Carcharflinus limbatus F 2 90 101 122 126 - -- - - 5 Carcharflinus leucas F 2 155 168 205 210 T0245 R0149 - - 2 Carcharflinus leucas F 148 168 202 205 T0031 - -- PAT-00P0967 2 Ginglymostoma cirratum M - 250 --- - - - 1 Carcharflinus limbatus F 110 123 145 155 - J1006 S10359 PAT-00P0968 2 Carcharflinus Iimbatus F 113 126 151 157 - R0186 S10360-2 22

The two archival (non-satellite) tags (Lotek L TD1 000) deployed on blacktip sharks were set up to record light levels (one measurement per minute), depth (1/min) and temperature (1/10 min). These tags must be physically retrieved for the data to be downloaded (no information as of the date ofthis report). The two pop-off archival satellite tags (PAT tags) were set to record light, depth and temperature every minute for three months (for the bull shark) or six months (for the blacktip), then pop off for data retrieval. The bull shark tag was retrieved prematurely, only about ten days after deployment (July 7), by a fisherman inside Tampa Bay near Egmont Key. The tag had apparently dislodged from its fin connection and was found floating on the surface. Five days of useful data were retrieved from the tag, and despite the very short period of recording, a diurnal pattern of depth changes by the shark is apparent (Fig. 7). Figure 7. Data recordings from PAT tag retrieved from large female bull shark, showing diurnal depth changes especially as sun sets at dusk (when light levels drop) and during the night. Each crest and trough in the light cycle is one 24-hr day. Note the dynamic depth changes in the 12+/- hrs after release, indicating a period of recovery behavior following the catch-and-release event. Bull shark 30 200 25 180 20 160 g 140 ; 15 D- CD "'0... 0 10 0 CD :; 5 IV... CD D- E 0 CD I- 60 120 ~ 'iii c 100 $.!: :E Cl 80 :::i -5 40-10 -15 L...JUL...o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'-'-I -- Temperature (C) Time (record number 1 per minute) - Light level (R) 23

The PAT tag on the large female blacktip shark did not report data as programmed six months after tag deployment, in January 2002. Thus, the fate of this tag is unknown as of the filing of this report. These two initial disappointing results indicate that changes need to be made with the attachment method of the tags to the sharks. Such changes have been made and further testing and tag deployment are underway. In addition to the Florida Gulf surveys, a field trip to South Carolina was conducted in August 3-4, 2000. The purpose of this trip was to deploy internal archival tags in large sharks, preferably blacktips but other fisheries-relevant species were acceptable. This trip was made with Dr. Jose Castro of NMFS/SEFSC and utilized the services of commercial chark fishermen from the ar _a around the Bulls Bay coastline. Fishing was conducted by longline and gillnet in Bulls Bay and adjacent areas. Results were that two large female blacktip sharks were successfully implanted with archival tags and released, and the other eight sharks caught during the survey were tagged with conventional tags and released (Table 8). At least one of the archival-tagged blacktips survived the procedure because it was caught approx. one month later by a SC state biologist, who noted the tag type but released the shark without retrieving the tag. The other species tagged during the August survey were blacknose and sandbar sharks. Table 8. Results of August 3-4, 2000, pilot sampling trip off South Carolina. REPR SCIENTIFIC NAME SEX 0 PCL(cm) FL(cm) TL(cm) STL(cm) Pup Tag # NMFS Tag # Archival Tag # Location latl!ude Lonaltude CarchartJinus acronotus F 3 97 105 125-9394 - - Cape Romain 33 C..! 170N 79'19.038W Carcharhinus limba/us F 2-114 - - 9395 - - Cape Romain 33'04.170N 79'19.038W Carcharhinus limba/us F 2 100 113 138-9393 190734 1121 Cape Romain 33'04.170N 79'19.038W Carcharhinus limba/us F 3 114 126 142-9396 190729 1115 Cape Romain 33'04.170N 79'19.038W Carcharhinus plumbeus F 2 79 85 104 106 9351 - - North Bulrs Bay - - Carcharhinus Dlumbeus F 2 82 91 107 112 9354 - - North Bulrs Bay - - Carcharhinus p/umbeus F 2 85 94 113 117 9353 - - North Bulrs Bay - - CarchartJinus plumbeus M 2 79 87 102 109 9392 - - North Bull's Bay - - Carcharhinus olumbeus M 2 87 97 11 7 120 9355 - - North Bull's Bay - - Carcharhinus plumbeus M 2 90 100 117 123 9352 - - North Bulrs Bay - - d. Fishery Ecosystem Modeling Development of an ecological model of the Charlotte Harbor system in SW Florida was begun using the ECOPATH with ECOSIM software. Development of this model requires the compilation of a large amount of data on all aspects of the ecosystem. Initial work on the model centered around the determination of species or species groups to include in the model. A total of 38 species/species groups (Table 9) was selected for the model based on the input of a range of scientists involved in studies within the areas. To assist in the development of the Charlotte Harbor model some data from a larger-scale model of the West Florida Shelf is being utilized. Dietary data from previous CSR studies in Charlotte Harbor have been used in the model to provide an understanding of the trophic interactions of elasmobranchs in the system. 24