American Lobster

Home , American lobster, Cancer irroratus, Cancer pagurus, Dungeness crab

Homarus americanus

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

United States of America/Northwest Atlantic

Traps

September 01, 2014 Sam Wilding, Seafood Watch Fisheries Scientiest

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2 Table of Contents

About...... Seafood...... Watch ...... 3......

Guiding...... Principles ...... 4......

Summary...... 5......

Final...... Seafood...... Recommendations ...... 7......

Introduction...... 9......

Assessment...... 19......

Criterion...... 1: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . species...... under ...... assessment ...... 19 ......

Criterion...... 2: . . . Impacts...... on . . . other...... species...... 28 ......

Criterion...... 3: . . . Management...... Effectiveness ...... 38 ......

Criterion...... 4: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . habitat...... and . . . . . ecosystem...... 49 ......

Acknowledgements...... 53......

References...... 54......

Appendix...... A:. . . . Extra...... By . . . . Catch...... Species ...... 61......

2 About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229- 9990.

3 Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment? How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? How effective is the fishery’s management? How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

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

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

4 Summary

This report provides analysis and recommendations for three commercially important crustacean species in the United States Northwest Atlantic, American lobster (Homarus americanus), Jonah Crab (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus). The American lobster, the primary species being evaluated in this report, is a large bodied, benthic crustacean that is found from Newfoundland, Canada to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in the United States. The U.S. American Lobster fishery is composed of three main stocks identified by differences in life history parameters and biogeographic and biophysical differences in each of these regions. The three stocks are the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GBK) and Southern New England (SNE). American lobsters and both Cancer species are caught using primarily fixed gear (vented traps) that account for 98% of all lobster and crab landings in the New England region of United States with the other 2% of landings from trawls. American lobsters have a low resiliency to fishing pressure. They are long lived and with estimates up to 100 years. Stock assessments, regularly conducted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), indicate that overall lobster landings and abundance have been increasing steadily for the last twenty years. However, two of the three stocks- Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank stocks - are considered healthy while the Southern New England stock has been in a decline since the late 1990's and has remained at depleted levels since then.

Both C. borealis and C. irroratus are bycatch fisheries from the lobster fishery with little to no regulations. Historically, Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs had been considered nuisance species in the lobster fishery and were often discarded, used as bait or sold to help cover fuel and operational costs. Since the 1990s, they have become small, emerging fisheries but are not federally recognized. Recent declines in landings for both species in New England have been cause for concern because it has been difficult to pin point the cause for the declines precisely because there is such little data being collected and because of the minimal regualtions. The potential for overexploitation of these resources is high but to date there has been no attempt to remedy the situation.There is little to no biological or life history data for either Cancer species and National Marine Fisheries Service has declared that there is insufficient scientific data to warrant the development of a formal Fisheries Management Plan for these species.

Retained and bycatch species analyzed in this assessment have been chosen based on either the percent of catch they make up in the lobster fishery, the amount of the species used as bait or their conservation status (endangered, threatened, overfished, etc.). Traps used in the commercial lobster fishery are highly selective and as a result, bycatch is not considered a large issue. However, data are lacking on the nature and quantity of bycatch. The most common types of bycatch found in lobster traps are juvenile lobsters, ovigerous female lobsters, crabs and some finfish (e.g. flounders, scup, tautog). There is little information on discard and mortality rates for the lobster fishery and overall it appears that discard rates of lobster bycatch are low compared to other fisheries. Although bycatch species in lobster traps themselves are relatively few, the American lobster fishery is considered a Category I fishery by NMFS due to the frequency of marine mammal entanglements in lobster gear. Of greatest concern are the interactions between the fishery and North Atlantic right whales (Eubaleana glacialis) and Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)(both considered endangered or threatened species); these species are also analyzed in this assessment and are the drive the score for criterion 2.

In addition to North Atlantic right whales and humpback whale analysis, this report also evaluates the effects of the American lobster fishery on bait species, in particular, Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Atlantic herring is the main bait species used in lobster traps and approximately 70% (70-75,000 mt) of all Atlantic herring landings are used directly by the lobster fishery. Although the use of herring as bait in the lobster fishery is high, the status of the herring stock is not of high concern.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC) oversees the management of the U.S. American

5 lobster fishery. It is a relatively well-managed fishery, with regulations that protect ovigerous females by v- notching and prohibiting the possession of v-notched females. Gear restrictions mandate the use of traps with bio-degradeable ghost panels and escape vents. Trap size limits as well as effort control measures such as trap limits and limited entry restrictions have also been implemented. In the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank the American lobster stocks are well managed and lobster abundance remains at high levels. However, management efforts have been weak for the Southern New England stock where a proposed 5 year moratorium turned into just a 10% cut in recent years and thus the stock continues to be depleted with no evidence of recovery.

Though the American lobster fishery is well managed and lobstermen are cooperative in complying with the FMP and all of the management regulations mandated by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALTWTRP), North Atlantic right whales and Humpback whales continue to interact with lobster fishing gear in large part because of the sheer volume of gear that is being fished.

American lobsters, Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs are almost exclusively fished with trap gear and in general it is accepted that traps have a moderate to low impact on benthic habitats. However, because of the intense fishing effort of lobsters and the amount of gear that this requires -millions of traps being fished multiple times- the impact on benthic habitats may be underestimated. This "cumulative effect" could be more damaging to benthic ecosystems than previously thought, however; very little information is available regarding the effects of lobster trap gear on the habitat. At this time, there are no extensive measures in place to manage the ecosystem and food web impacts of the fishery.

6 Final Seafood Recommendations

CRITERION CRITERION CRITERION 1: IMPACTS 2: IMPACTS CRITERION 3: 4: HABITAT ON THE ON OTHER MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL SPECIES/FISHERY SPECIES SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION

American lobster Green Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow Good Alternative United States of America (3.83) (3.12) (2.28) Northwest Atlantic, Traps (unspecified), United States of America, Georges Bank

American lobster Red (2.16) Red (0.75) Red (1.73) Yellow Avoid (1.72) United States of America (3.12) Northwest Atlantic, Traps (unspecified), United States of America, Southern New England

American lobster Green Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow Good Alternative United States of America (3.83) (3.12) (2.28) Northwest Atlantic, Traps (unspecified), United States of America, Gulf of Maine

Summary This report covers American lobster,Jonah crab and Atlantic rock crab caught by traps in the Northeast (Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, Southern New England and New England).

American lobster from Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine are ranked as Good Alternatives (97% of landings). American lobster from Southern New England is ranked as Avoid (3% of landings) and Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs from all 3 regions are ranked as Avoid.

Eco-Certification Information The Jonah crab fishery is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP). Engagement in a FIP does not affect the Seafood Watch score as we base our assessments on the current situation. Monterey Bay Aquarium is a member organization of the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. The Alliance has outlined guidelines for credible Fishery Improvement Projects. As such, Seafood Watch will support procurement from fisheries engaged in a FIP provided it can be verified by a third party that the FIP meets the Alliance guidelines. It is not the responsibility of Monterey Bay Aquarium to verify the credibility or progress of a FIP, or promote the fisheries engaged in improvement projects.

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

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

7 Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2 , and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores Avoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

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

8 Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report provides analysis and recommendations for three commercially important crustacean species, American lobster (Homarus americanus), Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic Rock Crab (Cancer irroratus) fisheries in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina for American lobster and New England for the Cancer crab species (Figure 1). All three crustacean species have overlapping ranges and distribution along the Northeastern Coast of the U.S. While the American lobster fishery is a primary, directed, regulated fishery, the Cancer crab fisheries are mainly bycatch fisheries from the lobster fishery with little to no regulations. The U.S. American Lobster fishery is composed of three main stocks identified based on differences in life history parameters in each of these regions (ASMFC 2009). The three stocks are the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GBK) and Southern New England (SNE) (Figure 1). C. borealis and C. irroratus co-occur across much of their range, C. borealis is found from Nova Scotia to the Dry Tortugas, FL (Drew 2011)while C. irroratus is found from Labrador to Florida (Williams 1984). American lobsters are caught using primarily fixed gear (vented traps) that accounts for 98% of all lobster landings with the other 2% from trawls (NMFS 2011). Since they are mainly landed as bycatch in the American lobster fishery, Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs are harvested mainly with lobster traps and crab pots (Wilson 2005) (Reardon 2006).

9 Figure 1 Figure 1. Lobster Stock Areas in the Northeastern US. Figure from NMFS 2011

Species Overview American Lobster (Homarus americanus) American lobsters are large-bodied territorial crustaceans that are found from Maine to North Carolina with

10 abundance declining from north to south (ASMFC 2009). The American lobster (Homarus americanus) is one of the most valuable commercial fisheries in the Northeastern region of the United States(NMFS 2011). It brings in estimated annual revenues of nearly $400 million (NMFS 2012a). The U.S. resource of American lobster is found both inshore and offshore. Lobsters reside in a variety of benthic habitats especially cobble and those that can provide shelter or burrowing possibilities (ASMFC 2009). Adult and juvenile lobsters are found seasonally in water temperatures ranging from 0°-25°C (ASMFC 2009). American lobsters inhabit a range of depths from the intertidal to approximately 700 meters (ASMFC 2000)(Lavalli & Cowan 2004) however, lobsters are most abundant in shallow coastal waters between 4-50 meters deep (ASMFC 2000)(Lavalli & Cowan 2004). Three primary stocks have been identified based on regional differences in their life history parameters as well as biophysical and biogeographical differences (ASMFC 2009)(Wilson 2012). The three stocks are the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GBK) and Southern New England (SNE). Each of the three stocks supports both inshore (0-3 miles; State) and offshore (3-200 miles; federal) components (ASMFC 2009). The majority of lobster landings are from inshore 0-12 nautical miles (ASMFC 2009).

Since December 1997, the US American lobster fishery has been under the management of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The ASMFC is a regulatory body formed by the 15 Atlantic coast states and it is responsible for managing the American lobster fishery in state waters, 0-3 miles from shore (ASMFC 2009). NMFS is responsible for managing the lobster fishery in federal waters, 3-200 miles from shore. Both ASMFC and NMFS are under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ASMFC 2009). The U.S. American lobster fishery is managed under Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for American lobster as well as Addenda I-XVI. Amendment 3 delineates a plan for area management that includes the participation of the industry through seven Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMAs)(Figure 1) that can develop management programs that address the specific needs of each management area (ASMFC 2009).

Amendment 3 to the FMP was designed to minimize the potential of a population collapse due to recruitment failure. Ultimately, Amendment 3 was approved with the goal of maintaining a healthy American lobster resource, by establishing and implementing a management framework that allows for a sustainable harvest, maintains opportunities for participation and provides for cooperative development of conservation methods (ASMFC 2009). The main regulatory measures that have been implemented involve minimum and maximum legal size limits, gear restrictions (minimum escape vent size in traps) and limits on number of traps being fished (effort control measures), state license moratoria and protection of ovigerous females by v- notching the tails and releasing them (ASMFC 2009). Since the adoption of Amendment 3 there have been 16 addenda to the amendment that have also been implemented.

Jonah crab (Cancer borealis)

Atlantic Rock crab (Cancer irroratus)

Jonah (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crabs (Cancer irroratus) have essentially been bycatch in the American lobster fishery for more than 80 years (Reardon 2006)(Krouse 1980) and landings of the crabs have been used by the lobstermen as supplement to cover operational costs (NOAA 2010)(Reardon 2006). However, since the mid 1990s as a result of an increase in crab abundance coupled with an increase in market demand, Jonah and rock crabs have emerged as a growing fishery (NOAA 2010).

Jonah crab and Atlantic Rock crab are native to the North Atlantic coast of North America. There is limited information regarding biology, abundance and distribution of both species. Though physically similar, the two species differ in size and preferred habitats (Reardon 2006). Jonah crabs are larger than Atlantic rock crabs and they are more commonly found at depths of 50-300 m and up to 800m (Robichaud & Frail 2006). Atlantic rock crabs are smaller and prefer shallower, inshore waters ranging from 6-456m (Stehlik et al 1991)and are most often found at depths of less than 20m (Krouse 1980)(Robichaud et al 2000).

11 Currently, in U.S. Federal waters, C. borealis and C. irroratus are unregulated species and there is no fisheries management plan (FMP) for either species. However, C. borealis and C. irroratus are harvested in the federal lobster fishery, and federal regulatory framework for lobsters that includes restrictions on trap limits, size, and configurations applies to crab harvested in that fishery (ASMFC 1997). Individual states are responsible for regulating the fishery under each state‘s law and are managed through required licenses, seasonal closures, and no take of females, but directed Jonah and rock crab fishery management regulations are limited on state levels (Grimley 2012)(Reardon 2006)(Wilson 2013). New England states require licenses to commercially harvest Jonah and rock crab, and typically these are joint licenses that allow fishermen to harvest lobster as well as crab(Grimley 2012). Massachusetts has implemented a closed crab season from January 1 to April 30 (MA DMF 2013), while Maine utilizes seasonal closures in specific harvest areas (ME DMR 2012)(Grimley 2012).

Unfortunately, without an FMP, fishing effort on these Cancer species (especially C. borealis) by trap vessels in federal waters is only regulated and constrained by trap limits if the vessel possesses a Federal lobster permit(NOAA 2010). As such, vessels not otherwise restricted by their lobster permit are able to set an unlimited amount of ‘crab’ trap gear(NOAA 2010). The industry is concerned that this situation may lead to adverse marine mammal impacts, increased gear conflicts, and a potential for illegal harvest of lobster by non- permitted vessel (NMFS 2010). Additionally and also of concern are the unknown impacts of such minimal regulation on C. borealis and C. irroratus stocks. NMFS has previously indicated that there is not enough scientific and fisheries information on the crab fishery at this time to justify development of a crab FMP (NOAA 2010).

Production Statistics American Lobster (Homarus americanus) American lobster is only found in the waters of the Northwest Atlantic from Newfoundland, Canada to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and as such the United States and Canada are the two major producers. To date, despite continuing research effort there is no large-scale commercial farmed lobster production. In the Northeast United States, American lobster is one of the most successful/valuable commercial fisheries bringing in an estimated $400 million dollars in 2010 (ASMFC 2009).

12 Figure 2

Figure 2. US Landings of American lobster by the three major stock fisheries 1981-2010, in metric tons Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012 and ASMFC 2009.

Landings from the US American Lobster fishery in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) have grown considerably since the 1980’s when commercial landings for the GOM were averaging 14,600 metric tons (ASMFC 2009) . From 1990- 2000 the landings from the GOM increased from 19,200 to 37,727 metric tons (ASMFC 2009). Since 2000 landings in the GOM have remained fairly stable averaging more than 35,000 metric tons per year (Figure 2)(ASMFC 2009)(NMFS 2012a). However, since 2008, landings in the GOM have continued to increase and in 2010 total landings of American lobster from the GOM stock were 50,439 metric tons (NMFS 2012a). The GOM fishery is the largest lobster fishery in the United States bringing 85% of the total landings in 2010 alone (Figure 3). The Georges Bank fishery is the second largest fishery currently in the US comprising 12%(NMFS 2012a) of the total landings followed by Southern New England fishery at 3% (NMFS 2012a) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3.Percentage of US Landings of American lobster by the three major stock fisheries 2010. Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012

Although landings data throughout this report will be presented by stock, the state of Maine dominates the US American Lobster fishery accounting for more than 80% of the total annual landings in the United States from 2000-2010 (Figures 4a and 4b). The 2011 projections for total American Lobster landings for the state of Maine is a record breaking 49,441 metric tons (109 million lbs) (DMR 2012).

13 Figure 4

Figure 4a. US Landings of American lobster in million pounds by state 2000-2010. “Others" are Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012 and ASMFC 2009.

Figure 5

Figure 4b. US Landings of American lobster in million pounds by state 2000-2010 with Maine data excluded. “Others" are Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012 and ASMFC 2009.

14 Jonah crab (Cancer borealis)

Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus)

Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs co-occur in the Northwest Atlantic from Labrador to Florida. The United States and Canada are the major producers but in both countries these are small, emerging fisheries. There is no known commercial farmed Cancer crab production. Historically, in the U.S., Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs had been considered nuisance bycatch species in the American lobster fishery, with little value other than as bait for the lobster industry (Reardon 2006). However, in the mid- 1990s as a result of crab abundance and increased market demand, Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs began to emerge as commercially valuable and growing fisheries(NOAA 2010). In New England, where the American lobster fishery dominates, the Jonah crab and Atlantic rock crab commercial fisheries pale in commercial value. In 2011, the combined value of all Jonah crab landings in New England (CT, MA, ME, NH & RI) was $5,530,407 and for Atlantic rock crab it was $896,231(NMFS 2013).

Since 2000, landings of C.borealis in New England has been increasing steadily from 1158 mt in 2000 to 4,089 mt in 2011 (Figure 5).

Figure 6 Figure 5: Annual Landings of Jonah Crab (C. borealis) in New England (NMFS landings database).

Landings of C. irroratus in the last decade have been less stable compared to Jonah crab landings (Figure 6).

15 Figure 7 Figure 6: Annual Landings of Atlantic Rock Crab (C. irroratus) in New England (NMFS landings database).

In 2000, 1811 mt of Atlantic rock crab were landed in New England but decreased sharply to 237 mt in 2001 and 497 mt 2002 . From 2003-2008 Atlantic rock crab landings increased steadily and peaked in 2008 at 2161 mt. However, since 2009, landings in New England have steadily decreased and in 2011 total landings for Atlantic rock crab were 908 mt. The true quantity of metric tons landed may be unknown because of the lack of mandatory and consistent reporting (Reardon 2006) among the individual states and often the data were patchy at best. Adding to the discrepancy in reporting, there is widespread confusion between the two species because fishermen and dealers refer to both Cancer species as “rock crab” while the scientific literature and landings program refer to C. irroratus exclusively as “rock crab” (Reardon 2006).

Importance to the US/North American market. American lobster (Homarus americanus)

The continued increase in total landings of American lobster (all three stocks combined) from 2008-2010 has led to a 22% increase of US exports of American lobster from 26,387 metric tons in 2008 to 33,924 metric tons in 2010 (NMFS 2010). The largest markets in 2010 were Canada (60%) followed by Italy (10%) and Spain (10%)(Figure 7)(NMFS 2010).

16 Figure 8

Figure 7. US Exports of American lobster by major importers in 2010 (NMFS 2010).

Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) Atlantic Rock crab (Cancer irroratus)

Although the Cancer crab fisheries continue to emerge, there is currently no recognized import /export market for either C. borealis or C. irroratus. All product appears to be harvested and consumed in the United States (Cascorbi 2004).

Common and market names. American lobster (Homarus americanus) American lobster is also known as Maine lobster. It is a different species than rock lobster or spiny lobster.

Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) Cancer borealis is also known as Jonah crab and Atlantic Dungeness crab.

Atlantic Rock Crab (Cancer irroratus) Cancer irroratus is also known as Atlantic rock , peekytoe, sand, quick and eel grass crab.

Primary product forms American lobster (Homarus americanus) American lobsters are available year-round in both retail and service markets and are commonly sold whole and

17 live. Lobster is also marketed as fresh or frozen lobster meat (tail and claw meat), canned, as lobster roe (tomalley), or as value-added product (breaded and stuffed-tails).

Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) Jonah crabs are available year-round but the supply falls during the summer months as lobstermen focus more on lobsters. They are sold live, fresh or frozen whole cooked claws, picked meat and snap-and-eat claws.

Atlantic Rock Crab (Cancer irroratus) Atlantic Rock crabs are mainly available during the summer months, during peak lobster fishing periods. Atlantic Rock crabs cannot be shipped live,the main product form is fresh or frozen picked meat.

18 Assessment

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

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Criterion 1 Summary AMERICAN LOBSTER Inherent Region | Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score United States of 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83) America/Northwest Atlantic Traps (unspecified) | United States of America | Georges Bank United States of 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 2.33: Moderate Red (2.16) America/Northwest Concern Atlantic Traps (unspecified) | United States of America | Southern New England United States of 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83) America/Northwest Atlantic Traps (unspecified) | United States of America | Gulf of Maine

In general, American lobsters have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure. Although it is relatively difficult to age lobsters as they do not have otoliths or other features that can facilitate accurate aging, it is believed that they reach maturity and market size in 5- 8 years. American lobsters are long lived and it is estimated that they can live for up to 100 years. American lobsters will extrude eggs from their abdomen and

19 will brood their eggs for up to 9 months before the eggs hatch into planktonic larvae. The larval phase can last anywhere from 10 days to 2 months depending on water temperature and allows for some larval dispersal. The stock assessments that are regularly conducted by ASFMC indicate that total American lobster landings and abundance have been increasing steadily for the last twenty years. Two of the three stocks- Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Georges Bank (GBK) are considered healthy while the Southern New England stock has been in a decline since the late 1990's and has remained at low abundance levels and has also experienced record low recruitment years since the 1990’s and thus is considered depleted.

Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs are also have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure. Aging crustaceans is difficult because of their molting cycles but it is genrally believed that both crab species have a maximum age of around 8 years based partly on comaprison to their close relative, the Dungeness crab, Metacarcinus magister. Both Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs carry their eggs on their abdomen for almost a year before the eggs hatch into planktonic larvae. Although both Cancer species have been harvested as bycatch in the lobster fishery in the Northeast, they are not federally recognized as a fishery and no stock assessments have ever been made on either of these species. Little to no population and biological data is available for either Jonah or Atlantic Rock crabs. Because of the lack of scientific information on the status of the Cancer crab stocks, there is a high potential for overexploitation and there is growing concern that this may be a factor in the declines in abundance in recent years.

Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing). Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

20 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality). 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught). 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

AMERICAN LOBSTER Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Figure 9 Table-Inherent resilience

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK Low Concern The Georges Bank (GBK) stock is in favorable condition and based on the last ASMFC assessment (ASMFC

21 2009) the abundance of the stock is high. The reference abundance** in Georges Bank remained relatively consistent between 1.5 and 2 million between 1982 and 1999 with the abundance threshold between 2005- 2007 calculated at 1.9 million. Total reference abundance began to increase in 2002. Abundance began to decline between 2005-2007 (about 33%) but remained relatively high in 2007 (Figure 9)(ASMFC 2009). However, some uncertainties do exist on appropriate biological reference points (Zhang, Chen & Wilson 2011).

** Reference abundance is calculated as the actual number of lobsters that are 78+mm CL (carapace length) on January 1st plus the number of lobster that will recruit or molt to that length during the year. The 78mm CL was chosen because it is the lower end of 78-82 mm CL that is used in the assement model that contains the lowest minimum legal size of 81 mm CL (ASMFC 2009). Justification:

Figure 10

Figure 9 . Total reference abundance (number of individuals) of American lobster in Georges Bank 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND High Concern The SNE stock is in poor condition. The reference abundance of the stock is below the 1984-2003 threshold. As has been well documented, the SNE stock suffered severe population declines beginning in 1997(ASMFC 2009)(ASMFC 2010a) in part due to shell disease(ASMFC 2009)(ASMFC 2010b) (Figure 10). Since 2004, abundance levels have stabilized somewhat but continue to be well below the 1984-2003 threshold (ASMFC 2009)(ASMFC 2010b). As the Southern New England American lobster stock has been below threshold levels abundance for several years, the stock is considered depleted (ASMFC 2009). Justification:

22 Figure 11

Figure 10. Total reference abundance of American lobster in Southern New England 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE Low Concern The GOM stock is considered healthy because the reference abundance is above the threshold (Figure ) (ASMFC 2009). The reference abundance in the GOM increased steadily from 1982 to 2000, and then declined slightly followed by an increase to record levels in 2005. After 2005, reference abundance has declined but is still above the 1982-2003 median (threshold). However, some uncertainties do exist on appropriate biological reference points (Zhang, Chen & Wilson 2011). Justification: The most current American lobster stock assessment does not use BMSY as a way to assess stock status. Using abundance and effective exploitation models as well as non-model based stock indicators it was determined that the GOM American lobster stock abundance, spawning stock biomass and recruitment are high and the stock is considered healthy (ASMFC 2009)**. The GOM stock is considered healthy because the reference abundance is above the threshold (Figure 8) (ASMFC 2009). The reference abundance in the GOM increased steadily from 1982 to 2000, and then declined slightly followed by an increase to record levels in 2005. After 2005, reference abundance has declined but is still above the 1982-2003 median (threshold).

23 Figure 12

Figure 8. Total reference abundance in millions of American lobster in the Gulf of Maine (ASMFC 2009).

** Though this is accurate from the stock assessment that came out in 2009, reference points for all stocks changed in Addendum XVI that was approved in May 2010. With the updated reference points, a stock is considered below the threshold and overfished if the model abundance is less than the 25 percentile (relative to 1982-2003 reference period) in all three stocks. If the stock abundance is above the 75th percentile (for GOM and GBK) or 50th percentile (for SNE) (relative to 1982-2003 reference period), then the stock is considered to be in favorable condition. Though the reference points changed, it didn't change the status for any of the stocks (Carloni 2012)(ASMFC 2010a).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK Low Concern Recent effective exploitation** (2005-2007) on American Lobster in Georges Bank is 0.3 which below the effective exploitation threshold of 0.51 (ASMFC 2009) and therefore fishing levels on considered sustainable.

**Effective exploitation is defined as the annual catch in numbers divided by the reference abundance (ASMFC 2009). In 2010, new reference points for both abundance and effective exploitation were defined and will be implemented for the next American lobster stock assessment, however, for the current report, these updated reference points do not change the current status of the American lobster assessment nor the scores for this report. The new effective exploitation reference points are such that a stock is considered to be below the threshold and overfishing is occurring if model abundance is below the the 25th

24 percentile relative to the 1982/84-2003 reference period. A stock is considered to be healthy if abundance is at or greater than the 75th percentile (ASMFC 2010c). Justification: In Georges Bank, the annual effective exploitation rates are at record lows. Since 1994, the annual effective exploitation rates have declined steadily and have since remained below the 1982-2005 threshold and the recent mean effective exploitation rate for 2005-2007 is 0.3 (Figure 11) (ASMFC 2009).

Figure 13

Figure 11. Annual effective exploitation rates of American lobster in Georges Bank 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Moderate Concern The Southern New England American lobster stock is depleted; however, there are conflicting models that make it difficult to ascertain if overfishing is occurring and uncertainty in the fishery’s contributions to continued stock declines and depleted status. However, based on the recent (2005-2007) effective exploitation of 0.32 (Table 6), the stock is below the threshold and thus not experiencing overfishing even though it is depleted (ASMFC 2009). The uncertainty surrounding the stock assessment results in a more conservative ranking. Justification: From 1982-2002 the effective exploitation rate in SNE remained fairly constant after which, they declined to

25 record lows and remain low and well below the threshold (Figure 13).

Figure 14

Figure 13.Effective Exploitation of American lobster in Southern New England 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

Figure 15

Table 6. Effective exploitation threshold of American lobster in Southern New England 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE Low Concern In the Gulf of Maine the annual effective exploitation** rates remained fairly constant between 1982-2007 hovering around the threshold of 0.49 (the median between 1982-2003), and was slightly below the threshold in 2007 (0.48) (Figure 12; Table 5) (ASMFC 2009). Fishing mortality is deemed "low concern" as it has

26 recently dropped below the threshold reference point.

**Effective exploitation is defined as the annual catch in numbers divided by the reference abundance (ASMFC 2009). Justification:

Figure 16

Figure 12.Annual effective exploitation of American lobster in the Gulf of Maine 1982-2007 (ASMFC 2009).

27 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

AMERICAN LOBSTER - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - GEORGES BANK Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.75 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Humpback whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern North Atlantic right whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Atlantic rock crab 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Jonah crab 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Atlantic herring 3.00:Low 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

AMERICAN LOBSTER - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - GULF OF MAINE Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.75 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

28 Humpback whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern North Atlantic right whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Atlantic rock crab 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Jonah crab 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Atlantic herring 3.00:Low 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

AMERICAN LOBSTER - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.75 Inherent Species Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Humpback whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern North Atlantic right whale 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Concern Atlantic rock crab 3.00:Low 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Jonah crab 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.64) Atlantic herring 3.00:Low 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.83)

Retained and bycatch species that are analyzed in this assessment have been chosen based on either the percent of the catch they make up in the American lobster fishery, the amount of the species used as bait or their conservation staus (endagered, threatened, overfished, etc.). In general, the traps used in the commercial lobster fishery are considered some of the most selective gear compared to other gear and as a result the overall levels of bycatch are relatively low compared to other marine fisheries. Because bycatch in the lobster fishery is not considered a large problem, thereis insufficient documented information about the nature and quantity of bycatch. The most common types of bycatch found in lobster traps are juvenile lobsters, ovigerous female lobsters, Jonah (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crabs (Cancer irroratus) and some finfish (e.g. flounders, scup, tautog). Both Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs are bycatch fisheries in the lobster fishery with little to no regulations. Historically, Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs have been considered nuisance species in the lobster fishery and are often discarded, used as bait or sold to help covere fuel costs. Because both Cancer species have experienced recent declines in New England and the lack of federal recognition as commercial fisheries, these species are being assessed in this report.

29 In addition, there is little information on discard and mortality rates for the lobster fishery and overall it appears that discard rates of lobster bycatch are low compared to other fisheries. Although bycatch species in lobster traps themselves are relatively few, the American lobster fishery is considered a Category I fishery by NMFS due to the frequency of marine mammal entanglements and other interactions with lobster gear. Because of the interactions of North Atlantic right whales (Eubaleana glacialis) and Humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae) (both considered endangered or threatened species) in lobster gear, these species are also analyzed in this assessment.

This report is also evaluating the effects of the Amrican lobster fishery on bait species, in particular, Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Atlantic herring is the main bait species used in lobster traps and approximately 70% (70-75,000 mt) of all Atlantic herring landings are used directly in the lobster fishery.

Criterion 2 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality (same as Factor 1.3 above)

HUMPBACK WHALE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

30 Humpback whales are listed as endagered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(NOAA 2012b). Justification: Although the North Atlantic humpback whale population seems to be rebounding in recent years (Waring et al 2010) the species is still considered endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 2012). In addition, it is still being protected under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). Recent estimates put the Gulf of Maine humpback whale population at 823 individuals (Waring et al 2013). The last stock assessment in 2013 indicated that there continues to be population growth and the size of the stock remains below its Optimal Sustainable Population (OSP) level of 0.10 (Waring et al 2013). The Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is considered a strategic stock because the annual fishery related mortality and serious injury continues to exceed its Potential Biological Removal (PBR) which has been set at 2.7 whales for the Gulf of Maine (Waring et al 2013). According to the 2013 stock assessment, there are insufficient data to determine current population trends in the North Atlantic {Waring et al 2010, (Waring et al 2013), however Stevick et al., (2003) estimated that the average annual population increase was 3.1%. In addition, the total level of fishery related mortality and serious injury for the period 2007-2011 was estimated at 7.8 animals per year (U.S. Waters 7.2, Canadian Waters 0.6) (Waring et al 2013), significantly higher than the PBR.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

The main threats to the Humpback whale population are entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes (NOAA 2012c). Between 2006 and 2010, the minimum annual mortality and serious injury rate due to human causes was averaged at 7.8 individuals per year (U.S.=7.2; Canada=0.6.) This included mortalities and serious injury rates due to fishery related entanglements 0f 5.8 (U.S.= 5.2; Canada=0.6)(Waring et al 2013)

Similar to right whales, ship strikes and fishery related entanglements could be significantly impairing the rate of recovery for humpback whales. A 1995 study (Wiley et al 1995) looked at 20 dead humpback whales and

31 determined that 30% (6 individuals) had major injuries that were consistent with ship strikes and 25% (5 individuals) had injuries that were attributed to fishing gear entanglement. This study indicated at least 60% of the whales that were analyzed showed signs that human factors contributed to mortality of the whales (Wiley et al 1995). In addition there is scarring evidence that male humpback whales are more likely to get entangled compared to females (Robbins & Mattila 2001) and that yearling humpback whales had higher incidence of entanglement than any other age class. There was also indication entanglement events had significant effects on reproductive success (Robbins & Mattila 2001).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK > 100% Ratio of herring bait inputs to lobster landings is >100% (data from(Grabowski et al 2010)). There are currently no discard estimates for this fishery and the models used in the 2009 American Lobster stock assessment assumed a 0% discard mortality rate (ASMFC 2009). Past studies describing discard mortality in both the trap and trawl fisheries are limited but they are consistent in suggesting that mortality rates are relatively low (ASMFC 2009). Justification: The use of Atlantic herring as bait for the American lobster fishery is important to address because herring removal from the marine ecosystem may have some significant impacts. Herring is a vital forage species for other fish, marine mammals and seabirds and if the herring stocks were to crash again there could be severe ecosystem wide consequences. However, the more pressing issue is not that the Atlantic herring stock is being depleted but that both the American lobster fishery and the Atlantic herring fishery are becoming co- dependent on one another so that ecological or commercial changes that affect one fishery will also affect the other (Ryan et al 2010)(Grabowski et al 2010). Additionally, the American lobster- Atlantic herring relationship seems to be having a positive effect on the biological productivity of the American lobster through its large consumption of herring bait (Ryan et al 2010) and it is believed to be one of the main reasons for the surge in the lobster population despite intensive fishing pressure (Saila et al 2002)(Drinkwater et al 1996). The American lobster industry and the Atlantic herring fishery have a long history of being artificially linked. Since the 19th century, Atlantic herring has been used as the primary source of bait for lobster traps (ASMFC 2010a). The dependence on Atlantic herring as bait for the lobster fishery is the main driver of the herring fishery. Herring accounts for nearly 90% bait used in lobster traps(Driscoll 2008) while the lobster fishery is the predominant market for herring (Brandt & McEvoy 2006). Every year, an average of 100,000 mt of herring are landed in the Gulf of Maine and about 70% (70,000 mt) of the total landings go directly to the lobster fishery (ASMFC 2010a)(Grabowski et al 2010). There are a few hypotheses about why the lobster populations in the GOM and Georges Bank are experiencing growth. One of them, the predator reduction hypothesis suggests that the lobster populations are thriving because of the overexploitation of other groundfish stocks such as cod that are natural predators of lobster. With the disappearance of natural predators there is little predation pressure on juvenile lobsters (Saila et al 2002)(Grabowski et al 2010) which ultimately resulted in an increasing the adult stock(Grabowski et al 2009).

Climate change has been another explanation for the increase in lobster abundance in the GOM and Georges

32 Bank. Increasing ocean temperatures could lead to favorable conditions for lobster growth, and recruitment. Lastly, and the explanation that is beginning to get more traction, is that herring bait is actually subsidizing lobster populations by increasing growth rates, survivorship and fecundity (Grabowski et al 2010)(Saila et al 2002). Lobster traps are heavily baited providing extra nutrients that otherwise would not be available for lobsters. Additionally, bait thrown overboard will also be available for consumption by lobsters not in the traps. Jury et al. (2001)demonstrated that sub legal sized lobsters enter and exit lobster traps at will and could consume vast amounts of bait with little competition (Saila et al 2002). A mark and recapture study of lobsters in areas with traps show that these lobsters outgrow those in areas without traps by 15% (Grabowski et al 2009). Their findings support the hypothesis that herring bait is in fact augmenting lobster diets and as a consequence lobster growth rates and abundance are increasing which in turn enhances the overall economic value of the lobster fishery (Grabowski et al 2010).

The problem with a bait-constrained fishery such as American lobster is that if something happens to the bait stock (herring) it will likely have negative consequences both economically and ecologically. When fishing effort for lobster increases so does the demand for herring, which in turn, can potentially drive the bait stock to below its MSY. An overexploited herring stock would mean less, more expensive bait, which could ultimately limit lobster landings and could potentially lead to a smaller growth subsidy (Ryan et al 2010). The codependency of these two fisheries could lead to the collapse of one or both if not properly managed. Indeed, herring landings declined by 20% in 2007 while lobster effort did not. Though officially not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, the GOM stock is being closely watched and managed in order to prevent overexploitation (ASMFC 2010a).

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

33 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK High Concern The North Atlantic right whale is one of the few species that is considered bycatch in the American lobster trap fishery (Johnson et al 2005). It is one of the most threatened and endangered species in the world and the North Atlantic population is estimated to be approximately 444 individuals (Waring et al 2013). From 2006-20010, the minimum annual rate of mortality and serious injury to right whales due to anthropogenic effects was an average of 3.0 per year (U.S. waters, 2.4;Canadian waters, 0.6) (Waring et al 2013). The two main causes responsible were: 1) incidental entanglements in fishing gear at 1.8 per year (U.S. waters, 1.6; Canadian waters, 0.4) and 2) ship strikes at 1.2 per year (U.S. waters, 0.8; Canadian waters 0.4) (Waring et al 2013). During this same time period (2006-2010) out of 12 records of mortality or serious injury, 8 were attributed to entanglement or fishery interactions (Waring et al 2013). In the latest Large Whale Entanglement and Ship Strike Report (NMFS 2009), of the 31 reports of whale entanglements, 2 of them were right whales entangled in lobster gear (NMFS 2009). Although lobster gear is not entirely responsible for all whale entanglements it is considered the largest single source of right whale entanglements due to the sheer volume of gear (Waring & Pace 2004)(Johnson et al 2005)(Brilliant & Trippel 2010).

The North Atlantic right whales are considered one of the most critically endangered large whale species in the world. They are a strategic stock because the annual fishery related mortality and serious injury continues to exceed its Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (NOAA 2012b). According to the latest stock assessment there are between 444 North Atlantic right whales in existence (NOAA 2012b)(Waring et al 2013). In 2005, 361 individuals were known to be alive. The population of North Atlantic right whales declined in the 1990's and increases in mortality rates in 2004 and 2005 were cause for serious concern (Knowlton et al 2005). It was predicted that these mortality rate increases would likely reduce the right whale population by 10% per year (Knowlton et al 2005). Despite these predictions, examination of the minimum number of alive population index as it existed between 1990-2009 suggests that the right whale population is experiencing a positive trend in population size with a mean growth rate of 2.6% in that time period (Waring et al 2013). However, it is the consensus that with a PBR of 0.9(Waring et al 2013) even 1 right whale entangled in lobster pots / year is too many and therefore interactions between the lobster fishery and North Atlantic right whales are considered a high conservation concern. Justification: There are three identified stocks of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere (Figure 19). The North Atlantic Stock has two sub stocks- Eastern North Atlantic and the Western North Atlantic (WNA). The WNA stock of Right whales has a range from North Florida to the Bay of Fundy (Fujiwara & Caswell 2001) as well as six major aggregations 1) Georges bank/ Gulf of Maine, 2) Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bay, 3) Bay of Fundy, 4) Scotian shelf, 5) Coastal waters of Southern United States and 6) Great South Channel all, except the southeast, support an active lobster fishery (Waring & Pace 2004). Right whales are the most endangered of all the great whales in the world and their effective population size is between 350-400 individuals. Due to the limited size of the population the species may already be functionally extinct because of demographic stochasticity(Fujiwara & Caswell 2001).

34 Figure 17

Figure 19. North Atlantic Right Whale Aerial Survey sightings off of the Northeastern Coast of the U.S. from October 2010-September 2011 (NEFSC 2011).

Despite active protection of the species, North Atlantic right whales do not appear to be fully recovering (NMFS 2005). Although the NMFS 2005 Recovery Plan stated that there had been no recovery of the population in the last 15 years and suggested that the North Atlantic Right whales were actually much rarer and more endangered than previously believed (NMFS 2005), more recent studies by Waring et al (2013) suggest that the North Atlantic Right Whale population did experience a mean 2.6% growth rate between 1990-2009. The reasons for little to no recovery were probably due to decreased birth rates and increased mortality rates. Juvenile right whales appear to be particularly vulnerable to mortality from ship strikes, interaction with fishing gear and natural causes (NMFS 2005). In a study by Kraus (1990), it was estimated that in the first 4 years of life, North Atlantic right whale mortality rates ranged from 2%-17% with approximately a third of those mortalities attributed to anthropogenic factors.

Entanglement records from 2006-2010 show 9 confirmed right whale entanglements in a variety of fishing gear (e.g. weirs, gillnets, trailing lines and buoys)(Waring et al 2013). From 2006-2010, documented mortality and serious injury from fisheries entanglements was 1.8 whales per year (U.S. 1.6; Canada 0.2) (Waring et al 2013). In 2002 and 2003 there was a substantial increase in the number of entanglements reported with 8 entanglements in 2002 and 9 in 2003 (ALWTRT 2004). Entanglements can result in the long- term deterioration of the animal if it does not lead to death immediately and therefore it is thought that the actual mortality of right whales is higher than estimated (Knowlton & Kraus 2001). Large whales are susceptible to floating ground lines attached to lobster pots that are oriented horizontally to the sea floor

35 (ALWTRT 2004) as well as the vertical lines that attach lobster gear to surface buoys (Johnson et al 2005). Gear gets caught in the mouth and lines can get wrapped around tails and flippers while whales are feeding.

Whales will often free themselves of gear following an encounter with fishing gear and thus, it seems, a better way to estimate entanglement events may be to analyze scarification of right whales. A study of 447 right whales looking at scarification found that 338 of the whales (75.6%) examined during 1980-2002 were scarred at least once by fishing gear (Knowlton et al 2005). In fact, other research using the North Atlantic Right Whale Catalogue suggests that between 14%-51% of right whales are involved in entanglement interactions every year (Knowlton et al 2005). Based on this information it would seem that the NMFS estimate of 1.2 serious injuries or deaths per year is a large underestimate. With the PBR of Right whales =0.9, no anthropogenic mortality can be tolerated (Waring & Pace 2004).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

36 (Saila et al 2002)(Grabowski et al 2010) which ultimately resulted in an increasing the adult stock(Grabowski et al 2009).

Climate change has been another explanation for the increase in lobster abundance in the GOM and Georges Bank. Increasing ocean temperatures could lead to favorable conditions for lobster growth, and recruitment. Lastly, and the explanation that is beginning to get more traction, is that herring bait is actually subsidizing lobster populations by increasing growth rates, survivorship and fecundity (Grabowski et al 2010)(Saila et al 2002). Lobster traps are heavily baited providing extra nutrients that otherwise would not be available for lobsters. Additionally, bait thrown overboard will also be available for consumption by lobsters not in the traps. Jury et al. (2001)demonstrated that sub legal sized lobsters enter and exit lobster traps at will and could consume vast amounts of bait with little competition (Saila et al 2002). A mark and recapture study of lobsters in areas with traps show that these lobsters outgrow those in areas without traps by 15% (Grabowski et al 2009). Their findings support the hypothesis that herring bait is in fact augmenting lobster diets and as a consequence lobster growth rates and abundance are increasing which in turn enhances the overall economic value of the lobster fishery (Grabowski et al 2010).

37 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

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

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

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern

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

Criterion 3 Summary

Harvest Bycatch Region / Method Strategy Strategy Score United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps (unspecified) / 3.00 3.00 Yellow United States of America / Georges Bank (3.00) United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps (unspecified) / 3.00 3.00 Yellow United States of America / Gulf of Maine (3.00) United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps (unspecified) / 1.00 3.00 Red United States of America / Southern New England (1.73)

Criterion 3 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’ 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’ 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

38 Factor 3.1 Summary FACTOR 3.1 - MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion United States of America Moderately N/A Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Highly / Northwest Atlantic / Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Traps (unspecified) / United States of America / Georges Bank United States of America Moderately N/A Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Highly / Northwest Atlantic / Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Traps (unspecified) / United States of America / Gulf of Maine United States of America Moderately Ineffective Moderately Moderately Highly Ineffective Highly / Northwest Atlantic / Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Traps (unspecified) / United States of America / Southern New England

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) oversees the management of the U.S. American lobster fishery. American lobster is managed under Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, as well as Addenda I through XXI to the same plan. The management strategy is considered moderately effective. However, the Southern New England stocks are depleted and management has not been able to effectively recover stocks from their depleted state. The ultimate goal of the FMP is to maintain a healthy lobster resource by protecting and restoring egg production. Regulations include a minimum size limit to protect immature lobsters and a maximum size limit to protect older lobsters. Protection of egg-bearing females is achieved through v-notching and prohibiting the possession of v-notched females. Trap size limits as well as effort control measures such as trap limits and limited entry restrictions have also been implemented. In the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, management measures have been effective at maintaining the American lobster stocks at healthy abundance levels. However, despite some management efforts, the Southern New England stock continues to be depleted with no evidence of recovery. Additionally, although American lobster is well managed in all regions under the American Lobster FMP, Cancer crabs are not federally managed at all and are only protected on a limited basis under individual states' American lobster regulations.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

39 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND

Moderately Effective Although American lobster is well managed in all regions under the American Lobster FMP, Cancer crabs are not federally managed at all and are only protected on a limited basis under individual states' American lobster regulations. American Lobster, Jonah and Atlantic Rock crab management strategy and implementation in all regions is moderately effective. Justification: The United States American lobster fishery has been under the management of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in state waters (0–3 miles) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in federal waters (3–200 miles) since December 1997. In 1997, the American Lobster Board approved Amendment 3 to the Fisheries Management Program (FMP). The FMP was designed to minimize population collapse as a result of recruitment failures (ASMFC 2009).

The goal of Amendment 3 is to sustain a healthy American lobster resource and a management framework that provides for sustainable long-term harvest, provides opportunities for participation, and allows the cooperative development of conservation measures (ASMFC 2009). The American lobster is under the management of both state and federal (NMFS) authorities as mandated by the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. The main management unit for American lobster is all of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and adjacent inshore waters from Maine to North Carolina (ASMFC 2009). For management purposes, this main unit has been divided in to seven Lobster Conservation Management areas (LCMAs) that cut across stock boundaries.

Three discrete stocks have been identified based on regional differences in life history parameters (ASMFC 2009). The three stocks—Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GBK) and Southern New England (SNE)—all have an inshore and offshore component (ASMFC 2009). The GOM and SNE areas are mainly inshore while GBK is an offshore fishery (ASMFC 2009). Although there are no restrictions on the total allowable catch for American lobster, landings are limited by size limits (however, the current size limit does little to protect immature lobsters as the maximum size limit is not considered to be high enough) and protection of ovigerous females by v-notching berried females. V-notching berried females is only mandatory in Area 1 (GOM) and Area 3 (above 42° 30’) (ASMFC 2009) but is a widespread practice through voluntary industry action. Additionally, the management of the lobster fishery requires all lobster fishers to have permits, and all traps must be tagged for identification purposes. Limits also exist on the number and size of traps. All traps are required to have biodegradable escape panels. Jonah and Atlantic Rock Crabs are not recognized as federal commercial fisheries and there is no federal FMP for either species. Additionally, NMFS has determined that there is insufficent biological information to warrant the creation of an FMP for either species(NOAA 2010). However, because Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs are harvested in the federal lobster fishery the federal regulatory framework that applies to lobsters such as, trap limits, size and configurations, also apply to crabs (ASMFC 1997). Without a federal FMP specifically for Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs, vessels that are not restricted by federal lobster permit regulations are able to set an unlimited amount of "crab" trap gear (NOAA 2010). Additionally, the management strategy for C. borealis and C. irroratus is dependant on what each individual New England state mandates. Currently, the only management strategies in place for Cancer crabs are seasonal closures although suggested strategies are those that fall under state lobster licenses including, no take of females,

40 size limits and seasonal closures (MA and ME) (Grimley 2012)(Reardon 2006) although it appears that (at least in ME), these management suggestions (biological limits and no take of females) while not formally adopted (Wilson 2013) are commonly practiced (e.g. only male crabs are harvested) .

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK N/A American lobster stocks in GBK are considered abundant and healthy and no stocks of concern are targeted or retained in the fishery. However, there is some uncertainty surrounding this score due to the unknown nature of recent Jonah and Atlantic Rock crab declines.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE N/A American lobster stocks in the GOM are considered abundant and healthy and no stocks of concern are targeted or retained in the fishery. However, there is some uncertainty surrounding this score due to the unknown nature of recent Jonah and Atlantic Rock crab declines.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Ineffective The SNE American lobster stock is depleted with no signs of recovery in the decade since the stock collapsed, therefore it is ranked as "ineffective". Justification: The SNE stock is considered depleted and well below the minimum threshold abundance (ASMFC 2009) (ASMFC 2010a). Abundance indices have persisted at time series lows since the 2006 stock assessment (ASMFC 2010a). In August 2009, the Technical Committee recommended that drastic management measures be taken to aid in the recovery/rebuilding effort of the SNE stock using existing parent stock by significantly reducing landings (ASMFC 2010a). Following further evidence of significant recruitment failure and other impediments to stock recovery, in 2010, the Technical Committee recommended a moratorium on harvest in SNE stock area for 5 years (ASMFC 2010a). In February 2012, the American Lobster Board approved Addendum XVII to Amendment 3 which establishes area specific management measures (for LCMAs 2,3,4,5, and 6) to reduce fishing exploitation on the SNE stock by only 10% beginning in July 2013 (ASMFC 2012). This is insufficient given the initial 5 year moratorium recommendation and therefore ranked as "ineffective".

41 Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

There are no "official" stock assessments for either Jonah or Atlantic Rock Crabs. Recently, attempts to assess Jonah crabs have been made in Maine(Reardon 2006) and RI (RIDEM 2012), however data used were either outdated and likely inaccurate (Gibson 2013) or difficult to interpret because of unreliable landings data and lack of age and other biological data (Reardon 2006).

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE Highly Effective Management of American lobster relies heavily on scientific research and monitoring. The Lobster Technical committee, made up of scientists (e.g.,technical staff from member states, NFMS, USFWS and academia), determines appropriate harvest levels and reviews the health of the fishery based on current scientific data and provides scientific advice for state managers to follow. There is no evidence that the management of the GBK and GOM stocks do not closely follow scientific advice, although management recommendations including implementation of minimum legal sizes and not harvesting females appear to not be adopted (Wilson 2013). However, there is no direct federal or state management for Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs in New England; and though there is growing concern about the potential of over exploitation of crab populations, NMFS has determined that the lack of scientific and biological data on these Cancer crab species does not warrant the development or implementation of an FMP (NOAA 2010).

42 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Moderately Effective In 2010 the Lobster Technical Committee (TC) recommended a 5 year moratorium on harvesting in the SNE region and acknowledged the severity of the measure as well as the catastrophic economic impacts it would have on fishery participants. However, the TC believed that this was the best chance at stock rebuilding. The recommendation was not accepted and in February 2012, the American Lobster Board approved area-specific measures to reduce fishing exploitation in SNE by 10%, however despite this action, management has generally followed scientific advice. Additonally, there is no direct federal or state management for Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs in New England; and though there is growing concern about the potential of over exploitation of crab populations, NMFS has determined that the lack of scientific and biological data on these Cancer crab species does not warrant the development or implementation of an FMP (NOAA 2010).

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

43 Currently, the American lobster status of the stocks presents a somewhat mixed picture. The Gulf of Maine stock as well as the Georges Bank stock appear to be relatively healthy and are experiencing continued record high abundance. The GOM and GBK stocks have been experiencing increases in abundance since the 1970's ((ASMFC 2009)) and this can be attributed to management efforts but also to other environmental factors that have been favorable for successful recruitment (e.g. water temperature increases, loss of main predators and abundance of fish bait). Though both the GOM and GBK American lobster resources are currently stable and abundant the intense fishing effort may not be sustainable if the stocks were to experience poor recruitment in the future ((NMFS 2011)) unless management measures were strict enough to enforce limiting landings, fishing effort, sizes and trap allocations. However, management of the fishery is flexible. It is not predicated upon a single management measure but rather it is adaptive and changes when necessary ((NMFS 2011)) and is therefore ranked as moderately effective, however, it must also be noted that the track record in the lobster fishery pertaining to Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs is unknown because it is not a federally recognized fishery.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Ineffective In sharp contrast to GOM and GBK lobster stocks, the Southern New England stock is critically depleted with no evidence of recovery. Abundance of lobsters has been decreasing steadily since its peak 1997. Evidence has shown that several factors were involved that contributed to the collapse including overfishing, climate change, shell disease and extremely poor recruitment ((NMFS 2011)). Since the collapse of the fishery management measures (effort reductions) have been taken in an effort to allow the fishery to recover. Presently, the SNE stock abundance continues to be at record lows with no improvement. Overwhelming environmental and biological changes coupled with continued fishing greatly reduce the likelihood of SNE stock rebuilding ((ASMFC 2010)) and therefore the SNE track record is deemed to be ineffective. The track record regarding Jonah and Atlantic Rock crabs is unknown as they are not federally recognized fisheries.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

44 Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy SCORING GUIDELINES Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these rating are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy but some other factors rated ‘ineffective.’ 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’ 0 (Critical)—No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY All Region / Method Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce United States of America / Northwest Atlantic No No Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately / Traps (unspecified) / United States of Effective Effective Effective Effective America / Georges Bank United States of America / Northwest Atlantic No No Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately / Traps (unspecified) / United States of Effective Effective Effective Effective America / Gulf of Maine United States of America / Northwest Atlantic No No Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately / Traps (unspecified) / United States of Effective Effective Effective Effective America / Southern New England

There is little to no quantitative information available regarding composition and management of bycatch in the U.S. lobster fishery. Lobster trap gear is highly selective and incidental bycatch is considered low. The species most commonly caught incidentally as bycatch in lobster traps is American lobster for which there are management measures in place. The regulations in place prohibit lobstermen from landing small, juvenile, and ovigerous females, as well as V-notched females and lobsters above maximum size limits. Of more pressing concern regarding bycatch is the role lobster gear has in large whale entanglement, specifically the North Atlantic right and humpback whales. Lobster gear is officially determined to be of great entanglement risk to right and humpback whales and as such, NMFS classified the American lobster fishery as a Category I fishery (meaning there is frequent incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals associated with this fishery). Though it is difficult to determine exactly which fishery and geographically where the source of entanglements come from, due to the high volume of lobster gear in the water it suggests that American lobster fishery is perhaps the largest single source of entanglements. As a Category I fishery the fishery to comply with the gear modification mandates put forth by the ALWTRP. Some of these include the elimination of floating lines at the surface, using weak links and breakaway lines (600 lbs inshore; 1500-2000 lbs offshore) and neutrally buoyant and sinking groundlines.

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Moderately Effective The primary bycatch concerns associated with trap fisheries in the Northwest Atalntic are interactions with marine mammals. North Atlantic right and humpback whales are endangered species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and as such, management measures must be in place in order to comply. As mandated by the 1994 amendments to the ESA and MMPA, NMFS developed the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) in order to reduce mortality and serious injury to right, humpback and fin whales in U.S. commercial fisheries (especially gillnet and trap fisheries) (ALWTRT 2011). The initial goals of the ALWTRP were to reduce serious injuries and mortalities of right whales in U.S. commercial fisheries to below 0.4 animals/ year by January, 1998, six months after implementation, and to reduce entanglement related serious injuries and mortalities of right, humpback and fin whales to zero mortality (10% of PBR) and serious injuries within five years of implementation. The regulations under the ALWTRP consist of a combination of gear modifications and area closures (ALWTRT 2011). Since the implementation of the ALWTRP in 1997, it has undergone several modifications in order to meet both short-term and long-term goals. These modifications have included gear restrictions and area closures. In 2007, NMFS approved a final rule implementing broad-based gear modification strategy that included expanded weak link and sinking ground line requirements, changes in management boundaries, seasonal restrictions for gear modifications, expanded exempted areas and changes in regulatory language for clarification and consistency (ALWTRT 2011). Despite best efforts from ALWTRP and cooperation and compliance of the lobster fishermen the main threats to both right and humpback whales continue to be entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes (NMFS 2009). Between 1990 and 2001 minimum annual mortality of right whales was 1.2 per year and between 2004-2008, the minimum annual mortality and serious injury rates of humpback whales was 2.8 per year (Waring et al 2010)(Glass et al 2010). Thus, 15 years after the implementation of ALWTRP, the mortality and serious injury rates have been reduced by management measures, but have not reach zero mortality and at least for the right whales, recovery is negligent and is therefore ranked as "moderately effective".

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

46 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND

Moderately Effective Due to the lack of comprehensive and reliable data regarding large whale/fishery interactions, monitoring the ALWTRP is challenging and has been "moderately effective". Three of the bigger challenges are; 1) large whale entanglements are often not witnessed or documented by observers or fishermen (ALWTRT 2011) and 2) even if fishing gear is recovered from an entanglement incident it is often difficult to identify or attribute to a particular gear type, gear component, fishery or geographic region (ALWTRT 2011) and 3) typically, the data that are necessary for effective monitoring of the ALWTRP encompasses many regulated fisheries spanning a large geographic range along the US east coast (ALWTRT 2011). Despite the above challenges, the ALWTRP continues to develop and modify their monitoring strategies in the hopes that both the short and long term goals set forth by the MMPA can be met. One of the ways to measure how effective the ALWTRP is involves comparing the most recent estimated annual serious injury and mortality of right, humpback and fin whales to their respective PBR and Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG) levels (ALWTRT 2011). This comparison, on an annual basis, is important because it can determine effectiveness of ALWTRP regulations, enforcement and education/ outreach efforts and it also serves as an indicator of compliance levels (NOAA 2012a). The most recent PBR estimates (December, 2011) for the North Atlantic right whale is 0.5 whales and for the Gulf of Main humpback whale is 1.1 whales. These estimates indicate that conservation of these species continues to be a priority (ALWTRT 2011).

In order to monitor the efficacy of the ALWTRP regulations currently in place, the two best available indicators are serious injury and mortality as well as the frequency of large whale entanglements that are either observed or reported (ALWTRT 2011).

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management

47 regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

48 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

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

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

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

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Gear Type Mitigation of and Gear Region / Method Substrate Impacts EBFM Score United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps 3.00: Low 0.25: Minimal 3.00: Yellow (unspecified) / United States of America / Georges Bank Concern Mitigation Moderate (3.12) Concern United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps 3.00: Low 0.25: Minimal 3.00: Yellow (unspecified) / United States of America / Gulf of Maine Concern Mitigation Moderate (3.12) Concern United States of America / Northwest Atlantic / Traps 3.00: Low 0.25: Minimal 3.00: Yellow (unspecified) / United States of America / Southern New Concern Mitigation Moderate (3.12) England Concern

American lobsters are almost exclusively fished with trap gear and in general it is accepted that traps have a moderate to low impact on benthic habitats. However, because of the intense fishing effort of lobsters and the amount of gear that this requires -millions of traps being used multiple times- the impact on benthic habitats may be underestimated. This "cumulative effect" could be more damaging to benthic ecosystems than previously thought. However, very little information is available regarding the effects of lobster trap gear on benthic habitats.

Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate 5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom 4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline,

49 trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally ( 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures. +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing. +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators) 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used. 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

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

50 complex, hard rocky bottoms and mud, sand and gravel bottoms and though single traps are generally accepted as low impact gear, the sheer volume of lobster traps being fished can have cumulative effects on bottom habitats (Smolowitz 1998). Lobster pots are ranked as " low concern". Justification: It is generally accepted that lobster traps have relatively little impact on benthic habitats and communities where they are fished (NMFS 2011). Lobster traps are also deployed on a variety of different substrates depending on whether it is inshore or offshore. The inshore substrate is a rougher, rockier substrate than the offshore bottom substrate, which is generally smoother (mud, sand or cobble). Inshore lobster fisheries tend to deploy single traps because the risk of lines and traps snagging on the bottom is high. Offshore, 3-40 pot trawls are often fished because of the smoother, flatter substrate. Lobster traps are normally dropped onto the ocean floor and allowed to "soak" for a day or so before being hauled to the surface. Though single traps are considered fairly innocuous, the extremely high number of traps being fished, being dropped and hauled back to the surface multiple times, have a scour effect on the benthic habitat (Smolowitz 1998) that results in the scraping of epifaunal organisms (Smolowitz 1998). The effect on the benthic habitat of thousands on traps being fished every year is referred to as "cumulative effect"(Smolowitz 1998).

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND Moderate Concern Although North Atlantic right and humpback whales are technically not caught in lobster traps as part of the overall catch, they have enough encounters with lobster gear entanglements to be deemed a Category I fishery by NMFS. The ALWTRP is in effect and has resulted in significant gear modifications in order to reduce large whale entanglements in lobster gear and other fishing gear. Additionally, the impact of the lobster fishery on populations of Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs is not well documented or understood, although there is some information on catch levels. This may be one of the key uncertainties with respect to ecosystem impacts of the fishery. These Cancer species are common components of coastal communities and may have a role in structuring these ecosystems as predators and as prey (Bannister et al 2013). Their relative importance in coastal ecosystems has increased in the past decade, with the decline in green sea urchins (Bannister et al 2013)(Steneck 2004)(Leland 2002). The design of traps and escape vents ensures that all females of these species, most male rock crab, and a proportion of male Jonah crab, would not be taken in the lobster fishery.

In terms of fully assessing the ecological impacts of the fishery; there are no extensive measures in place other than fishing effort reduction via trap limits and limited access programs for a number of the LCMAs.

52 Acknowledgements

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

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

53 References

ADFG 1994. ADF&G Wildlife Notebook Series: Dungeness Crab.

ALWTRT. 2004. Meeting Summary Document, ALWTRT February 3-4, 2004. Providence, RI, Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, National Marine Fisheries Service.

ALWTRT.2011. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Monitoring Strategy. NOAA

ASMFC. 1997. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for American Lobster. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery Management Report No. 29.

ASMFC. 2000. American Lobster Stock Assessment & Peer Review Summary Document, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

ASMFC.2008. 2008 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harengus).

ASMFC. 2009. American Lobster Stock Assessment for Peer Review 09-01 (Supplemental), March 2009. 316 pp.

ASMFC.2010. Species Profile Atlantic herring. Fisheries Focus, Vol. 19, Issue 8, November/December 2010. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/

ASMFC.2010. Species Profile American lobster. Fisheries Focus, Vol. 19, Issue 8, November/December 2010. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/

ASMFC.2010b.Recruitment Failure in the Southern New England Lobster Stock. American Lobster Technical Committee Report.

ASMFC.2010. Addendum XVI to the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan. Reference Points. Washington, DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 11pp

ASMFC.2012. News Release. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/

Auster, P. and R. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22(150-187).

Bannister,Colin, Powles,Howard, McCay, Howard and Paul Knapman. 2013. Draft MSC Assessment Report for Maine Lobster Trap Fishery. Intertek- Moody Marine LTD.

Bigford, Thomas.1979. Synopsis of biological data on the rock crab, Cancer irroratus Say. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 426.

Brandt, S., and D. McEvoy. 2006. Distributional Effects of Property Rights: Transitions in the Atlantic Herring Fishery. Marine Policy 30(6):659–70.

Brillant, S. W., and Trippel, E. A. 2010. Elevations of lobster fishery groundlines in relation to their potential to entangle endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 355–364.

Campbell, A., and Eagles, M.D. 1983. Size at maturity and fecundity of rock crabs, Cancer irroratus, from the Bay of Fundy and southwestern Nova Scotia. Fish. Bull. 81: 357-362

54 Carloni, Joshua. New Hampshire Fish and Game.Personal Communication.

Cascorbi, Alice. 2004.Jonah Crab (Cancer borealis). Seafood Watch Seafood Report, Monteray Bay Aquarium.

Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, et al. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology 1(10): 517-524.

Cobb JS, Booth JD, Clancy M (1997) Recruitment strategies in lobsters and crabs: a comparison. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 797-806.

Comeau, M. and F. Savoie.2002. Maturity and reproduction cycle of the female American lobster, Homaru samericanus, in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Journal of Crustacean Biology 22(4): 762-774.

Cooper, R. and J. R. Uzmann. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Homarus. The biology and management of lobsters.J. S. Cobb and R. Phillips. New York, Academic Press. 2: 97-141.

Davis, M. W. 2002. Key principles for understanding fish bycatch discard mortality. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1834-1843.

DFO.2009. Assessment of Jonah crab in lobster fishing area 41 (4x + 5zc). Canadian Science Advisory Report 2009/034.

DMR.2012. Maine Department of Marine Resources.http://www.maine.gov/dmr/index.htm

Drew, Daniel J. 2011. A Comparative Morphometric Analysis of Cancer borealis Stimpson, 1859 and C. irroratus Say, 1817 (Decapoda: Brachyura: Cancridae) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, 52(2):241-254.

Drinkwater, K. F., G. C. Harding, et al. 1996. Temperature as a possible factor in the increased abundance of American lobster, Homarus americanus, during the 1980s and early 1990s.Fisheries Oceanography 5: 176-193.

Driscoll, J. 2008. A Life Cycle Assessment of the Maine Lobster Industry. Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Eno, N. C., D. S. MacDonald, et al. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna.ICES Journal of Marine Science 58(1): 11-20.

ESA 2012. Accessed 4/16/2012. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

Estrella, B. T. and S. X. Cadrin. 1995. Fecundity of the American lobster, Homarus americanus in Massachusetts coastal waters. ICES Marine Science Symposium 199: 61-72.

Estrella, B. T. and D. McKiernan. 1989. Catch-per-unit effort and biological parameters from the Massachusetts coastal lobster, Homarus americanus resource: Description and trends. NOAA: 21.

Fishonline.org.2011. Brown Crab. Available at: http://www.fishonline.org/search/advanced/? step=2&fish_id=12

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011.FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (12/2011).

55 Fujiwara, M. and H. Caswell 2001.Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale.Nature 414: 537- 541.

Gendron, L. 1998. Rock Crab Of The In?shore Wat?ers Of Quebec: DFO, At?lantic Fis?he?ries, Stock Status Re? port C4-02.

Gibson,Mark.2013. Personal Communication. RI Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Glass, A.H., T.V.N. Cole and M. Garron.2010. Mortality and serious injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the United States eastern seaboard and adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2004-2008. Northeast Fish SciTech. Memo.NMFS-NE-214.19 pp.

Glenn, R.P. and Pugh, T.L. 2006. Epizootic shell disease in American lobster (Homarus americanus) in Massachusetts coastal waters: interactions of temperature, maturity, and intermolt duration. Journal of Crustacean Biology.26(4): 639-645.

Grabowski, J. H., E. J. Clesceri, et al. 2003. Are we using herring to farm lobsters? The effects of herring bait on lobster growth and diet composition. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts.88(Oral session #23): 127.

Grabowski, J. H., E. J. Clesceri, J. Gaudette, and P.O. Yund. 2009. The role of food limitation in lobster population dynamics throughout the Gulf of Maine. New Zealand Journal of Marine Science and Freshwater Research 43:185–193.

Grabowski, J. H., E. J. Clesceri, et al. 2010. Use of Herring Bait to Farm Lobsters in the Gulf of Maine. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10188.

Grimley, S. 2012. Jonah crab (Cancer borealis): Overview of Cancer crab species in New England. Gulf of Maine Research Institute.

Haefner, P.A .1977. Aspects of the biology of the Jonah crab, Cancer borealis Stimpson, 1859 in the mid-Atlantic Bight. Journal of Natural History 11: 303-320.

Herrick, F. H. 1896. The American lobster: a study of its habits and development. Bulletin of the U.S. Fisheries Commission 15: 1-252.

Huntsman, A.G. 1923. Natural lobster breeding. Bulletin of the Biological Board of Canada. 5: 1-11.

Incze, L. S. and C. Naimie2000. Modeling the transport of lobster (Homarus americanus) larvae and postlarvae in the Gulf of Maine.Fisheries Oceanography 9(99-113).

Jeffries, H.P. 1966.Partitioning of the Estuarine Environment by two species of Cancer. Ecology 47: 477-481.

Johnson, A., G. Salvador, et al. 2005. Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science 21(4): 635-645.

Jury, S.H., H. Howell, D.F. O’Grady, and W.H. Watson, III. 2001. Lobster Trap Video: In situ Video Surveillance of the Behaviour of Homarus americanusin and around Traps. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:1125-32.

Khatain, L. 2000. "Cancer magister" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed June 06, 2013 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Cancer_magister/

56 Knowlton, A. and S. Kraus.2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Research & Management Special Issue 2: 193-208.

Knowlton, A.R., M.K. Marx, H.M. Pettis, P.K. Hamilton and S.D. Kraus 2005. Analysis of scarring on North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis): monitoring rates of entanglement interaction 1980-2002.National Marine Fisheries Service.Contract #43EANF030107.Final Report.

Kraus, S. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 6(4): 278-291.

Krouse, J.S. 1980. Distribution and catch composition of Jonah crab, Cancer borealis, and Rock crab, Cancer irroratus, near Boothbay Harbor, Maine. Fishery Bulletin. 77(3): 685-693.

Krouse, J.S. 1983. Examination of recent changes in Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) Abundance and Harvesting practices. Maine Department of Marine Resources Lobster Informational Leaflet #10: 7p.

Krouse, J.S. and J. Cowger. 1980. The Maine Cancer crab fishery. Maine Department of Marine Resources Lobster Informational Leaflet #8: 19p.

Lavalli, K. L., D. F. Cowan, et al. 2004. Lobster Biology, The Lobster Conservancy. 2004.

Lawton, P. and Lavalli, K.L. 1995. Postlarval, juvenile, adolescent and adult ecology in Biology of the lobster,Homarus americanus.Factor, J.R. (ed.). Academic Press, Inc. Factor, J.R. (ed.). 47-88 pp.

Leland, A.V. 2002. A new apex predator in the Gulf of Maine? Large, mobile crabs (Cancer borealis) control benthic community structure. M.S. Thesis. University of Maine.

Maher, S.W .1999. Seasonal water temperatures and yield of Jonah crabs, Cancer borealis, around Ragged Island, Maine. M.S. Thesis. Antioch University; 36p.

Maine. Department of Marine Resources. 2012. Department of Marine Resources Laws and Regulations. Chapter 25. Available at : http://www.maine.gov/dmr/lawsandregs/regs/index.htm

MA Department of Marine Fisheries. 2013. Commercial Fishing Regulations. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/commercialfishing/lobsters.htm

Moriyasu M, Benhalima K, Duggan, D, Lawton P, Robichaud D.2002 .Reproductive biology of male Jonah crab, Cancer borealis Stimpson, 1859 (Decapoda: Cancridae) on the Scotian Shelf, Northwestern Atlantic. Crustaceana 75: 891-913.

NEFMC. 2009. Draft-Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) value for the Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank Atlantic herring complex – Response to Council Motion. Available at: http://www.nefmc.org/tech/Reports/Reports%20to%20Council%202009/Herring/SSCSep09%20herring%20_8_.pdf

NEFMC 2011.Essential fish habitat (EFH) omnibus amendment – The swept area seabed impact (SASI) model: a tool for analyzing the effects of fishing on essential fish habitat”. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts., 1 February 2011. 304 pp.

NEFSC. 2005.Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US Atlantic herring: NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/herring/

57 NMFS. 2005. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Silver Spring, MD, National Marine Fisheries Service: 138.

NMFS. 2010.Imports and Exports of Fishery Products Annual Summary. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html

NMFS. 2012. Landings Database. Available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html

NMFS. 2012. 2012 List of Fisheries (LOF). Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/final2012.htm

NMFS.2013. Landings Database. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html

NMFS.2009. Large Whale Entanglement and Ship Strike Report.

NMFS. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment, Draft Regulatory Impact Review and Draft Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of a Limited Access Program for the Lobster Trap Fishery in Federal Lobster Management Area 1. Available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11LobArea1EA.pdf

NOAA.2010. Draft Environmental Imapct Statement- Initial Regulatory Impact Review-Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis For Proposed Effort Control Measures For the American Lobster Fishery.

NOAA. 2012. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) Enforcement Update Draft. Available at:http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/trt/meetings/day1/Enforcement%20update%20ALWTRT_southeast.pdf

NOAA. 2012. Fisheries Office of Protected Species. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm

NOAA. 2012. Fisheries Office of Protected Species. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm

Page, K. 2002. "Cancer irroratus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed March 01, 2013 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Cancer_irroratus/

Palma, A.T., Seneck, R.S. and Wilson, C. 1999. Settlement-driven, multiscale demographic patterns of large benthic decapods in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 241:107-136.

Reardon K. 2006. Development, assessment, and management of a potential directed fishery for jonah crab (Cancer borealis), in the near shore Gulf of Maine. Masters thesis, University of Maine, 136 pp. Available at: http://www.library.umaine.edu/theses/pdf/ReardonKM2006.pdf

Reilly, P. N., and S. B. SAILA.1978. Biology and ecology of the rock crab, Cancer irroratus Say, 1817, in southern New England waters (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 34:121-140.

RIDEM.2012.2013 Management Plan for the Crustacean Fishery Sector.RI Department of Environmental Management.

Robbins, J. and D.K. Mattila.2001.Monitoring entanglements of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Gulf of Maine on the basis of caudal peduncle scarring. International Whaling Commission Scientific

58 Committee, IWC, 135 Station Road, Impington, Cambridge, UK. SC/53/NAH25.

Robichaud DA, Frail C.2006. Development of the Jonah Crab, Cancer borealis, and Rock Crab, Cancer irroratus, Fisheries in the Bay of Fundy (LFAs 35-38) and off Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34): Exploratory to Commercial Status (1995-2004). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2775; available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/ Library/326113. pdf

Robichaud, D.A., Frail, C., Lawton, P., Pezzack, D.S., Strong, M.B., and D. Duggan. 2000. Exploratory Fisheries for Rock Crab, Cancer irroratus, and Jonah Crab, Cancer borealis, in Canadian Lobster Fishing Areas 34, 35, 36, & 38. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat. DFO Research Document 2000/051.

Rowe, S. 2001. Movement and harvesting mortality of American lobsters (Homarus americanus) tagged inside and outside no-take reserves in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1336-1346.

Ryan, R. W., Holland,Daniel S. and Herrera,G.E. 2010. Bioeconomic Equilibrium in a Bait-Constrained Fishery. Marine Resource Economics 25: 281–293

Saila, S., S. Nixon, et al. 2002. Does lobster trap bait influence the Maine inshore trap fishery? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(2): 602-605.

Smolowitz, R. 1998. Bottom tending gear used in New England. Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England. Boston, MA, Conservation Law Foundation: 46-53.

Stehlik, L.L., MacKenzie, C.C., Morse, W.W .1991. Distribution and Abundance of Four Brachyuran Crabs on the Northwest Atlantic Shelf. Fishery Bulletin 89: 473-492.

Steneck, R.S. and Wilson, C. 1998. Why are there so many lobsters in Penobscot Bay? In: Platt, D.D. (ed.). Rim of the Gulf – Restoring Estuaries in the Gulf of Maine. The Island Institute, Rockland, ME.72-75 pp.

Steneck, R., J. Vavrinec, et al. 2004. Accelerating trophic-level dysfunction in kelp forest ecosystems of the Western North Atlantic.Ecosystems7: 323-332.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, J. Sigurjónsson, T.D. Smith, N. Øien and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 258: 263-273.

TRAC. 2009. Gulf Of Maine-Georges Bank Herring Stock Complex. TRAC Status Report 2009/04.

Waddy, S.L., Aiken, D.E., and deKleijn, D.P.V. 1995. Control of growth and Reproduction In The biology of the lobster. Factor, J. (ed.). Academic Press.217-266 pp.

Wahle, R. 2012. University of Maine.Personal Communication.

Wahle, R.A. and Steneck, R.S. 1991. Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds of the American lobster, Homarus americanus: A demographic bottleneck? Marine Ecology Progress Series69: 231-243.

Waring, G. T., R. M. Pace, et al. 2004. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2003.Woods Hole, MA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., and Rosel, P.E. (eds.). 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine

59 Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS- NE-219.598 pp.

Waring GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, Rosel, PE, editors. 2013. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2012. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 223; 419 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ao2012.pdf

Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford and D.P. Gannon 1995.Stranding and mortality of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States, 1985-1992.Fish. Bull. 93: 196-205.

Williams, A.B. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press. 550 pp.

Wilson, Carl J. 2005. A cooperative investigation towards an exempted trap to exclusively target Cancer borealis in Lobster Management Area 1.Completion Report

Wilson, C. 2012. DMR. Personal Communication.

Wilson, C. 2013. DMR. Personal Communication.

Wolff, T. 1978. Maximum size of lobsters (Homarus) (Decapoda, Nephropidae).Crustaceana 34: 1-14.

Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Wilson, C. 2011.Developing and evaluating harvest control rules with different biological reference points for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in the Gulf of Maine. ICES J. Mar. Sci.68 (7): 1511-1524.

60 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species ATLANTIC HERRING Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

61 *It is worth noting that the majority of all American lobster landings come from inshore in the Gulf of Maine so it is logical that concerns of overfishing of the herring stock could occur in this region.

Justification: The last update to the 2006 ASMFC stock assessment states that the Gulf of Maine/ Georges Bank Atlantic herring stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (ASMFC 2008) which is also confirmed by the latest TRAC report (TRAC 2009). Fishing mortality rates have remained well below Fmsy (0.27) with a high of 0.20 in 2001 and a low of 0.14 in 2008 (ASMFC 2008)(TRAC 2009)(Figure 18).

Figure 18

Figure 18. Fishing Mortality for the Atlantic Herring Stock Complex (1967-2008).

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

62 assessment assumed a 0% discard mortality rate (ASMFC 2009). Past studies describing discard mortality in both the trap and trawl fisheries are limited but they are consistent in suggesting that mortality rates are relatively low (ASMFC 2009). Justification: The use of Atlantic herring as bait for the American lobster fishery is important to address because herring removal from the marine ecosystem may have some significant impacts. Herring is a vital forage species for other fish, marine mammals and seabirds and if the herring stocks were to crash again there could be severe ecosystem wide consequences. However, the more pressing issue is not that the Atlantic herring stock is being depleted but that both the American lobster fishery and the Atlantic herring fishery are becoming co- dependent on one another so that ecological or commercial changes that affect one fishery will also affect the other (Ryan et al 2010)(Grabowski et al 2010). Additionally, the American lobster- Atlantic herring relationship seems to be having a positive effect on the biological productivity of the American lobster through its large consumption of herring bait (Ryan et al 2010) and it is believed to be one of the main reasons for the surge in the lobster population despite intensive fishing pressure (Saila et al 2002)(Drinkwater et al 1996). The American lobster industry and the Atlantic herring fishery have a long history of being artificially linked. Since the 19th century, Atlantic herring has been used as the primary source of bait for lobster traps (ASMFC 2010a). The dependence on Atlantic herring as bait for the lobster fishery is the main driver of the herring fishery. Herring accounts for nearly 90% bait used in lobster traps(Driscoll 2008) while the lobster fishery is the predominant market for herring (Brandt & McEvoy 2006). Every year, an average of 100,000 mt of herring are landed in the Gulf of Maine and about 70% (70,000 mt) of the total landings go directly to the lobster fishery (ASMFC 2010a)(Grabowski et al 2010). There are a few hypotheses about why the lobster populations in the GOM and Georges Bank are experiencing growth. One of them, the predator reduction hypothesis suggests that the lobster populations are thriving because of the overexploitation of other groundfish stocks such as cod that are natural predators of lobster. With the disappearance of natural predators there is little predation pressure on juvenile lobsters (Saila et al 2002)(Grabowski et al 2010) which ultimately resulted in an increasing the adult stock(Grabowski et al 2009).

63 ATLANTIC ROCK CRAB Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Figure 19 Table 7: Inherent Vulnerability of Atlantic rock crab

Atlantic rock crabs are physically similar to Jonah crabs however they are smaller and are more common inshore and at shallower depths (Reardon 2006). Like most brachyurans, C. irrotatus exhibit sexual dimporphism between males and females with female rock crabs rarely reaching carapace widths (CW) of 100mm and males reaching CW of 140mm (Page 2002)(Bigford 1979). Sexual maturity in Atlantic rock crabs has been estimated around 60mm CW for females (1-3 years) and 70mm CW for males (1-4 years) (Page 2002)(Bigford 1979). Similar to C. borealis the maximum age of C. irroratus is estimated to be approximately 8 years (Bigford 1979)(Reilly & Saila 1978). Female Atlantic rock crabs can produce between 125,000-500,000 eggs depending on size and they carry the eggs on their abdomen for a year before the eggs hatch (Bigford 1979)(Page 2002). Based on these factors, inherent vulnerabilty for C. irroratus is deemed low.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

64 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK

Moderate Concern There are no biological reference points or stock assessments for Cancer irroratus. Except for catch data, there is no reliable estimate for abundance and thus no evidence that stock is either above or below reference points. Because abundance in relation to reference points and conservation goals is unknown and the species has a low vulnerability to fishing, the abundance factor is rated moderate concern. Justification: The stock status of Cancer irroratus in New England is unknown. Atlantic rock crabs, like Jonah crabs have been harvested as incidental catch in the American Lobster Fishery in New England for over 80 years (Krouse 1980). Until the 1990s, both Atlantic rock crabs and Jonah crabs were considered nuisance bycatch species by the lobstermen and were usually discarded or used as bait (Reardon 2006)(Krouse 1980). Like Jonah crabs, the Atlantic rock crab fishery is a an emerging fishery and it is not a federally regulated fishery (Reardon 2006)(NOAA 2010). As such, to date, there have been no federal stock assessments conducted for Atlantic rock crabs. The only proxy for abundance for Atlantic rock crab is catch data that may be seriously compromised due to lack of reporting and misidentification by fishermen and dealers(Reardon 2006). Additionally (as is the case in Maine) Cancer crab landings are not always seperated by species (Reardon 2006) which likely skews the data. Therefore the stock status of Atlantic Rock crabs has a higher likelihood of uncertainty(Reardon 2006). Very little is known about C. irroratus populations but it has been noted that abundance is very cyclical, with periods of high abundance followed by periods of very low abundance (Bannister et al 2013) (Wilson 2013). In 2000, landings of Atlantic rock crab in the state of Maine reached 1785 mt (Figure 14) followed in 2001 by a sharp decline to 139 mt (Figure 14).

Figure 20 Figure 14. Atlantic rock crab landings in ME from 2000-2011(NMFS landings database, 2013).

65 From 2002-2005, landings of C. irroratus in Maine rose steadily with a peak of 1185 mt in 2003. However, since then, landings have fluctuated from 693 mt in 2006, to 901 mt in 2007 down to 541 mt in 2011. In MA and RI, the only other states that have consistent catch data from 2000-2011, abundance trends are varied. In MA, landings since 2002, although low, steadily increased with a peak of 72 mt in 2007 followed by significant decline of 22 mt in 2008 (Figure 15).

Figure 21 Figure 15. Annual Landings for Atlantic rock crabs in ME, MA and RI from 2000-2011 (NMFS landings database 2013).

Since 2008, landings have been increasing but continue at low levels (Figure 15). Atlantic rock crab landings in RI increased steadily from 27 mt in 2000 to a peak of 1418 mt in 2008 (Figure 15). In 2009, landings declined slightly but since then have continued to drop significantly to 455 mt in 2010 to 330 mt in 2011 (Figure 15). It is difficult to ascertain if the decline in Atlantic rock crab landings is due to a decline in the stock or simply a decline in fishing effort. The declining trends of the last several years could be attributed to natural abundance cycles of the species or a decline in fishing effort. However, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has declared that there is not enough scientific and fisheries information to warrant the development of a Fisheries Management Plan for Cancer irroratus at this time (NOAA 2010).

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

66 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GULF OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, TRAPS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGES BANK

Moderate Concern There are no known estimates for fishing mortality for Atlantic rock crabs.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

67 et al 2009).

JONAH CRAB Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

68 Figure 22 Table 8: Inherent vulnerability of Jonah crab

There is little biological or life history information for Jonah crab for example, age at 50% maturity, growth rate and maximum age are not known. There is sexual dimorphism between males and females with male Jonah crabs growing up to 180 mm CW and females up to 150mm CW. Sexual maturity in Jonah crabs is varied depending on location (DFO 2009)although in general most females are sexually mature at 89 mm CW (Cobb et al 1997) and males at 128 mm CW (Moriyasu et al 2002). Although the maximum age in Jonah crabs is not known, age is varied in related species of crabs, for example Metacarcinus magister (Dungeness crab) can live 8-13 years (ADFG 1994) and Brown crabs (Cancer pagurus)(Cobb et al 1997) typically live 25-30 years although reportedly can live up to 100 years (Fishonline 2011). Fecundity for Jonah crabs may possibly be high but there are no estimates although female jonah crabs carry eggs once per year during the summer months and it has been reported that they will spawn approximatley 5 times during their life span (Cobb et al 1997). The related Brown crab can carry 250,000-3, 000,000 eggswhile Dungeness crabs can produce 250,000 to 1,000,000 eggs(Khatain 2000). The lack of biological information makes determing inherent vulnerability difficult but based on other life history charcteristics of related Cancer species it is likely that inherent vulnerability is "medium' for Jonah crabs.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Justification: The stock status of Cancer borealis in New England is unknown. Although Jonah crabs have been harvested as incidental catch in the American Lobster Fishery in New England for over 80 years (Krouse 1980), it is not a federally regulated fishery and as such there have been no federal stock assessments conducted for Jonah crabs. Although some biological data about Jonah crabs has been collected from bottom trawl surveys, this data may not provide an accurate indication of abundance and population because trawls cannot sample certain habitats and Jonah crabs could be avoiding them (Reardon 2006). The only proxy for abundance of Jonah crab is catch data that may be seriously compromised due to lack of reporting and misidentification by fishermen and dealers. Thus, the stock status of Jonah crabs, particularly in the Gulf of Maine, has a higher than normal level of uncertainty (Reardon 2006). Very little is known about Jonah crab populations but it has been noted that even with relatively low fishing effort certain areas in the Northwest Atlantic have experienced declines in abundance (Robichaud & Frail 2006). In the U.S., abundance trends for Jonah crab appear to be highly variable and cyclical with high levels of abundance for many years, followed by periods of decline and then recovery (Cascorbi 2004). In Maine, where most of the Jonah crab have historically been landed, fishermen have noted a decline in Jonah crab abundance since the mid 2000s (Bannister et al 2013) (Figure 16), declining from a peak of 1,232 mt in 2005 to 497 mt in 2011 (NMFS 2013).

Figure 23 Figure 16. Annual Jonah crab landings in ME from 2000-2011 (NMFS landings database, 2013).

However, as the Maine Jonah crab abundance seems to be declining, landings have been increasing in Massachussetts and RI over the same period of time (Figure 17).

70 Figure 24 Figure 17. Annual Jonah crab landings in Maine from 2000-2011 (NMFS landings database, 2013).

This pattern of abundance in Maine and in MA and RI reflects the condition of the American lobster fishery in these states. Maine has been reporting historically high landings (124 milllion lbs in 2012) while MA and RI part of the SNE lobster stock has seen significant and critical declines in lobster abundance with no sign of recovery. Therefore, in Maine, while the lobster industry continues to explode, the incentive to land Jonah crab has declined and in MA and RI, it appears that the incentive to land crab is increasing, perhaps as a response to the decline of the SNE lobster stocks. Despite concerns for the potential overexploitation of this resource, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has declared that there is not enough scientific and fisheries information to warrant the development of a Fisheries Management Plan for Cancer borealis (NOAA 2010).

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

71 2013) (RIDEM 2012). Reardon (2006) did preliminary work on determining biological reference points including calculations for fishing mortality. Based on 3 possible scenarios, she concluded the Jonah crab stock in the state of Maine was not experiencing overfishing because fishing mortalities in all 3 cases fell below F0.1 and Fmax (Reardon 2006). This is the last documented attempt at determining fishing mortality for Cancer borealis.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Climate change has been another explanation for the increase in lobster abundance in the GOM and Georges

72 Bank. Increasing ocean temperatures could lead to favorable conditions for lobster growth, and recruitment. Lastly, and the explanation that is beginning to get more traction, is that herring bait is actually subsidizing lobster populations by increasing growth rates, survivorship and fecundity (Grabowski et al 2010)(Saila et al 2002). Lobster traps are heavily baited providing extra nutrients that otherwise would not be available for lobsters. Additionally, bait thrown overboard will also be available for consumption by lobsters not in the traps. Jury et al. (2001)demonstrated that sub legal sized lobsters enter and exit lobster traps at will and could consume vast amounts of bait with little competition (Saila et al 2002). A mark and recapture study of lobsters in areas with traps show that these lobsters outgrow those in areas without traps by 15% (Grabowski et al 2009). Their findings support the hypothesis that herring bait is in fact augmenting lobster diets and as a consequence lobster growth rates and abundance are increasing which in turn enhances the overall economic value of the lobster fishery (Grabowski et al 2010).