Atlantic rock crab, Jonah crab US Atlantic

Transcription

Atlantic rock crab, Jonah crab
Cancer irroratus, Cancer borealis
Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook / www.scandfish.com
US Atlantic
Trap
May 12, 2016
Gabriela Bradt, Consulting researcher
Neosha Kashef, Consulting Researcher
Sam Wilding, Seafood Watch Senior Fisheries Scientist
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.
2
Table of Contents
About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 3
Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Criterion 1: Impact on the Species Under Assessment ........................................................................... 10
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 22
Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 39
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 59
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 65
References .................................................................................................................................................. 66
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 74
3
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wildcaught 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.
4
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.
5
Summary
This report provides recommendations for two commercially important crustacean species in the United
States Northwest Atlantic: Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus). Both
crab species are caught primarily using fixed gear (vented traps), with a minor portion coming from
trawls where they are caught as bycatch (not assessed here).
Fisheries for Jonah and rock crab have expanded from bycatch within the lobster fishery to directed
fisheries. 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 were not federally recognized. There is little to
no biological or life-history data for either Cancer species. Due to the high level of uncertainty regarding
abundance and impact of the fishery, there is a moderate conservation concern.
Retained and bycatch species analyzed in this assessment have been chosen based on their propensity
to be caught in similar fisheries in the region. Traps used in the commercial crab fishery are highly
selective, so bycatch is not considered a large issue. But data are lacking on the nature and quantity of
bycatch. The most common types of bycatch found in traps are juvenile crustaceans, ovigerous female
crustaceans, and some finfish (e.g., flounders, scup, and tautog). There is little information on discard
and mortality rates for the crab fishery, and overall it appears that discard rates of crab bycatch are low
compared to those in other fisheries. Although bycatch species in crab traps are relatively few, the
fishery is considered a Category II fishery by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) due to the risk
posed to marine mammals in the region. Of greatest concern are the interactions between the fishery
and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), both
of which are considered endangered or threatened species. These species drive the score for Criterion 2.
Management of the Jonah crab fishery is moderately effective while management for the rock crab
fishery is ineffective in all states except Massachusetts, where rock crab has been adopted into the
Jonah crab Fishery Management Plan (FMP). There is little to no management of the directed rock crab
fishery in other states. At present, management of Atlantic rock crab falls under the jurisdiction of state
agencies, with no co-ordination among the states. Large parts of the fishery are completely unregulated
and, where regulations do exist, they are not considered sufficient to be an effective management
system. The lack of management is perpetuated by a lack of data regarding crab stocks and impacts of
the fishery on target and bycatch species. The Jonah crab fishery is regulated through an Interstate
Fishery Management Plan, which was implemented in June 2016. Although the fishery lacks reference
points and a formal stock assessment, regulations are in place for harvest and gear restrictions and
mandatory reporting.
Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs are almost exclusively fished with trap gear, and it is generally accepted
that traps have a moderate to low impact on benthic habitats. But the impact on benthic habitats may
be underestimated because of the intense fishing effort on crustaceans and the amount of gear that this
requires (millions of traps being fished multiple times). This cumulative effect could be more damaging
6
to benthic ecosystems than previously thought; however, 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 trophic impacts of the fishery.
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Species / Fishery
Jonah crab
Maine/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
Massachusetts/Atlantic,
Pots
Jonah crab
Rhode Island/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
New Hampshire/Atlantic,
Pots
Jonah crab
Connecticut/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
New York/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
New Jersey/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
Maryland/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab
Virginia/Atlantic, Pots
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
Massachusetts/Atlantic,
Pots
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
New Hampshire/Atlantic,
Pots
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Criterion 1
Criterion 4
Criterion 2
Impacts on
Criterion 3 Impacts on
Impacts on
Overall
the Species
Management the Habitat
other
Recommendation
Under
Effectiveness
and
Species
Assessment
Ecosystem
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Yellow (3.00)
Yellow (3.12)
Good Alternative
(2.624)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
7
Species / Fishery
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Atlantic Rock crab
Non-FMP
Criterion 1
Criterion 4
Criterion 2
Impacts on
Criterion 3 Impacts on
Impacts on
Overall
the Species
Management the Habitat
other
Recommendation
Under
Effectiveness
and
Species
Assessment
Ecosystem
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
Yellow (2.64)
Red (1.92)
Red (1.73)
Yellow (3.12)
Avoid (2.288)
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).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch
Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no
Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy
(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 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 recommendations for two commercially important crustacean species, Jonah crab
(Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus) fisheries in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic. The
crab fisheries have expanded in recent years from bycatch fisheries within the lobster fishery to directed
fisheries. Jonah and rock crab co-occur across much of their range; Jonah crab is found from Nova Scotia
to the Dry Tortugas, FL (Drew 2011) while rock crab is found from Labrador to Florida (Williams
1984). Crabs are caught using primarily fixed gear (vented traps) with a minor portion coming from
trawls as bycatch (NMFS 2011) (Wilson 2005) (Reardon 2006).
Overview of the species and management bodies
Jonah (Cancer borealis) and Atlantic rock crabs (Cancer irroratus) have essentially been considered
nuisance bycatch in the American lobster fishery for more than 80 years (Reardon 2006) (Krouse
1980). Landings of the crabs have been used by the lobstermen as supplement to cover operational
costs (NOAA 2010) (Reardon 2006). But 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 growing
directed fisheries (NOAA 2010).
Jonah crab and Atlantic rock crab are native to the North Atlantic coast of North America. There is
limited information regarding the biology, abundance, and distribution of both species. Though
physically similar, the two species differ in size and preferred habitats (Reardon 2006). Jonah crab is
larger than Atlantic rock crab and more commonly found at depths of 50–300 m and up to 800 m
(Robichaud and Frail 2006). Atlantic rock crab is smaller, prefers shallower inshore waters ranging from
6 to 456 m (Stehlik et al. 1991), and is most often found at depths of less than 20 m (Krouse 1980)
(Robichaud et al. 2000).
Currently, there is an Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in place for Jonah crab, while the rock
crab fishery has limited management. The FMP aims to protect and maintain broodstock abundance
through required permits, reporting, trip limits, gear requirements, and prohibition of landing eggbearing females and partial claws.
Production Statistics
Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs co-occur in the Northwest Atlantic from Labrador to Florida. The United
States and Canada are the major producers, and in both countries these are growing fisheries. There is
no known commercial farmed Cancer crab production. 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, and RI) was
$5,530,407 and for Atlantic rock crab it was $896,231 (NMFS 2013).
9
Landings of C. borealis in New England have been increasing steadily from 2.5 million lbs in 2000 to
more than 15 million lbs in 2013 (Figure 1).
Landings of C. irroratus in the last decade have been less stable compared to Jonah crab landings (Figure
2).
In 2000, approximately 4 million lbs of Atlantic rock crab were landed in New England, but landings
decreased sharply to 0.5 million lbs in 2001 and 1 million lbs in 2002. From 2003–2008, Atlantic rock
crab landings increased steadily and peaked in 2008 at 4.75 million lbs. But since 2009, landings in New
England have steadily decreased: in 2013, total landings for Atlantic rock crab were 1.5 million lbs. The
true quantity landed may be unknown because of the uncertainty and inconsistency in reporting among
the individual states (Reardon 2006). Adding to the discrepancy in reporting, there is widespread
confusion between the two species because fishers 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) (pers. comm., Taylor 2014) (pers. comm., Wilson 2014).
Importance to the U.S./North American market
Although the Cancer crab fisheries continue to emerge, there is currently no recognized import/export
market for either Jonah crab or Atlantic rock crab. All product appears to be harvested and consumed in
the United States (Cascorbi 2004).
Common and market names
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 eelgrass crab.
Primary product forms
Jonah crab (Cancer borealis)
Jonah crab is typically fished in the winter months from November to February, although there are
landings from August to April. It is sold live, as fresh or frozen whole-cooked claws, and as picked meat
and snap-and-eat claws.
Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus)
Atlantic rock crab is mainly available in the summer months during peak lobster fishing periods. Atlantic
rock crab cannot be shipped live; the main product form is fresh or frozen picked meat.
10
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: Impact 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
ATLANTIC ROCK CRAB
Region / Method
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Maine/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
3.00:Low
Massachusetts/Atlantic Pots
3.00:Low
Rhode Island/Atlantic Pots, NonFMP
New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots, NonFMP
Connecticut/ Atlantic Pots, NonFMP
3.00:Low
3.00:Low
3.00:Low
New York/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
3.00:Low
New Jersey/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
3.00:Low
Maryland/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
3.00:Low
Virginia/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
3.00:Low
Fishing
Mortality
3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Subscore
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
11
JONAH CRAB
Region / Method
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Maine/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
2.00:Medium
Rhode Island/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
Connecticut/ Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
New York/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
New Jersey/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
Maryland/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
Virginia/Atlantic Pots
2.00:Medium
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Subscore
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Yellow (2.644)
Jonah and Atlantic rock crab have a low to medium inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure.
Determining the age of crustaceans is difficult because of their molting cycles, but it is generally believed
that rock crab has a maximum age of around 8 years, whereas Jonah crab is thought to live as long as 30
years, based partly on comparison to their close relatives, the edible (brown) crab (Cancer pagurus) and
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. Both species have
traditionally been harvested as bycatch in the lobster fishery in the Northeast, and have now developed
into targeted fisheries. No coast-wide stock assessments have been made on either of these species and
overfishing reference points are unknown. Little to no population and biological data are available for
either Jonah or Atlantic rock crabs. The lack of scientific information on the status of the Cancer crab
stocks creates potential for overexploitation.
12
Criterion 1 Assessment
ATLANTIC ROCK CRAB
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
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.
Massachusetts/Atlantic, Pots
New Hampshire/Atlantic, Pots
Low
The inherent vulnerability score (2.5) for Cancer irroratus is deemed “low.”
Rationale:
13
Table 1: Life-history characteristics of Atlantic rock crab
Atlantic rock crabs are physically similar to Jonah crabs, but they are smaller and are more common
inshore and at shallower depths (Reardon 2006). Like most brachyurans, C. irroratus exhibits sexual
dimorphism between males and females with female rock crabs rarely reaching carapace widths (CW) of
100 mm (3.9 in.) and males reaching CW of 140 mm (5.5 in) (Page 2002) (Bigford 1979). Sexual maturity
in Atlantic rock crabs has been estimated at around 60 mm (2.4 in) CW for females (1–3 years) and 70
mm (2.8 in) 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 and Saila 1978).
Female Atlantic rock crabs can produce between 125,000 and 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 vulnerability for C. irroratus is deemed low.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines
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.
•
14
Moderate Concern
There are no biological reference points or stock assessments for C. irroratus. Except for catch data,
there is no reliable estimate for abundance, so it is not possible to determine whether abundance is at a
sustainable level. 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 as “moderate” concern.
Rationale:
The stock status of C. irroratus in New England is unknown. Atlantic rock crab, like Jonah crab, has 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 crab and Jonah crab were considered nuisance bycatch
species by the lobstermen and were usually discarded or used as bait (Reardon 2006) (Krouse 1980).
The Atlantic rock crab fishery is an emerging fishery and it is not a federally regulated fishery (Reardon
2006) (NOAA 2010). To date, there have been no federal stock assessments conducted for Atlantic rock
crab. The only data available relevant to an abundance assessment are landings data; however, there is
a high level of uncertainty associated with this data because it can be affected by a wide range of
factors, including environmental changes, market forces, and changes in fishing effort and
pattern (Reardon 2006). Additionally (as is the case in Maine) Cancer crab landings are not always
publicly reported by species due to uncertainties with species identification (pers. comm., Wilson 2014)
(pers. comm., Taylor 2014) (Reardon 2006).
Landings of Atlantic rock crab in New England have fluctuated since the turn of the century, increasing
in the early 2000s to a peak of 4.75 million pounds in 2008, before declining to 1.5 million pounds in
2013. Figure 1 illustrates the fluctuation in landings for Maine and Rhode Island, which follow a similar
pattern to the overall landings in New England, whereas landings in Massachusetts have increased in
recent years. Landings for New Hampshire and Connecticut are not shown because the data series is
incomplete due to issues with data confidentiality and uncertainty with reporting.
15
Figure 1: Annual landings of Atlantic rock crab (C. irroratus) in New England states (lbs).
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
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.
16
•
0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place
to curtail overfishing.
Moderate Concern
There are no known estimates for fishing mortality for Atlantic rock crabs.
JONAH CRAB
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
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.
17
Medium
The inherent vulnerability score for C. borealis is deemed “medium”; however, there is
considerable uncertainty surrounding this score (2.25) because of a lack of life-history and biological
data for this species. Many attributes that need to be scored to determine inherent vulnerability are
either unknown or extrapolated from data of similar species such as Metacarcinus magister or Cancer
pagurus.
Rationale:
Table 2: Life-history characteristics 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 (7.1 in) CW and females up to 150 mm (5.9 in) CW. Size at
sexual maturity in Jonah crab varies with location (DFO 2009), although in general most females are
sexually mature at 89 mm (3.5 in) CW (Cobb et al. 1997) and males at 128 mm (5.0 in) CW (Moriyasu et
al. 2002). Although the maximum age in Jonah crabs is not known, it varies for similar crab species: for
example, Metacarcinus magister (Dungeness crab) can live 8–13 years (ADFG 1994), and edible (brown)
18
crab (Cancer pagurus) (Cobb et al. 1997) typically lives 25–30 years although it reportedly can live up to
100 years (Fishonline 2011). Fecundity for Jonah crabs may be high but there are no estimates; it is
known that female Jonah crabs carry eggs once per year during the summer months and it has been
reported that they will spawn approximately five times during their life (Cobb et al. 1997). The related
edible (brown) crab can carry 250,000 to 3,000,000 eggs while Dungeness crab can produce 250,000 to
1,000,000 eggs (Khatain 2000). The lack of biological information makes determining inherent
vulnerability difficult, but based on other life-history characteristics of similar species, it is likely that
inherent vulnerability is “medium” for Jonah crab.
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
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.
Moderate Concern
There are no biological reference points, and no range-wide stock assessment exists for Jonah crab,
although the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) considers gathering these data a
high priority for the future (ASFMC 2015). Abundance is rated a “moderate” conservation concern
because there is no reliable reference point and the stock’s inherent vulnerability is rated moderate.
Rationale:
The stock status of Jonah crab in New England is unknown. Although Jonah crab has been harvested as
incidental catch in the American lobster fishery in New England for over 80 years (Krouse 1980), it is not
19
a federally regulated fishery and there have been no federal stock assessments conducted for Jonah
crab. Although some biological data about Jonah crab have been collected from bottom trawl surveys,
these data may not accurately indicate abundance and population trends because trawls sample
limited habitats and Jonah crab could be avoiding them (Reardon 2006). Landings data are available for
the Jonah crab fishery; however, there is significant uncertainty associated with these data and their
suitability as a proxy for abundance, because landings can be affected by a range of factors including
environmental changes, market forces, and changes in fishing effort and pattern.
Jonah crab landings in Maine have been declining, whereas landings have been increasing in
Massachusetts and Rhode Island over the same period (Figure 2).
These patterns of abundance in Maine and in Massachusetts and Rhode Island may reflect the condition
of the American lobster fishery in these states. Maine has been reporting historically high landings of
lobster (124 million lbs in 2012) while Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which traditionally fish the
Southern New England lobster stock, have 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. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, it appears that the
incentive to land crab is increasing, perhaps as a response to the decline of the Southern New England
lobster stocks.
Figure 2: Annual landings of Jonah crab (C. borealis) in New England states (lbs).
20
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
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.
Moderate Concern
There is no current definition of overfishing for Jonah crab. Landings have been increasing due to
increased value of Jonah crab in the marketplace (ASFMC 2015). In the 1990s, landings in New England
fluctuated between 2 and 3 million lbs. Landings rose to over 7 million lbs in 2005 and reached over 17
million lbs in 2014.
Rationale:
There are no known estimates for fishing mortality for Jonah crab. Reardon (2006) did preliminary work
on determining biological reference points, including calculations for fishing mortality. Based on three
21
possible scenarios, she concluded that the Jonah crab stock in Maine was not experiencing
overfishing because fishing mortalities in all three cases fell below F0.1 (fishing mortality where the slope
of yield per recruit versus F is one-tenth of its value near the origin) and FMAX (fishing mortality where
yield or yield per recruit is highest) (Reardon 2006). This was the last documented attempt at
determining fishing mortality for Jonah crab.
22
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:
•
•
•
Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
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.
Atlantic rock crab: Connecticut/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
FIN WHALE: WESTERN NORTH
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
High Concern Low Concern
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
23
Atlantic rock crab: Maine/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
Atlantic rock crab: Maryland/Atlantic Pots
Discard Rate: 1.00
C2 Rate: 1.916
Subscore: 1.916
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
Subscore: 1.916
1.00
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
Atlantic rock crab: Massachusetts/Atlantic Pots
Discard Rate: 1.00
C2 Rate: 1.916
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
24
Atlantic rock crab: New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate: 1.00
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Atlantic rock crab: New Jersey/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
C2 Rate:
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
25
Atlantic rock crab: New York/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Atlantic rock crab: Rhode Island/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
C2 Rate:
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
26
Atlantic rock crab: Virginia/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Jonah crab: Connecticut/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
1.00
1.00
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
27
Jonah crab: Maine/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
1.916
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Jonah crab: Massachusetts/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Jonah crab: Maryland/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
1.00
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
28
Jonah crab: New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
4.00: Low
3.76: Low
High
Concern
Concern
Jonah crab: New Jersey/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
1.00
1.00
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
3.831
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
29
Jonah crab: New York/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Jonah crab: Rhode Island/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
1.00
1.00
C2 Rate:
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
30
Jonah crab: Virginia/Atlantic Pots
Subscore: 1.916
Discard Rate:
Species
HUMPBACK WHALE
ATLANTIC
JONAH CRAB
AMERICAN LOBSTER
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.916
Inherent
Fishing
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00: Very
3.67: Low
High
High Concern
Concern
1.00: Very
5.00: Very
High
3.00:
2.33:
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
2.33:
2.00: High
High
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.916
2.236
2.644
2.159
The composition of bycatch within the Jonah and Atlantic rock crab fisheries is largely unknown due to
lack of data from the fishery. The species assessed here are those known to be caught in similar fisheries
in the region; for example, humpback whales and fin whales that are known to interact with pot and
trap gear as identified in the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) List of Fisheries. In general, the
traps used in the commercial crab fishery are considered highly selective, so the overall levels of bycatch
are relatively low compared to other marine fisheries.
American lobster has been included in the bycatch assessment based on its propensity to be caught in
the fishing gear, and to account for the crab that are landed from the lobster-directed fishery in the
region. North Atlantic right whales are known to interact with the lobster fishery, such that the lobster is
considered a Category I (frequent interactions) fishery by NMFS. The North Atlantic right whale has not
been identified as a species affected by the mixed-species pot and trap fishery (which includes the Jonah
and rock crab fisheries) in the NMFS list of fisheries, and thus has not been assessed here. Based on the
interactions with the lobster fishery, and the potential to interact with the crab fishery when considering
the differences in scale, it is likely that the impact of the fishery on the North Atlantic right whale is no
worse than the impact on the humpback whale, which has been assessed here.
The score for Criterion 2 is driven by interactions between the fishery and endangered humpback
whales.
31
Criterion 2 Assessment
FIN WHALE: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Jonah crab, Massachusetts/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, Maine/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, Rhode Island/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, New Hampshire/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, Connecticut/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, New York/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, New Jersey/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, Maryland/Atlantic, Pots
Jonah crab, Virginia/Atlantic, Pots
Atlantic rock crab, Massachusetts/Atlantic, Pots
Atlantic rock crab, Maine/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, Rhode Island/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, New Hampshire/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, Connecticut/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, New York/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, New Jersey/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, Maryland/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, Virginia/Atlantic, Pots, Non-FMP
High
Seafood Watch considers marine mammals to be highly vulnerable to fishing activities.
32
Atlantic rock crab, New Hampshire/Atlantic, Pots, Non FMP
Very High Concern
Fin whales in the Western North Atlantic are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act. The minimum estimate for the population is 2,817 individuals, and it is unknown how this relates to
the optimum sustainable population (OSP) (the OSP has not been defined) (Waring et al. 2014). Based
on the endangered listing of fin whales, Seafood Watch considers their abundance to be a “very high”
concern.
33
Very Low Concern
Fin whales are known to interact with pot and trap fisheries in the New England region and these
fisheries are considered Category II fisheries (occasional interactions) by NMFS. It is often not possible
to determine the risk associated with a specific fishery, because typically the whales are found
entangled in ropes and buoy lines and the specific gear and fishery cannot be identified. The impact of
all fisheries on the Western North Atlantic population of fin whales is 2.3 incidents of mortality or
serious injury per year from 2007 to 2011 (Waring et al. 2014). Based on the minimum population
abundance, productivity, and recovery rate, the acceptable level of impact or PBR (Potential Biological
Removal) has been determined to be 5.6 (Waring et al. 2014). Because the cumulative impact is below
an acceptable level of impact, the impact of the crab fisheries is considered to be a “very low” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
34
< 20%
Discarding from crab pots and traps is believed to be minimal, with the majority of discards being
returned live with a high post-release survival rate.
The volume of bait used relative to the volume of crab landed varies throughout the season but is
believed to be between 25% and 50%. The fishing industry in New England uses processing byproducts
and frames/racks to bait their crab traps, so no additional pressure is placed on natural resources to
provide bait for the fishery. Typically, frames from cod, haddock, and salmon are used (pers. comm.,
Grossman 2014).
Based on the low level of discards and the use of byproducts for bait, Seafood Watch considers the
discard and bait use rate to be negligible relative to landings.
HUMPBACK WHALE
35
High
Seafood Watch considers marine mammals to be highly vulnerable to fishing activities. (Criteria
document p. 9).
Very High Concern
Humpback whales are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 2012) (NOAA
2012b).
Rationale:
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. 2014). 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. 2014). According
to the 2014 stock assessment, there are insufficient data to determine current population trends in the
36
North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2014); however, Stevick et al. (2003) estimated that the average annual
population increase was 3.1%.
Low Concern
The fishery-specific impact on humpback whales is difficult to determine because often only buoy lines
are found entangling the whales, making it difficult to determine the gear and fishery responsible. The
majority of the fishing effort for crab in the New England region occurs in the winter months when
humpback whales have migrated away from their New England feeding grounds; however, there is still
some temporal overlap between the fishery and whales’ seasonal migrations (Waring et al. 2014).
NMFS considers pot and trap fisheries in the New England region to be a Category II fishery based on
the risk associated with entanglement to marine mammals in the region. The total fishing mortality is
9.95 whales per year (average of 2007–2011) (Waring et al. 2014) and is above the Potential Biological
Removal of 2.7. (PBR is the number of serious injuries and mortalities that a population can sustain
without imposing an adverse impact.) The scale of the crab fishery is much smaller than the New
England lobster fishery, is likely to pose a lower level of risk to marine mammals in the region (including
humpback whales), and is considered a Category II fishery by NMFS (NMFS 2014a).
37
Based on the information presented here, the unknown impact, and the Category II listing, Seafood
Watch considers the potential impact on humpback whales to be a “low” concern.
Rationale:
There are five identified stocks of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in U.S. waters: 1) Gulf of
Maine, 2) Western North Pacific, 3) Central North Pacific, 4) California/Oregon/Washington, and 5)
American Samoa (NOAA 2012c). This report only deals with the Gulf of Maine North Atlantic humpback
whale stock.
The best available estimate for the current North Atlantic humpback whale population is approximately
11,570 (Stevick et al. 2003), and the Gulf of Maine stock has approximately 823 individuals (Waring et
al. 2014). The latest humpback whale assessment puts the PBR for the Gulf of Maine stock at 2.7 whales
(Waring et al. 2014).
The main threats to the humpback whale population are entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes
(NOAA 2012c). Between 2007 and 2011, the minimum annual mortality and serious injury rate due to
human causes averaged 11.95 individuals per year. This included mortalities and serious injury rates due
to fishery-related entanglements of 9.95 (Waring et al. 2014). The impact of the crab fishery is
unknown.
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 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 that 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 and Mattila
2001) and that yearling humpback whales had a higher incidence of entanglement than any other age
class. There was also an indication that entanglement events had significant effects on reproductive
success (Robbins and Mattila 2001).
38
< 20%
Grossman 2014).
39
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 <=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
Region / Method
Maine/Atlantic Pots
Rhode Island/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
Connecticut/ Atlantic Pots, Non-FMP
Management of
Retained Species
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Management of
Non-Retained
Species
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
Overall
Recommendation
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
40
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
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.
Factor 3.1 Summary
Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species
Region / Method
Strategy Recovery Research
Advice
Maine/Atlantic Pots
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Massachusetts/Atlantic
Pots
Rhode Island/Atlantic
Moderately
Effective
Pots
New Hampshire/Atlantic Moderately
Effective
Pots
Connecticut/ Atlantic
Moderately
Effective
Pots
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
N/A
N/A
Enforce
Track
Inclusion
Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective Effective
N/A
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective Effective
N/A
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective Effective
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
41
Region / Method
Maine/Atlantic Pots,
Non-FMP
Rhode Island/Atlantic
Pots, Non-FMP
New Hampshire/Atlantic
Pots, Non-FMP
Connecticut/ Atlantic
Pots, Non-FMP
New York/Atlantic Pots,
Non-FMP
New Jersey/Atlantic
Pots, Non-FMP
Maryland/Atlantic Pots,
Non-FMP
Virginia/Atlantic Pots,
Non-FMP
Strategy
Recovery
Research
Advice
Enforce
Track
Inclusion
Moderately Moderately Highly
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
Ineffective
N/A
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective Effective
An Interstate Fishery Management Plan was implemented for Jonah crab in June 2016, which applied
harvest restrictions and permit and reporting requirements. Little information is available on the current
state of the Jonah crab resource, or the impact of the fisheries; however, management intends to
develop a research strategy to gather this information in the future.
There are few management measures in place for the rock crab fisheries, and there is no coordination
between the management of different states at present. Little information is available on the state of
the rock crab resource, or the impact of the fisheries, which makes managing the fisheries challenging.
But the state of Massachusetts has implemented the measures from the Jonah crab FMP for Atlantic
rock crab, resulting in improved management for both species.
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What types 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.
Moderately Effective
A management strategy is in effect for the Jonah crab fishery that includes harvest restrictions
(including prohibition of retaining egg-bearing females, minimum size limits, and daily and trip limits for
42
non-pot gears) and allowance for adaptive management (ASFMC 2015). Permits are required and
limited to those already holding a lobster permit or with proof of participation in the fishery prior to
June 2015. There are no current population reference points available and the management plan was
implemented too recently to evaluate its success at achieving its goals, so management strategy and
implementation are rated “moderately effective.”
Ineffective
Rock crab fishery management falls under the jurisdiction of state management agencies and is
coordinated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which also manages the New
England lobster fisheries. Currently there are very few management measures in place and no
coordination between state management agencies. Rock crab are currently landed in Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia
(NMFS 2013), although landings outside of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine are relatively low.
Fishing takes place in both state and federal waters, although it is unclear how fishing effort is
distributed between the two.
Different states have implemented different measures in an attempt to manage the crab fisheries
(ASMFC 2014a). Seasonal closures exist in Maine and Massachusetts, while the other states allow
fishing throughout the year. None of the New England states currently implements minimum landings
sizes, although the market demands a minimum size, which is thought to control landing sizes in some
areas (ASMFC 2014a). There is a prohibition on the landings of berried females (meaning they are
carrying eggs) in Massachusetts; however, no other states have regulations to protect females or
spawning individuals. There are daily and trip harvest limits in Maine, but all other states have an
unrestricted harvest of rock crab (ASMFC 2014a). Some states limit the amount of gear that can be used
on the lobster fishery, but the majority of crabs are landed from the directed fishery and there are
currently no limits on the number of traps that can be used by crab fishers (ASMFC 2014a).
The rock crab fisheries have quickly expanded into directed fisheries after several decades of landings as
bycatch in the lobster fishery.
43
There are concerns over the lack of management and coordination among states considering the
increase in exploitation in this fishery, particularly considering the unknown status of the resource.
Due to the complete lack of management in some states, lack of coordination among states, and the
decision not to implement management measures on an expanding fishery when the opportunity was
available, Seafood Watch considers the management strategy and implementation for rock crab
fisheries in New England to be “ineffective.”
Rationale:
Atlantic rock crab fisheries are not recognized as federal commercial fisheries and there is no federal
FMP. Additionally, NMFS has determined that there is insufficient biological information to warrant the
creation of an FMP for this species (NOAA 2010).
(including prohibition of retaining egg-bearing females, minimum size limits, and daily and trip limits)
and allowance for adaptive management (ASFMC 2015). There are no current population reference
points available and the management plan was implemented too recently to evaluate its success at
achieving its goals, so management strategy and implementation are therefore rated “moderately
effective.”
(including prohibition of retaining egg-bearing females, minimum size limits, and daily and trip limits)
and allowance for adaptive management (ASFMC 2015). The state of Massachusetts has also
implemented this management strategy for Atlantic rock crab caught in state waters. Permits are
required and limited to those already holding a lobster permit or with proof of participation in the
fishery prior to June 2015. There are no current population reference points available and the
management plan was implemented too recently to evaluate its success at achieving its goals, so
management strategy and implementation are therefore rated “moderately effective.”
44
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.
Jonah Crab, Massachusetts/Atlantic, Pots
N/A
There are no stocks of concern retained in the Jonah and rock crab fisheries.
45
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 range-wide stock assessments for Jonah crab, but the ASFMC considers a stock
assessment a high priority need for the future (ASFMC 2015). Attempts to assess Jonah crab have been
made in Maine (Reardon 2006) and Rhode Island (RIDEM 2012); however, there are uncertainties
associated with these assessments (see detailed Rationale). The Jonah Crab Technical Committee plans
to review stock assessment development once data are gathered and to forward recommendations to
the Management Board. The Jonah Crab Stock Assessment Subcommittee will meet every 5 years to
review, update, and perform benchmark stock assessments. The FMP requires coast-wide reporting and
fishery-dependent sampling, with 100% dealer and harvester reporting. State and federal agencies
collect port/sea landings information including carapace width, sex, discards, egg-bearing status, cull
status, shell hardness, and whether landings are whole or crab parts. The Jonah Crab Plan Review Team
will review implementation of the management program annually and prioritize research needs.
There is very little published fishery-dependent or -independent research, although a research strategy
is being developed as part of the recent Fishery Management Plan. Massachusetts, Maine, and New
Hampshire perform trawl surveys in inshore waters to monitor finfish stocks, and these surveys also
encounter Cancer crabs, but data are minimal. NOAA conducts trawl surveys in federal waters and
collects data on Cancer crab abundance; however, these data have yet to be analyzed (ASMFC 2014a).
Due to the moderate level of monitoring in place and the uncertainty associated with this information,
Seafood Watch considers research and monitoring of the New England crab fisheries to be “moderately
effective.”
Rationale:
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management performed a stock assessment for Cancer
crabs in their region (RIDEM 2012) and found that the exploitation rate was higher than estimates for
UMSY (exploitation rate at maximum sustainable yield). But at that time, biomass was estimated to be
46
above BMSY (biomass at maximum sustainable yield), meaning that overfishing was occurring but that
stocks had yet to reach an overfished state. There is considerable uncertainty with this determination,
because the majority of fishing in the Rhode Island region takes place in federal waters (ASMFC 2014a).
In 2006, the Cancer crab stocks in Maine were assessed by Reardon (Reardon 2006) using trawl survey
data. There are a number of uncertainties and assumptions relating to the data and the models used to
estimate abundance, including a lack of hard evidence to support assumptions relating to biological
characteristics (such as natural mortality and behavior of crabs); these uncertainties and assumptions
may alter the effectiveness of the fishing method and trawl surveys (Reardon 2006).
Ineffective
There are no official stock assessments for Atlantic rock crab. Although landings are recorded at the
species level, there is significant uncertainty in the data, such that some states will not publicly report
species-specific landings (pers. comm., Wilson 2014). The uncertainty is created by the interchangeable
names; for example, in some areas the term “rock crab” is used to describe Cancer borealis (pers.
comm., Taylor 2014) (ASMFC 2014a).
There is little fishery-dependent or -independent published research on rock crab. Massachusetts,
Maine, and New Hampshire perform trawl surveys in inshore waters to monitor finfish stocks, and these
surveys also encounter Cancer crabs, but data are minimal. NOAA conducts trawl surveys in federal
waters and collects data on Cancer crab abundance; however, these data have yet to be analyzed
(ASMFC 2014a). There is limited monitoring of crab stocks associated with the typical dockside and atsea monitoring that occurs in the region. Due to the minimal level of research and monitoring in place
and the uncertainty associated with this information, Seafood Watch considers research and monitoring
of the Atlantic rock crab fisheries to be “ineffective.”
Rationale:
47
There are no official range-wide stock assessments for Jonah crab, but the ASFMC considers a stock
assessment a high priority need for the future (ASFMC 2015). Attempts to assess Jonah crab have been
made in Maine (Reardon 2006) and Rhode Island (RIDEM 2012); however, there are uncertainties
associated with these assessments (see detailed Rationale). The Jonah Crab Technical Committee plans
to review stock assessment development once data are gathered and to forward recommendations to
the Management Board. The Jonah Crab Stock Assessment Subcommittee will meet every 5 years to
review, update, and perform benchmark stock assessments. The FMP requires coast-wide reporting and
fishery-dependent sampling, with 100% dealer and harvester reporting. State and federal agencies
collect port/sea landings information including carapace width, sex, discards, egg-bearing status, cull
status, shell hardness, and whether landings are whole or crab parts. The Jonah Crab Plan Review Team
will review implementation of the management program annually and prioritize research needs.
There is little published fishery-dependent or -independent research, although a research strategy is
being developed as part of the recent Fishery Management Plan. Massachusetts, Maine, and New
Hampshire perform trawl surveys in inshore waters to monitor finfish stocks, and these surveys also
encounter Cancer crabs, but data are minimal. NOAA conducts trawl surveys in federal waters and
collects data on Cancer crab abundance; however, these data have yet to be analyzed (ASMFC 2014a).
Due to the moderate level of monitoring in place and the uncertainty associated with this information,
Seafood Watch considers research and monitoring of the New England crab fisheries to be “moderately
effective.” Because the state of Massachusetts has implemented the Jonah crab FMP for Atlantic rock
crab, we apply the same score to both species for this factor.
Rationale:
48
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.
There has been little scientific research upon which managers could act, although the development of
an FMP by ASMFC is a positive sign that managers are listening to the advice that has been presented.
Based on the action that has been taken by ASFMC to develop an FMP, Seafood Watch considers this
factor to be “moderately effective.”
49
Ineffective
There has been little scientific research upon which managers could act. But based on the lack of action
after concerns were raised about recent increases in targeted fishing pressure for rock crab, Seafood
Watch considers this factor to be “ineffective.”
There has been little scientific research upon which managers could act, although the development of
an FMP by ASMFC is a positive sign that managers are listening to the advice that has been presented.
Based on the action that has been taken by ASFMC to develop an FMP, Seafood Watch considers this
factor to be “moderately effective.” Because the state of Massachusetts has implemented the Jonah
crab FMP for Atlantic rock crab, both managements of the two species receive the same score for this
factor.
50
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.
The FMP requires all states to include law enforcement capabilities that are adequate to implement
regulations (ASFMC 2015). State enforcement will be monitored annually and reported by the ASMFC
Law Enforcement Committee to the Jonah Crab Plan Review Team beginning with the 2017 calendar
year. Seafood Watch considers enforcement to be “moderately effective.” The lack of evidence
demonstrating effective management prevents the highest score from being achieved.
There is limited legislation that can be enforced, but there are enforcement officers on the water and
dockside and it is expected that there is effective enforcement in place. Seafood Watch considers
enforcement to be moderately “effective.” The lack of evidence demonstrating effective management
prevents the highest score from being achieved.
51
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.
Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
The measures enacted by management in the FMP implemented in June 2016 have not been in place
long enough to evaluate effectiveness, therefore tracking is scored as “moderately effective.”
There is little management in place for a fishery that has expanded considerably in recent years. Due to
the lack of management and the uncertainty in stock status, Seafood Watch considers the track record
to be uncertain and therefore is scored as “moderately effective.”
52
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.
Highly Effective
Stakeholder input is included in the management process (ASFMC 2015). The recent FMP was
developed with consideration of information provided by the multi-stakeholder FIP (fishery
improvement project). This group included members of the lobster industry, state agencies, academia,
fishers, and seafood retailers. The Lobster Management Board also obtained public comment on the
FMP in development stages.
Highly Effective
Development of management measures has been limited so it is difficult to determine how inclusive
this process is. An FMP has been developed through an ASMFC process, and an FIP has also been
established, therefore a good level of stakeholder involvement and inclusion based on similar ASMFC
processes and FIPs would be expected. Through the FMP development process, the ASFMC has formed
a Jonah Crab Advisory Panel (ASMFC 2014b); such panels typically include a wide range of stakeholders,
53
including commercial and recreational fishers, processors, conservation groups, and fishery managers.
Seafood Watch considers stakeholder inclusion to be “highly effective.”
Bycatch Strategy
Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species
Region / Method
All Kept Critical Strategy
Maine/Atlantic Pots
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
New Jersey/Atlantic Pots, NonFMP
No
No
No
No
No
No
New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots,
Non-FMP
Connecticut/ Atlantic Pots, NonFMP
Research
Advice
Enforce
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately Moderately
Effective
Effective
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
54
There is little to no quantitative information available regarding composition and management of
bycatch in the Jonah and rock crab fisheries. Trap gear is highly selective and incidental bycatch is
considered low. There are no known concerns with bycatch in the Jonah and rock crab fisheries.
There is a risk of interactions with marine mammals in pots and traps used in the crab fishery. Trap gear
is officially determined to be of entanglement risk to humpback and fin whales, so NMFS classified the
New England crab fishery as a Category II fishery (meaning there is occasional incidental mortality and
injury of marine mammals associated with this fishery). Though it is difficult to determine the scale of
risk associated with the crab fishery, Seafood Watch does consider there to be some level of risk due to
the use of similar gear and the spatial and temporal overlap between the fisheries and whales. As
Category II fisheries, participants are required to comply with any take-reduction plans that are
applicable.
Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
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.).
55
The primary bycatch concerns associated with trap fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic are interactions
with marine mammals. Humpback and fin whales are endangered species that are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), so management
measures must be in place in order to comply with protection. 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 North Atlantic 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 entanglement-related serious injuries and mortalities of right, humpback, and
fin whales to zero mortality (10% of PBR) and serious injuries within 5 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 the best efforts from
ALWTRP and the cooperation and compliance of the fishers, the main threats to both humpback and fin
whales continue to be entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes (Waring et al. 2014). Between 2007
and 2011, the minimum annual mortality and serious injury rates of humpback whales was 11.95 per
year, and for fin whales was 3.7 per year (Waring et al. 2014). 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. The management strategy and implementation is therefore ranked as
“moderately effective.”
Subfactor 3.2.2 – 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.
56
There is little to no data collection on bycatch and discarding in the crab fishery, although traps and pots
are considered relatively selective and of low concern. Of greater concern is the possible interaction
with large marine mammals. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, each fisher taking part in a
listed fishery is required to report any incidental encounters with protected species, to accommodate
observers when requested, and to adhere to all relevant take-reduction plans (NMFS 2014b). Currently,
there is no monitoring of marine mammal interactions in the Jonah and rock crab fisheries (NMFS
2014a).
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). Based on the requirement to report interactions with
protected marine mammals and the low concerns associated with crab gear, Seafood Watch considers
research and monitoring of bycatch species to be “moderately effective.”
Rationale
Due to the lack of comprehensive and reliable data regarding large whale/fishery interactions,
monitoring the ALWTRP is challenging. Three of the bigger challenges are 1) large whale entanglements
are often not witnessed or documented by observers or fishers (ALWTRT 2011); 2) even if fishing gear is
recovered from an entanglement incident, it is often difficult to identify or attribute 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 encompass many regulated fisheries spanning a large
geographic range along the U.S. East Coast (ALWTRT 2011).
Despite these 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 the effectiveness of the ALWTRP involves comparing the most recent estimated annual
serious injury and mortality of right, humpback, and fin whales to the respective levels of their PBR and
57
Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG) (ALWTRT 2011). This comparison, on an annual basis, is important
because it can determine the effectiveness of ALWTRP regulations, enforcement, and education/
outreach efforts, and it serves as an indicator of compliance levels (NOAA 2012a). The most recent PBR
estimates (July 2014) for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale is 2.7 whales, and for the fin whale is 5.6
whales (Waring et al. 2014). These estimates indicate that conservation of these species continues to be
a priority (ALWTRT 2011).
Subfactor 3.2.3 – 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
There is no indication that scientific advice is not being followed or incorporated in any region because
they have worked to reduce entanglements. Therefore, this is ranked as “highly effective.”
58
Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow
management 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.
The level of enforcement of compliance with ALWTRP regulations by the New England fisheries is
carried out by the NMFS office of Protected Resources (PRD), NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE),
and marine patrols of each state. The level of enforcement by individual states varies, although states
do carry out enforcement of fisheries activities both dockside and within state waters. Additionally,
state law enforcement agencies work with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and NMFS in federal
waters (NMFS 2011). But due to the importance of protection of right whale populations and the low
level of willingness to address the issue in the emerging crab fisheries, there is need for greater
enforcement. Therefore, it is ranked as “moderately effective.”
59
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:
•
•
•
Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method
Maine/Atlantic Pots
Gear Type and
Substrate
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
Mitigation of
Gear Impacts
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
EBFM
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
Overall Recomm.
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
60
Gear Type and
Substrate
New Hampshire/Atlantic Pots, Non- 3.00:Low
FMP
Concern
Connecticut/ Atlantic Pots, Non3.00:Low
FMP
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
3.00:Low
Concern
Region / Method
Mitigation of
Gear Impacts
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
0.25:Minimal
Mitigation
EBFM
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.00:Moderate
Concern
Overall Recomm.
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Yellow (3.123)
Jonah and Atlantic rock crab are almost exclusively fished with trap gear, and it is generally accepted
that traps have a moderate to low impact on benthic habitats. There are potential concerns with the
volume of traps and pots being used in the New England region, and the impact on the environment
may be underestimated. But the majority of the traps are being used to target lobster and are not
considered in the scope of this assessment when considering the impact of the crab fisheries.
Justification of Ranking
Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
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, 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.
61
Low Concern
The Jonah and Atlantic rock crab trap/pot fisheries are carried out on a variety of benthic habitats,
including complex, hard rocky bottoms and mud, sand, and gravel bottoms. Although single traps are
generally accepted as low impact gear, the sheer volume of traps being fished can have cumulative
effects on bottom habitats (Smolowitz 1998). The impact of the crab fishery is considered
a "low” concern.
Rationale:
It is generally accepted that pots and traps have relatively little impact on benthic habitats and
communities where they are fished (NMFS 2011). Traps are also deployed on a variety of different
substrates, depending on whether the substrates are 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 fisheries tend to deploy single traps because the risk of lines and traps snagging on
the bottom is high. Offshore, 3 to 40 pot trawls are often fished because of the smoother, flatter
substrate. 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, dropped, and hauled to the surface multiple times have a scouring 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).
62
Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
+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.
Minimal Mitigation
Trap gear is generally considered to have a low impact on benthic habitats compared to mobile gear,
and it is thought that the habitats are less vulnerable to damage by trap gear. Although both NMFS and
ASMFC have measures in place to control fishing effort in the region, there is no specific mitigation of
gear impacts on benthic habitats for the Jonah and Atlantic rock crab fishery (Wilson 2012). For this
reason, the fishery is deemed to have "minimal” mitigation.
63
Rationale:
Currently, there are no gear mitigation efforts in the crab fishery in New England. However, there is
evidence that continual hauling and setting of gear plus the sheer amount of gear being fished have a
cumulative effect on benthic habitats (Smolowitz 1998). Under U.S. fisheries legislation, it is required
that essential fish habitat be identified and protected by fisheries management plans (Bannister et al.
2013). To date, crab fisheries have not been subjected to restrictions for protection of essential fish
habitat identified for other fisheries by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC)
(Bannister et al. 2013). As part of the current revision of the 1999 EFH Omnibus Amendment I (NEFMC
2011), a review of the impacts of different fishing gears on fish habitat suggested that trap gear have
low impact on fish habitats. But if trap fisheries are found to be harmful to essential fish habitat,
restrictions could be implemented (Bannister et al. 2013).
Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
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.
64
Moderate Concern
Although North Atlantic right and humpback whales are technically not caught in lobster traps as part of
the overall catch, they are known to interact with trap and pot fisheries in the New England region. 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 fishery on
populations of Jonah and Atlantic rock crabs is not well documented or understood, although there is
some information on landings. 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).
In terms of fully assessing the ecological impacts of the fishery, there are no extensive measures in place
and little research exists to support an ecosystem approach to management. It is unknown
whether Jonah and Atlantic rock crab are exceptional species, although similar species exist within the
region. Therefore, the lack of ecosystem management and research is considered a “moderate”
conservation concern.
65
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 two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this
report for scientific accuracy.
66
References
ADFG 1994. ADFG Wildlife Notebook Series: Dungeness Crab.
ALWTRT.2011. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Monitoring Strategy. NOAA
ALWTRT. 2004. Meeting Summary Document, ALWTRT February 3-4, 2004. Providence, RI, Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Team, National Marine Fisheries Service.
ASFMC 2014a. Public Information Document for the Draft Fishery Management Plan for Cancer Crab.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. August 2014.
ASMFC 2014b. News Release regarding Development of Jonah Crab Fishery Management Plan. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. October 2014.
ASMFC.2012. News Release. 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.2010. Species Profile Atlantic herring. Fisheries Focus, Vol. 19, Issue 8, November/December
2010. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/
ASMFC.2010. Addendum XVI to the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan. Reference Points.
Washington, DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 11pp
ASMFC.2010b.Recruitment Failure in the Southern New England Lobster Stock. American Lobster
Technical Committee Report.
ASMFC. 2009. American Lobster Stock Assessment for Peer Review 09-01 (Supplemental), March 2009.
316 pp.
ASMFC.2008. 2008 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harengus).
ASMFC. 2000. American Lobster Stock Assessment Peer Review Summary Document, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission.
ASMFC. 1997. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for American Lobster. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery Management Report No. 29.
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.
67
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
Carloni, Joshua. New Hampshire Fish and Game. Personal Communication.
Cascorbi, Alice. 2004. Jonah Crab (Cancer borealis). Seafood Watch Seafood Report, Monterey 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.
Cole, T.V.N., Hamilton, P., Henry, A.G., Duley, P., Pace III, R.M., White, B.N., Frasier, T., 2013. Evidence of
a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endangered Species Research. Vol 21:
55-64.
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.
68
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=2fish_id=12
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (12/2011).
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 Inshore Waters of Quebec: DFO, Atlantic Fisheries, Stock Status
Report C4-02.
Gibson, M. 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.. 2010. Use of Herring Bait to Farm Lobsters in the Gulf of Maine.
PLoS ONE 5(4): e10188.
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.
69
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.
Grimley, S. 2012. Jonah crab (Cancer borealis): Overview of Cancer crab species in New England. Gulf of
Maine Research Institute.
Grossman, I., 2014. Personal Communication with Irwin Grossman, Chief Operating Officer, New
England Crab Company.
Haefner, P.A .1977. Aspects of the biology of the Jonah crab, Cancer borealis Stimpson, 1859 in the midAtlantic 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. Naimie. 2000. Modeling the transport of lobster (Homarus americanus) larvae and
postlarvae in the Gulf of Maine. Fisheries Oceanography 9(99-113).
Jeffries. 1966. 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/
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 19802002.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. 1983. Examination of recent changes in Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) Abundance and
Harvesting practices. Maine Department of Marine Resources Lobster Informational Leaflet #10: 7p.
70
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. 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 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.
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
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/
NMFS. 2014b. List of Fisheries Requirements for Category I and II Fisheries. Available at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/#requirements
NMFS. 2014a. 2014 List of Fisheries (LOF). Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/final2014.htm
NMFS.2013. Landings Database. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html
71
NMFS. 2012. Landings Database. Available at
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html
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
NMFS. 2010. Imports and Exports of Fishery Products Annual Summary. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html
NMFS.2009. Large Whale Entanglement and Ship Strike Report.
NMFS. 2005. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Silver Spring, MD,
National Marine Fisheries Service: 138.
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_south
east.pdf
NOAA. 2012. Fisheries Office of Protected Species. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm
NOAA. 2012. Fisheries Office of Protected Species. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm
NOAA.2010. Draft Environmental Impact Statement- Initial Regulatory Impact Review-Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis For Proposed Effort Control Measures For the American Lobster Fishery.
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. Master’s 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.
72
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 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.
Taylor, K. 2014. Personal Communication with Kate Taylor, Senior Fishery Management Plan
Coordinator, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
TRAC. 2009. Gulf Of Maine-Georges Bank Herring Stock Complex. TRAC Status Report 2009/04.
73
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., Rosel, P.E., 2014. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2013. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-228.
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
Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., and Rosel, P.E. (eds.). 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS- NE-219.598 pp.
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, C. 2014. Personal Communication with Carl Wilson, Maine Department of Marine Resources.
Wilson, Carl J. 2005. A cooperative investigation towards an exempted trap to exclusively target Cancer
borealis in Lobster Management Area 1.Completion Report
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.
74
Appendix A
AMERICAN LOBSTER
High
American lobster is considered to have high inherent vulnerability.
Rationale:
Table 3. Inherent resilience of American lobster.
75
Low Concern
Crab fisheries in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts catch lobsters from the Gulf of Maine and
Georges Bank stocks. The Georges Bank (GBK) stock is in favorable condition and, based on the last
ASMFC assessment (ASMFC 2009), the abundance of the stock is high. The reference abundance* in
Georges Bank remained relatively consistent between 1.5 and 2 million from 1982 to 1999, with the
abundance threshold from 2005 to 2007 calculated at 1.9 million. Total reference abundance began to
increase in 2002. Abundance began to decline from 2005 to 2007 (about 33%) but remained relatively
high in 2007 (Figure 3) (ASMFC 2009). But some uncertainties exist about the appropriate biological
reference points (Zhang, Chen and Wilson 2011).
The GOM stock is considered healthy because the reference abundance is above the threshold (ASMFC
2009). The reference abundance in the GOM increased steadily from 1982 to 2000, then declined
slightly, followed by an increase to record levels in 2005. After 2005, reference abundance declined but
is still above the 1982–2003 median (threshold). But some uncertainties exist about appropriate
biological reference points (Zhang, Chen and Wilson 2011).
Because both lobster stocks caught in these fisheries are considered to have healthy abundance but
there are uncertainties in the biological reference points used by fishery managers, we consider lobster
abundance to be a “low” conservation concern.
Rationale:
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 (ASMFC 2009). The reference abundance in
the GOM increased steadily from 1982 to 2000, then declined slightly, followed by an increase to record
levels in 2005. After 2005, reference abundance declined but is still above the 1982–2003 median
(threshold).
76
* Reference abundance is calculated as the actual number of lobsters that are 78+ mm CL (carapace
length) on January 1st plus the number of lobsters that will recruit or molt to that length during the
year. The 78 mm CL was chosen because it is the lower end of 78–82 mm CL that is used in the
assessment model that contains the lowest minimum legal size of 81 mm CL (ASMFC 2009).
Figure 3. Total reference abundance (number of individuals) of American lobster in Georges Bank 1982–2007
(ASMFC 2009).
77
High Concern
The Southern New England 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 (Figure 4) (ASMFC 2009) (ASMFC 2010a) partly due to shell disease (ASMFC
2009) (ASMFC 2010b). Since 2004, abundance levels have stabilized somewhat but continue to be well
below the 1984–2003 threshold (ASMFC 2009) (ASMFC 2010b). Because the Southern New England
American lobster stock has been below threshold levels abundance for several years, the stock is
considered depleted (ASMFC 2009).
Rationale:
Figure 4. Total reference abundance of American lobster in Southern New England 1982–2007 (ASMFC 2009).
78
Atlantic rock crab, Maine/Atlantic, Pots Non-FMP
Atlantic rock crab, New Hampshire/Atlantic, Pots Non-FMP
Low Concern
Recent effective exploitation** (2005–2007) on American lobster in Georges Bank is 0.3, which is below
the effective exploitation threshold of 0.51 (Figure 5) (ASMFC 2009); therefore, fishing levels are
considered sustainable.
In the Gulf of Maine, the annual effective exploitation** rates remained fairly constant between 1982
and 2007, hovering around the threshold of 0.49 (the median between 1982 and 2003), and was slightly
below the threshold in 2007 (0.48) (Figure 6) (ASMFC 2009).
Fishing mortality is deemed “low” concern because it is below the threshold reference points in both
the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.
Rationale:
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. The recent mean effective exploitation rate for 2005–2007 is 0.3 (Figure 5) (ASMFC 2009).
**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. But for the current
report, these updated reference points do not change the current status of the American lobster
assessment or 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 25th 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).
79
Figure 5. Annual effective exploitation rates of American lobster in Georges Bank 1982–2007 (ASMFC 2009).
Figure 6. Annual effective exploitation rates of American lobster in the Gulf of Maine 1982–2007 (ASMFC 2009).
80
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 about whether the fishery
contributes to continued stock declines and depleted status. But based on the recent (2005–2007)
effective exploitation of 0.32, the stock is below the threshold and thus not
experiencing overfishing, despite the fact that it is depleted (ASMFC 2009). The uncertainty surrounding
the stock assessment results in a more conservative ranking of “moderate” concern.
Rationale:
From 1982–2002, the effective exploitation rate in SNE remained fairly constant before declining to
record lows; it remains low and below the management threshold (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Annual effective exploitation rates of American lobster in Southern New England 1982–2007 (ASMFC 2009).
81
< 20%
Grossman 2014).

Atlantic rock crab, Jonah crab US Atlantic

Transcription

Similar documents

info link

my account - Atlantic City Electric

view - Gala Trophies

Terramundi 2016/17 Catalogue

sports splash pots - Gila River Casinos

caribbean invitation-4

GEATA NA CATHRACH Fairgreen Road, Galway G A

Present Your Work at the NJWEA 101st Conference in Atlantic City

How to make... A Thong Crab

Beaubear Credit Union Final Newsletter