Lobster
Conservation Management Team
Area 1
Area 1 LCMT
Lobster Management Plan
June 1, 2001At a meeting of the Area 1 Lobster Conservation Management Team (the Team) on March 13, 2001, the Team voted unanimously to adopt several additional conservation equivalency options in order to present the ASMFC Lobster Management Board and ASMFC Lobster Technical Committee a Plan to achieve the objectives required by Amendment #3. This plan puts forward recommendations to end over fishing by meeting the egg production schedule outlined in Addendum II as well as recommendations to meet the other ten objectives of Amendment 3.
The Team has sought advice of members of the Technical Committee, and debated a varied number of alternate options to meet Objective 1. Discussions with the Technical Committee have suggested that a zero tolerance definition of v-notching and mandatory v-notching would provide close to 9% EPR. Therefore, based on the best available data and modeling results to date, the Area 1 Lobster Conservation Management Team believes that the following proposals will meet the requirements set forth in Amendment #3 and Addendum II to the ASMFC Lobster Fishery Management Plan and achieve a level of egg production very close to 10%. By consensus vote, the Team proposes to adopt a zero tolerance definition of v-notching and mandatory v-notching of all egg-bearing females in Area 1.
Zero Tolerance Definition of V-notching
The Team believes that the current ¼” v-notch requirement is not realizing the full intent of the v-notch law. Upon molting, the original v-notch is reduced as the new shell fills in the notch. After the first molt very few, if any, lobsters would be considered illegal under the current ¼” definition. The Team’s intent is that the lobster be taken out of the fishery in order to provide maximum reproductive enhancement for the resource. If a lobster is v-notched, the v-notch is intended to provide a mechanism to allow proven reproductive lobsters the opportunity to reproduce again because maximum egg production is realized in larger lobsters in the Gulf of Maine. Therefore, the team recommends the strictest “zero-tolerance” definition for v-notching.
Technical reports assess the GOM stock to be at a 35% rate of v-notching. This percentage is believed to be low, and the Team realizes that there is EPR credit to be gained and earned in the model. By changing the ¼” definition of v-notching to a more strict “zero tolerance” definition, the Team recognizes that instantaneous credit in the model could be applied. Although Massachusetts and New Hampshire fishermen believe and participate in v-notching, very little if any credit is given due to the ¼” v-notch law. Specifically, N.H. and Ma. sea-sampling programs record both lobsters observed with a ¼” v-notch as well as “other” v-notched lobsters. Due to the current definition, only the data on the ¼” v-notched lobsters is included in the model. Therefore instantaneous credit could be gained by including these “other” observed v-notched lobsters in the model. The Team believes that, if a stricter definition is used to determine v-notched lobsters, one could credibly realize the EPR credit and adequately protect proven reproductive lobsters.
The Team proposes the following “zero-tolerance” v-notch definition: “V-notched female lobster means any female lobster bearing a v-shaped notch of any size in the flipper next to the right of the center flipper as viewed from the rear of the female lobster. V-notched female lobster also means any female, which is mutilated in a manner, which could hide, obscure or obliterate such a mark. The flipper right of the center flipper will be examined when the underside of the lobster is down and its tail is toward the person making the determination.”
Mandatory V-notching
The mandatory v-notching provision would allow additional credit to be gained from the model as more v-notch lobsters are observed in sea sampling data. Credit in the model would be realized from a mandatory v-notching program as the number of observed v-notched lobsters increases over time. The Team recognizes that the EPR model can not predict the decision of each fisherman to notch or not notch, but in reality there doesn’t have to be 100% compliance in order to get 100% v-notching. The Team and industry point out that five people may handle the same egg-bearing female and that only one person needs to notch. The Team fully believes that with a mandatory v-notching program, by the year 2008, the observed rate will go up close to 100% and that model credit will be realized. The Team also recognizes that regardless of whichever new conservation equivalency is selected, it will take several years for the population to realize the change.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
goals
3.2
4.17
5.14
6.11
7.09
8.06
9.03
10+
Zero tolerance
Reflect instant credit here
Mandatory v-notching
--
Predicted progress
9.x%
The Team believes that increases in v-notching will maintain Area 1 on target with the rebuilding schedule as outlined in Addendum II. However, the Team acknowledges that technical review of increases in v-notching may not meet the 10% EPR goal (estimated 9.x% at 100% v-notching rate) of Amendment #3. Therefore, following the next stock assessment or following a technical review by using another model, it is determined that Area 1 is not on target to reach its EPR goal by 2008, the Team will reconvene by February 1, 2006 in order to consider alternate options such as (but not limited to) lowering of the maximum carapace length size for implementation by January 1, 2007.
Additional Conservation Efforts By The States To Achieve Full 10% EPR
The Team strongly supports the individual area management process (objective 2), as well as the Goal of Amendment #3 which is “to have a healthy American lobster resource and management regime which provides for sustained harvest, maintains appropriate opportunities for participation, and provides for cooperative development of conservation measures by all stakeholders.”(Amendment #3, page 18, 2.1)
The Team would like to highlight additional conservation equivalency measures that the three States have done over and above Amendment #3 requirements, and strongly believe that these measures complement the proposed increased v-notch protection resulting in a Lobster Conservation Management Team Area 1 Plan that will fully realize 10% EPR by 2008. Fishermen have done much to improve their resource, but many of these measures are not quantifiable by the EPR model. Significant changes have been made in the Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts lobster fisheries in addition to those measures required in Amendment #3. There are also many other measures implemented which pre-date Amendment #3 and are not considered in the model. These efforts need to be stated clearly in order for an evaluation from the Technical Committee. The Team strongly feels that the current sole reliance on the EPR model slows forward progress in many ways, and that the other ten objectives of the FMP must be addressed.
Review Of Individual State’s Additional Measures In Area 1 In Relation To The Objectives Set Forth In Amendment #3
Objective 1: Protect, increase or maintain, as appropriate, the brood stock abundance at levels, which would minimize risk of stock depletion and recruitment failure:
The Team believes that the Area 1 proposal has the full and realistic potential to protect, increase and maintain the existing brood stock. In addition, the three States have all implemented the following measures, which the Team believes quantify the Plan:
Maine:
Ø Seed Fund Money - research and buyback of seeded lobsters
Ø No trawling effort
Ø No diving effort
Ø Zero tolerance v-notching
Massachusetts:
Ø 400 commercial licenses that aren’t being used – they have to be active 4 out of the last 5 years
Ø Whiting closures in Cape Cod Bay remove gear and effort - minimizes wet storage
Ø Gillnetters can only possess 100/500 count
New Hampshire:
Ø Zero tolerance v-notching
Ø No trawling for lobsters in state waters
Ø No diving effort
Objective 2: Develop flexible regional programs to control fishing effort and regulate fishing mortality rates:
The Team believes that the 800-trap limit adopted in Amendment #3 represents an effective trap cap. In addition, the three States have all implemented additional fishing effort controls, which the Team believes will better regulate fishing mortality.
Maine:
Ø Established seven lobster zone management councils
Ø Limited Entry in 5 of 7 zones – goal is 30% overall reduction of licenses
Ø 600 trap limit in Zone E – as well as limited entry
Ø 600 trap limit in Monhegan Island management area – Limited licenses and area of bottom
Ø 475 traps in Swans Island conservation area – Limited licenses and area of bottom
Ø Capped increase in number of traps each year
Ø Owner/operator requirement
Ø Real enforcement - tickets, warnings and convictions on lobster related issues
Ø No Sunday fishing June - August- starting 4PM on Saturday afternoons.
Ø Limited recreational fishery to 5 traps
Ø 51/49% majority traps to be fished in home zone - limits effort expansion into previously unfished areas
Ø No diving effort for lobsters
Ø No trawling effort for lobsters
Ø Possession law for all protected lobsters – oversized, eggers, etc.
Ø Demonstrated reduction of number of license and number of tags issued
New Hampshire:
Ø Trap limits 1,200/600 system – reduction of number of traps in water
Ø New entrant can only get the limited license of 600
Ø 5-year residency requirement
Ø 5 trap recreational fishery
Ø Only one set of tags per boat
Massachusetts:
Ø Owner/Operator as licenses are transferred
Ø Limited Entry on licenses
Ø Lobster license holders 1,800 down to 1,500
Objective 3: Implement uniform collection, analysis, and dissemination of biological and economic information; improve understanding of the economics of harvest:
The Team strongly supports scientific research and data collection that is both real time generated and user friendly.
Maine:
Ø 18-year time series of MLA v-notch data!
Ø Greatly improved sea sampling program
Ø Lobster Count Project - juvenile lobster trap survey, same as Massachusetts
Ø Voluntary industry data collection using electronic logbooks
Ø New Trawl survey – first one completed 78 tows of 100 - patterns resemble the landing pattern
Ø Multiple ongoing bottom surveys for recruitment, settlement and juveniles
New Hampshire:
Ø Dive survey done by Fish and Game
Ø Sea sampling
Ø New Trawl Survey
Ø Mandatory logbook
Ø Ongoing trap survey that started in the 60’s
Massachusetts:
Ø Mandatory Catch reports
Ø Trawl Survey
Ø Lobster Count Project - juvenile lobster trap survey, same as Maine
Ø Sea Sampling Program for 30 years
Ø Juvenile program - suction sampling
Objective 4: Maintain existing social and cultural features of the industry wherever possible:
The Team believes that the Area 1 proposal does an excellent job of maintaining existing social and cultural features of the industry. The Maine representatives of the Team would like to highlight the State of Maine’s zone management process and apprentice program as ongoing efforts to address the important maintenance of social and cultural industry features which provide local input to local issues.
Maine:
Ø Lobster Zone Council Management
Ø Apprentice program
New Hampshire:
1,200/600 in NH maintains diversity in the industry
Massachusetts:
Ø Family license transfer
Objective 5: Promote economic efficiency in harvesting and use of the resource:
The Team strongly supports economic efficiency, and the utilization of a Management Plan, which protects the brood stock of the resource and fishery. This is just plain good business for the industry.
Maine:
Ø Promotion council supported by license surcharge
Objective 6: Minimize lobster injury and discard mortality associated with fishing:
The Team strongly emphasizes that the Area 1 trap fishery is an extremely selective fishery. Escape vents serve to reduce interaction with juveniles and other species within the trap.
Ø The legislature in Maine just passed a mandatory runner law (120th session) to reduce culls and improve lobster health
Ø Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts inshore waters - No targeted dragging for lobsters
Ø Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts - Nordmore Grate on shrimp drags
Objective 7: Increase understanding of biology of American lobster, improve data, improve stock assessment models; improve cooperation between fishermen and scientists:
The Team strongly supports cooperative research to increase the understanding of lobster biology. The Team supports sea sampling, juvenile studies, oversize population study and the current expansion of the trawl survey into Maine and New Hampshire. The Team further recommends to the Lobster Management Board that the Technical Committee membership be expanded to include harvester representation.
Objective 8: Evaluate contributions of current management measures in achieving objectives of the lobster FMP:
The Team believes that the management measures in the Area 1 proposal adequately meet the objectives outlined in Amendment #3 of the American Lobster FMP. The Team feels strongly that if one were to achieve the legal definition of Objective #1, through dramatic increases and effort reduction, one would risk counteracting additional goals in the FMP.
Objective 9: Ensure that changes in geographic exploitation patterns do not undermine success of ASMFC management program:
The Team recommends that the Lobster Management Board consider a Plan Amendment that will marry the GOM management area to the technical stock assessment area.
Maine:
Ø The 51/49% split between lobster zones limits the east/west ability of fishermen and thus the spatial expansions. As zone lines run due south, offshore grounds are often not directly out from the inshore zones, limiting spatial expansions into offshore grounds.
New Hampshire:
Ø 1,200/600 limits exploitation of inshore watersObjective 10: Optimize yield from the fishery while maintaining harvest at a sustainable level:
The Team strongly believes that optimum yield and a sustainable resource are dependent upon a balance of management actions that partner industry with science and enforcement. The Team believes that industry acceptance and compliance will be the result. Although v-notching does reduce the yield per recruit, the Team feels that the benefits of retaining a proven reproductive lobster in the system for additional egg extrusions outweigh a one-time loss of yield.
Objective 11: Maintain stewardship relationship between fishermen and the resource:
Stewardship and a sense of commitment to the long-term health and productivity of the entire marine ecosystem are key components of this Plan. This is due to the Plan’s reliance on the protection of the brood stock, the future of the lobster industry. Economic and social costs of enforcement will be reduced as members of the industry take ownership and responsibility for the regulations under which they operate. The Team further emphasizes that industry ownership in the Management Plan will allow for dramatic improvements in both the quality and quantity of essential data, which is the foundation for good management decisions. Better management decisions will be made in the process as a result of the accumulated knowledge and experience of the fishing industry.
Additional Team Recommendations
The Team further recommends to the Lobster Management Board the following issues:
· The Team strongly recommends that the ASMFC follow through on numerous long standing recommendations to evaluate alternate reference points and lobster assessment models. This issue has been debated within lobster management for over a decade, and has been a recommendation of a number of technical reviews including the 1996 Biological Review and 2000 Stock Assessment Peer Review. Without a concerted, adequately funded effort on reference points and assessment models, the lobstermen of Area 1 will continue to doubt the management efforts taken through ASMFC.
· The Team recommends that the Lobster Management Board determine that the enforcement of mandatory v-notching, zero tolerance v-notching and other Plan requirements be made the highest priority. The Team requests that the Lobster Management Board task the Law Enforcement Committee of the ASMFC to work collaboratively with the industry in order to determine additional enforcement concerns.
· The Team recommends that the Lobster Management Board consider a Plan Amendment that will marry the GOM management area to the technical stock assessment area. The Team suggests the relocation of the southern boundary of Area 1 to the 42 degrees N. line. If this can be negotiated with Area 3, EPR credit can be given to the entire GOM stock assessment area. This would enable an LCMT Plan that could be evaluated on a stock area and management area basis. The Team strongly believes that this is a positive step forward for the GOM. Although technically out of the LCMT charge, this would be a big conservation move and should be recognized by the Technical Committee and the Lobster Management Board.
· The Team acknowledges that Amendment #3 does not consider F 10% a target, but rather a threshold, and that the Plan does not contain a rebuilding target or any other management target in excess of F 10%. The Team also acknowledges that until a target is established, providing a lobster stock egg production level in excess of 10% is the only requirement to eliminate over-fishing. Consequently, the Team strongly supports the Technical Committee’s ongoing discussions on the development of a new and reasonable definition of over-fishing.
· The Team strongly supports improvements in the uniform collection, analysis and dissemination of the most recent scientific data or as close to real time data as possible. By fostering the participation of industry in data collection, fishermen will assume ownership in the present and future Management Plans.
· The Team recommends that the Lobster Management Board require that all lobstermen must declare gear type (mobile/trap/dive) on license, and that licenses remain in that declared fishing effort for the calendar year.
· The Team recommends that the Lobster Management Board specifically address recreational gear’s impact on the health of the resource, and that equitable management measures be specifically directed at this fishing effort.