Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW, AND
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
FOR AMENDING
THE ATLANTIC LARGE WHALE TAKE REDUCTION PLAN:
RISK REDUCTION RULE
VOLUME I

Images collected under MMPA Research permit number MMPA 775-1875 Photo Credit:
NOAA/NEFSC/Christin Khan
National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Prepared by: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and Industrial Economics, Incorporated
Final EIS: June 2021
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20235
i

PROPOSED ACTION:
Implementation of amendments to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to reduce the
risk of serious injury and mortality to Atlantic large whales due to incidental interactions with
commercial fishing gear from Maine through Rhode Island and the Northeast portion of LMA 3.
ABSTRACT:
The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) was developed pursuant to Section
118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to reduce the serious injury and mortality of right,
humpback, and fin whales due to incidental interactions with commercial fisheries. NMFS is
preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed amendments to the
ALWTRP regulations (50 CFR 229.32). The proposed gear set modifications are designed to
further reduce the risk and severity of serious injury and mortality to Atlantic large whales due to
incidental interactions with commercial fishing gear.
TYPE OF STATEMENT:
( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Anderson
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Region
55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930
978-281-9328

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................. 1
1.1 Status of Large Whales and the Nature of Entanglements ................................................. 2
1.2 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan & Current Requirements ............................... 6
1.3 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Major Conclusions and Preferred Alternative ................................................................. 13
1.4.1 Biological Impacts of Alternatives ........................................................................... 13
1.4.2 Economic and Social Impacts of Alternatives .......................................................... 16
1.4.3 Preferred Alternative................................................................................................. 18
1.5 Public Comment ................................................................................................................ 21
1.5.1 Public Scoping and Comments Received ................................................................. 21
1.5.2 Public Comments on DEIS ....................................................................................... 22
1.5.3 Response to Comments ............................................................................................. 25
1.6 Changes from the DEIS to the FEIS ................................................................................. 33
1.7 Areas of Controversy ........................................................................................................ 36
1.8 Report Structure ................................................................................................................ 40
1.9 References ......................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................. 43
2.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 44
2.1.1 Statutory and Regulatory Context............................................................................. 44
2.1.2 Current Gear Modification Requirements and Restrictions...................................... 45
2.1.3 Atlantic Large Whale Mortalities and Injuries, 2010 to 2019 .................................. 46
2.1.4 Right Whale Population Decline .............................................................................. 52
2.1.5 Needed Reduction in Entanglement Mortality and Serious Injury ........................... 55
2.2 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................ 61
2.3 References ......................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... 65
3.1 Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 65
3.1.1 Relevant Meetings .................................................................................................... 66
3.1.2 Decision Support Tool Analyses .............................................................................. 73
3.2 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................... 83
3.2.1 Risk Reduction Alternatives ..................................................................................... 88
3.2.2 Gear Marking Alternatives ....................................................................................... 95
3.3 Justification for Regulatory Options Considered ............................................................. 98
3.3.1 Buoy Line Reduction ................................................................................................ 98
3.3.2 Conservation Equivalencies ...................................................................................... 99
3.3.3 Seasonal Restrictions to Buoy Lines that Allow Ropeless Fishing ........................ 102
3.3.4 Weak Links, Weak Inserts, and Weak Rope........................................................... 108
3.3.5 Considering Existing Risk Reduction Credits ........................................................ 111
3.3.6 Selecting Gear Marking and Other Information Gathering Elements .................... 115
3.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ............................................................................. 117
3.5 References ....................................................................................................................... 122
Chapter 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 125
4.1 Protected Species ............................................................................................................ 125
4.1.1 Atlantic Large Whales ............................................................................................ 127
4.1.2 Other Protected Species .......................................................................................... 134
iii

4.1.3 Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Impacted......................................... 139
4.2 Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 139
4.2.1 Identification of Essential Fish Habitat................................................................... 140
4.2.2 Identification of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ............................................ 144
4.2.3 American Lobster Habitats ..................................................................................... 148
4.2.4 Impact of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................... 153
4.3 Human Communities....................................................................................................... 155
4.3.1 Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 156
4.4 Affected Communities ..................................................................................................... 164
4.5 References ....................................................................................................................... 165
Chapter 5 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 175
5.1 Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............................................. 176
5.2 Evaluating Impacts of the Alternatives ........................................................................... 178
5.2.1 Use of NMFS Decision Support Tool..................................................................... 180
5.2.2 Evaluation of Weak Rope ....................................................................................... 181
5.2.3 Impact Designation Descriptions ............................................................................ 182
5.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Risk Reduction Alternatives .......................................... 185
5.3.1 Large Whales .......................................................................................................... 185
5.3.2 Other Protected Species .......................................................................................... 222
5.3.3 Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 227
5.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Gear Marking Alternatives............................................ 231
5.4.1 Large Whales .......................................................................................................... 232
5.4.2 Other Protected Species .......................................................................................... 235
5.4.3 Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 235
5.4.4 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 236
5.5 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................................ 236
5.6 References ....................................................................................................................... 238
Chapter 6 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 242
6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 242
6.2 Analytic Approach: Gear Configuration Requirements ................................................. 244
6.2.1 Development of Model Vessels .............................................................................. 245
6.2.2 Trawling up Gear Conversion Cost ........................................................................ 246
6.2.3 Catch Impacts Associated with Trawling Up Requirements .................................. 251
6.2.4 Summary of Trawling up Cost ................................................................................ 253
6.2.5 Weak Rope Costs .................................................................................................... 256
6.2.6 Other Potential Impacts Associated with Gear Configuration Requirements ........ 257
6.3 Analytic Approach: Seasonal Restricted Area closed to Trap/Pot Buoy Lines .............. 262
6.3.1 Costs of Suspending Fishing................................................................................... 265
6.3.2 Relocation Costs ..................................................................................................... 266
6.3.3 Ropeless fishing ...................................................................................................... 270
6.3.4 Analysis of Specific Restricted Area Scenarios...................................................... 271
6.4 Analytic Approach: Gear Marking Requirements .......................................................... 277
6.5 Analytic Approach: Line Cap Reduction ........................................................................ 279
6.5.1 Alternative Responses to Line Cap Reduction ....................................................... 280
6.5.2 Potential Impacts:.................................................................................................... 282
6.6 Estimated Compliance Costs By Alternative .................................................................. 283
iv

6.7 Social Impact .................................................................................................................. 286
6.7.1 Characterization of Affected Vessels under ALWTRP .......................................... 286
6.7.2 Characterization of Vulnerability and Resilience in Fishing Communities ........... 288
6.8 References ....................................................................................................................... 294
Chapter 7 SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF IMPACT FINDINGS ......................... 296
7.1 Biological Impacts .......................................................................................................... 297
7.1.1 Impacts on Large Whales........................................................................................ 297
7.1.2 Other Biological Impacts ........................................................................................ 299
7.1.3 Comparison of Biological Impacts across Alternatives .......................................... 300
7.2 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................... 301
7.3 Social Impact of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 302
7.4 Integration of Results ...................................................................................................... 303
7.4.1 Comparison of Biological, Social, and Economic Analyses .................................. 303
7.4.2 Final Impact Determinations................................................................................... 304
Chapter 8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS .............................................................. 308
8.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 308
8.1.1 Valued Ecosystem Components ............................................................................. 308
8.1.2 Geographic and Temporal Scope ............................................................................ 309
8.2 VEC Status and Trends ................................................................................................... 310
8.3 Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .......................... 311
8.3.1 Fishery Management Actions ................................................................................. 311
8.3.2 Conservation Management Actions ........................................................................ 313
8.3.3 Other Human Activities .......................................................................................... 315
8.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................ 342
8.5 Cumulative Impacts of Alternatives ................................................................................ 343
8.6 References ....................................................................................................................... 345
Chapter 9 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW & FINAL REGULATORY
FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 361
9.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 361
9.2 Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rules............................................................... 361
9.3 Problem Addressed by Plan ............................................................................................ 366
9.4 Affected Fisheries............................................................................................................ 367
9.5 Regulatory Alternatives .................................................................................................. 368
9.6 Regulatory Impact Review .............................................................................................. 374
9.6.1 Baseline for Comparison......................................................................................... 374
9.6.2 Time Horizon .......................................................................................................... 374
9.6.3 Benefit-Cost Framework ......................................................................................... 374
9.6.4 Economic Analysis of Alternatives ........................................................................ 375
9.7 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................................................................. 386
9.7.1 Basis For and Purpose of the Rule .......................................................................... 386
9.7.2 Changes from Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................................ 387
9.7.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which the Rule Applies
389
9.7.4 Summary of the Action and Significant Alternatives ............................................. 391
9.7.5 Description and Estimate of Economic Impacts on Small Entities, by Entity Size and
Industry ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
v

9.7.6 Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule would impose significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of small entities .................Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.7.7 Assumptions used in evaluating impacts ................................................................ 393
9.7.8 Summary and Conclusions ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.8 References ....................................................................................................................... 394
Chapter 10 APPLICABLE LAWS .......................................................................................... 396
10.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Including Essential
Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 396
10.2 National Environmental Policy Act ............................................................................ 396
10.2.1
Public Scoping .................................................................................................... 397
10.2.2
Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................... 397
10.2.3
Document Distribution........................................................................................ 399
10.2.4
Opportunity for Public Comment ....................................................................... 400
10.3 Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................. 401
10.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act ................................................................................. 404
10.5 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................................... 404
10.6 Administrative Procedure Act ..................................................................................... 404
10.7 Information Quality Act (Section 515) ........................................................................ 405
10.8 Paperwork Reduction Act ........................................................................................... 406
10.9 Executive Order 13132 - Federalism.......................................................................... 406
10.10 Executive Order 12866 ............................................................................................... 407
10.11 Regulatory Flexibility Act ........................................................................................... 407
10.12 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice ....................................................... 408
10.13 Executive Order 13158 - Marine Protected Areas ..................................................... 410
Chapter 11 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS............................................. 411
Chapter 12 DISTRIBUTION LIST......................................................................................... 415
Chapter 13 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND INDEX ........................................................ 419
13.1 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 419
13.2 Acronyms..................................................................................................................... 426

vi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan) includes measures to reduce
the impacts of U.S. fixed gear fisheries on three large whale species – North Atlantic right
whales (hereafter referred to as right whales), humpback whales, and fin whales, as well as on
minke whales. The Plan consists of both regulatory and non-regulatory measures that, in
combination, were designed to reduce the risk of serious injury and death caused by
entanglement in commercial fishing gear to a rate below each species potential biological
removal level (PBR), prescribed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as the
maximum number of animals that can be removed annually while allowing a marine mammal
stock to reach or maintain its optimal sustainable population level. Since the Plan’s
implementation in 1997, the Plan has been modified on several occasions to address the risk of
large whale entanglement in gear employed by commercial fixed gillnet and trap/pot fisheries. In
light of a low population level and persistent mortalities and serious injuries caused by incidental
entanglements at rates above the right whale’s PBR, most of the Plan’s regulatory measures were
designed to reduce the risk of fisheries to right whales, with collateral benefits to humpback and
fin whales. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to modify the Plan, including
additional regulatory requirements, to further reduce the risk of entanglement related mortalities
and serious injuries of right whales in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area
(Northeast Region) lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot gear.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the biological, economic, and
social impacts of alternatives for modifying the Plan, including NMFS' Preferred Alternative and
the Final Rule that would implement that alternative. The biological impacts to large whales
from ongoing or reasonably foreseeable complementary risk reduction measures are also
analyzed for their contribution toward right whale incidental entanglement risk reduction. Those
include trap limits and other measures being implemented to manage the lobster fishery, as well
as measures that will be implemented in Maine exempted areas by the state of Maine and in
Massachusetts state waters by the state of Massachusetts.
The discussion that follows briefly summarizes the FEIS content and key findings. Specifically:
•

•

•

•

•

Section 1.1 provides information on the status of Atlantic large whale species and the
nature of entanglements;
Section 1.2 describes current ALWTRP requirements, as well as the requirements of the
state measures, reasonably foreseeable fishery management measures, and new
regulatory alternatives considered in this analysis;
Section 1.3 summarizes the conclusions of the biological, economic, and social impact
analyses and identifies NMFS' preferred federal regulatory alternative;
Section 1.4 discusses areas of controversy that may influence interpretation of the report's
findings; and
Section 1.5 describes the organization of the report's remaining chapters.
1

1.1 Status of Large Whales and the Nature of Entanglements
Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are listed as
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, and are, therefore, considered strategic
stocks under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Section 118(f)(1) of the MMPA
requires the preparation and implementation of a Take Reduction Plan for any strategic marine
mammal stock that interacts with Category I or II fisheries. A Category I fishery is one in which
the human-caused mortality and serious injury rate of a strategic stock is greater than or equal to
50 percent of the stock's PBR– defined under the MMPA as the maximum number of animals,
not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. A Category II
fishery is one in which the mortality and serious injury rate of a strategic stock is greater than
one percent but less than 50 percent of the stock's PBR. A strategic stock is one that is listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA, is
declining and likely to be listed within the foreseeable future, or is one for which human-caused
mortality exceeds PBR.
Because right whales and fin whales interact with Category I and II fisheries, under the MMPA a
Take Reduction Plan is required to assist in their recovery. The measures identified in the Plan
are also beneficial to the Gulf of Maine humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) population
and Canadian east coast stock of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Humpbacks were
intentionally protected by the Plan because they were listed as endangered until 2016, when the
Gulf of Maine stock was considered sufficiently recovered to be removed from ESA listing.
Currently neither species is listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, or considered a
strategic stock under the MMPA.
The status of each of these species is discussed in Chapter 4 and summarized below.
•

Right Whale: The western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is one of the
rarest of all large cetaceans and among the most endangered species in the world. The
most recent population model estimates a population size of 368 as of 2019 (Pace 2021).
Pettis et al. (2021) gives an estimate of 356 in 2020 removing known mortalities since the
latest population estimate used in the report (366). Since 2019, there have been 10
additional documented mortalities or serious injuries. NMFS believes that the stock is
well below the optimum sustainable population, especially given apparent declines in the
population; as such, the stock's PBR has been set to 0.8 (Pace et al. 2017, Hayes et al.
2020, Pettis et al. 2021, Pace 2021).

•

Humpback Whale: As noted above, the North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) is no longer listed as an endangered species under the ESA but is still
protected under the MMPA. For the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales, the best
population size is 1,396 and the minimum population size is 1,380 at the end of 2017, and
has established a PBR of 22 whales per year (Hayes et al. 2020).

•

Fin Whale: NMFS has designated one population of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
as endangered for U.S. waters of the North Atlantic, although researchers debate the
2

possibility of several distinct subpopulations. NMFS estimates a best population size of
7,418 at the end of 2017, a minimum population size of 6,029, and PBR of 12 (Hayes et
al. 2020)
•

Minke Whale: As previously noted, the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) is not
listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The best estimate of the population of
Canadian east coast minke whales is 24,202 at the end of 2017, with a minimum
population estimate of 18,902 and PBR of 189 (Hayes et al. 2020).

Range-wide, Atlantic large whales are at risk of becoming entangled in fishing gear because the
whales feed, travel, and breed in many of the same ocean areas utilized for commercial fishing.
Fixed fishing gear such as traps and pots and fixed gillnets are set and fished continuously, using
vertical lines that connect buoys at the surface to gear set on the bottom. While fishing gear is in
the water, whales may become incidentally entangled in the lines and the nets that make up
trap/pot and gillnet fishing gear. The effects of entanglement can range from no permanent injury
to some scarring, or serious injury or death. While any interaction would be considered a “take”
under both the ESA and the MMPA, the takes counted against PBR are those that cause
mortalities and serious injuries.

Figure 1.1: Entanglements that resulted in mortality of serious injury, according to the country of origin or country
where the incident was first sighted. Incidents with prorated injuries and where serious injury was averted by
disentanglement response are included as mortalities and serious injuries. The red line represents the current
potential biological removal level (PBR) for the stock (PBR for minke whales is 189 and not pictured due to scale).

Figure 1.1 summarizes all mortality, serious injuries, and serious injuries averted through
disentanglements of right, humpback, fin, and minke whales from entanglements between 2010
through 2019 documented in U.S. and Canadian waters, compared to PBR for each species as
shown by the red line. Note that Canada prioritizes documentation of right whale interactions but
other species are likely underreported. Over this period, documented minke whale mortalities
and serious injuries have been higher than the other large whale species (287), followed by
humpback (268), right (89), and fin whales (67). Of all large whale species, only right whale
serious mortalities and injuries exceed PBR nearly every year. As Figure 1.1 illustrates, PBR has
been exceeded in every year except for one (2013) considering only entanglements in U.S. gear
or entanglements first seen in U.S. waters since 2010. Actual mortalities and serious injuries of
3

right whales in U.S. fisheries are likely higher than the number observed in the Stock
Assessment Reports, with an estimated 64 percent of all mortalities going undetected between
1990 and 2017 (Pace et al. 2021). That is, despite modifications to the Plan (notably including
the use of sinking groundlines effective in 2009; efforts to reduce the number of vertical buoy
lines and an expansion of the Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA), effective in 2014 and 2015)
mortalities and serious injuries of right whales in U.S. gear and first seen in the U.S. at levels
above PBR persist.
In this same timeframe, between 2009 and 2017, Pettis et al. (2018a) observed an increased
calving interval from an average of four to 10 years. Recent low birth rates are an increasing
concern for right whale recovery, with the detection of only 5 births in 2017 (Pettis et al. 2018b),
no births in 2018 (Pettis et al. 2018a), only 7 births in 2019 (Pettis et al. 2020), and 10 births in
2020 (Pettis et al. 2021). During the 2020/2021 calving year there were 17 live calves
documented in 2021 (B. Zoodsma pers. comm.). While the number of births is encouraging, it is
lower than would have been forecasted from the large number of calves born over a decade ago
and follows persistent low birth years that are insufficient to counteract current population
mortality rates (Pace 2021), increasing concern regarding current levels of entanglement
mortality. Many factors could explain the low birth rate, including poor female health (Rolland et
al. 2016, Christiansen et al. 2020) and reduced prey availability (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015,
Johnson et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018).
Entanglement in fishing gear also can have substantial health and energetic costs that affect both
survival and reproduction (Robbins et al. 2015, Pettis et al. 2017, Rolland et al. 2017, van der
Hoop et al. 2017, Hayes et al. 2018a, Hunt et al. 2018, Lysiak et al. 2018, Christiansen et al.
2020).
An obvious change during this period is the increase in entanglement related mortalities and
serious injuries in Canadian gear or first seen in Canada. Since 2010, there has been a
documented change in right whale prey distribution that has shifted right whales into new areas
with nascent risk reduction measures, increasing documented anthropogenic mortality (Plourde
et al. 2019, Record et al. 2019). As described in Chapters 4 and 8, mortalities and serious injuries
by ship strike in Canada and the U.S. have also been documented in recent years. During a
period of lower calving rates, a sharp increase in mortalities and serious injuries by ship strike
and entanglements in Canadian waters, and persistent mortalities and serious injuries of right
whales above PBR in U.S. waters, is not sustainable.
The primary purpose of the alternatives analyzed in this FEIS is to reduce mortality and serious
injury by entanglements in U.S. Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot gear to below
PBR. The vast majority of buoy lines along the east coast belong to lobster and crab trap/pot
fisheries in northeast waters. The 2017 IEC Line Model, which was developed to estimate the
number of buoy lines fished by fisheries managed under the Plan (documentation in Appendix
5.1), estimated 93 percent of the buoy lines in U.S. waters are fished by the Northeast Region
lobster and Jonah crab fishery (IEC 11/9/2019 model run). Because multi-fishery coast-wide
regulations require more scoping and analysis, this FEIS focuses on the northeast lobster and
Jonah crab fisheries to facilitate rapid rulemaking. The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Team (ALWTRT or Team) has been informed of the intention to consider other fixed gear
fisheries, coast-wide during the next ALWTRT deliberations.
4

NMFS estimated in 2019 that to reduce mortality and serious injury below PBR, entanglement
risk across U.S. fisheries needed to be reduced by 60 to 80 percent. As described in more detail
in Chapter 2, there is no gear present or retrieved from most documented incidents of dead or
seriously injured right whales. When gear is retrieved it can rarely be identified to a fishery or to
a location. For the purposes of creating a risk reduction target, NMFS assigned half of these
unknown incidents to U.S. fisheries to calculate the 60 percent minimum target, which assumed
50 percent of all entanglements occurred in the U.S. (i.e., lower bound). The 80 percent upper
bound of the target range considered estimated undocumented mortalities generated by a
population model available at the time that estimates unobserved mortality (Hayes et al. 2020),
and assumed 50 percent of all incidents occurred in U.S. waters. However, given the assumptions
and other sources of uncertainty in the 80 percent target, as well as the challenges achieving such
a target without large economic impacts to the fishery, the ALWTRT focused on
recommendations to achieve the lower 60 percent target.
This risk reduction range discussed in Chapter 2 differs from those presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and those presented to the Team in 2019 due to the
incorporation of new data. New population models now suggest that up to 64 percent of right
whale mortalities and serious injuries are unobserved (Pace et al. 2021), which were used to
estimate new upper bound risk reduction estimates. This FEIS explores updated draft mortality
and serious injury determinations for 2012 through 2020 to determine how the target might
change using more recent information and varying apportionment assumptions. NMFS
considered several new methods for determining a minimum and maximum risk reduction target
by testing different country and cause attributions to see how robust the 60 to 80 percent target is
to these assumptions (see Table 2.4 in Chapter 2). The lower bound estimates ranged from 47 to
66 percent and the upper bound from 78 to 90 percent using data between 2010 and 2018. The
lower of these estimates would assume only 30 percent of entanglements occur in the US and as
low as 50 percent of those would be entanglements at the upper bound. Because it is known
known that unknown and unobserved mortality occurs to some extent, the lowest estimate of 47
percent risk reduction would very likely be insufficient so NMFS is retaining the 60 percent
minimum risk reduction target. For the upper target, our updated analyses demonstrate this target
should be around 80 percent or more. Therefore, 80 percent is still the upper target risk reduction
considered in this FEIS but as new data are finalized the minimum and maximum targets may
change in the future.
Large whale entanglement data and the rationale for the scope of the alternatives considered in
this FEIS are described in greater detail in Chapter 2: Purpose and Need. As mentioned, while
entanglement is a significant source of mortality and serious injury for Atlantic large whales,
other factors influence whale survival. Historically, commercial whaling has presented the
greatest threat to whale stocks, and is largely responsible for reducing the populations of certain
species to endangered status. Broad adherence to a voluntary international ban on commercial
whaling has reduced this threat along the U.S. Atlantic coast. However, other human-caused
threats remain, including primarily collisions between whales and ships, as well as the adverse
effects that water pollution, noise pollution, climate change, offshore wind farm development, oil
and gas development, reductions in prey availability, and mortality and serious injury outside of

5

U.S. waters may have on whale stocks. These threats are discussed further in Chapter 8:
Cumulative Effects Analysis.

1.2 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan & Current
Requirements
In response to its obligations under the MMPA, NMFS established ALWTRT in 1996 to develop
a plan to reduce the incidental take of large whales in commercial fisheries along the Atlantic
Coast. The Team consists of representatives from the fishing industry, state and Federal resource
management agencies, the scientific community, and conservation organizations. The work of
the Team is to provide recommendations to NMFS in developing and amending the Plan.
The ALWTRP seeks to reduce serious injury to or mortality of large whales due to incidental
entanglement in U.S. commercial fishing gear. Because of their low population numbers and
persistent human-caused mortality and serious injury above PBR, Plan measures focus on
reducing the risk of entanglements to right whales while ensuring it benefits other Atlantic large
whale species. In its entirety, the Plan consists of state and federal regulatory components
including restrictions on where and how gear can be set, as well as non-regulatory components,
including research into whale populations, whale behavior, and fishing gear; outreach to inform
fishermen of the entanglement problem and to seek their help in understanding and solving the
problem; enforcement efforts to help increase compliance with Plan measures; and a program to
disentangle whales that do get caught in gear. The Category I and II fisheries currently regulated
under the Plan that this FEIS seeks to modify include the Northeast Region trap/pot American
lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. Chapter 2 of this EIS reviews the current Plan requirements.

1.3 Alternatives Considered
NMFS is currently considering suites of regulatory measures under two alternatives that would
modify existing Plan requirements to address ongoing large whale entanglements. The primary
purpose of the Plan modifications is to reduce the mortality and serious injury of the right whale
in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area (Northeast Region) lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot gear, which fishes approximately 93 percent of the buoy lines in U.S. waters in which
right whales occur, to below PBR. Measures considered include reducing the number of lines in
the water (e.g. via increasing the number of traps per trawl, areas restricted from buoy lines, or a
cap and allocation of buoy lines in federal waters) and reducing mortality and serious injury in
remaining lobster and crab trap/pot buoy lines by specifying a low (no greater than 1,700
pounds/771 kilograms) maximum breaking strength for buoy line or inserts within the buoy line,
depending on gear configurations. The alternatives would affect lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot
fisheries currently covered under the Plan within the Northeast Region. Although the ALWTRT
did not include seasonal buoy line restricted areas in the near-consensus recommendations that
the Team provided to NMFS at their April 2019 meeting, wide application of weak rope and
buoy line reductions were the primary risk reduction elements recommended.

6

Table 1.1: A summary of the regulatory elements of the risk reduction alternatives analyzed in the FEIS, arranging the requirements by lobster management area
and geographic region (where appropriate). The dark gray highlighted text represents regulations that will be implemented by a state or through ongoing or
upcoming fishery management practices. OC = Outer Cape
Component
Area
Alternative 2 (Preferred)
Alternative 3
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
Restricted All existing and new
exemption from fishery management regulations
exemption from fishery management regulations
Areas closures become closed
to buoy lines
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of the
the bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.
LMA 1 Restricted Area, Oct – Jan
Oct – Feb
Offshore ME LMA 1/3
border, zones C/D/E
South Island Restricted
Feb – April: Area from Non-preferred A in DEIS.
Feb – May: L-shaped area closed to buoy lines.
Area
Massachusetts
Credit for Feb-Apr, state water in MRA have a soft
Federal extensions of restricted area throughout MRA
Restricted Area
opening until May 15th, until no more than three whales and LMA 1/OC state waters unless surveys confirm that
remain as confirmed by surveys
right whales have left the area.
Massachusetts
Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH
Restricted Area North
border
border
Georges Basin
Closed to buoy lines May through August.
Restricted Area
3 traps/trawl
Line ME exemption line – 3
Reduction nm (5.6 km), Zones A,
B, F, G
ME exempt area – 3 nm Status quo (two traps/trawl)
(5.6 km), Zones C, D, E
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*, 8 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 4 traps/trawl per one
Line allocations capped at 50 percent of average monthly
Zone A West**
buoy line
lines in federal waters
ME 3 (5.6km) – 6 nm*,
5 traps/trawl per one buoy line
Zone B
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*, 10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per
Same as above
Zones C, D, E, F, G
one buoy line
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 12 nm
20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
Same as above
(22.2 km), Zone A
one buoy line
East**
15 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 8 traps/trawl per
Same as above
Line ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2

7

Component
Reduction
Continued

Other Line
Reduction
Buoy Weak
Link
Weak Line

Area
km), Zone A West**
ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2
km), Zone B, D, E, F
ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2
km), Zone C, G
MA LMA 1, 6* – 12 nm
(22.2 km)
LMA 1 & OC 3 – 12 nm
(5.6 – 22.2 km)
LMA 1 over 12 nm
(22.2 km)
LMA 3, North of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, South of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, Georges Basin
Restricted Area
LMA 2
LMA 3
Northeast Region
ME Exempt State
Waters
ME exemption line – 3
nm (5.6 km)
MA State Waters
NH State Waters
RI State Waters
ME Zone A West**, B,
C, D, E; federal waters 3
– 12 nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
ME Zone A East**, F,
and G; federal waters 3
– 12 nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)

Alternative 2 (Preferred)

Alternative 3

one buoy line
10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per
one buoy line (status quo in D, E, & F)
20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
15 traps/trawl

Same as above

15 traps/trawl

Same as above

25 traps/trawl

Same as above

Year-round: 45 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

May - August: 45 trap trawls; Year-round increase of
maximum trawl length from 1.5 nm (2.78 km) to 1.75nm
(3.24 km)
Same as above

Year-round: 35 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

Same as above
Same as above

Year-round: 50 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)
Existing 18% reduction in the number of buoy lines
Existing and anticipated 12% reduction in buoy lines
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
system
1 weak insertion 50% down the line

Same as above

1 weak insertion 50% down the line

Same as above

Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) in top 75% of line or
full weak line
2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Same as above

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

8

Retain current weak link/line requirement at surface
system but allow it to be at base of surface system or, as
currently required, at buoy
Full weak rope in the top 75% of both buoy lines

Same as above
Same as above
Same as above

Component

Area
MA and NH LMA 1 ,
OC; federal waters 3 –
12 nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
LMA 1 & OC over 12
nm (22.2 km)
LMA 2
LMA 3

Gear
Marking

Alternative 2 (Preferred)
2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Alternative 3
Same as above

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line
One buoy line weak year round to 75%

Same as above
May - August: one weak line to 75% and 20% on other
end. Sep – Apr: two weak “toppers” down to 20%
One 3 ft (91.4 cm) long state-specific colored mark in
surface system within 2 fa of buoy and require
identification tape indicating home state and fishery
woven through buoy line

State Waters

One 3 ft (91.4 cm) long state-specific colored mark in
surface system within 2 fa of buoy in addition to at least
two 1 ft (30.5 cm) marks that must be changed to state
color

Federal waters, except
LMA3

Add one 3 ft (91.4 cm) long state specific colored mark
within 2 fa of the buoy, at least three 1 ft (30.5 cm)
marks that must be changed to state color, and four 1 ft
(30.5 cm) long green marks must be added within 6 in.
of each state specific mark

One 3 ft (91.4 cm) long state-specific colored mark in
surface system within 2 fa of buoy and require
identification tape indicating home state and fishery
woven through buoy line

LMA3

Add one 3 ft (91.4 cm) long black mark within 2 fa of
the buoy line to existing three 1 ft (30.5 cm) marks in
black and add four 1 ft (30.5 cm) long green marks
within 6 in. of each black mark

One 3 ft (91.4 cm) long black mark in surface system
within 2 fa of buoy and require identification tape
indicating home state and fishery woven through buoy
line

*Notes: See 50 CFR 229.32 for delineations of regulated waters and associated terms, such as exempted waters. The 6 mile line refers to an approximation,
described in 50 CFR 229.32 (a)(2)(ii).
**Maine Zone A East is the portion of Zone A that is east of 67°18.00' W and Maine Zone A is west of this longitude.

9

Chapter 3 describes in detail the regulatory alternatives including how they were created and
analyzed in this FEIS. Briefly, NMFS used the Decision Support Tool (DST) created by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center to compare the effectiveness of state and federal regulatory
elements in reducing the risk of entanglement to right whales relative to Alternative 1, the status
quo. The DST aids in the comparison of spatial management measures by calculating right whale
entanglement risk based on three components: the density of lines in the water, the distribution of
whales, and a gear threat model to determine the relative threat of gear based on gear strength
(see Appendix 3.1). The proposed suites of risk reduction elements achieve at least the 60
percent minimum risk reduction target. This target was identified by NMFS as the minimum
target necessary to reduce mortalities and serious injuries to below PBR. Alternative 2
(Preferred) is largely made up of recommendations from the states, the Atlantic Offshore
Lobstermen’s Association, public scoping, and public comment. The alternatives in this FEIS
were modified from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in response to comments
that take into account whale density, safety concerns, and conservation equivalencies. See
Section 1.5 for a summary of comments received and 1.6 for the changes in the alternatives in
this FEIS from the DEIS.
The primary risk reduction features of the selected alternatives are summarized below and
outlined for comparison in Table 1.1. These include some regulatory measures that are ongoing
through state and federal lobster fishery management measures or that will be implemented by
the states only (dark gray) and measures that would be implemented through federal rulemaking
analyzed within this FEIS. For reference, Figures 1.2 and 1.3 show the scope of the Northeast
Region and include the new seasonal restricted areas that would allow fishing without buoy
lines, analyzed under each alternative.

10

Figure 1.2: The trap/pot buoy line closure areas in Alternative 2 (Preferred). LMAs are delineated by the grey lines.
The new South Island Restricted Area would be closed to trap/pot buoy lines from February through April and the
LMA 1 Restricted area from October through January. An expansion of the MRA into Massachusetts state waters to
the New Hampshire border and extended in state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape through at least May 15th,
with a potential opening if whales are no longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal
restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of federal
waters in the Outer Cape LMA from February through March. This change may encourage some ropeless gear
testing and accelerate the development of ropeless fishing and associated long-term benefits to right whales. The
area north and east of the checked line and west of the EEZ encompasses the Northeast Region.

11

Figure 1.3: The buoy line restriction options in Alternative 3 (Non-preferred). There are two different options for a
restricted area south of Cape Cod from February through April, a large restricted area (3a) and an L-shaped
restricted area (3b). The LMA 1 Restricted Area would be from October through February. The Georges Basin
Restricted Area would be from May through August. An extension of the Massachusetts Restricted Area through
May, with a potential opening if whales are no longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal
restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of federal
waters in the Outer Cape LMA from February through March. This change may encourage some ropeless gear
testing and accelerate the development of ropeless fishing and associated long-term benefits to right whales. The
area north and east of the checked line and west of the EEZ encompasses the Northeast Region.

Alternative 1 (No Action): Under Alternative 1, NMFS would continue with the status quo Plan
requirements currently in place (Appendix 2.1).
Alternative 2 (Preferred): This alternative would increase the number of traps per trawl based
on area fished and miles fished from shore in the Northeast Region (Maine to Rhode Island).
Trawling up regulations in all coastal regions would be managed based on distance from shore,
primarily outside of exempt or state waters as detailed in Table 1.1. Under this alternative,
existing closure areas would be modified to be closed to fishing with persistent buoy lines. The
Massachusetts Restricted Area would be expanded into Massachusetts state waters north to the
New Hampshire border from February through April in both state regulations and the final rule.
Additionally, all state waters within the Massachusetts Restricted Area would be closed by
12

Massachusetts until May 15th until surveys demonstrate that whales have left the area. Two new
seasonal restricted areas would be created that would allow fishing without the use of persistent
buoy lines: one in LMA 1 from October through January and one south of Cape Cod from
February through April. Fishing without the use of persistent buoy lines would be allowed during
these seasons, outside of Cape Cod Bay and the Outer Cape Cod Lobster Management area.
Measures also include conversion of a vertical buoy line to weak rope, or insertions in buoy lines
of weaker rope or other weak inserts, with a maximum breaking strength of 1,700 pounds (771
kilograms). This Alternative also includes more robust gear marking requirements that
differentiate buoy lines by state, includes unique marks for federal waters, and expands into areas
previously exempt from gear marking.
Alternative 3: This alternative would reduce the amount of line in the water via a line cap
allocation capped at 50 percent of the lines fished in 2017 in federal waters throughout the
Northeast except in offshore LMA 3. A seasonal increase in the minimum traps per trawl
requirement would be implemented in LMA 3. Additionally, under this alternative, existing
closures would be modified to allow fishing without the use of persistent buoy lines. The
Massachusetts Restricted area would be extended into state waters north to the New Hampshire
border and the entire area would allow a soft closure through May, opening if surveys
demonstrate whales have left the restriction area. Three new seasonal restricted areas would be
created, including a longer seasonal restricted period for the LMA 1 Restricted Area, an extended
restricted period for the South Island Restricted Area, and a summer restricted area north of
Georges Bank within Georges Basin. Fishing without the use of persistent buoy lines would be
allowed during these seasons, outside of Cape Cod Bay and the Outer Cape Cod Lobster
Management area. Additional measures include conversion of the top 75 percent of all lobster
and crab trap/pot buoy lines outside of LMA 3 to weaker rope with a maximum breaking
strength of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms). Within LMA 3, buoy lines would be required to
convert the top 20 percent of all lines to a maximum of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) breaking
strength or the equivalent with a seasonal requirement for the extension of one of two weak buoy
lines down to 75 percent. The alternative also includes more robust gear marking throughout the
buoy line that differentiates buoy lines by state and fishery and expands into areas previously
exempt from gear marking.

1.4 Major Conclusions and Preferred Alternative
Biological Impacts of Alternatives
As delineated in Table 1.1, gear modification requirements, buoy line seasonal restricted areas,
and gear marking are key components of the ALWTRP modifications under consideration.
Section 5.3 of this FEIS discusses the potential impact of these requirements on reducing the risk
of large whale entanglements and associated mortality and serious injury. The major strategies to
reduce risk include:
Line Reduction Requirements: Measures to reduce the number of buoy lines fished benefit
large whales by reducing co-occurrence and associated opportunity for entanglement in buoy
lines and associated gear. Both alternatives include requirements to increase the minimum
number of traps per trawl in the Northeast to reduce the number of vertical buoy lines in the
13

water without necessarily having to reduce the number of traps. The 50 percent cap for line
allocations in federal waters considered in Alternative 3 would reduce the number of lines fished
but would allow states and their permitted fishermen to choose their own strategies for achieving
line reduction (i.e. trawling up, ropeless on one end, trap reductions) rather than specifying how
gear would need to be configured.
Seasonal Restricted Areas: Seasonal restricted areas, which are open to fishing without buoy
lines but closed to fishing with persistent buoy lines, are intended to protect areas of predictable
seasonal aggregations of right whales. The potential regulatory changes analyzed include several
restrictions on when and where trap/pot gear can be set with persistent buoy lines. Two existing
closures to trap/pot fishing would be modified to be closed to fishing trap/pot gear with
persistent buoy lines, allowing “ropeless” fishing. Ropeless fishing is usually done by storing
buoy lines on the bottom and remotely releasing the buoy to retrieve the line when fishermen are
on site to haul in their trawl of traps, or other bottom gear. Alternative 2 (Preferred) considers
two new seasonal restricted areas and Alternative 3 proposes three new seasonal restricted areas.
Both alternatives would expand the MRA north into LMA 1 state waters to the New Hampshire
border.
Weak Line Requirements: The potential regulatory changes analyzed include provisions to
require that lobster and crab trap/pot gear modify buoy lines to use rope that breaks at a
maximum of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) for substantial lengths of the buoy line or to require
weak insertions at varying depths on the buoy line. The specified maximum strength of rope or
weak inserts is based on a study that suggested that, if a right whale does become entangled, it is
more likely to exert enough force to break the rope before a severe entanglement occurs,
reducing risk of serious injury or mortality.
The general objective of the risk reduction elements analyzed is to use feasible measures that
limit the frequency and severity of interactions between whales and regulated trap/pot gear in the
Northeast. The measures assessed were selected to reduce risk of right whale mortality and
serious injury caused by entanglement in the lobster and crab trap/pot fisheries in the northeast
by at least 60 percent in order to achieve PBR. The measure of risk reduction used is a product of
the spatiotemporal distribution of lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot buoy lines, predicted right
whale habitat density (Roberts et al. 2020), and risk of different gear configurations. In
developing the alternatives, the DST was used as described in Chapter 3 to estimate that
Alternative 2 (Preferred) achieves greater than 60 percent risk reduction (at least 68 percent with
the inclusion of the MRA credit) and Alternative 3 achieves over 70 percent risk reduction.
Risk reduction was an essential measure for selecting alternatives that are sufficiently broad to
reduce right whale serious and mortality below PBR. The biological impact analysis uses both
quantitative (produced by the DST) and qualitative indicators to facilitate a comparison of the
regulatory alternatives for all large whales as related to the objectives above. First, percent
reduction of buoy lines and reduction in co-occurrence between whales and buoy lines to reduce
entanglement likelihood. Second, the mean line strength and change in gear threat of rope in
buoy lines that are weakened to reduce the likelihood of a serious injury or mortality in the event
of an entanglement. The co-occurrence value estimated in the NMFS DST used in this FEIS is an
index, integrated across the northeast spatial grid, indicating the degree to which whales and the
14

buoy lines employed in lobster and crab trap/pot fisheries coincide in the Northeast Region
waters subject to the Plan. Biological impacts anticipated are a reduction in buoy line and whale
interactions, characterized by the percentage reduction in the overall co-occurrence indicator
each alternative would achieve. Habitat density models produced by Duke University were used
to examine co-occurrence for right, humpback, and fin whales (Roberts et al., 2020). Cooccurrence does not consider the risk of different gear configurations, which is integrated into
the total risk reduction estimate.
Table 1.2: The summary of all quantitative measures for each alternative, including the percent change in annual
buoy lines, reduction in co-occurrence, and change in line strength and gear threat due to weak line measures. The
risk reduction and co-occurrence estimates with and without the credit for the implementation of the MRA are
shown according to risk reduction estimates in Chapter 3 (with the upper and lower bound estimates provided for
weak inserts) and the Biological Impact Analysis in Chapter 5, which used only the 2017 baseline without the MRA
credit to compare the alternatives.
1
2
3
Alternative:
(i.e. baseline)
(Preferred)
(Non-preferred)
Line Reduction
% Reduction
% Reduction
Risk Reduction

60%

Risk Reduction (with MRA Credit)

69% – 73%

Line Reduction

7%

7%

Co-Occurrence

% Reduction
54%

% Reduction
60%

Right Whale

72%

Right Whale (with MRA Credit)

65%

Humpback Whale

12%

19%

Fin Whale

14%

17%

1976

1753

Change in Line Strength

9%

19%

Change in Gear Threat

17%

29%

Weak Line
Mean Line Strength

2162

The results of the biological impact analysis are summarized in Table 1.2 and evaluate the
percent reduction in buoy lines, reduction of co-occurrence of buoy lines, and the change in gear
threat from buoy lines under each action alternative relative to the no action alternative
(Alternative 1). The percent reduction in line is estimated to be approximately seven percent
under both alternatives but differ in the amount of estimated co-occurrence reduction between
buoy lines and large whales.
•

•

Alternative 2 (Preferred), which includes broad trawling up requirements and two new
seasonal restricted areas closed to lobster and Jonah crab buoy lines, is estimated to yield
a reduction in right whale co-occurrence of approximately 54 to 65 percent, depending on
whether the MRA is included (i.e. the baseline model chosen).
Alternative 3 includes a 50 percent line cap allocation in federal waters, trawling up
requirements in LMA 3, and additional seasonal restricted areas and is estimated to
reduce co-occurrence by approximately 60 percent.

Both alternatives also convert a portion of buoy line from full strength rope to weakened rope
that either is manufactured with a maximum breaking strength of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms)
15

or includes inserts with the same maximum breaking strength spaced throughout the line. The
baseline mean rope strength is estimated at 2,162 pounds (981 kilograms) with a skewed
distribution where most estimated breaking strengths are between 1,000 and 4,000 pounds (453
to 1,814 kilograms), with some upwards of 8,000 pounds (3,628 kilograms) or more. For this
analysis, inserts placed at least every 40 feet (12.2 meters, i.e. equal to or shorter than the
average length of an adult right whale) are considered to be equivalent to full weak rope.
•

•

Alternative 2 (Preferred) proposes weak inserts in all buoy lines, but very few inserts
relative to inserts every forty feet. Alternative 2 will reduce line strength by nine percent
for an average of 1,976 pounds (896 kilograms) per buoy line. Within this alternative,
weak rope is a precautionary measure to reduce serious injury and mortalities if whales
are entangled. Weak insertions are required down to 50 percent in the rope in nearshore
areas but only down to 33 percent in offshore areas due to fishermen’s concern that the
rope poses safety risks and increased chances of gear loss when fished with heavier
offshore gear.
Under Alternative 3 reduces line strength by 19 percent to an average 1,753 pounds (795
kilograms) per buoy line. Under this alternative, most areas would require full weak line
in the top 75 percent of all buoy lines with the exception of LMA 3.

Weak rope should reduce the severity of entanglements for right whales, fin whales, and to a
lesser extent humpback whales, but would not reduce the encounter rates and associated risk of
entanglement.
In addition to impacts on large whale species, changes to Plan regulations may affect other
aspects of the marine environment, including other protected species and habitat. Analysis of
these issues, addressed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this FEIS, suggests no significant differences
among Alternatives Two and Three (Preferred and Non-preferred, respectively) with respect to
impacts on habitat because the impacts are generally expected to be minor. The alternatives
differ, however, with respect to the ancillary benefits that would be afforded to other protected
species. These differences stem from the extent to which the alternatives would mandate
requirements, such as fewer buoy lines, that would prove to benefit other whales and sea turtles.

Economic and Social Impacts of Alternatives
Chapter 6 evaluates the economic and social impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 relative to the status
quo (Alternative 1), including a yearly distribution of the compliance costs for the six years
following implementation. For the purpose of summarizing and comparing the economic impact
of the alternatives, this discussion will focus on initial incremental implementation costs of the
two action alternatives. Additionally, although the risk reduction analysis considered the
contribution of fishery management, state and federal risk reduction measures toward achieving
the target risk reduction, the economic analysis considers only the costs of the federal rules that
would be implemented. The costs of fishery management measures that are being phased in or
are reasonably foreseeable through other regulatory actions are not analyzed in the FEIS.
The first year costs of all new federal regulatory measures for Alternative 2 including gear
marking, weak rope, restricted areas, and trawling up costs range from $9.8 million to $19.2
16

million. As described in Chapter 6, the range of costs depends on assumptions about
catch/landings loss caused by trawling up and about whether fishermen choose to remove lines
or relocate due to buoy line restricted areas. Year one compliance costs for Alternative 3 range
from $32.8 million to $44.6 million. Thus, the costs associated with Alternative 2 are well under
one third the total costs associated with Alternative 3.
Alternative 2 achieves less reduction in co-occurrence between buoy lines and large whales than
Alternative 3. The co-occurrence model suggests right whale co-occurrence would be reduced by
approximately 65 percent with the MRA credit (54 percent without). The costs associated with
the co-occurrence reduction (trawling up and buoy line restricted area) under Alternative 2 range
from $2.9 million to $10.8 million (Table 1.3), depending on implementation assumptions (buoy
lines relocated vs. buoy lines removed). For every unit of co-occurrence reduction, the costs of
Alternative 2 is estimated at $54,000 to $199,000.
Alternative 3 performed better at reducing large whale co-occurrence than Alternative 2,
achieving a co-occurrence reduction of 60 percent. This alternative would increase the likelihood
of achieving the higher target that takes into account estimated right whale mortalities. However,
the first year costs associated with co-occurrence reduction in Alternatives 3 (trawling up, buoy
line restricted area, federal water line caps) are substantially higher, ranging from $7.8 million to
$19.5 million dollars; or $130,000 to $325,000 for each unit of co-occurrence reduction. That is,
each risk reduction unit of Alternative 3 would cost more than two or three times the cost per risk
reduction unit in Alternative 2.
Analysis of the weak rope modification measures are similar, with Alternative 3 performing
better but at a high cost. Final modifications in Alternative 2 would weaken the rope in buoy
lines by approximately 9 percent, with an estimated cost of $2.2 million dollars, about $250,000
for each percent of rope strength reduction (Table 1.4). Alternative 3 would weaken rope in buoy
lines by 19 percent, with an estimated cost of $10.6 million or about $557,000 for each percent
of rope strength reduction.
Table 1.3: A summary of initial compliance costs associated with trawling up, buoy line closures, and a line cap
(2020 dollars) compared to co-occurrence reduction for each alternative without the MRA credit.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Trawling Up Lower
$1.6 million
$1.0 million
Trawling Up Upper
New Buoy Line
Closure Lower
New Buoy Line
Closure Upper
Line Cap Lower

$8.8 million

$2.0 million

$1.3 million

$3.0 million

$2.0 million

$4.1 million
$3.9 million

Line Cap Upper

$13.4 million

Total Lower

$2.9 million

$7.8 million

Total Upper

$10.8 million

$19.5 million

17

Co-occurrence
Reduction Score

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

54%

60%

Chapters 6 and 9 provide a full analysis and comparison of the economic impacts of federally
regulated components of the alternatives. While this comparison of the costs of implementation
of the risk reduction elements in each action alternative is an oversimplification, it demonstrates
that Alternative 2 achieves the purposes laid out in Chapter 2 of this FEIS while minimizing the
potential economic impacts of the final modifications to the Plan. That is, while Alternative 3
was estimated to achieve higher co-occurrence reduction and risk reduction than the preferred
alternaitve, both the total costs and per-unit risk reduction costs were much higher than the
selected alternative and the implementing measures in the final rule. Therefore, Alternative Two
achieves the purpose and need for action, but with less economic impact on all regulated entities.
Table 1.4: A summary of annualized Federal Plan modification compliance costs related to weak line.
Percent reduction in
First year cost of
rope strength
converting to weak rope
9
$2.2 million
Alternative 2
Alternative 3

19

$10.6 million

According to the estimation in the IEc Vertical Line Model, there are 3,970 vessels in lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region except for Maine exempt waters (which
will be regulated by the state of Maine). These represent 3,460 unique entities including 3,458
small entities. Impacts do not appear to be disproportionate across small and large entities. These
vessels fish for lobster and Jonah crab. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, gear marking and weak rope
requirements would affect every lobster and Jonah crab vessel fishing in the Northeast Region.
Line reduction measures (i.e. trawling up) under Alternative 2 would affect 1,206 vessels,
slightly fewer than the 1,565 vessels affected by the Alternative 3 line reduction measures (line
caps, trawling up in LMA 3). Federally regulated seasonal buoy line closures of Alternative 2
would affect up to 256 vessels, compared to more than 501 vessels affected by the buoy line
closures under Alternative 3. Chapter 6 provides further details on the economic impacts of the
Alternatives.
Community impacts vary across the region, with more vulnerable communities in mid-coast and
Southeast Maine, where the lobster fishery is a major economic driver. The value of 2020 lobster
landings in Hancock and Knox Counties each exceeded $100 million. Southern Maine and New
Hampshire have a more diversified economy, making communities more resilient to adverse
economic impacts that may stem from Plan modifications. Similarly, Massachusetts and Rhode
Island communities may also be resilient due to diversified economies, although revenues from
Take Reduction Plan fisheries exceed $15 million per year in some counties.

Preferred Alternative

18

NMFS has identified Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative in this FEIS. The alternative
includes measures largely drawn from proposals from the Team, New England states, input from
fishermen, and public comments. Measures were aggregated and evaluated using the DST, which
estimated that Alternative 2 would achieve at least a 60 percent risk reduction in the northeast
lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries through a substantial reduction in entanglement risk via
co-occurrence and the reduction in threat of severe entanglement through the introduction of
weak rope or inserts into buoy lines. Alternative 2 includes concurrent fishery management
measures and measures implemented by Maine and Massachusetts for fishermen in exempted or
state waters that would reduce entanglement risk to right whales. Alternative 2 achieves the
minimum target estimated to meet PBR based on document right whale entanglement incidents.
Finally, although the Alternative is not identical to the recommendations that the ALWTRT
made to NMFS in April 2019 Team meeting (Table 3.1), they align with the basic principles
within those recommendations:
•
•
•

They were estimated by the DST to achieve at least 60 percent risk reduction in the
Northeast Region lobster and crab trap/pot fisheries
Risk reduction is distributed across jurisdictions
Measures primarily include line reductions through trawling up and requiring weak rope
or weak inserts

Modification of existing restricted areas to allow ropeless fishing without the use of persistent
buoy lines was included to support fishermen’s participation in the development of ropeless
fishing methods that are feasible under commercial fishing conditions. Two new seasonal
restricted areas that would allow ropeless fishing are included in the Preferred Alternatives. One
is a large South Islands Restricted Area south of Cape Cod and the LMA 1 Restricted Area was
included to boost the LMA 1 risk reduction toward the target. Both are areas of predictable right
whale aggregations that would provide valuable protection to whales analogous to the protection
afforded by the MRA. The Preferred Alternative and Final Rule would also expand the size of
the MRA north into Massachusetts State waters to the New Hampshire border.
Analysis of Alternative 2 using the DST estimated a high reduction in right whale co-occurrence
(65 percent, 54 without the MRA). Consistent with past analyses of Plan modifications, cooccurrence is considered a proxy for risk, as reducing co-occurrence would reduce the
opportunity for encounters between whales and U.S. trap/pot buoy lines. Alternative 2 also
includes precautionary weak insert and weak rope requirements across all lobster and crab
trap/pot trawls, reducing line strength by nine percent and gear threat by 17 percent. The broad
application of these measures to weaken rope across the area is resilient to changes in right whale
distribution. Finally, an economic analysis of the measures that would be implemented under
Federal rulemaking under Alternative 2 would have a much lower economic impact relative to
the federal measures under Alternative 3.
The public welfare benefits associated with increased whale protection are likely to be similar
across Alternatives Two and Three. As noted, the analysis measures the change in whale
protection offered by a given alternative as a change in the co-occurrence of whales and buoy
lines as well as by the reduction in mean line strength and threat of buoy lines to reduce the
severity of entanglement injuries. By these measures, Alternative 3, with the largest number of
19

restricted areas, offers the greatest protection to all large whales unless the MRA credit is taken
into account within Alternative 2. This Alternative is estimated to reduce co-occurrence by 60
percent for right whales, 19 percent for humpback whales, and 17 percent for fin whales. The
buoy lines in the Northeast would be weakened by 19 percent and the gear threat of those lines
would be reduced by an estimated 29 percent. Alternative 2 offers less benefit, with a reduction
in co-occurrence without consideration of the MRA of 54, 12, and 14 percent for right,
humpback, and fin whales respectively. However, the MRA is critical to right whale
conservation, the Team recommended this credit in the final rule, and it was implemented shortly
before the 2017 buoy line baseline year. With the MRA credit, co-occurrence is reduced by
approximately 65 percent under Alternative 2. Buoy lines would be weakened by nine percent
and gear threat of those lines by 17 percent. These biological benefits to whale populations have
socioeconomic implications for the general public. Increasing whale populations would have a
positive impact on the consumer surplus derived from whale watching (a use benefit) and may
increase producer surplus for operators of whale watch vessels. Likewise, whale conservation
may enhance intrinsic values that society holds for healthy, flourishing whale populations.
NMFS has considered the benefit and cost information presented above and designated
Alternative 2 as its Preferred Alternative. The reduction in co-occurrence achieved under this
alternative is considerable, particularly when the MRA credit is included as recommended by the
ALWTRT. The broad use of line reduction and weakened line across most vessels that fish in the
Northeast Region would be resilient to the potential shifts in right whale distribution and density.
The reduction in co-occurrence achieved under Alternative 3 is greater than that achieved under
Alternative 2 (Preferred) when compared using the same baseline (i.e. without the MRA
restricted area) but at nearly three times the cost, greater uncertainty regarding how allocations
would be applied and how fishermen would react, and how implementation and reaction would
affect risk seasonally in response to a 50 percent line cap allocation in federal waters. Alternative
3 applies more restricted areas and even greater percent reduction in buoy line strength,
compared to Alternative 2. Weaker line across most vessels that fish in the Northeast Region is
resilient to the potential continued shifts in right whale distribution and density. The inclusion of
additional buoy line closures that are larger in size or time period may also provide greater
benefit to whales. However, the implementation costs of Alternative 2 are at least two thirds
lower than the costs of implementing Alternative 3, making Alternative 2 the most cost-effective
of the alternatives. Additionally, the measures in Alternative 2 were derived primarily from
proposals submitted by the states, from the public comment period, and were informed by
extensive outreach with fishermen in those states and in the LMA 3 offshore fleet. The measures
are therefore more likely to be feasible and result in higher compliance because of fishermen’s
input on the development of the measures.
NMFS believes that Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, addresses the Purpose and Need for
Action stated in this FEIS, incorporating measures that will help to conserve large whales by
reducing the potential for and severity of interactions with commercial fishing gear that may lead
to mortalities and serious injuries. Included are region wide measures that will be resilient to
shifting whale distribution, informed by stakeholders and therefore considered feasible, underlaid
by seasonal restrictions that protect predictable aggregations of right whales, and supplemented
by state conservation measures that will be implemented before or simultaneously by

20

Massachusetts and Maine. On this basis, NMFS believes that Alternative 2 (Preferred) offers the
best option for achieving compliance with MMPA requirements.

1.5 Public Comment
Public Scoping and Comments Received
On August 2, 2019, we published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement and Request for Comments regarding Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
Modifications (84 FR 37822). As part of the scoping process, we held eight public meetings at
locations around New England between August 8 and 21, 2019:
1. Thursday, August 8, 2019—Narragansett, RI, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. URI Graduate School of
Oceanography, Corless Auditorium, 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882
2. Monday, August 12, 2019—Machias, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. University of Maine at
Machias, Performing Arts Center, 116 O’Brien Avenue, Machias, ME 04654
3. Tuesday, August 13, 2019—Ellsworth, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Ellsworth High School
Performing Arts Center, 24 Lejok Street, Ellsworth, ME 04605
4. Wednesday, August 14, 2019—Waldoboro, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Medomak Valley High
School, 320 Manktown Road, Waldoboro, Maine 04572
5. Thursday, August 15, 2019—Portland, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. South Portland High School,
637 Highland Ave., South Portland ME, 04106
6. Monday, August 19, 2019—Portsmouth, NH, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Urban Forestry Center, 45
Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, NH 03801
7. Tuesday, August 20, 2019—Gloucester, MA, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. NMFS Greater Atlantic
Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
8. Wednesday, August 21, 2019—Bourne, MA, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Upper Cape Cod Regional
Technical School, 220 Sandwich Rd., Bourne, MA 02352
These eight public meetings were attended by more than 800 stakeholders. We received more
than 89,200 written comments during this process, of which the majority were campaign
postcards organized by various non-governmental groups, including Natural Resources Defense
Council (39,559), Conservation Law Foundation (859), Defenders of Wildlife (8,755), as well as
various other online campaigns (39,805). We also received letters from each New England
state’s fishery management organization, from the Marine Mammal Commission, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, the Maine Congressional delegation, and a Maine State
representative. Four fishing industry representatives sent comments by mail or email, and we
received more than 50 unique letters from fishermen providing details about their fishing
practices by mail, as well as 125 form letters. By email, we received more than 120 unique
comments, including 30 emails from fishermen or fishing families. Eleven representatives from
environmental organizations sent letters and emails, and we received more than 89,000 emails
associated with at least 12 non-governmental organizations’ campaigns. For a complete list of
comments and how they were addressed, please see Appendix 1.1 and Volume 3.
After receiving and reviewing these comments, we developed the Final Rule to Amend the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to Reduce Risk of Serious Injury and Mortality to
21

North Atlantic Right Whales Caused by Entanglement in Northeast Crab and Lobster Trap/Pot
Fisheries and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Public Comments on DEIS
We published the Proposed Rule to Amend the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to
Reduce Risk of Serious Injury and Mortality to North Atlantic Right Whales Caused by
Entanglement in Northeast Crab and Lobster Trap/Pot Fisheries and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on December 31, 2020. A 60-day public comment period began on December 31,
2020, and ended on March 1, 2021 (85 FR 86878, December 31, 2020).
Oral Comments
In January 2021, we held four public information sessions and in February 2021, we held four
public hearings, all virtual due to the global pandemic. The sessions were organized by region,
though everyone was welcome to attend any session. Although the purpose of the January
meetings was to provide information and answer questions, we accepted oral comments on the
proposed rule and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) at all eight meetings. See
Tables 1.5 and 1.6 for a breakdown of participants that attended the information sessions and
public hearings.
Information Sessions
1. Rhode Island, Southern Massachusetts and LMA3, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 6:30-8:30
pm
2. Massachusetts (Outer Cape and LMA1) and New Hampshire (LMA1), Wednesday,
January 13, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
3. Southern Maine, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
4. Northern Maine, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
Table 1.5: Nightly attendance for the proposed rule and DEIS information sessions held in January 2021
Session
Participants
Jan. 12, RI, Southern MA, LMA3
79
Jan. 13, Outer Cape MA, LMA1, MA and LMA1 NH
79
Jan. 19, Southern Maine
73
Jan. 20, Northern Maine
85
Total Attendees
316
Total Unique Registrants
230
Attended 1 Session
166
Attended 2 Sessions
48
Attended 3 Sessions
10
Attended all 4 Sessions
6
Attended more than one session
64

Public Hearings
1. Rhode Island, Southern Massachusetts and LMA3, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 6:308:30 pm
2. Massachusetts (Outer Cape and LMA1) and New Hampshire (LMA1), Wednesday,
February 17, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
3. Southern Maine, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
22

4. Northern Maine, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
A total of 211 people ask questions or provided comments through these informational sessions
and public hearings. Of these, at least 59 identified themselves as fishermen on the calls. About
77 commenters voiced support for this rule or strengthening this rule, while 44 generally
opposed the rule or questioned the need for a rule. Many people had questions or wanted
clarification on particular parts of the rule, but did not specifically voice either support or
opposition.
Table 1.6: Nightly attendance for the proposed rule and DEIS public hearings held in February 2021
Session
Participants
Feb. 16, RI, Southern MA, LMA3
112
Feb. 17, Outer Cape MA, LMA1, MA and LMA1 NH
123
Feb. 23, Southern Maine
234
Feb. 24, Northern Maine
344
Total Attendees
813
Total Unique Registrants
635
Attended 1 Session
517
Attended 2 Sessions
76
Attended 3 Sessions
24
Attended all 4 Sessions
18
Attended more than one session
118

To see summaries of the comments made at public information sessions and hearings, please see
Appendix 1.1 and Volume 3. Table 1.7 below summarizes the commenters and the key themes of
their statements. Responses to comments are available in Appendix 1.1.
Written Comments
We received 171,213 comments on the Proposed Rule and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) through the comment portal. Of these, six comments from Non-Governmental
Organizations were entered as counting for more than one comment:
● Pew Charitable Trusts: 47,699
● Conservation Law Foundation: 1,192
● Humane Society of the U.S: 15,922
● Oceana: 18,440
● Natural Resources Defense Council: 33,045
● Riverkeepers: 4
Five additional comments from Non-Governmental Organization were entered as one comment,
but had thousands of signatures attached:
● International Fund for Animal Welfare: 31,912
● Whale and Dolphin Conservation: 3,629
● Environment America: 11,727
● Center for Biological Diversity: 26,594
● Environmental Action: 11,135
All of the above-referenced comments, which represent up to 201,269 people, were in favor of
stronger regulations to protect North Atlantic right whales. They strongly favored the following
23

measures: longer and larger restricted areas, increased gear marking, transition to ropeless gear,
and a risk reduction target of more than 60 percent. While many were in favor of weak rope or
weak link requirements, many also voiced concerns that 1700 lb breaking strength has not been
proven to reduce entanglements and could still severely entangle juveniles and calves. In
addition, the vast majority urged NMFS to use the most updated population data in setting risk
reduction targets and recommended the use of emergency measures to take action immediately.
After accounting for the bulk submissions, we received 53,585 comments uploaded through the
regulations.gov portal, as well as 9 comments emailed directly to our office, 3 of which were
added to Regulations.gov, and are included in the 53,585 total above. After running a
deduplication analysis, identifying additional campaign emails not detected by the deduplication
analysis, and reviewing the entries for double submissions or submissions of supporting
documentation separate from the original comment letter, we received approximately 1,076
unique comments that were not clearly part of a coordinated campaign. We received 28
comments from academic/scientific individuals or organizations, 2 federal agencies, 1 federal
resource manager, 2 fishery management associations, 10 fishing industry associations, 2
manufacturers, 71 non-governmental organizations, 617 members of the public, 300 fishermen, 2
representatives from other industries, 32 state/federal legislators, 7 state fishery resource
managers, and 2 towns.
A total of 122 speakers submitted comments orally at public information sessions or public
hearings. Many of the speakers submitted more than one comment, and several submitted
comments at more than one session. If an individual commented at more than one session, the
individual was counted as a unique speaker on each day. We received 2 comments from
academic/scientific individuals or organizations, 3 fishing industry associations, 27 nongovernmental organizations, 27 members of the public, 59 fishermen, 2 state fishery resource
managers, and 2 state/federal legislators.
As many of the speakers who submitted comments orally also submitted comments through the
Regulations.gov portal, we considered each individual’s comments, both oral and written, as one
submission. This gives us a total of 1,129 unique submissions. Combining both written and oral
submissions, and excluding duplicates, we received submissions from 28 academic/scientific
individuals or organizations, 2 federal agencies, 1 federal resource manager, 2 fishery
management associations, 10 fishing industry associations, 2 manufacturers, 76 nongovernmental organizations, 628 members of the public, 336 fishermen, 2 representatives from
other industries, 33 state/federal legislators, 7 state fishery resource managers, and 2 towns.
Of the 336 unique commenters who identified themselves as fishermen, either directly or through
context, 312 voiced opposition to all or part of the rule, 19 commented on particular provisions,
but did not expressly support or oppose, and 5 supported the general idea of the rule, though had
specific comments on some measures. Of the ten fishing industry groups, eight opposed all or
part of the rule, one gave specific recommendations, but did expressly support or oppose, and
one supported the general idea of the rule. The primary concerns raised by fishermen are that
right whales are not in the areas that they fish and this rule will not protect right whales, but
instead will place a large economic burden on fishermen with no benefit for the whales (>147);

24

the economic impact of this rule will put them out of business and devastate coastal communities
(>126); and that ropeless fishing is not yet and may never be feasible on a large scale (>105).
Of the 628 unique commenters who identified themselves as members of the public, either
directly or through context, the vast majority (534) supported this rule, but expressed the opinion
that the rule did not go far enough to protect right whales, with 84 suggesting NMFS use
emergency authority to implement immediate protections for whales. Only 54 expressed
opposition to the rule. A small number suggested that this rule should be withdrawn because it
does not provide adequate levels of protection for right whales, and NMFS should start over.
To summarize, overall, nearly 59 percent of unique commenters supported the Proposed Rule in
whole or in part, with the majority expressing the opinion that the proposed regulations should be
strengthened to provide more protection to right whales. A little over 34 percent of commenters
opposed the rule in whole or in part, and about 4 percent suggested that the rule should be
scrapped because it does not provide adequate levels of protection for right whales, and NMFS
should start over. About 4 percent of commenters did not express support or opposition, but
suggested specific measures or strategies that NMFS should employ. In addition, about 14
percent of commenters (who had either supported the rule or suggested starting over) wanted
NMFS to take emergency action.
Table 1.7 below summarizes the substantive comments received on the proposed rule and DEIS,
and provides information on how we responded to the comments. Our responses to these
comments are available in Appendix 1.1. In the Appendix, we categorize the comments
according to the topic identified in written statements or oral testimony regarding the proposed
action and alternatives. We first summarize the topic category, and then provide specific
comments, and responses to each. Responses may refer to portions of the FEIS or Final Rule that
have been modified as a result of comments. We also made changes to the FEIS and the Final
Rule in response to the comments, where appropriate, including updates to data where the
comments affect the impact analysis. Technical or editorial comments on the DEIS merely
pointing out a mistake or missing information were addressed directly in the body of the FEIS
and Final Rule.
NMFS identified a total of 187 distinct substantive comments that were within the scope of the
current rulemaking. The majority of these comments were submitted by multiple people, some of
them by thousands of people.
Section 1.4.3 below serves as a guide for reviewing the comments and should not substitute for
reading the comments directly. See FEIS Volume III for a more complete description of the
comments received.

Response to Comments
When preparing a FEIS, an agency must address comments received on the DEIS, either by
modifying the alternatives in the DEIS, supplementing the DEIS alternatives, revising the
analyses, making factual corrections, or explaining why the comments do not warrant further
25

agency response (40 CFR 1503.4). In the table below, we identify the major topics and subtopics
we received, and where we provided responses.
Table 1.7: A summary of comments received on the Proposed Rule and DEIS as well as where to find the responses
to the comment, organized by subtopics.
Topic
Subtopic
Comment
Response
Collaboration with
Canada

Economics

Apportionment
Fishery

Split of 50/50 of unknown entanglement
cases
Canada's regulations insufficient

Research

More collaboration with Canada needed

Bilateral

Maine DMR should be involved in bilateral
discussions
Competition with Canada

Economic Effects

Costs of LMA1
Disentanglement costs
Economic analysis of benefits of ropeless
fishing
Economic benefits of weak lines
Economic cost of prior rules
Effects on fishermen from other states (CT,
NY)
Fleet consolidation
Gear conversion/replacement savings
Gear marking time and labor
Gear loss due to changes required by rule
Include cost of gear marking done in
anticipation of rule
NMFS should analyze economic effects to
supply chain
Socioeconomic effects/culture/heritage
Economic
Assistance

Economic Analysis

Buybacks
Compensation for fishermen
Institute a lobster/crab tax to support
fishermen
Costs of AIS/vessel tracking systems
Ecological value of whales
Issue with Casco Bay Ferry Line data

26

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 1.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 1.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 1.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 1.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.12
See FEIS Section
6.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.14
Out of Scope
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.16
Out of Scope

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response

Meyers and Moore 2020 Paper

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.17
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.18
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.19
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 2.20
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 3.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 3.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 3.3
Out of Scope

Equipment durability
Use of dealer data
Fails to analyze reduced catch
Enforcement

Compliance

NMFS should develop comprehensive plan
Monitor/patrol offshore
Enforce regs in different areas
Enfrorce regulations on offshore dumping

Gear Marking

Evaluation

3-year evaluation period

Exemptions

Hand-haulting

Manufacturers

NMFS should work with manufacturers

More specific gear
marks

Individual ID tags

Requirements

NMFS should not add any gear-marking
requirements
Should apply to all fisheries in migratory path

Subdividing areas

Should be required every 17 fathoms
Sinking groundlines
Visibility of gear marks
Gear marking every 40 feet

Legal Issues

Timing

Implement during the off-season

Visual or acoustic
APA

Could visual or acoustic cues alert whales to
lines in the water
APA - Refusal to Evaluate Some Strategies

EO 12898

EO 12898 - Violates

ESA

ESA - Authorization of fisheries violates

MMPA

MMPA - Violates by Allocating Full PBR to
Pot/Trap Fishery
MMPA - Violates by Considering Economics
in Alternatives
MMPA - Violates by Not Meeting ZMRG
Within 5 Years

27

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.2
Out of Scope
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 4.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.6

Topic

Subtopic

NEPA

Comment

Response

MMPA - Violates by Not Reducing PBR in 6
Months
MMPA - ALWTRP may not prevent decline
of right whales
MMPA - State Measures Should Be Included
in the Final Rule
NEPA - “Purpose and Need” Statement Too
Narrow
NEPA - CEQ’s Recent Amendments

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.14
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.16
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.17
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.18
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 5.19
Appendix 1.1.
Comment 2.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 6.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 6.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 6.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 6.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 1.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.5
Out of Scope

NEPA - Did Not Consider a “No Commercial
Fishing” Alternative
NEPA - Did Not Evaluate a Reasonable
Range of Alternatives
NEPA - Rejected Trap Reductions
Multiple

Line/Effort
Reduction

Unconstitutional

NEPA/APA - DEIS Did Not Analyze All
Risks
NEPA/APA - Did Not Consider Dynamic
Area Management
MMPA/ESA - Regulations Are Not Effective
and Immediate
MMPA/NEPA/APA - Violated Best
Scientific Information Available
Exceeds authority of unelected officials

Buyback program

NMFS should establish a buyback program

Latent effort

Properly account for latent effort

Reduce Effort

Cap endlines
Cap and reduce licenses
Remove half the traps from the water

Management

Adaptive
Management

Should reassess and recalibrate measures on
regular basis
Should develop another process

Apportionment

Split of 50/50 of unknown entanglement
cases
Should include southeast states in future
rulemakings
Fishermen should be part of disentanglement
teams
Close all fisheries or all areas

Areas
Disentanglement
Teams
Emergency
Rulemaking

Shut down high seas transport
Implement year-round closure for South
Island area
Seasonal closures in Gulf of Maine

28

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.7

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response

Evaluation

Remove verticals lines in areas of high cooccurrence
How will regulation be evaluated?

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.14
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.16
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.17
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.18
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.19
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.20
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.21
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.22
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.23
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.24
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.25
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.26
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.27
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.28
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.29
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.30
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.31
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 7.32
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.1
Appendix 1.1,

Fisheries

Past regulations should be evaluated before
adding new ones
NMFS should ban/reduce commercial
fisheries
Harvester reporting
Should be managed like multispecies fishery

MMPA Mandate

Regulations won't bring the right whales back

Other whale species

Effects of regulations on other species

Risk Reduction
Target

Cryptic mortality taken into account?

Risk Reduction
Calculations

ASMFC Pending Measures Should Not Be
Counted in Analyzing Risk Reduction
Changes to MA regulations

Focus on areas of high occurrence

Conservation Equivalences
If Maine funds GPS trackers, should get risk
reduction credit
LMA3 - 50% endline reduction v. closed
area/gear displacement
State credits
Proposal evaluations
Threat of gear based on water column
Validity of the threat component of the DST
Uncertainty in DST

Research

Timing

Implementation timing

Language
Clarification
Trap tags

From previous regulations

Justification

Benefit to whales not sufficient to justify rule

Recreational
fisheries
Entanglements

Should be eliminated

Rule applies to all traps with trap tags

Effects of entanglements on birth rates
Healthy whales capable of avoiding lines

29

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response
Comment 8.2

Mechanical engineers should study cause of
entanglements
Monitor whale entanglements with satellites
and observers
No Maine lobster gear involved in
entanglements
Gillnet and netting more prevalent
Data Insufficient

Line density model too uncertain
Model overestimates right whale mortalities
Monitor whale travel routes
NMFS should use acoustic/prey data,
longer/shorter time series
PBR based on outdated population data
Peer-reviewed science required

Distribution

Data on distribution flawed/incomplete
Migratory patterns of whales in Area 2?
NMFS should increase aerial, boat-based, and
drone surveys
NMFS should tag and track whales

Restricted Areas

Broad Application
Dynamic Closures
Effects

NMFS should use spotter planes to alert
fishermen to whales
Whale distribution has changed due to
climate change/copepod distribution
Whales do not occur in inshore Maine waters,
no need for rules
Whales not injured by Massachusetts fishing
gear
Whales traveling to Iceland and Labrador, not
dead, as model says
Should apply to all fisheries/mobile gear
fishermen
NMFS should implement dynamic closures
based on presence of whales
Effort displacement/crowding in other areas
Mobile gear fishermen
Walls of dense gear

Georges Bank

Add Georges Bank Restricted Area

Gulf of Maine

3 seasonal closures recommended by Pew

30

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.8
Out of Scope
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.14
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.16
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.17
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.18
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.19
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 8.20
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.7

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response

Justification

Changes in whale distribution

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.14
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.16
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.17
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.18
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.19
Out of Scope

Use best available data
Seasonal Closures

LMA 1 trigger
LMA1 "hotspot" designation based on old
data
LMA 1 hotspot designation based on
improper calculation
LMA1 should be closed in the fall, not spring
LMA1 should be open for ropeless
LMA1 should be reconfigured
LMA 1 not supported by acoustic data
LMA3 closure should be added
Mass Bay closure area should be expanded
Mass Bay closure trigger should include
mom/calf pair
Pot/Trap should be entirely managed by
seasonal closures
Ropeless fishing should be re-evaluated in
seasonal closures
South Island RA effects on other species?
South Island RA should be expanded
South Island RA should be year-round
South Island RA should include vessel speed
reduction
South Island RA should require one buoy ine
Underestimated fishermen in LMA1

Ropeless Gear

Timing

Recommend no summer closures

Vessel speeds

Add speed restrictions to EFPs

Offshore closures
Access

Offshore closures would affect fewer
fishermen
Should make EFPs accessible to all fishermen

Feasibility

Various feasilibility issues

Economics

Buybacks/subsidies for fishermen
Economic effects of lost gear/gear conflicts

31

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.20
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.21
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.22
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.23
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.24
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.25
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.26
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.27
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 9.28
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.3
Appendix 1.1,

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response

with mobile gear

Comment 10.4

NMFS needs to invest in gear development

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.14
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.15
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 10.16
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.8
Out of Scope

Enforcement

How can ropeless be enforced?

Gear Conflicts

Need to reduce number of traps for ropeless
to work
Space-sharing agreements

Planning

Fast-track/simplify permitting process
Need comprehensive long-term plan/roadmap
Need to have a uniform system so everyone
can see gear placement
Require transition in 3 years
Should not be allowed in Cape Cod Bay
What about the Gray Zone?

Risk Reduction
Stressors

Will increase risk due to lack of tension in
lines?
Should not be considered neutral risk

Climate Change

Climate has changed distribution, putting
whales in harm's way
Food sources shifted, whales rebounding

Health

Effects of disease and pollution
Inbreeding

Inudstrial
Sonar/Noise
Oil Spills
Plastic pollution

Could the BP oil spill have affected right
whale calving?
Rule increases ocean plastics

Seismic testing

Effects on right whale population

Sharks

Predation on calves

Vessels

Vessel strikes a greater, more immediate
threat
Offshore wind will displace fishermen

Wind energy
Trawls

Effects on whales

Economics

50% vertical line reduction will lead to
consolidation
Expense will put fishermen out of business
Effects on landings

32

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 11.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.3

Topic

Subtopic

Comment

Response

Flexibility

Trawl lengths should be flexible, depending
on situation
Exempt gear along 50 fathom line

Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.5
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.6
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.7
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.8
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.9
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.10
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.11
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.12
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 12.13
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 13.1
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 13.2
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 13.3
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 13.4
Appendix 1.1,
Comment 13.5

Maine islands should be regulated as coastal
Gear conflict

One buoy line leads to more gear conflict

Gear loss

Longer trawls lead to more gear conflict

Risk reduction

Agreements among vessels should not be
required
Longer trawls lead to worse entanglements

Safety of whales
Safety of fishermen
Trawl requirements
Tension
Weak Rope/Links

Configurations

Concerns re injury, capsizing, unsafe
conditions
NMFS should require all mobile gear, no
traps/pots
Focus should be on tension in endlines

Surface systems

Comments/suggestions on weak rope, links,
contrivances
Comments/suggestions on safey and
economic losses
Comments on effects of weak
links/inserts/rope on right whales
Surface system buoy links

Unproven

Weak links/inserts/rope unproven

Effects on Fishermen
Effects on Whales

1.6 Changes from the DEIS to the FEIS
The measures included in this FEIS were modified from the analyses in the DEIS based on
comments received during the comment period on the DEIS but are all within the range of
alternatives analyzed in the DEIS (as summarized in Table 1.8). NMFS received numerous
comments from diverse interested parties during the public scoping and public comment periods
on the DEIS. The comments included both formal written comments as well as oral comments
offered at public hearings. Those comments are summarized in Appendices 1.1 and 3.4. These
comments were taken into consideration with a new round of analyses described and justified in
Chapter 3, Section 3.3. The results of these analyses and the public comment period informed the
final alternatives included in this FEIS. Responsive to comments, the modifications to the DEIS
for the FEIS prioritized use of an updated right whale density model to estimate risk reduction
for right whales, the updated right whale population information including information on
unobserved mortalities, feasibility of implementation and safety concerns (particularly for small
entities) that could be ameliorated by conservation equivalencies, and consideration of indirect
effects of measures that may adversely increase co-occurrence between buoy lines and whales.

33

Gear marking alternatives analyzed for the FEIS are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Marking gear
does not reduce risk but if marked gear is retrieved from entangled whales it can provide
information about where entanglement incidents occur. Alternative 2 (preferred) and the Final
Rule would increase the number of marks required in federal water compared to the Proposed
Rule but have lesser impacts within the scope of impacts considered for the buoy line
replacement analyzed in Alternative 3 in the DEIS and retained as Alternative 3 in this FEIS.
Modifications to the risk reduction measures in Alternative 2 in this FEIS relative to Alternative
2 in the DEIS include:
•

•
•

•

•

The seasonal restricted area south of Cape Cod in this Alternative is larger than the
restricted area analyzed within the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS, coming instead
from DEIS Alternative 3.
The removal of the requirement for a weak link at the buoy, which was analyzed as part
of Alternative 3 in the DEIS.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted by Rhode Island and
as public comments on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 2 exchanging new trawl
length requirements with more expansive weak insert requirements throughout the LMA
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 3 that would require more traps per trawl than
in the DEIS within the Georges Basin area that was analyzed as a restricted area in
Alternative 3 of the DEIS. This increase in number of traps per trawl was offset by a
lower number of traps required within the Northeast Region south of the 50 fathom
depth contour on the south end of Georges Bank.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for Maine waters in LMA 1, including modification of
regulations implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
(ACFCMA) at 50 CFR 697.21(b)2) requiring two buoy lines on trawls with more than
three pots to accommodate Maine conservation equivalency options. This would allow
the use of half the minimum number of traps required with two buoy lines if only one
buoy line is used. Other differences in the FEIS Alternative 2 compared to the DEIS are
trade-offs in the number of traps on a trawl based on Maine fishery zones and distance
from shore between the Maine exemption line and the 12 nm line (see the discussion of
conservation equivalencies in Section 3.3.2).

Changes in Alternative 3 risk reduction elements analyzed in this FEIS relative to the DEIS
Alternative 3 include:
•
•
•
•

Retaining the weak link at the buoy or allowing it to be lowered to the base of the surface
system and retaining only one South Island Restricted Area closure
Only analyzes the seasonal weak line option in LMA 3 because the other option is
analyzed in the Preferred Alternative
No longer offers two options for the South Island Restricted Area, maintaining the
medium sized L-shaped area
Includes the special expansion of the MRA into state waters as implemented by state
Regulations (see Table 3.5)
34

The only gear marking alternative that changed between the DEIS and FEIS is Alternative 2. The
DEIS only required one 6 inch (15.2 centimeter) long green mark to be included in state waters
within the top two fathoms of the buoy. In the FEIS, gear in federal waters would be required to
include at least four 1 foot long (30.5 centimeter) green marks within 6 inches (15.2 centimeter)
of each state specific mark. The number of marks in federal waters has increased from the DEIS
(four 1 foot/30.5 centimeter marks instead of one 6 inch/15.2 centimeter mark). This change is
responsive to concerns about distinguishing state and federal buoy lines, identified during public
hearings. Additionally, recently, retrieved gear from a right whale included gear marks of six and
9 inches (22.9) long, inconsistent with current U.S. gear marking requirements but consistent
with past Canadian gear marks. Use of a minimum of a 12 inch (30.5 centimeter) mark in U.S.
commercial fisheries could help distinguish U.S. marks from Canadian gear This change is
within the scope of impacts analyzed within the DEIS, and would increase gear specialists’
ability to distinguish state from federal waters than Alternative 2 in the DEIS. For more
information on the details of the alternatives, changes from the DEIS, and on the comments
received from the public see Chapter 3 and Appendix 1.1.
Table 1.8: Changes to Alternative 2 (Preferred, top) and Alternative 3 (Non-preferred, bottom) in this FEIS
compared to the DEIS.
DEIS
Alternative 2
Trawl Length (reduced line) and Co Occurrence
reduction
MA State Measures: no singles on vessels >29’,
No longer being implemented by the state
LMA 2: Increase in trawl lengths over 3 nm
No Trawling up, only weak inserts
LMA 3: 45 traps/trawl
50 traps per trawl in Georges Basin Core area,
35 traps per trawl deeper than 50 fa south of Georges
Bank,
45 traps/trawl otherwise.
ME LMA1: Trawling up to three traps per trawl in
Trawling up most places by distance from shore and
state waters outside of exempt area
by zone outside exemption line. One string option with
half the traps through most of three to 12 nm.
ME LMA1: Trawling up everywhere between three to
Trawling up most places by distance from shore and
12 nm by distance from shore (eight to 15 traps per
by zone between three to 12 nautical miles. Some areas
trawl with two buoy lines)
stay at status quo, others go farther than the DEIS for
an equivalent risk reduction overall (five to 20 traps per
trawl with two buoy lines). One string option with half
the traps through most of three to 12 nm.
Restricted Areas
No expansion of MRA included
Expanded closure in MA state waters north of MRA to
border, keep the area closed along with all other state
waters from Outer Cape Cod through to NH border
until May 15th, with soft opening option. Final Rule
will include closure until April.
South Island area proposed by Massachusetts;
Move DEIS closure to considered but rejected, include
closed Feb-Apr
large South Island Restricted Area from Alternative 3A
in DEIS in Alternative 2, for same season of Feb-Apr
Weak Link
Retain current weak link requirement at surface system For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
but allow it to be at base of surface system or, as
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
currently required, at buoy
system
Weakened Rope

35

DEIS
MA State waters: one weak insertion at 50% (didn’t
include non-exempt)
ME State Waters: two inserts in state waters outside of
exempt area
ME LMA 1, 3 to 12 nm: two weak insertions 25% and
50%
LMA 2, 3 to 12 nm: Two weak insertions 25% and
50%
LMA 2: Over 12 nm: one weak insertion in topper at
33%
Gear Marking
State Colors in lower buoy line: 2 in. buoy line below
surface system in state waters, 3 in. Federal waters
(top, middle and bottom)
Federal waters: 6 in. green mark within 1 ft of large
surface system mark
DEIS
Restricted Areas
No expansion of MRA included

Two South Island Options (Feb - May): A) Large
closure B) L-shaped closure
Weak Link
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
system
Weakened Rope
LMA 3: two options for weak rope 1) fully weak line
in the top 75% of one line, 2) May - August: one weak
line to 75% and 20% on other end. Sep – Apr: two
weak “toppers” to 20%

Alternative 2
Weak inserts or full weak line every 60 ft (18.3 m) to
75%
One insert, consistent with exempt state waters
Maintain 2 weak lines except those increasing trawl
lengths to 20 traps per trawl (one at 33% in these areas)
Weak insertions every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line
to 75%
Weak insertions every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line
to 75%
At least 2 in. below surface system in state waters and
at least three in federal waters (top, middle and
bottom)
Federal waters: Four 1 ft green marks adjacent to ALL
state color mark
Alternative 3
Expanded closure in MA state waters north of MRA to
border, keep the area closed along with all other state
waters from OCC through to NH border until May
15th, with soft opening option. Final Rule will include
closure until April.
Move large area from Alternative 3A in DEIS to
Alternative 2 for Feb-Apr, keep only L-Shaped area
from Feb - May in Alternative 3
Retain current weak link/line requirement at surface
system but allow it to be at base of surface system or,
as currently required, at buoy
Keep seasonal option: May - August: one weak line to
75% and 20% on other end. Sep – Apr: two weak
“toppers” to 20%

1.7 Areas of Controversy
Numerous interest groups have participated in the formulation and refinement of the Plan. In
addition to Team meetings, NMFS supported this rulemaking by conducting a series of public
meetings held at various locations on the east coast during the summer of 2019. Additional
scoping meetings were held by Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
throughout the summer and fall of 2019 and into January and February of 2020. The public
comment period on the Proposed Rule and DEIS, including public information sessions in
January 2021, and public hearings in February of 2021 provided additional public input (see
Section 1.5). Through public outreach, NMFS has attempted to gather and accommodate many
viewpoints, pursuing whale conservation objectives while remaining sensitive to the many
regulatory pressures on the fishing industry. The Maine Congressional delegation has provided
regular attention and input. There is also ongoing litigation largely related to non-governmental
36

organizations’ and whale conservationists’ allegations that NMFS has not authorized the
incidental take of right whales under the ESA or MMPA. The non-governmental organizations
suggest that rapid changes to current fishing practices are needed to prevent continued mortality
and serious injury of right whales in U.S. fisheries and reverse the decline of the right whale
population. The dialogue that has occurred highlights a number of key areas of controversy that
NMFS attempted to address in the regulatory alternatives examined:
•

•

•

Whale conservationists emphasize that whale entanglements have continued despite the
existing Plan requirements. Continued mortality and serious injury of right, humpback,
and fin whales due to entanglement is the primary motivating factor behind refinement of
the Plan. Conservationists support larger seasonal buoy line closure areas, similar to the
larger area included in Alternative 2, and accelerated support for ropeless fishing
alternatives. The alternatives under consideration seek to reduce large whale
entanglement by decreasing the number of buoy lines in the water or modifying the gear
so that the resulting entanglement does not result in a serious injury or mortality.
Restricted areas that allow ropeless fishing are proposed to accelerate the development of
operationally feasible ropeless technology. Chapter 3 further explains the revisions under
consideration to the existing Plan.
The ALWTRT did not broadly support the modification of existing closure areas to
closures to buoy lines rather than closures to fishing. Additionally, although
Massachusetts proposed a closure south of Nantucket and Cape Cod, they did not propose
it as a closure to buoy lines nor did they propose the same area included in the Preferred
Alternative in this FEIS. Fishing industry participants disagree that ropeless technology is
ready for use in commercial fisheries or affordable and therefore do not consider it an
available alternative to current fishing practices in most areas. In addition to operational
concerns on a vessel at sea, fishermen express concerns about the time it takes to haul
and re-deploy ropeless gear, gear conflict by fishermen unaware of sets on the bottom, an
increase in gear loss, and cost effectiveness. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee expressed similar concerns as related to
their ability to retrieve and re-deploy gear set with ropeless technology. By proposing
modification of existing seasonal closures and establishing new seasonal closures as
closures to buoy lines rather than closures to harvesting lobster and crab, allowing the use
of ropeless technology gives fishermen access to those areas (with authorization for
exemptions from surface system requirements under other laws), but it is not a
requirement. NMFS believes that encouraging industry use of ropeless fishing is
necessary to accelerate the development of operationally effective ropeless fishing
systems that would allow trap/pot fisheries to occur without mortality and serious injury
to right whales.
For the majority of seriously injured and killed right whales demonstrating signs of
entanglement, no gear remains on the whales, no gear is retrieved, or retrieved gear is
unidentified. Undocumented mortalities estimated in right whale population models
(unobserved mortality) result in further uncertainty about the extent of the threat of U.S.
fisheries, including trap/pot fisheries, to right whales. As a result, fishermen, particularly
lobster fishermen, fundamentally disagree that U.S. trap/pot fishing gear entanglements
37

are causing right whale mortalities and serious injuries above the PBR. The fishing
industry feels singled out unfairly within the overall context of factors that contribute to
Atlantic large whale population decline. The cumulative effects analysis in this FEIS
considers other stresses on whales (for example, ship strikes, climate change, and water
pollution) and identifies parallel measures underway to address these stresses through
other initiatives.
•

•

•

•

A DST was used to develop and evaluate the risk reduction measures in Alternatives Two
and Three. The model applies the best available information about whale distribution,
buoy line numbers, and configurations of trap/pot gear. There is uncertainty in each data
set. Because whales exhibit regular behavioral patterns (e.g., migration, feeding), NMFS
seeks to use distribution data to reduce impacts on the fishing industry but maximize the
effectiveness of the Plan by designating requirements tailored by region and season. This
FEIS examines regulatory alternatives that introduce new gear modification requirements
and other provisions that incorporate information about whale movements and behavior
Development of these spatial and temporal requirements involves the consideration of the
inherent uncertainties and the integration of complex technical input from NMFS
researchers and other experts. The models underwent Center of Independent Expert peer
review in 2019 that acknowledged uncertainty and suggested modifications that were
made when possible. Although much of the data is subject to uncertainty, the information
employed in developing the spatial and temporal elements of the alternatives under
consideration is the best information currently available.
The data used to assess the restricted area options south of Cape Cod were of particular
concern given that right whale sightings data suggest they are currently present in this
area more than is reflected in long-term monitoring data within the databases that support
distribution models. To address this, we used the most recent right whale habitat density
model that used data from 2010 through 2018 to compare a few options for a restricted
area in this region and compared these areas to updated survey data through April 2021.
Any seasonal buoy line closures implemented will be reviewed by NMFS and the Take
Reduction Team every three years considering new whale sightings data to ensure that,
given shifting right whale distribution, regulations are adequately protecting areas of
seasonal aggregations.
A common concern expressed has been the lack of data about the lobster and crab
trap/pot fisheries and associated challenges evaluating compliance and implementation of
enforcement, particularly in waters beyond 12 nm (22 km) from shore. The effectiveness
of proposed regulations is dependent upon compliance, including the ability of
enforcement to ensure compliance. Parallel actions to increase vessel trip reporting will
improve data regarding the fishery, and vessel monitoring systems are being piloted for
use in the lobster fishery in federal waters. Monitoring and enforcement efforts will be
developed in collaboration with the Take Reduction Team and enforcement partners.
Delineation of exempt waters has been a recurring area of disagreement. Conservation
advocates stress that extending regulations to all waters offers the greatest protection
against entanglement, while other groups argue for exemptions in nearshore waters where
38

recorded whale activity is minimal and where small vessel sizes and solo fishing
practices present safety concerns. NMFS sightings data suggest that large whales rarely
venture into certain nearshore areas. However, the alternatives considered in this FEIS
include both gear marking and precautionary weak insertion modifications in exempted
areas. Planned Maine regulations identified in the Maine DMR proposal, and the
measures considered in both Alternatives Two and Three include precautionary measures
that would reduce the likelihood of a severe entanglement should a whale enter these
areas and become entangled.
•

•

The fishing industry is concerned that interactions between large whales and Canadian
fishing gear and vessel strikes are not being adequately addressed and that mortalities in
Canada must also be reduced to less than one per year to allow the right whale population
to recover. They cite twenty years of effort to adapt fishing practices to protect large
whales. Fishermen express their belief that the U.S. fishing industry is bearing a
disproportionate regulatory burden and in particular, they disagree with NMFS approach
dividing unassigned entanglement related mortalities and serious injuries and unobserved
mortalities evenly between the U.S. and Canadian fisheries. NMFS recognizes that large
whales face mortality risks throughout their range and that the shifting distribution of
right whales has increased mortality incidents to unprecedented levels in Canadian
waters, particularly the Gulf of St. Lawrence. NMFS continues to work with
representatives from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to advise
on protective measures for right whales in Canadian waters. Since 2017, DFO has
implemented and modified regulations to address the recent increase in right whale
mortality in Canadian waters. In addition, NMFS is working with Canadian whale
biologists and support teams to improve and expand disentanglement efforts in Canadian
waters. The emergence of new mortality sources in Canada does not exempt NMFS from
implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Although in recent years mortalities
and serious injuries in U.S. fisheries may have caused fewer incidents than the
anthropogenic mortalities in Canadian waters, they remain above PBR and, given other
stressors, are not sustainable while the population is in decline. Further modifications to
the Plan to reduce risk from U.S. fisheries by at least 60 percent are necessary to achieve
PBR.
Some segments of the commercial fishing industry have expressed concern about gear
configuration modifications, particularly the trawling up and weak rope requirements,
stressing safety concerns. Most commercial fishermen have optimized their fishing
operations based on what their vessels and skills can safely fish. However most of the
measures in the Alternative 2 (preferred) come from New England states and after
frequent meetings and close collaboration with trap/pot fishermen. The alternatives also
consider where and how weak line or weak insertions can be implemented and reflect
data available on forces generated on the line during trawling. Buoy line weak insertion
measures as well as trawl lengths were also informed by industry tolerances. The
alternatives considered in this DEIS offer options for areas with smaller vessels and
crews that operate in inshore waters.

39

•

•

Maine has published rules, effective September 1, 2020 to require purple gear marking on
all lobster/trap buoy lines fished by Maine permitted vessels throughout LMA 1, hoping
to demonstrate that Maine buoy lines are not involved in right whale entanglement
incidents (DMR Chapter 75.02). For the same reason, the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council implemented measures seasonally requiring a 1 foot (30.5
centimeter) long purple mark to be added adjacent to other colored marks required in the
black sea bass trap/pot fishery from North Carolina, south. The sea bass marks would
then be 2 foot (61 centimeter) long marks of two or three colors, including a 1 foot (30.5
centimeter) long purple band. Although concerns that having more than one purple
marking may confound the ability to distinguish between Maine lobster/crab and black
sea bass trap/pot gear, the NMFS gear team indicated that the multiple colors in the black
sea bass marking regime would be sufficient to distinguish the two fisheries.
Several commenters disputed the need for and presence of right whales near the LMA 1
Restricted Area, particularly as drawn with only a closure within LMA 1. This FEIS uses
a new right whale density model with data only from 2010 through 2018, after the change
in right whale distribution was detected, which still predicts this area as a relative hotspot
in this region where there is also a high density of buoy lines. Additionally, restricting
buoy lines in this area will prevent additional movement of fishing vessels offshore into
habitat more frequented by right whales (see discussion in Chapter 5, Section 5.3).
Without this area, the Preferred Alternative would likely not meet the minimum risk
reduction target needed to reduce mortality and serious injury of right whales below PBR.

1.8 Report Structure
The remainder of this FEIS is organized as follows:
•
•

•

Chapter 2 reviews entanglement data and current Plan requirements.
Chapter 3 describes the proposed alternatives considered within this FEIS for modifying
the ALWTRP.
Chapter 4 examines the affected environment, focusing on the status of Atlantic large
whales, other protected species, habitat, and the basic features of the regulated fisheries
and fishing communities.

•

Chapter 5 analyzes the biological impacts of the alternatives.

•

Chapter 6 analyzes the economic and social impacts of the alternatives.

•

•

Chapter 7 reviews and summarizes the findings of the biological, economic, and social
impact analyses.
Chapter 8 examines the cumulative impacts of the alternatives and past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
40

•

•

Chapter 9 provides the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) as required by Executive Order
12866 and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in accordance with the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. The purpose of the RFA is
to evaluate the impacts that the regulatory alternatives under consideration would have on
small entities and to examine opportunities to minimize these impacts.
Chapter 10 briefly summarizes the statutes and executive orders that have guided
development of this FEIS and explains how the document meets the requirements of all
applicable laws.

The document also includes a list of preparers and contributors (Chapter 11), a list of persons or
agencies receiving the FEIS for review (Chapter 12), and a glossary, list of acronyms, and index
(Chapter 13).

1.9 References
Christiansen, F., S. M. Dawson, J. W. Durban, H. Fearnbach, C. A. Miller, L. Bejder, M. Uhart, M. Sironi, P.
Corkeron, W. Rayment, E. Leunissen, E. Haria, R. Ward, H. A. Warick, I. Kerr, M. S. Lynn, H. M. Pettis,
and M. J. Moore. 2020. Population comparison of right whale body condition reveals poor state of the
North Atlantic right whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 640:1-16.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2019. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-258, NEFSC, NMFS,
NOAA, DOC, Woods Hole, MA.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P. E. Rosel, B. Byrd, S. Chavez-Rosales, T. V. N. Col, L. Engleby, L. P.
Garrison, J. Hatch, A. Henry, S. C. Horstman, J. Litz, M. C. Lyssikatos, K. D. Mullin, C. Orphanides, R.
M. Pace, D. L. Palka, M. Soldevilla, and F. W. Wenzel. 2018b. TM 245 US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2017. Page 371 in NMFS, editor., NOAA Tech Memo.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2020. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2019. Page 479. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Henry, A. G., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, and T. V. Cole. 2020. Serious Injury and Mortality
Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2013-2017. Page 59. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Hunt, K. E., N. S. J. Lysiak, C. J. D. Matthews, C. Lowe, A. Fernandez Ajo, D. Dillon, C. Willing, M. P. HeideJorgensen, S. H. Ferguson, M. J. Moore, and C. L. Buck. 2018. Multi-year patterns in testosterone, cortisol
and corticosterone in baleen from adult males of three whale species. Conserv Physiol 6:coy049.
Johnson, C., E. Devred, B. Casault, E. Head, and J. Spry. 2018. Optical, Chemical, and Biological Oceanographic
Conditions on the Scotian Shelf and in the Eastern Gulf of Maine in 2016. Page 58.
Lysiak, N. S. J., S. J. Trumble, A. R. Knowlton, and M. J. Moore. 2018. Characterizing the Duration and Severity of
Fishing Gear Entanglement on a North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Using Stable Isotopes,
Steroid and Thyroid Hormones in Baleen. Frontiers in Marine Science 5.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., C. H. Greene, P. J. Sullivan, and A. J. Pershing. 2015. Climate-associated changes in prey
availability drive reproductive dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale population. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 535:243-258.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E., C. Greene, and K. Davies. 2018. Marine Species Range Shifts Necessitate Advanced Policy
Planning: The Case of the North Atlantic Right Whale. Oceanography 31.

41

Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., and C. H. Greene. 2018. Uncertain recovery of the North Atlantic right whale in a changing
ocean. Global Change Biology 24:455-464.
Pace, R. M., 3rd, P. J. Corkeron, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline
in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and Evolution 7:8730-8741.
Pace, R. M., R. Williams, S. D. Kraus, A. R. Knowlton, and H. M. Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic
right whales:e346.
Pace, RM. 2021. Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model: improvements for
hypothesis testing. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE 269.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, R. S. Schick, and P. K. Hamilton. 2018b. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2017
annual report card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, and P. K. Hamilton. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual Report
Card.
Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M. III, Hamilton, P.K. 2021. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report
Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium.
Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M. III, Hamilton, P.K. 2021. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report
Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. Rolland, P. K. Hamilton, A. R. Knowlton, E. A. Burgess, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. Body
condition changes arising from natural factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right
whales Eubalaena glacialis. Endangered Species Research 32:237-249.
Plourde, S., C. Lehoux, C. L. Johnson, G. Perrin, and V. Lesage. 2019. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) and its food: (I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging habitats in
Canadian waters. 00:19.
Record, N. R., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z.
Feng, S. Kraus, R. Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 2019. Rapid
Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography 32.
Robbins, J., A. R. Knowlton, and S. Landry. 2015. Apparent survival of North Atlantic right whales after
entanglement in fishing gear. Biological Conservation 191:421-427.
Roberts, J. J., R. S. Schick, and P. N. Halpin. 2020. Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap
Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2018-2020 (Opt. Year 3*). Report prepared for Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab (MGEL), Duke University,
Durham, NC.
Rolland, R. M., R. S. Schick, H. M. Pettis, A. R. Knowlton, P. K. Hamilton, J. S. Clark, and S. D. Kraus. 2016.
Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: from individual health to
demographic and population health trends. Marine Ecology Progress Series 542:265-282.
van der Hoop, J., P. Corkeron, and M. Moore. 2017. Entanglement is a costly life-history stage in large whales. Ecol
Evol 7:92-106.

42

CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is revising the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan) to conserve and provide additional protection to Atlantic
large whales, including North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis, hereafter right whales),
Gulf of Maine humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and Western North Atlantic fin
whales (Balaenoptera physalus). Canadian Eastern Coastal minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata acutorostrata) have also previously been monitored for mortality and serious
injury in commercial fisheries and considered in the Plan because of persistent entanglement
impacts. The revisions would fulfill NMFS’ obligations under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA). Revisions to the Plan would reduce the risk to the right whale and other large
whale species due to mortality and serious injury caused by entanglement in commercial fishing
gear. For additional background information on the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team
(ALWTRT or Team), and implementation of the Plan, see the 2014 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Amending the Plan (NMFS 2014).
This Chapter will discuss large whale entanglement patterns since 2010, describe the current
need for rulemaking (i.e. right whale population decline), and identify an estimate of the amount
of risk reduction that is needed to reduce mortality and serious injury below the potential
biological removal (PBR) level. The PBR level is defined by the MMPA as the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed from a marine
mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population.
The PBR level is the product of the minimum population estimate of the stock, one-half the
maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size,
and a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0, where 0.1 is used for species listed as endangered;
0.5 for stocks of depleted, threatened or unknown status; and up to 1 for stable stocks with no
recent issues with incidental fishery takes.
The data included here are primarily sourced from the large whale incident data that are
maintained by the NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and used to create
annually published reports, including the Serious Injury and Mortality Determinations for Baleen
Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian
Provinces, and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments for
humpback, North Atlantic right, fin, and minke whales. The period between 2010 through 2019
is analyzed here because it represents the best available peer-reviewed data for the period after
the right whale population decline began in 2010 (Pace et al. 2017), when a shift in distribution
was documented (Davies et al. 2019, Record et al. 2019) and high mortalities in Canadian waters
were detected. Preliminary population data since 2019 are also provided where available and
appropriate for context, largely from the publicly available data on monitored right whale
incidents that caused NMFS to declare an Unusual Mortality Event, as well as annual calf
counts. Given the level of mortality and serious injury of right whales documented and estimated
since 2010 combined with low reproductive rates, it has become more urgent to ensure that
mortality and serious injury caused by incidental entanglements in U.S. commercial fisheries be
reduced below PBR.

43

This chapter describes in detail the purpose and need for revisions to the existing Plan and is
organized as follows:
•

•

Section 2.1 provides background information including the current statutory and
regulatory context of the ALWTRP recommendations being considered, summarizes the
existing Plan regulations, and recent trends in large whale mortality and serious injury.
Section 2.2 demonstrates the purposes and needs for additional action under the
ALWTRP.

2.1 Background
Statutory and Regulatory Context
The Plan consists of regulatory restrictions on where and how U.S. commercial fishing gear in
fixed gear fisheries can be set and informs research into whale populations, whale behavior, and
fishing gear. The Plan also includes monitoring requirements, outreach to inform fishermen of
the entanglement problems and to help them comply with Plan requirements, and a program to
disentangle whales that do get caught in fishing gear.
The Plan was first created in 1997 to fulfill the MMPA mandate requiring NMFS to reduce
human-caused mortality of right whales as well as humpback and fin whales along the U.S.
Atlantic coast. The immediate goal of any take reduction plan is to reduce, within six months of
its implementation, the mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks incidentally taken in the
course of U.S. commercial fishing operations to below the PBR levels established for such
stocks. A stock is considered strategic if it is listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), is listed as depleted under the MMPA, or is undergoing
anthropogenic mortality at rates higher than PBR. The long-term goal of a take reduction plan is
to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the incidental mortality and serious injury of
marine mammals taken in the course of commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels
approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, taking into account the economics of the
fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management
plans.
To comply with the MMPA mandates, NMFS annually estimates the level of human-caused
mortality and serious injury for strategic stocks. Baleen whale interactions are rarely detected by
marine mammal observers on fishing vessels or through other traditional monitoring methods,
therefore most fishery interactions are determined through careful review of stranding and
sighting incident reports collected opportunistically (from dedicated aerial and shipboard
surveys, marine mammal disentanglement and stranding networks, U.S. Coast Guard, whale
watch vessels, mariners, etc.). Following established national policy (Policy for Distinguishing
Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act), NMFS reviews incident reports to determine whether an injury is “serious” and
likely to lead to death. For reported deaths of baleen whales in the Atlantic, NMFS applies
regionally developed criteria to determine whether ship strikes or entanglements caused these
documented mortalities (NMFS 2012). NMFS publishes the results of these analyses annually,
and they are incorporated into annual stock assessment reports, which identify whether mortality
44

and serious injury during the most recent five-year period exceed the PBR established under the
MMPA (Henry et al. 2014, Henry et al. 2021). Take reduction teams including representative
stakeholders are convened to help NMFS reduce mortality and serious injury in commercial
fisheries when the rate exceeds PBR.
Throughout the history of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction program, the primary
species driving Plan modifications has been the right whale. PBR for the endangered right whale
stock has never been greater than one serious injury or mortality per year, and the most recent
Stock Assessment Report (Hayes et al. 2020) identified PBR as 0.8 right whale mortality or
serious injury a year. Coast-wide, human-caused mortality and serious injury of right whales
have been well above PBR for many years, and since 2000 entanglement has been the primary
cause of death identified when a cause has been determined (Kraus et al. 2005, Sharp et al.
2019).
Although right whales have always been the primary species of concern, when the Plan was
created, humpback 1 and fin whales were also considered strategic stocks because they were
listed as endangered. Primary causes of anthropogenic mortality for all three species were fishery
interactions and vessel strikes. Humpback whales along the U.S. East Coast are primarily from
the West Indies humpback distinct population segment (DPS), which were delisted in 2016 when
the listing status of distinct population segments was reexamined individually. However, West
Indies humpbacks are still protected under the MMPA throughout its range and continue to be
monitored for human interactions when they approach PBR.

Current Gear Modification Requirements and Restrictions
The Plan specifies both widespread gear modification requirements and restrictions that apply to
all trap/pot fisheries and anchored gillnets, as well as area- and season-specific gear modification
requirements and restrictions. The general gear requirements for gillnet and trap/pot fisheries are
delineated in 50 CFR 229.32 and include:
•
•

•
•

•
•

No floating buoy line at the surface.
No wet storage of gear (all gear must be hauled out of the water at least once every 30
days. In Federal waters in the Southeast U.S., trap/pots must be returned to shore at the
end of every trip).
In most waters, surface buoys and buoy lines need to be marked to identify the vessel or
fishery.
Knots – Fishermen are encouraged, but not required, to maintain knot-free buoy lines.
Splices are not considered to increase entanglement threat and are thus preferable to
knots.
In most waters, groundline must be made of sinking line.
All buoys, flotation devices, and/or weights must be attached to the buoy line with a
weak link. Specific breaking strengths vary by area. This measure was designed so that if
a large whale does become entangled, it should be able to exert enough force to break the

1

NMFS determined that the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales was not strategic for the 2019 Stock
Assessment Report, but was strategic for the 2020 draft Stock Assessment Report because human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR; the 2020 Report is still under review.

45

•

•
•

weak link and break free of the buoy (trap/pot) or net panels (gillnet), increasing the
chance of releasing the gear and reducing the risk of injury or mortality.
All buoy lines need to be marked three times (top, middle, bottom) with three marks
along a 12-inch (30.48cm) area. This measure is intended to help managers learn more
about where, when, and how entanglements occur.
Minimum trap per trawl requirements based on area fished and miles from shore (See
Appendix 2.1).
In the Southeast calving grounds, there are restrictions on breaking line strength as well
as a limitation that only allows single pots to be fished. Singles are favored in this area to
protect calves that would be more likely to survive an entanglement with a single pot
compared to a heavier string/trawl of multiple traps.

There are also two seasonal trap/pot closures: the Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA; 50 CFR
229.32(c)3) and the Great South Channel Trap/Pot Closure (50 CFR 229.32(c)4). The
Massachusetts Restricted Area prohibits fishing with, setting, or possessing trap/pot gear in this
area unless stowed in accordance with regulations found at 50 CFR § 229.2, from February 1 to
April 30. Great South Channel Trap/Pot Closure prohibits fishing with, setting, or possessing
trap/pot and gillnet gear in this area unless stowed in accordance with the regulations, from April
1 through June 30. Cape Cod Bay, part of the MRA, is also closed to gillnet fishing from January
1 to May 15. These time periods coincide with the presence of right whales in these areas.
Additional details on current regulations are available in Appendix 2.1.

Atlantic Large Whale Mortalities and Injuries, 2010 to 2019
Large whales in the Atlantic are impacted by a variety of threats, both natural and human-caused
(Table 2.1). It is important to note that the methods followed to make annual mortality and
serious injury determinations of observed large whale incidents may under report entanglements
and vessel strike (see Henry et al. 2020). Determinations are only made when they can be
decided with absolute certainty and therefore likely do not represent the total number of incidents
caused by entanglement or vessel strikes. The number of documented incidents summarized in
Table 2.1 also represent only those that were sighted and reported, and does not include
unobserved mortalities. For right whales, it is estimated that only an average 36 percent of all
mortalities between 1990 and 2017 were detected (Pace et al. 2021). Therefore, mortality and
serious injury determinations discussed in this section are underestimates. Additionally, incidents
involving different species may not be reported at the same rate due to habitat usage as well as
prioritization based on a species’ status, and the amount of perceived threat. For example,
entangled right whales are more likely to be reported compared to other large whale species due
to extensive survey effort dedicated to this species throughout their range.
As delineated in Table 2.1, entanglement is identified as the cause of the highest proportion of
all documented large whale incidents, including non-serious injury, reported for humpback,
North Atlantic right, fin, and minke whales, with humpbacks and right whales experiencing
higher numbers of entanglements compared to other causes. For all large whale species except
right whales, the majority of documented mortalities and serious injuries did not have a cause
definitively determined. For right whales, human sources were the leading causes of mortality
and serious injury; 57 percent of all detected right whale mortalities and serious injuries between
46

2010 and 2019 occurred as a result of entanglement 2, 15 percent were caused by vessel strikes,
and 3 percent were entrapments. The remaining 25 percent could not be attributed to a source.
There were no confirmed natural mortality or serious injury incidents reported for right whales
during this time period. Entanglement was also the highest cause of mortality and serious injury
for humpback, fin, and minke whales in those instances when cause of death could be
determined. Vessel strikes represent the next highest contributor to human-caused large whale
mortality and serious injury for all but minke whales, followed by non-human causes and
entrapments, incidents where an individual is confined or otherwise restricted in movement but
not entangled in gear and can reach the surface for air.
Table 2.1: Atlantic coast-wide causes of large whale human interaction incidents between 2010 and 2019 with all
health outcomes by species, including non-serious injuries and those that resulted in serious injury or mortality. The
purpose of this table is to identify the risk of human interactions. Therefore these data include 84 incidents where
serious injury or mortality due to incidental entanglement were averted due to successful disentanglement (52
humpback, 21 fin, and 11 right whales). Also included are 93 individuals where injuries were “prorated” as highly
likely to have a serious outcome (6 fin, 51 humpback, 24 minke, 12 right whales).
Fin
Fin
Humpback Humpback Minke Minke Right Right Total Total
Cause
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
All Incidents
Unknown
Entanglement
Vessel Strike
Non-human
Induced
Entrapment

43
22
15

51.2%
26.2%
17.8%

146
231
66

31.2%
49.4%
14.1%

189
109
11

52.9%
30.5%
3.1%

28
114
38

15.1%
61.6%
20.6%

406
476
130

37.1%
43.5%
11.9%

3

3.6%

16

3.4%

42

11.8%

2

1.1%

63

5.8%

1

1.2%

9

1.9%

6

1.7%

3

1.6%

19

1.7%

TOTAL
Mortality &
Serious
Injury
Unknown
Entanglement
Vessel Strike
Non-human
Induced
Entrapment

84

Total

468

357

185

1094

43
17
12

57.3%
22.7%
16%

146
139
44

41.5%
39.5%
12.5%

188
104
11

54%
29.9%
3.2%

26
61
17

24.3%
57%
15.9%

403
321
84

45.7%
36.4%
9.5%

3

4%

16

4.5%

40

11.5%

-

-

59

6.7%

-

7

2%

5

1.4%

3

2.8%

15

1.7%

75

352

348

107

882

Large whale entanglements and vessel strikes occur in both the U.S. and Canadian waters. While
vessel strikes are often first observed near the strike location, only in rare instances is the exact
location of an entanglement incident determined. In some incidents, injured whales are first
documented in U.S. waters but are entangled in gear that was set in Canadian waters, and vice
versa. Gear was only retrieved from 21 percent (n = 479) of all large whale entanglements
2

This estimate includes 11 disentangled whales where serious injury was avoided in order to better estimate the
frequency at which mortality and serious injury would occur if not observed. Including these cases provides a better
estimate of the threat of fisheries and associated reduction in entanglements needed and recognizes that relying on
disentanglement to reduce mortality and serious injury rates puts peoples’ safety at risk and may not always be an
available conservation measure

47

between 2010 and 2019, and only 73 percent of the gear retrieved could be identified to fishery
or gear type (i.e. 15 percent of observed entanglement incidents were identified). Of the 79
percent of cases where gear is not retrieved, only 16 percent were identified to a fishery or gear
type and 24 percent had no gear present. It is impossible to confirm the country of origin for
every incident, particularly for cases where gear was not retrieved or analyzed. And although in
recent years Canada has provided some data on large whale entanglements documented in U.S.
waters, only right whales are prioritized and fully represented in the Canadian data. Even for
right whale incidents that come under more intense scrutiny, location of entanglement incidents
can rarely be determined. Of 1462 entanglement incidents evaluated by the New England
Aquarium between 1980 and 2016, only 110 had attached gear present and fewer could be traced
to a country (Amy Knowlton pers. comm. August 13, 2019) with only 13 identified to the site of
entanglement.
When coast-wide mortalities and serious injuries are aggregated based on the country where the
incident occurred or, in the absence of a confirmed initial location, where the individual was first
sighted, entanglement incidents occur in higher numbers than vessel strikes each year for all
species except fin whales (Figure 2.1). Entanglement is the primary source of mortality and
serious injury regardless of the location of first sighting or origin of the incident. Vessel strikes
have been reported more frequently in U.S. waters than Canadian waters for all four large whale
species with the exception of right whales from 2017 through 2019.

Figure 2.1: mortality and serious injury cases (including prorated injuries and those averted by disentanglement
response) caused by entanglements and vessel strikes according to the country where the incident occurred or, in the
absence of that information, where the individual was first sighted.

Given reporting biases between species, trends in entanglements are difficult to examine, but
there is some evidence that country-specific trends have shifted over the years, possibly in
concert with regulatory and ecosystem changes that have shifted human activities and species’
distribution (Hayes et al. 2018, Davies et al. 2019, Record et al. 2019). For example, Figure 2.1
shows a potential recent uptick in humpback vessel strikes in U.S. waters and a sharp increase in
48

new reports of right whale vessel strikes and entanglements in Canada. Coast-wide, annual right
whale mortality and serious injury caused by entanglement far exceed the PBR level for the
population (Figure 2.2). This remains true even when removing incidents first seen in Canada or
known to be in Canadian gear. Coast-wide humpback and minke whale entanglements have
remained high and observed mortality and serious injury has approached but not surpassed PBR
in some years, but this represents the minimum number of takes by U.S. fisheries as not all
incidents are seen and not all observed incidents of humpback and minke whales are as well
documented as right whales. Using only documented incidents, the five-year rates of mortality
and serious injury have remained below PBR for these stocks as well as for fin whales. Impacts
on other large whales will be analyzed and discussed, however the primary focus of this
document will be reduction in entanglement risk on the right whale stock because of the urgent
need to reduce mortality and serious injury from entanglement interactions below PBR for this
species.

Figure 2.2: Entanglements that resulted in serious injury or mortality, according to the country of origin or country
where the incident was first sighted. Incidents with prorated injuries and where serious injury was averted by
disentanglement response are included as serious injuries. The red line represents the current PBR for the stock
(PBR for minke whales is 189 and not pictured due to scale).

As described in Table 2.2, large whales are entangled in a variety of both fishing and non-fishing
gear (e.g. boat moorings or debris). However, fishing gear represents the vast majority of
documented sources of entanglements with only three documented non-fishing gear
entanglements out of 476 incidents documented between 2010 and 2019 (Table 2.2). The type of
fishing gear involved in an entanglement is not identifiable for a large portion of entanglements,
including 85 percent of right whale events. Those incidents for which gear was identified are
primarily from fisheries that use trap/pot gear, gillnet or other types of netting, or monofilament
line. A few incidents have been attributed to fisheries using trawls, seines, or a weir. Trap/pot
gear is the highest known documented source of entanglement for all whale species, with a high
number of humpback and minke whale entanglements in confirmed U.S. lobster gear. Gillnet and
netting gear have been found on all species except fin whales but are most frequently found on
humpbacks in the U.S. Monofilament line is also primarily a concern in the U.S. for humpback
whales and not commonly found on the other species.

49

Figure 2.3 shows the primary gear types detected on Atlantic large whales and the outcome of
the incident. These data suggest that mortality and serious injury is more likely with trap/pot gear
than netting, but they also demonstrate the large knowledge gap in identifying gear types that are
contributing to mortality and serious injury. Humpbacks generally experience a higher number of
entanglements than other species in a wide variety of gear types (48.5 percent of all
entanglements), though many (40 percent) of them did not result in serious injuries. Minke whale
entanglements result in serious injury or mortality more often (Table 2.1) and involve trap/pot,
netting, and other gear types (Table 2.2). This is consistent with the likely scenario suggested by
Knowlton et al. (2016) where a species’ or age class’ relative strength is linked to the likelihood
of mortality and discovery. For those reported right whale entanglements for which gear was
recovered and identified, trap/pot gear was more likely to result in mortality and serious injury.
However, for most entanglements, no gear, only rope, or rope with buoys is retrieved, making it
difficult to assign a specific fishery or fishery type in these cases. Buoy lines associated with
fixed gear fisheries are very prevalent in the marine environment and the type of gear most
frequently identified on entangled large whales in the Northwest Atlantic (81 percent, Johnson et
al. 2005), making fixed gear fisheries a particular concern for the endangered right whale.
Table 2.2: The types of gear that have been identified on all documented entanglement incidents between 2010 and
2019 (including those not causing serious injury), identified to country and fishery, if possible. Confirmed U.S.
trap/pot gear is highlighted in grey. This table does not include incidents where the type of gear or the presence of
gear was undetermined. Gear determinations could change as additional information is acquired.
Fishery
Fin
Humpback
Minke
Right
Total
Trap/Pot Gear
CAN trap/pot
0
1
0
0
1
CAN lobster
0
7
3
0
10
CAN snow crab
0
1
0
14
15
CAN crab
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. trap/pot
1
8
0
2
11
U.S. lobster
1
29
19
1
50
U.S. whelk trap/pot
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. recreational lobster
0
1
0
0
1
Unknown trap/pot
0
2
0
1
3
Subtotal Trap/Pot
2
51
22
18
93
Gillnet & Other Netting
CAN netting
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet
0
3
0
1
4
U.S. gillnet - dogfish
0
4
1
0
5
U.S. gillnet - striped bass
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet - winter skate
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet - ground fish
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet - spot fish
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet - blue fish
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. gillnet - croaker
0
1
0
0
1
U.S. midwater trawl - herring
0
0
1
0
1
U.S. bait net
0
1
0
0
1
Unknown netting
0
6
2
1
9
Unknown gillnet
0
6
1
6
13
Unknown gillnet - non-groundfish
0
1
0
0
1
Subtotal Netting
0
28
5
8
41
Monofilament Gear
U.S. monofilament
0
28
0
0
28

50

Fishery
U.S. recreational
Unknown monofilament
Subtotal Monofilament
Multiple Gear Types
Unkown gillnet & U.S. lobster
Unknown & U.S. lobster
Unknown ghost trap & U.S.
lobster
U.S. lobster & unknown
Subtotal Multiple Gear Types
Other
U.S. anchor
Debris
Subtotal Other
Unknown Gear
CAN unknown
U.S. unknown
Unknown
No gear present
Subtotal Unknown
Totals

Fin
0
1
1

Humpback
1
31
60

Minke
0
2
2

Right
0
0
0

Total
1
34
63

0
0
0

2
1
0

0
0
1

0
0
0

2
1
1

0
0

2
5

1
2

0
0

3
7

0
0
0

3
0
3

0
1
1

0
0
0

3
1
4

0
0
10
5
15
18

2
3
65
13
83
230

1
4
23
21
49
81

4
3
29
48
84
110

7
10
127
87
231
439

Figure 2.3: Entanglement cases by species and gear type, where available, relative to the fate of the incidents for
documented incidents between 2010 and 2019.

A 2017 buoy line estimate derived through a model created by a federally contracted firm,
Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), to support the Team efforts indicate that outside of exempted
waters, over 93 percent of fixed gear buoy lines within right whale habitats along the U.S.
Atlantic coast are fished in Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area (Northeast Region) by
the U.S. lobster fishery. Table 2.3 delineates the relative abundance of various fixed gear buoy
lines in the U.S. Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Southeast commercial fisheries for comparison.
Table 2.3: The average buoy line estimates across months in non-exempt waters

51

Fishery
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Total
93.7%
1.5%
0%
95.2%
Lobster Trap/Pot
1.5%
0.4%
0%
1.9%
Gillnet
0.1%
1.3%
0.9%
2.3%
Other Trap/Pot
0%
0%
0.6%
0.6%
Blue Crab Trap/Pot
95.3%
3.2%
1.5%
100%
Total
Note: IEc Line Model, 2017 buoy line estimates per 11/9/2019 model run. See Model Documentation in
Appendix 5.1

Figure 2.4: The Northeast Region that will be regulated by this EIS are those north and east of the dashed line that lie
within U.S. waters. The black line represents the Lobster Management Areas that will be analyzed. Three and 12
nautical mile lines are represented in gray.

Coast-wide rulemaking to modify diverse, relatively data-poor, fisheries can take three to four
years. The source of mortality and serious injury to right whales cannot be determined in the
majority of documented entanglements but, in the cases where gear can be identified,
entanglements to right whales are frequently the result of trap/pot line (Table 2.2). Because of
the urgency of responding to the rapid decline in the right whale population, described below,
NMFS is focusing the scope of initial modifications to the ALWTRP on Northeast lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries (Figure 2.4), representing the highest number of buoy lines in the
U.S. Atlantic. The red crab fishery is not included, with only an estimated 24 buoy lines set in
the area within the scope of this FEIS (IEc Line Model, 2019). The Take Reduction Team will
focus on other coast-wide trap/pot fisheries and gillnet fisheries in developing further Plan
modifications.

Right Whale Population Decline

52

Despite efforts by the Team over the last two decades to reduce human-caused mortality of large
whales in the Atlantic, right whales have continued to experience unsustainable levels of
mortality and serious injury from entanglement, as discussed above. The right whale population
is critically endangered and a 2017 study found that the population has been in decline since
2010 (Figure 2.5, 2.6; Pace et al. 2017). The best estimate of the right whale population in 2019
is 368 whales (± 11) with a strong male bias (approximately 60 percent male) (Pace et al. 2017,
Pace 2021). New research confirms a significant reduction in survival since 2010 and that an
estimated 64 percent of all mortalities are not observed and accounted for in the right whale
incident data (Pace 2021, Pace et al. 2021). This population corresponds with, but not
demonstrated to be caused by, the shift in distribution. Carcass counts did not parallel the
estimated reduction in survival, although Pace notes that his estimates validate the declaration of
an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). Declared in 2017, the UME remains open and as of April
2021 includes 34 detected mortalities (17 in 2017, 3 in 2018, 10 in 2019, 2 in 2020, and 2 in
2021). In 2020, 15 serious injuries were included in the UME tally (2 in 2017, 5 in 2018, 1 in
2019, 4 in 2020, and 3 in 2021; see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-lifedistress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event). In addition, NARWs
have also been determined to be in poor body condition in comparison to southern right whales
(Eubalaena australis; Christiansen et al. 2020). In particular, a poor female body condition may
be contributing to reduction in calf survival or delayed first-calving age and an increase in
calving intervals, which is an additional concern for NARW viability and recovery (Christiansen
et al. 2020).

Figure 2.5: The estimated abundance of right whales and 95 percent credible intervals from Pace 2021.

53

Figure 2.6: Survival rates estimated for the right whale with medians (black) and 95 percent credible intervals (red)
derived in Pace 2021

Recent low birth rates are an increasing concern for right whale recovery, with the detection of
only 5 births in 2017 (Pettis et al. 2018b), no births in 2018 (Pettis et al. 2018a), only 7 births in
2019 (Pettis et al. 2020), and 10 births in 2020 (Pettis et al. 2021). This is well below the
average: 12.8 calves per year over the last decade, or 22 per year in the first decade of this
century, with an average 14 or more births per year for the entire monitoring period, which began
in 1990. More recently, there were 17 live calves documented in 2021, as of March 29
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-atlantic-rightwhale-calving-season-2021) including some first time mothers who were born during the high
birthing years that occurred before 2011. While the number of births in the 2020/2021 calving
year is encouraging, it is lower than would have been forecasted from the large number of calves
born over a decade ago and follows persistent low birth years that are insufficient to counteract
current population mortality rates (Figure 2.5; Pace 2021), increasing concern regarding current
levels of entanglement mortality.
Documented, minimum counts of anthropogenic mortality and serious injury of right whales
from fishing gear have exceeded the allowable PBR in all but one year (Figure 2.2). The 2019
right whale stock assessment establishes a PBR level of 0.8 right whales a year based on the
2017 population estimates (Hayes et al. 2020). For the five year period from 2014 to 2018 the
report documents a minimum average annual mortality and serious injury caused by
entanglement is 6.85, including 0.2 attributed to U.S. fisheries, 1.55 attributed to the Canadian
snow crab fishery, and 5.1 that could not be identified to a particular fishery (Henry et al. 2021).
Since 2018, an additional eight right whale entanglement mortalities and serious injuries have
54

been documented including three identified as consistent with Canadian snow crab and five that
could not be identified to a country or fishery (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marinelife-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event reviewed May 1,
2021).
Entanglement rates are higher than the mortality and serious injury rates reflected in the Stock
Assessment Report, in part because whales apparently often free themselves of gear following an
entanglement event. In an analysis of the scarification of right whales, 519 of 626 (82.9 percent)
whales examined from 1980 to 2009 were scarred at least once by fishing gear (Knowlton et al.
2012). Further research using the North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog has indicated that between
8.6 percent and 33.6 percent of right whales acquire new scars annually (Knowlton et al. 2012).
Evidence collected following right whale mortalities document that entanglement remains the
biggest threat, range wide, to right whales (Sharp et al. 2019). Finally, entanglements are
certainly a cause of death of some portion of the 64 percent of estimated mortalities that are
unobserved (Pace et al. 2021) but there is no agreement on how to assign the cause of mortality
to unobserved but estimated mortality. Pace (2021) and Sharp et al. (2019) caution against using
observed mortality ratios to apportion the cause of death due to potential carcass detection
biases. Pace (2021) observed more serious injuries are entanglement related rather than from
vessel strikes, consistent with the observed incident data. Moore et al. (2020) reported how
carcass detection of whales that succumb to entanglement may be very low, due to limited
buoyancy from poor body condition associated with months to years of chronic entanglement.
Additionally, differences in mission priority and geography create significant detection biases
between the U.S. and Canadian waters. Specifically, the geographically closed Gulf of St.
Lawrence provides more opportunity for carcasses to strand on land and is surveyed regularly
since 2017 by five aircrafts for dynamic management. Surveys in other Canadian waters support
a broader science mission, and in the U.S. aerial survey missions are directed towards population
assessment which requires far less effort, but reduces the potential for carcass detection.
Despite these uncertainties, there is sufficient evidence to determine that the rate of humancaused mortality and serious injury to right whales exceeds the PBR during a sustained period of
population decline, requiring additional modifications to the Plan to reduce entanglement
mortality and serious injury risk.

Needed Reduction in Entanglement Mortality and Serious Injury
As presented to the Team in an October 2018 meeting, there is only one year since 2010 (when
the decline in the right whale population began) in which right whale entanglement mortality and
serious injury first seen in U.S. waters or known to be caused by U.S. gear (Figure 2.2 & 2.6)
was below PBR. NMFS, through the take reduction planning process, must reduce the impacts of
U.S. commercial fisheries to below a stock’s PBR level.
The uncertainty regarding the type of gear that entangles whales and the location and country of
origin where the entanglement occurred creates challenges for the Team in determining the
magnitude of reduction in mortality and serious injury that is needed. As delineated in Table
2.2 and described previously, many entanglements are never seen by humans, even when seen
there is often no gear present on whales showing scars, wounds and injuries clearly caused by
55

entanglement, gear cannot always be recovered from those whales that are seen entangled, and
even when gear is recovered, it can rarely be identified to a source fishery, and even more rarely
to a precise fishing location.
In developing mortality and serious injury estimates for use in Stock Assessment Reports and by
the Team, NMFS attributes definitive sources of mortality and serious injury only when gear is
present and identified to a fishery source or, rarely, when an individual is anchored by the gear.
The Canadian snow crab fishery has clearly identifiable ropes and splices that assist in
identification when gear is present on a whale. Gillnet gear is also readily identifiable when
present. However, in most cases gear is not present or cannot be identified to a specific fishery
therefore most entanglement related mortality and serious injury are unassigned in the Stock
Assessment Reports.
To estimate the impact of U.S. fisheries on entanglements, the challenge is to determine what
percentage of the unknown sources are U.S. vs. Canadian fisheries. In attempting to create a risk
reduction target to achieve PBR, NMFS considered how to assign a country of origin to
unknown entanglement cases. As illustrated in Figure 2.7, assigning those seen first in U.S.
waters to U.S. gear would suggest that a two- or three-fold reduction is necessary to achieve
PBR. An alternative approach provided very similar results, discussed below.

Figure 2.7: Documented entanglement incidents that caused mortality and serious injury of right whales, counted
against PBR for right whales from 2010 to 2019. For this purpose, mortalities or confirmed serious injuries are
counted as one animal and injuries with a 0.75 probability of becoming serious are adjusted accordingly (e.g. only
one prorated injury was detected in 2013). The red line represents the PBR for each year.

Although since 2010 right whale aggregation distribution has continued to shift, much of the
right whale population may spend more time exposed to fisheries in U.S. waters than in
Canadian waters. Mortality and serious injury from unknown sources could be allocated by
percentage of time spent in each country’s waters, which would apportion more of these
unknown mortalities and serious injuries to U.S. commercial fisheries. However, for the
56

following reasons, this FEIS assumes that 50 percent of right whale mortalities and serious
injuries occur in each country:
•

Knowlton et al. (2016) demonstrated the positive relationship of large diameter line to
breaking strength and association with serious injuries to large whales. Snow crab gear
recovered from dead and seriously injured right whales and identified by the NMFS and
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans gear specialists, include heavy traps on
knot free and fairly uniform large diameter ropes, stronger than the rope used in most
U.S. trap/pot gear. Offshore U.S. gear may be equivalent in risk of injury and mortality
given the large diameter of rope fished and the long and heavy trawls. However, other
than three one-foot black buoy line marks there is little to distinguish this gear from other
rope, and offshore U.S. lobster gear has not been definitively identified from gear
retrieved from large whale entanglements (Morin, pers. comm. 2020).

•

U.S. take reduction measures over the past two decades have been implemented coastwide rather than in finite areas like those implemented in July 2017 by Canada. Although
the ALWTRP measures are not achieving PBR and the effectiveness of the regulations
cannot be evaluated, all the existing sinking ground line, closures, weak links, and other
risk reduction Plan measures are affording more protections to right whales than if there
were no ALWTRP measures implemented.

At the annual meeting of the Atlantic Scientific Review Group (ASRG) in February 2021, the
ASRG commended the use of unobserved mortality estimates (Pace 2021) with the NARW stock
assessment report and recommended that the 1:1 apportionment of mortality between the U.S.
and Canada be reconsidered based on recent documented mortalities and serious injuries, which
occurred at higher frequency in Canadian waters. They also considered Pace (2021), Sharp et al.
(2019) and Moore et al. (2020) and suggested that more unobserved mortality could be due to
entanglement than to vessel strikes, recommending that NMFS review mortality analysis further
to inform future apportionment of estimated mortality to mortality sources.
Table 2.4 uses mortality and serious injury determinations for 2012 through 2020 to determine
how the target might change using more recent information and varying apportionment
assumptions. Note that the incident data is only peer reviewed through 2019 and published
through 2018 so anything after 2018 is not considered final (Hayes et al. 2019, 2020). The table
below considers the risk reduction targets needed by assigning unattributed and/or unobserved
mortalities to a particular country across multiple rolling five-year averages as well as a
combined average. This risk reduction range differs from those presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and those presented to the Team in 2019 due to the
incorporation of new data. Sixty percent is still the minimum target risk reduction considered in
this FEIS but as new data are finalized the minimum target may change in the future.

57

Table 2.4: Average mortality and serious injury by country of origin or country where the individual was first sighted for different date ranges. The amount of
reduction in mortality and serious injury needed to meet PBR based on where the unattributed individuals were first sighted and with 50 percent of unattributed
individuals assigned to each country. For incidents with no cause of death determination or estimated unobserved mortality, we assumed seventy-seven percent
resulted from an entanglement according to the large whale incident data. PBR was calculated according to the five year period reported in line with the stock
assessment reports. The current PBR published at the time of this FEIS was used for the nine year period summary. The reduction needed was calculated by
dividing PBR from all cases assigned to the U.S. fisheries and subtracted from one.
Country First
50% of
Country
All Observed & Estimated
Sighted
First
Sighted
Unobserved U.S. Entanglement
Date range

PBR

Total

U.S.

Canada

U.S.

Canada

Estimated
U.S.

Reduction
Needed

Estimated U.S.
Entanglement

Reduction
Needed

2012-2016
2013-2017
2014-2018
2015-2019*

0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7*

5.15
5.55
6.85
5.65

0.4
0.2
0.2
0

0.6
1.2
1.55
1.95

2.05
2.45
3.25
2.65

2.1
1.7
1.85
1.05

2.08
2.08
2.55
1.85

64%
65%
71%
62%

8.19
9.80
10.16
**

89%
92%
92%
**

2016-2020*

0.7*

5.7

0

1.95

2.85

0.9

1.88

63%

**

**

5.39
0.22
0.78
2.75
1.56
2.15
66%
7.96
90%
2010-2018
0.8
*Uses preliminary data
**Data on unobserved mortalities are not available for 2019 or 2020 and thus that risk reduction is unable to be calculated at this time.

58

As delineated in Table 2.4, these findings are slightly lower than results attained by attributing
unknown mortality and serious injury sources to the country of first sighting. For this calculation,
the incidents where location was unattributed to a specific country were split in half, assuming
50 percent occurred in each country. The necessary reduction ranges from 63 to 77 percent risk
reduction and is higher than the fifty percent split due to the number of entanglements detected in
U.S. waters. Since right whales spend more time in U.S. waters and can travel far from the
original entanglement location, it is possible detection bias could be a factor with an estimate
using the country where the individual was first seen.
However, as discussed above, calculations that include only documented mortality and serious
injury also are subject to a detection bias and are likely underestimating mortality and serious
injury due to entanglement. Actual mortality and serious injury of right whales in U.S. fisheries
are likely higher than the observed 2.56 per year between 2010 and 2019 (Pace et al. 2021).
Population models provide an estimate of mortality that suggests 40 to 64 percent of right whale
mortalities and serious injuries are unobserved (applying the methods from Pace et al. 2017 and
new method in Pace 2021). Additionally, there are mortalities where no cause of death was
determined, despite some evidence of human causes, and it is likely a proportion of these cases
also resulted from an entanglement.
In order to take into account unobserved mortality as well as mortality where the cause of death
was not confirmed, additional unobserved mortality was estimated and added to the observed
mortality estimates in Table 2.4. To estimate unobserved mortality from entanglements, the
observed mortality and serious injury was first subtracted from the total estimated mortality
between 2012 and 2018 (the most recent data available) from a population model published by
Pace et al. (2021). The remaining unobserved right whale mortality was added to those with
unknown cause of death, 50 percent of which were attributed to the U.S. We then estimated that
77 percent of unknown or unobserved right whale incidents apportioned to the U.S. were likely
caused by entanglement according to long term right whale incident data.
For example, according to data from the model from Pace et al. (2021) and NMFS right whale
incident data, there was an annual average of 2.2 incidents with an undetermined cause of death
and an estimated 12.3 unobserved mortalities from 2010 through 2018, for a total of 14.5
incidents that were not accounted for in the calculations for minimum risk reduction target. If we
assume half of these incidents occurred in the U.S as described above, then 7.25 additional
incidents likely occurred in the U.S. According to incident data, 77 percent of all incidents (from
2010-2019) are a result of entanglement mortality and serious injury so we then assume 77
percent of 7.25 unknown or unobserved incidents were the result of an entanglement, or 5.6 per
year. Adding this to the known entanglement data yields an annual average of 7.96
entanglements causing serious injury or mortality in U.S. waters every year between 2010 and
2018. This number would require a 90 percent reduction in mortality and serious injury
(equation: 1-(0.8/7.96)). Under those assumptions, mortality and serious injury of right whales in
U.S. fishing gear would need to be reduced by at least 60 percent according to documented
mortality but may require up to 92 percent, depending on the year range and cause assumptions
used, to reduce actual estimated mortality and serious injury below PBR. As Table 2.5 illustrates,
across various assumptions and recent time frames, an upper target reduction in mortality and

59

serious injury from 77 to 92 percent would be needed to achieve PBR under recent mortality
conditions.
Table 2.5: Examples of risk reduction target effects of varying assumptions regarding country of origin and cause of
the incident for unattributed documented and estimated unobserved entanglement mortality and serious injury. Three
country apportionments were tested for cases where country of origin is unknown: a 50:50, 40:60, and 30:70
(US:Canada). For incidents with no cause of death determination and estimated unobserved mortality, we tested four
approaches to estimate the proportion resulting from entanglement: the proportion of entanglements observed
between 2010 and 2019 (77 percent), the proportion in Pace et al. 2021 (67 percent), the proportion from Sharp et al.
2019 (58 percent), and a 50 percent split. PBR was calculated according to the five year period reported in line with
the stock assessment reports. The current PBR published at the time of this FEIS was used for the nine year period
summary. EN = Entanglement.
Estimated entanglements that were unobserved
or observed with no known cause
Country Date
PBR Observed M/SI 77% EN
67% EN
58% EN 50% EN
Split
range
50 U.S. /
50 CAN

40 U.S. /
60 CAN

20122016
20132017
20142018
20102018
20122016
20132017
20142018
20102018

0.9

64%

89%

88%

87%

85%

0.8

65%

92%

91%

90%

89%

0.8

71%

92%

91%

90%

89%

0.8

66%

90%

89%

88%

87%

0.9

56%

86%

85%

84%

82%

0.8

57%

90%

89%

87%

86%

0.8

64%

90%

89%

88%

87%

0.8

59%

88%

86%

85%

83%

45%

82%

81%

79%

77%

45%

87%

85%

83%

82%

54%

87%

86%

84%

83%

47%

84%

82%

80%

78%

20120.9
2016
20130.8
2017
20140.8
2018
20100.8
2018
*See Column 10 in Table 2.4.
30 U.S. /
70 CAN

Further consideration of these alternative assumptions are anticipated to inform future Stock
Assessment Reports and in assessing appropriate risk reduction targets. Additionally, the
population estimate for 2019 is estimated to be 368 (± 11, Pace 2021) based on modifications to
the population model, described in Pace et al. (2021) which recognized that mortality of right
whales since the regime shift in 2010 and during the Unusual Mortality Event that began in 2017
was higher than originally anticipated. PBR will likely be lowered to 0.7 in the next Stock
Assessment Report. This new PBR would require a target risk reduction range of 71 to 91
percent using data from 2010 through 2018 (Pace 2021, Hayes et al. 2020).
60

Because of the urgency of responding to the rapid decline in the right whale population and
because the fishery source of mortality and serious injury to right whales cannot be determined
in 77 percent of the documented cases since 2010, for this action NMFS is focusing its scope on
the area and fishery that fishes the greatest number of buoy lines in the U.S. Atlantic: lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region (Figure 2.5). As shown in Table 2.3, the
2017 buoy line estimates derived through a model created to support the Team efforts indicate
that over 93 percent of fixed gear buoy line within right whale habitats along the Atlantic coast
are fished by the U.S. lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region. Further
risk reduction for other trap/pot fisheries and gillnet fisheries along the U.S. East Coast will be
addressed through the Take Reduction Team process with discussions that started in the spring of
2021.
The regulatory options for reducing the risk of entanglement mortality and serious injury fall into
two categories: reduction in overall entanglement risk and reduction in the severity if an
entanglement occurs. Reducing the likelihood of entanglement is primarily accomplished by
reducing the amount of line in the water column through line reductions and through seasonal
restricted areas with predictable aggregations of right whales. Further reducing the severity of
entanglements through gear modifications that allow lines to break prior to causing a serious
injury could minimize mortality and serious injury of entangled whales and mitigate potential
sublethal impacts. Most whales in the right whale stock are entangled at least once throughout
their lifetime, and researchers have suggested that continuous sublethal stress of entanglement
could be impacting population health and contributing to increased reproductive intervals
(Rolland et al. 2016, Pettis et al. 2017, van der Hoop et al. 2017, Christiansen et al. 2020, Moore
et al. 2021). There is new evidence that lower strength rope (i.e. 1,700 pounds/771 kilograms)
may be less likely to remain on entangled adult whales (Knowlton et al. 2016, DeCew et al.
2017), thereby allowing modifications in rope strength to be used to minimize the lethality of
fishing gear.
In addition to reducing risk of mortality and serious injury, there is an additional need to acquire
more data to inform future management actions. Additional gear marking regulations will be
considered that improve the quantity and quality of data available for future rulemaking and
investigating some of the uncertainties discussed above regarding gear type and the country
where the entanglement occurred.
Finally, because right whale distribution, particularly the location of aggregations of feeding
right whales, continues to shift, monitoring the population continues to be a Plan priority.
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Plan modifications on reducing mortality and serious injury
of right whales in U.S. waters and the impacts on fishermen and fishing communities is also
required.

2.2 Purpose and Need for Action
This EIS is being prepared using the 1978 CEQ NEPA Regulations. NEPA reviews initiated
prior to the effective date of the 2020 CEQ regulations may be conducted using the 1978 version
of the regulations. The effective date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14,
61

2020. This review began on August 2, 2019 (Notice of Intent published on this date) and the
agency has decided to proceed under the 1978 regulations.
Need
To reduce right whale mortality and serious
injury in Northeast trap/pot commercial
fisheries to below PBR, by at least 60 to 80
percent of the level observed in 2017.

Purposes
● Reduce risk of entanglement
● Reduce the severity of entanglements

To inform future management actions

● Improve ability to identify entanglement gear source
● Improve available data used to estimate entanglement risk

To monitor the impacts of management
actions

● Monitor Compliance with regulatory actions
● Monitor impacts of Plan measures for mortality and
serious injury to right whales
● Monitor social and economic impacts to fisheries

To reduce fin and humpback whale mortality
and serious injury in Northeast Trap/Pot
commercial fisheries.

● Reduce risk of entanglement
● Reduce the severity of entanglements

2.3 References
2012. Policy for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. 77 FR 3233, US.
Christiansen, F., S. M. Dawson, J. W. Durban, H. Fearnbach, C. A. Miller, L. Bejder, M. Uhart, M. Sironi, P.
Corkeron, W. Rayment, E. Leunissen, E. Haria, R. Ward, H. A. Warick, I. Kerr, M. S. Lynn, H. M. Pettis,
and M. J. Moore. 2020. Population comparison of right whale body condition reveals poor state of the
North Atlantic right whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 640:1-16.
Davies, K., M. Brown, P. Hamilton, A. Knowlton, C. Taggart, and A. Vanderlaan. 2019. Variation in North Atlantic
right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, over three decades. Endangered
Species Research 39:159-171.
DeCew, J., P. Lane, and E. Kingston. 2017. Numerical analysis of a lobster pot system. Page 61. New England
Aquarium.
Hayes, S. A., S. Gardner, L. Garrison, A. Henry, and L. Leandro. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whales: evaluating
their recovery challenges in 2018.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2019. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-258, NEFSC, NMFS,
NOAA, DOC, Woods Hole, MA.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2020. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2019. Page 479. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Henry, A. G., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Smith, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, and T. V. Cole. 2021. Serious injury and
mortality determinations for baleen whale stocks 2014-2018. Page 62. Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference Document, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Henry, A. G., T. V. N. Cole, L. Hall, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, and A. Reid. 2014. Mortality determinations for baleen
whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States east coast, and Atlantic Canadian provinces, 2008 2012. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005. Fishing gear involved
in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science 21:635–645.

62

Knowlton, A., P. K. Hamilton, M. Marx, H. Pettis, and S. Kraus. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: A 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 466:293-302.
Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A. McKenna, S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2016. Effects of fishing
rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv Biol 30:318-328.
Kraus, S. D., M. W. Brown, H. Caswell, C. W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, P. K. Hamilton, R. D. Kenney, A. R. Knowlton,
S. Landry, C. A. Mayo, W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, D. P. Nowacek, D. A. Pabst, A. J. Read, and R. M.
Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science 309:561-562.
Moore, M., T. Rowles, D. Fauquier, J. Baker, I. Biedron, J. Durban, P. Hamilton, A. Henry, A. Knowlton, W.
McLellan, C. Miller, R. Pace, H. Pettis, S. Raverty, R. Rolland, R. Schick, S. Sharp, C. Smith, L. Thomas,
J. van der Hoop, and M. Ziccardi. 2021. REVIEW Assessing North Atlantic right whale health: threats, and
development of tools critical for conservation of the species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 143:205–226.
NMFS. 2012. Protected Resources Management Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of
Marine Mammals. National Marine Fisheries Service Instruction 02-038-01. NMFS, NOAA, DOC.
NMFS 2012. Process for Injury Determination Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine
Mammals. NMFS-PD- 02-238-01. Renewed 2014. Available at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dammigration/02-238-01.pdf
Oleson, E.M, Jason Baker, Jay Barlow, Jeff E. Moore, Paul Wade. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring
and Surveillance: Report and Recommendations of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Expert
Working Group. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/OPR-64, 47 p.
Pace, R. M., 3rd, P. J. Corkeron, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline
in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and Evolution 7:8730-8741.
Pace, R. M., R. Williams, S. D. Kraus, A. R. Knowlton, and H. M. Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic
right whales:e346.
Pace, RM. 2021. Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model: improvements for
hypothesis testing. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE 269.Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, and P. K. Hamilton.
2018a. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018 Annual Report Card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, R. S. Schick, and P. K. Hamilton. 2018b. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2017
annual report card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, and P. K. Hamilton. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual Report
Card.
Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M. III, Hamilton, P.K. 2021. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report
Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. Rolland, P. K. Hamilton, A. R. Knowlton, E. A. Burgess, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. Body condition
changes arising from natural factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena
glacialis. Endangered Species Research 32:237-249.
Record, N. R., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z.
Feng, S. Kraus, R. Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 2019. Rapid
Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography 32.
Rolland, R. M., R. S. Schick, H. M. Pettis, A. R. Knowlton, P. K. Hamilton, J. S. Clark, and S. D. Kraus.
2016. Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: from individual health to
demographic and population health trends. Marine Ecology Progress Series 542:265-282.
Sharp, S., W. McLellan, D. Rotstein, A. Costidis, S. Barco, K. Durham, T. Pitchford, K. Jackson, P. Daoust, T.
Wimmer, E. Couture, L. Bourque, T. Frasier, B. Frasier, D. Fauquier, T. Rowles, P. Hamilton, H. Pettis,
and M. Moore. 2019. Gross and histopathologic diagnoses from North

63

Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mortalities between 2003 and 2018. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 135:131.
van der Hoop, J., P. Corkeron, and M. Moore. 2017. Entanglement is a costly life-history stage in large whales.
Ecology and Evolution 7:92–106.

64

CHAPTER 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), last amended in 2015, includes a
combination of fishing gear modifications and seasonal area closures aimed at reducing the risk
that large whales will be killed or seriously injured as a result of entanglement in U.S.
commercial fishing gear. Gear marking to improve our understanding of where entanglement
incidents occur is also required. The nature and extent of the gear modification and seasonal
closure requirements varies by jurisdiction (i.e. state waters, geographic regions, and within
federal waters) such that risk reduction is distributed along the U.S. East Coast. NMFS
recognizes that entanglement risks occur throughout the distribution of North Atlantic large
whales, requiring continued collaboration with the Government of Canada toward the
development of similar protective measures for large whales beyond the northern bounds of U.S.
waters.
The scope of modifications analyzed with this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are
confined to the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area (hereinafter referred to as the
Northeast Region) where large whales, and particularly North Atlantic right whales (hereafter
referred to as right whale), occur nearly year round and where the vast majority of buoy lines are
fished (see Chapter 2). This chapter is organized as follows:
•

•
•
•

Section 3.1 describes the process that was followed in developing the alternatives
analyzed in the DEIS and modified due to public comments and new information for
analysis in this FEIS.
Section 3.2 provides a description of the regulatory alternatives under consideration.
Section 3.3 details justification for the alternatives selected for analysis in this FEIS.
Section 3.4 contains an overview of the alternatives that NMFS considered but rejected.

3.1 Development of Alternatives
NMFS is considering two types of actions: 1) modifications to the existing Take Reduction Plan
requirements to reduce frequency or severity of entanglements and 2) small modifications to the
federal regulations for American Lobster related to increasing maximum length of trawls
between buoys and increasing the number of traps on a trawl using only one buoy. The
alternatives being considered would reduce risk to all large whales but especially target ongoing
right whale entanglements that result in serious injury or mortality. Additionally, NMFS is
considering gear marking requirements that may improve our understanding of where
entanglements occur and the type of gear involved.
The alternatives analyzed use the best available information about right whale distribution and
co-occurrence with buoy lines as well as the relative threat of gear configurations across the
Northeast Region. While development of alternatives began with consideration of
recommendations of conceptual buoy line and weak rope measures spread across jurisdictions
within the Northeast Region, scoping results and implementation challenges resulted in
substantial modifications that included the addition of seasonal restricted areas. The alternatives
attempt to scale gear modifications to relative risk, while recognizing that continuing ecosystem
shifts require broad scale precautionary measures to protect the shifting distribution of right
65

whales. In areas of low risk to right whales, such as where right whales have not predictably
aggregated and where buoy lines are of lower strength, precautionary measures such as weak
insertions in buoy lines are considered. Where risk is higher because lines are stronger and/or
whales occur in higher abundance or aggregate seasonally, measures to reduce the number of
buoy lines, close areas to buoy lines, or require buoy lines to be reconfigured to include a portion
that breaks at 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) are analyzed. The measures under consideration aim
to reduce entanglement risk posed by Northeast Region trap/pot fisheries gear by at least 60
percent or greater to help achieve the potential biological removal level (PBR) of less than one
right whale per year (see section 2.1.5 for further explanation of these calculations).
To evaluate and compare risk reduction alternatives to estimate the extent to which regulatory
changes would achieve the risk reduction target, a Decision Support Tool (DST) was developed
by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The DST attempts to quantify entanglement risk for
right whales in lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region. The following
sections describe the data and associated tools that were considered and how these were
incorporated into the DST, as well as how the tool was used in the development of a nearconsensus suite of alternatives recommended by the Take Reduction Team, and further, how the
DST was used, often in consultation with New England state managers and offshore lobster
fishery Team members and in response to public input, to create the alternatives considered in
this FEIS.

Relevant Meetings
3.1.1.1

Take Reduction Team Input

Since the inception of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, risk reduction measures
recommended by the Team and implemented through regulations have been directed at:
•
•
•

reducing line in the water column,
reconfiguring buoy lines and gillnet panels, including weak links, to allow large whales
to break free of the lines, and
protecting predictable aggregations of whales through restricted areas.

The 1997 regulations implementing the Plan included: the use of negatively buoyant buoy lines
to fixed gear fisheries to reduce line floating at the surface; configuration options to reduce
strength of connections between surface systems with buoy lines in lobster or gillnet gear and
between panels of sink gillnet gear seasonally; and closures of predictable aggregation areas in
Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel, (62 FR 39157, July 22, 1997). Information on these
early Team meetings, through the present, as well as Plan regulatory actions can be found on the
NMFS website at https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/garfo/protected/whaletrp/trt/.
After the initial rulemaking, the Team focused on considering how to further reduce the amount
of line in the water column. The Plan was modified to reduce the profile of the groundline that
runs between traps along a multi trap trawl; replacing floating line with sinking groundline in
U.S trap/pot fisheries and on sink gillnets, with some seasonal and area exemptions, along the
Atlantic Coast, effective April 5, 2009 (73 FR 51228, September 2, 2008). The Team then turned
66

efforts toward reducing the risk of entanglement in buoy lines, culminating with 2014 and 2015
measures that expanded the Cape Cod Bay restricted area for trap/pot fisheries into
Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA; 50 CFR 229.32(c)(3). These 2014 and 2015 amendments
reduced the number of buoy lines substantially through both the expanded closure area largely
resulting in the removal of gear to shore storage, and by establishing “trawling up” areas that
increased the number of traps between buoy lines.
Confirmation that the right whale population had been in decline since 2010 was published in
2017 (Pace et al. 2017), identifying a decrease in calving and increased mortality. Also in 2017,
unprecedented right whale mortalities were documented, including 12 mortalities seen in Canada
and five in U.S. waters, prompting NMFS to declare an Unusual Mortality Event, which
continues through 2021. In 2017, due to decomposition or lack of access, the cause of mortality
was only determined for six of the twelve dead right whales discovered in Canada, including two
that were attributed to entanglement and four to blunt force trauma associated with vessel strikes.
Cause was determined for three of the five mortalities first seen in U.S. waters: two showed signs
of entanglement trauma, and one young right whale killed by a vessel strike. In addition, zero
births were observed in the subsequent 2017/2018 calving season. As a result of evidence of a
declining population exacerbated by 2017’s high mortalities, in February 2018, NMFS
established two subgroups of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to consider the
operational feasibility of potential risk reduction measures. One subgroup was charged with
investigating the feasibility of using weak rope (1,700 pounds/771 kilograms maximum breaking
strength) and gear marking, and the other was tasked with investigating the feasibility of fishing
without buoy lines (ropeless fishing). As discussed in Section 2.1.3, over 95 percent of buoy
lines fished along the U.S. East Coast in waters not exempt from Plan requirements are fished by
the lobster trap/pot and Jonah crab fishery; 93 percent within the Northeast Region. For this
reason NMFS focused the scope of the Team’s discussions on developing recommendations for
the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries.
In recent years, no gear has been retrieved from 79 percent of large whales (80 percent of all
right whales) where entanglement-related serious injuries and mortalities are identified.
Therefore while the subgroups concurred that expanded gear marking requirements were
feasible, expensive approaches such as micro-chips or transponders were identified as possibly
too expensive given the relatively low benefits of the gear marking. Weak rope was considered
by the subgroup to be feasible nearshore but concerns were expressed about use in deeper water
fisheries as well as about the economic impacts of a wholesale change-over in buoy lines. The
subgroup considering ropeless fishing alternatives suggested that it was impractical for rapid
deployment and therefore should not be considered for imminent plan modification
recommendations. The subgroups’ findings were shared with the Team in support of a full inperson meeting in October 2018.
Additionally, in preparation of Also prior to the October 2018 in-person meeting, team members
were invited to submit risk reduction proposals. Eight proposals were submitted to NMFS prior
to the meeting and an additional proposal was crafted during the meeting and shared with all
Team members at the meeting. The goal was to develop Team recommendations regarding
acceptable risk reduction elements for further evaluation. The lack of agreement on whether or
how much risk reduction was necessary, or any mechanism to compare the wide range of
67

proposal elements, challenged the Team’s ability to develop consensus recommendations. As a
result, the Team created work plans for NMFS identifying data needs for decision making to
have at the April 2019 meeting. Priority was given to common themes including development of
a risk reduction target, a tool to allow comparison of alternatives, and a focus on elements with
the greatest potential to reduce mortality and serious injury quickly.
Following up on the work plans provided to NMFS at the October 2018 meeting, NMFS
conducted two “work group” teleconferences for the Team: one to discuss gear marking
alternatives and the other to discuss methods for developing and evaluating closed areas.
Additionally, NMFS hosted a third teleconference with the Team in order for the New England
Aquarium to share the results of a rope workshop they held. Aquarium staff and participating
Team members could recount the discussion of operational challenges and weak rope relative to
use in Northeast Region trap/pot fisheries. Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) rope
research was also reviewed during this teleconference.
Also included on the October 2018 agenda was discussion of the NMFS Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to modify existing seasonal closures to instead be closures to the
use of buoy lines. Under a revised closure definition, trap/pot fishermen could fish with trap/pot
gear using “ropeless” methods that did not use buoy lines, although exempted fishing permits
would be required to exempt fishermen from the surface marking requirements under fishery
management regulations. The gear would not be truly ropeless, but would still require rope in the
groundline between pots in the trawls on the ocean floor. Most designs also include rope buoy
lines that are stored on the bottom until retrieved by a vessel operator when on site to haul the
lobster trawl. Team members disagreed about further consideration of “ropeless fishing” for
multiple reasons, including: costs of the technology, concerns about gear conflicts, lack of testing
under commercial fishing conditions, questions about impacts on trawlers and other mobile gear
fishermen, ability of enforcement agents to retrieve, inspect, and reset the gear, and the belief
that it could not be rapidly adapted for commercial use. Some Team members recognized that
ropeless fishing could provide an alternative to seasonal closures and many strongly supported
the need for commercial fishermen to be involved in the further development and design of
ropeless gear. Because it was clear that the Team would not provide a consensus
recommendation on the ANPR, NMFS did not move the action further in 2018.
Between the October 2018 and April 2019 in-person meetings, NMFS identified the need for a
60 percent to 80 percent risk reduction in U.S. entanglement-related mortality and serious injury
in order to achieve a PBR of, at the time, 0.9 right whales (PBR is currently 0.8; see Section
2.1.5). Additionally, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center created a preliminary DST (see
Section 3.1.4 and Appendix 3.1), for use during the in-person April 2019 meeting to model and
analyze the contribution of various proposal elements (whale density, gear density, etc.) towards
the target risk reduction. The draft version of the preliminary DST was presented to the Team a
week before the April 2019 meeting.
Many Team members did not agree with the risk reduction target established by NMFS.
Fishermen in particular believed that too many entanglements of unknown origin were assigned
as serious injuries and mortalities due to U.S. commercial fisheries. There were particular
concerns expressed about the uncertainties related to the upper bound of the target, which
68

considered estimated mortalities generated by a new population model (Hayes et al. 2019).
Because all observed mortalities that can be attributed to a source are caused by either
entanglements or vessel strikes (except for some natural neonate mortalities), estimated
unobserved mortalities are likely to be caused by the same human interactions. However, there is
no way to definitively apportion unobserved mortality across causes (fishery interactions vs.
vessel strike) or country of origin (U.S. vs. Canada). For the purposes of developing a
conservative target, NMFS assumed that half of the unobserved incidents occurred in U.S. waters
and were caused primarily by incidental entanglements. However, given the many sources of
uncertainty in the 80 percent target, as well as the challenges achieving such a target without
large economic impacts to the fishery, the Team focused on recommendations to achieve the 60
percent, lower bound, target.
Team members were also uncomfortable with the preliminary nature of the DST, particularly the
threat index component that models risk associated with line strength and gear configurations.
However, all present Team members worked within and across caucuses to run various
alternatives through the DST. Both the target risk reduction and the DST generated an
understanding of the scope of measures NMFS was proposing to achieve the necessary PBR for
right whales. After some discussion there was general agreement that risk reduction should be
shared across jurisdictions so no one state or fishing area would have to bear the bulk of
reductions, and so that different jurisdictions could choose an approach that best fit their fishery,
rather than a “one size fits all” approach. This also allowed consideration of area-wide measures
that would be resilient to changes in whale distribution. By the final morning of the meeting, all
but one Team member agreed that NMFS should move forward on the recommendations listed
on Table 3.1 toward a 60 percent risk reduction. The dissenter believed that the measures did not
go far enough to prevent the extinction of the right whale.
New England states were given the lead in scoping with stakeholders in their states and
developing measures and implementation details related to the Team’s near-consensus
recommendation. Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island conducted scoping
before and after drafting measures. Lacking a state jurisdictional counterpart, NMFS also worked
closely with the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association on measures for the offshore
federal Lobster Management Area (LMA) 3. NMFS conducted scoping in August and September
of 2019, receiving over 89,000 written comments and including eight public meetings attended
by over 800 stakeholders.

69

Table 3.1: TEAM NEAR-CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS, April 2019
(Vote on support to move forward with these measures: 44 out of 45 Team members)
General Recommendations
• Given the high variability around gear severity rankings included in the tool, re-do the poll using expert
elicitation methods to converge on improved severity/risk reduction estimates
• Develop a monitoring plan, including whale and gear surveys, to monitor efficacy over time, as well as
track implementation approaches and innovations.
• Revisit the need for weak links if weak lines are required.
• Put in place safety exemptions for young fishermen, nearshore fisheries, shallow waters, etc.
• Update the right whale model used for rulemaking to account for regime shift
Specific Recommendations by Area
• For Maine, LMA 1
o
50 percent buoy line reduction
o
The top ¾ length of buoy lines made of weakened rope (toppers) on all gear outside of 3 miles (5.6
kilometers); expected to generate an 11.6 percent risk reduction
o
Assessment and monitoring should include assessment of unintended consequences; develop best
practices to avoid issues such as increasing rope diameter/strength
• For Massachusetts, LMA 1
o
30 percent buoy line reduction (excluding the approximately 100 fishermen already closed out of the
Massachusetts Restricted Area); results in annual net risk reduction of roughly 25 percent.
o
Sleeves or their equivalent everywhere; expected to generate an 11 percent risk reduction
o
24 percent credit for the previously implemented Massachusetts Restricted Area
o
Note: Some source data for this calculation needs confirming
• For Rhode Island, LMA 2
o
Buoy lines expected to be reduced by 18 percent in the next three years
o
Willing to use 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) sleeves or equivalent everywhere; expected to generate
a 43 percent risk reduction or equivalent
o
Additionally, Rhode Island to trawl up from 20 to 30 pots in 2/3 overlap as a component of its 30
percent buoy line reduction
• For New Hampshire, LMA 1 (aggregate risk reduction of 58.5 percent)
o
30 percent buoy line reduction
o
1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or sleeves or equivalent throughout fishery; expected to generate a 2829 percent risk reduction
• For Offshore, LMA 3
o
Fishermen in principle agree to reducing risk through a combination of buoy line reductions (already
underway) and other measures; LMA 3 responsible (like other LMAs) for meeting the 60 percent risk
reduction goal
o
Ongoing LMA 3 risk reduction of 18 percent anticipated due to already planned buoy line reductions
from 2018-2020
o
Through 50 fathoms (91.4 m) depth, fishermen agree to use 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) breaking
strength or equivalent
o
Five-year rapid research commitment to address lower rope weight breaking strength and other risk
reduction measures
o
Work with industry to identify the specifics of risk reduction; present approaches to Team
Note: The risk reduction estimates provided here represent old calculations based on the original version of the
tool. The tool has since been updated and the current version is discussed below. One notable difference here is
where the Team noted a discrepancy in risk reduction anticipated by using sleeves versus 1,700 pounds (771
kilograms) rope. Although the Team believes these conservation measures are equivalent, according to the tool,
the sleeves were projected to provide a 43 percent reduction. This has since been altered in the most current
iteration of the tool to consider these two configurations as equivalent.

Proposals submitted to NMFS by the states can be found in Appendix 3.3. As described in the
list of measures for Alternative 2 (Preferred), nearly all of the measures in the Preferred
70

Alternative were originally proposed by the states and modified in this FEIS based on state and
public feedback during the public comment period. One measure, an area seasonally closed to
buoy lines along the edge of LMA 1 about 30 miles (48.3 km) off shore of Maine, was included
by NMFS though not in Maine’s proposal to ensure LMA 1 achieved sufficient risk reduction.
Another measure, proposed by Rhode Island, to require one weak buoy line for LMA 2 vessels,
was not included in the Preferred Alternative. Instead, a closure south of Nantucket proposed by
Massachusetts is included in the risk reduction measures of Alternative 2. Measures discussed
with LMA 3 participants, including the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, are
analyzed in both Alternatives 2 and 3. In sum, the alternatives analyzed in this FEIS were
adapted from state proposals for risk reduction alternatives, where possible.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs NMFS to adopt as regulations take reduction team
recommended plan modifications, or to identify and explain why measures different from what
the team recommended were implemented. The alternatives proposed by the states, the
alternatives analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and the final
regulatory alternatives detailed in Table 3.2 in this FEIS are not the same as the
recommendations provided by the Team. The framework provided by the April 2019 meeting
shaped the overarching goals and the scoping conducted by NMFS and the states to develop
region specific approaches to risk reduction. However as a framework, the Team’s
recommendations were not directly translatable into implementing regulations. Additionally,
these measures were refined based on stakeholder feedback, feasibility, improvement of risk
reduction estimate modeling, public scoping, and extensive public comments on the DEIS.
Additionally, improvements in the analytical tools being used to develop the alternatives, new
weak insert data, and other details that were not yet in place at the time of the ALWTRT
meeting, as well as safety or capacity-related concerns over longer trawls by smaller entities
were considered in creating the final measures. However, Alternatives 2 and 3 align with the
basic principles within the Team’s framework recommendations: they were estimated by the
DST to achieve at least 60 percent risk reduction in the northeast lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot
fisheries in the Northeast Region, distributed as possible across jurisdictions, primarily using line
reductions through trawling up and reduction of line strength through the use of weak rope or
weak inserts. One large change is that Alternatives 2 and 3 include seasonal restricted areas,
closed to lobster and Jonah crab buoy lines in areas where right whales are known to aggregate
based on the best available data, which were added to ensure the sufficiency of other measures in
meeting the risk reduction goal, as well as in response to public input related to areas of high
whale use. Finally, Alternative 2 (Preferred) in the FEIS differs from the DEIS in the extent of
the area being closed and weak inserts being required due to updates to the DST, especially a
modification of the whale data, and associated new data analysis, as well as consideration of new
measures being implemented by the state of Massachusetts. These changes in the FEIS led to a
stronger Preferred Alternative with greater risk reduction to right whales than those in the DEIS.
3.1.1.2

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Consideration of Take
Reduction Team Target

The large majority of buoy lines along the Atlantic coast occur in the American lobster trap/pot
fishery. The Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) is the management authority
for the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan, coordinating interstate management of the
American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in state waters (coastline to 3 miles/coastline to
71

5.6 km offshore). NMFS has management authority for the fishery in federal waters (3 to 200
miles/5.6-370.4 kilometers) in close coordination with ASMFC.
At the ASMFCs October 2018 American Lobster Board Meeting, the Board was briefed on
proposals considered by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, including what are
traditionally considered fishery management measures such as establishment of trap caps toward
reducing buoy line numbers. The Lobster Board recognized that many of the right whale
conservation proposals considered could impact the economic and cultural future of the lobster
fishing industry. They created a Lobster/Whale Work Group to evaluate measures under
consideration by the Team and to create recommendations for the Board. After discussing
measures including consideration of up to a 50 percent line reduction requirement, the Work
Group recommendations, presented at the February 2019 Lobster Board meeting, included
initiation of an Addendum to ASMFC’s American Lobster Fishery Management Plan to consider
reducing traps and/or buoy lines, vessel tracking requirement for federal permit holders, and
reporting requirements. The Board initiated the drafting of an Addendum to the American
Lobster Fishery Management Plan (Addendum XXVIII) to reduce the number of buoy lines in
the lobster fishery by 20 to 40 percent in each LMA (except LMA 6) taking into consideration
ongoing effort reduction measures - and to the extent possible maintaining the viability and
culture of the lobster fishery.
A Plan Development Team (PDT) was created and met regularly beginning in March 2019. Like
the Take Reduction Team, the PDT struggled with the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of
buoy line reduction in different areas towards reducing risk to right whales. The draft Decision
Support Tool was presented in April 2019 using baseline line data informed by the states
participating in the PDT, but the DST was not sufficiently finalized at that time to inform an
Addendum. The PDT also shared concerns about the challenge determining buoy line numbers
given the variety of data collection requirements and standards used by each state. For states that
do not have 100 percent vessel trip reporting that includes buoy line data, the Team agreed to use
the NMFS Co-occurrence model developed by Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) to provide the
2017 monthly buoy line estimates as the baseline against which line reduction would be
considered. Consideration for 2015 and 2016 effort reduction actions was also promoted. Finally,
the PDT was concerned about the ability to provide states with flexibility to develop measures
suited to their lobster management areas with the need for consistency in federal waters, as well
as concerns about the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of line reduction measures with
inconsistent reporting requirements.
No draft addendum was put forward by the PDT at the August 2019 Annual meeting, citing
challenges in the buoy line count data, analysis, and evaluation challenges. However, the Lobster
Board did establish a fishery control date of April 30, 2019. Control dates alert fishery permit
holders that their eligibility to participate in a commercial fishery in the future might be affected
by their past participation as that is documented through landings data, vessel trip reports and
gear configuration from records prior to the control date. However discussions by the ASMFC’s
Lobster/Whale Work Group and PDT informed the development of measures included in the
alternatives analyzed within this FEIS, particularly including consideration of development of a
line cap under the Non-preferred Alternative.

72

Decision Support Tool Analyses
The DST, a model designed to assess and compare the risk reduction that may be achieved by
various management measures, was developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to aid
in the comparison of spatial management measures toward the development of alternatives that
meet the 60 to 80 percent risk reduction target provided to the team in 2019. This model
calculates right whale entanglement risk based on three components: the density of lines in the
water, the distribution of whales (as indicated by a habitat density model predicting right whale
distribution from 2010 through 2018), and a gear threat model to determine the relative threat of
gear based on gear strength. Both line density and whale distributions are resolved monthly.
Together, these components roughly estimate the approximate risk of an entanglement that will
result in serious injury or mortality, where a higher density of lines or predicted whales, and/or
high line strength increase risk. This enables a semi-quantitative comparison of how different
management scenarios and gear modifications are predicted to change the risk of entanglements
that result in serious injury or mortality.
An early DST model was used by the Team in April 2019. That model was modified in response
to a peer review conducted in late 2019, so DST version two was used to assess risk for the
DEIS. Subsequent modifications include a change in the Duke right whale habitat density model
(right whale density model) to version 11 (Roberts et al. 2020), which consider right whale
distribution after ecosystem shifts since 2010. DST version three was used in this FEIS to help
select risk reduction scenarios for the Preferred and Non-preferred Alternatives that are predicted
to sufficiently reduce right whale mortality and serious injury risk due to entanglement and to
distribute risk across the proposed area as equitably as practicable, with extra protection in areas
where higher density aggregations are most likely. Entanglement threat and risk reduction
calculations are unchanged between DST versions two and three as used in this analysis. This
section includes a brief summary of the model and how it was used in this FEIS. More thorough
documentation of the model and its components are available in Appendix 3.1.
The line density component of the DST for all areas except LMA 3 is based on the peerreviewed NMFS Vertical Line Model and Co-occurrence model developed by IEC. It estimates
the number of buoy lines associated with trap/pot configurations within a given spatial area. The
main model uses buoy line estimates from 2017, the latest data available and considered
representative of current fishery management measures and associated effort. A separate line
component for LMA 3 was developed by the NEFSC that was assessed to perform comparable to
the IEc model in aggregate but to have finer spatial resolution. The DST evaluates all changes
against the 2017 baseline, chosen because it was the year the NMFS determined that the
population was in decline, an Unusual Mortality Event was ongoing, and represented the most
recent data available when the ALWTRT process was reinitiated. An additional model was
included that uses older fishing effort data prior to the implementation of the MRA to determine
the value of that closure since the ALWTRT recommended considering the value of MRA
toward achieving the risk reduction target. The MRA in its current form was implemented in
2015 only a year and a half before the baseline year of 2017. Using the older line data that
predated the MRA, DST analyses estimated how much risk reduction the closure likely
accomplished that could be put towards a risk reduction credit.

73

A second layer in the model assesses the risk associated with different gear configurations,
accounting for the use of lines with different breaking strengths. Gear with higher breaking
strength is more risky to whales because it is harder to break out of and therefore more likely to
result in serious injury or mortality. An empirical gear threat model was built using information
on the strength of ropes involved in serious whale entanglements and how the strength of the
ropes observed in entanglements compares to the strength of ropes that whales would be
expected to encounter. The model estimates uncertainty within the gear threat model and
provides an upper and lower bound within the model output, if the option is selected. This
uncertainty is calculated by bootstrapping the observed line strength data to generate a ratio of
observed to expected line strengths and fitting the data to a binomial generalized linear model.
See Appendix 3.1 for more detail about the development of the gear threat model and associated
uncertainty.
The final layer is a right whale density model. The DST employs a right whale density model
built by researchers at Duke University that predicts the spatiotemporal distribution and density
of right whales throughout the proposed area (Roberts et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2020). The right
whale density model used oceanographic and habitat variables to create a map of likely whale
presence using whale data from 2003 through 2018. There are three options for whale layers: one
spans from 2003 through 2018, one from 2003 through 2009, and one from 2010 through 2018.
The alternatives in this FEIS were all developed using the model for the most recent right whale
data. The DST also includes a humpback density model and a fin whale density model for the
period of 1999 through 2017 (Roberts et al. 2017). The fin whale density model currently does
not support the use of a gear threat model and can only be used to examine co-occurrence.
Each model run allows selection of a variety of spatially explicit management measures on a
monthly basis with a focus on measures that reduce the number or strength of lines in the water
column, such as changes in the number of traps per trawl, the proportion of traps fished, line
strength, line number, restricted areas with lines out and/or lines moved to adjacent fishing areas,
and number of lines per trawl. The output provides the mean reduction in risk throughout an
entire fishing year as well as reduction in co-occurrence of whales and fishing lines. Suites of
measures can be run in tandem to best estimate overall changes in risk while taking into account
how different management measures may interact with one another to alter the risk landscape.
For example, risk reduced first by reducing line number reduces the risk landscape against which
a weak line requirement would be measured; they are not directly additive. Uncertainty is
estimated for the gear threat model but additional measures of model uncertainty are unavailable
for each layer of the model at this time.
3.1.2.1

Center for Independent Experts Peer Review

The Center for Independent Experts managed a review of the DST by three independent experts
through a public panel process conducted in November, 2019. The experts’ summary and
individual reports can be found online: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/science-qualityassurance/cie-peer-reviews/cie-review-2019 and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/featurestory/decision-support-tool-helpful-those-finding-ways-reduce-whale-entanglement-fishing. To
summarize briefly, the reviewers concluded that the decision support tool provides a useful and
open way for industry and managers to compare relative changes in entanglement risk for right
74

whales under various risk management scenarios. The reviewers advised caution in interpreting
decision tool results and advised on modification to improve the tool but, given the urgent need
to reduce entanglement mortalities as soon as possible, indicated that decision-making should
proceed while the tool is further refined. The interim version of the DST used for the DEIS
(version two) and the version of the DST (version 3) used to estimate risk reduction in the
Alternatives included a number of changes informed by the reviewer input. Documentation of
the DST version used to assemble Alternatives estimated to achieve a 60 percent or greater risk
reduction can be found in Appendix 3.1.
3.1.2.2

Selecting the Risk Reduction Alternatives

Generally, the alternatives were selected based on the combination of risk reduction measures
that, when combined, met the target of a minimum of 60 percent risk reduction from Northeast
Region Lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries within each alternative package (Table 3.2).
The target of 60 to 80 percent was presented to the Team, as described in section 3.1.1.1, to
reduce all U.S. fishery mortalities and serious injuries to below the PBR. To expedite
rulemaking, NMFS asked the Team to first focus on the northeast lobster and Jonah crab
fisheries because they fish 93 percent of the buoy lines used in areas of the U.S. Atlantic where
right whales occur. Regulating multiple fisheries coast wide is a more complex and lengthy
process. Given the fact that unobserved mortality estimated in the population model was new,
and the many sources of uncertainty in the 80 percent target related to both documented and
unobserved mortalities and serious injuries, as well as the challenges of achieving such a target
without large economic impacts to the fishery, the Take Reduction Team focused on
recommendations to achieve the lower 60 percent target for lobster and Jonah crab fisheries in
the Northeast Region. The ALWTRT near-consensus agreement presented a framework aimed at
achieving a 60 percent risk reduction target in those fisheries. The dissenting opinion that
prevented consensus did so because they thought the proposed measures were not sufficient for
population recovery.
In addition to 60 percent or greater risk reduction target, the guiding principles applied in
assembling the alternatives in this FEIS include:
•

As recommended by the Team, spread risk reduction across jurisdictions and include
broad application of reduced line and weak rope.

•

For jurisdictional approach: incorporate the proposals submitted by the New England
states and collaborate with the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association for LMA 3.

•

Direct the most protection to areas of predictable high seasonal aggregations of right
whales, including substantial risk reduction across areas of likely occurrence and
precautionary measures in other areas to be resilient to ecosystem changes and associated
changing whale distribution

•

Consider conservation equivalencies proposed by the states or the Atlantic Offshore
Lobstermen’s Association

•

Comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
75

•

Development of lower bound estimates of the alternatives above the 60 percent risk
reduction target to account for some uncertainty in risk reduction calculations.

Table 3.1: The total risk reduction estimated for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Non-preferred
Alternative (Alternative 3). Given the uncertainty in risk reduction for the insert intervals proposed by the states,
upper and lower bounds were also provided, as described in section 3.1.2.2, as was the uncertainty provided by the
gear threat model within the DST. Elements that do not result in significant risk reduction (e.g. weak link and gear
marking modifications) are not included.
Combination of Measures
Alternative 2
Alternative 3*
(Preferred)
Risk Reduction: Restricted Areas
53.3%
33.6%
Risk Reduction: Restricted Areas + Trawl Length
59.2%
34.4%
Risk Reduction: Restricted Areas + Trawl Length + Other Line
61.8%
59.4%
Reduction**
Total Risk Reduction - lower: Restricted Areas + Trawl Length + Other
68.8%
72.5%***
Line Reduction + Weak Line: lower bound estimate for inserts (DST Gear
(65.9% - 70.2%)
(61.8% Threat Uncertainty)
77.9%)
Total Risk Reduction - upper: Restricted Areas + Trawl Length + Other
72.7%
Line Reduction + Weak Line - upper bound estimate for inserts (DST Gear
(66.5% – 75.8%)
Threat Uncertainty)
*Alternative 3 uses a different baseline line model than the Preferred Alternative because it does not include the
Massachusetts Restricted Area Credit.
** Other line reduction for Alternative 2 represents line reduction via trap reductions in LMA 2 and 3. Other line
reduction for Alternative 3 represents the risk reduction from the line cap.
*** No bounds calculated because only full weak line was included and analyzed

3.1.2.3

Decision Support Tool Analyses

Each suite of measures were run through the DST (version three) to identify the estimated
contribution to risk reduction across the Northeast Region. The summary of model runs that best
estimate the risk reduction of the alternatives in this FEIS, taking into account the interactive
effects of different measure types, are located in Table 3.1. Additional output of individual
model runs is included in Appendix 3.2.
The model has several options to customize each run according to the assumptions being made.
The following delineates how scenarios were run based on the different underlying assumptions
of the different model options available.
•

Alternatives were assessed using one buoy line and right whale density model to avoid
combining non-additive model runs, as was necessary for the DEIS when we relied on
version two of the DST. The use of a single model allows all analyses to be run on one
model with a consistent baseline for all measures within the alternative.

•

To get an idea of relative contribution of each measure type (e.g. trawl length, restricted
area, or maximum line strength), measures of a particular type were added to progressive
model runs until all measures for an alternative were combined in one final model run
(see Table 3.1).

•

All final estimates were run in high resolution with DST model version 3.1.0.

•

The most updated lobster trap map was used for each region, line model version 3.0.0.
76

•

All risk reduction estimates used the same gear threat model and assumed line strength
would not increase for the trawl up scenarios selected based on feedback from the Maine
DMR and offshore fishermen.

•

All models were assessed with version 11 of the right whale density model provided to
NMFS by Duke University in early 2021 (Roberts et al. 2020). All alternatives used the
right whale density model timeframe that estimated density from 2010 to 2018 data to
incorporate the most recent data available and ecosystem shifts, most evident in the area
south of Cape Cod.

•

The two alternatives in this FEIS were assessed using two line models with baseline buoy
line data from 2017, both produced by IEc, according to the data needed to assess the
impacts of each suite of measures within complete model runs.

•

▪

Alternative 2 (Preferred) considered “credit” for the Massachusetts Restricted
Area (MRA) agreed upon by the Team in April 2019 and so used a line model
that estimated the line density and trap configurations within the MRA from
February through April prior to the implementation of the MRA in 2015. All
other line data in this model represented the 2017 baseline year.

▪

Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) used the same 2017 line model as Alternative 2 but
did not include the line data that pre-dated implementation of the MRA during the
closure months. This is because the baseline year selected for this alternative was
wholly 2017 and so this alternative did not consider the MRA credit.

Weak insertion analyses: weak insertions in longer intervals than what is considered fully
weak (i.e., more than 40 feet between insertions, where 40 feet is the interval assumed to
be equivalent to full weak rope) were not built into the decision support tool (see Section
3.3.4 for a discussion the criteria used to evaluate weak inserts). To determine the risk
reduction achieved from these scenarios, we calculated an upper and lower bound for the
proportion of full weak line risk reduction offered by a weak insert configuration:
▪

The lower bound represented the proportion of insertions in a weak line scenario
to the number of insertions needed to be set at 40 foot (12.2 meter) intervals
considering water depths and anticipated buoy line length. This measure was the
best approximation based on the data available. The number of insertions needed
for full weak rope equivalent was estimated using average depth in the area
weighted by the number of lines in each sub-region, and adjusted for estimated
scope ratio of the buoy lines in the area based on consultation with state managers
or fishermen (McCarron & Tetreault 2012).

▪

The upper bound estimate was equivalent to the proportion of the buoy line above
the lowest weak insertion point since the lower the insertion, the more likely a
whale will encounter and breakaway from above the insertion. Below the lowest
insertion, no risk reduction value is given (see Knowlton et al. 2020).

▪

The proportional risk reduction assigned to the lower and upper bound estimates
were then included in the DST model runs to approximate risk reduction where
full weak line was not included.

77

▪

The lower bound weak line estimate was used to estimate whether an alternative
met the required minimum risk reduction target of 60 percent to account for
uncertainty given the lack of better quantitative data for these estimates.

▪

The range presented is responsive to those comments on the DEIS that suggested
either we should consider all the rope down to the lowest link to be the equivalent
of weak rope (the upper bound) or that we should not consider rope weak unless it
is engineered to break at 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or less or has the full suite
of weak inserts (the lower bound

•

For any alternatives that impacted vessels fishing within the overlap between LMA 2 and
Three, we assumed half of the vessels in this area were impacted by LMA 2 measures
and the remainder were assumed to fish according to LMA 3 measures. Under fishery
management measures, dual permitted fishermen would have to fish under the more
conservative permit requirements therefore LMA 3 fishermen fishing in the overlap area
would have to fish under LMA 3 trawling up and weak rope requirements.

•

Because of variability in the number of lines fished in particular months and by area, the
50 percent line cap analysis was estimated to achieve an average 45 percent reduction in
line across the entire year, which varied by region from 37 to 49 percent. This was
estimated by calculating half of the average number of lines fished across the year by
area and how this might impact fishing effort by month in areas where the number of
lines fished during some months in 2017 was less than the monthly average (i.e. the line
cap). The most conservative estimate of average percent line reduction for each LMA
was used to estimate risk reduction in the DST (see Section 3.5.5.5 for further details).

3.1.2.4

Identifying Areas for Seasonal Restrictions to Buoy Lines

Broad scale reduction in buoy lines across the proposed area is resilient to changes in whale
distribution. However, NMFS identified areas and seasons where persistent aggregations of right
whales appear to be seasonally predictable and to afford opportunity for additional risk reduction
through seasonal closures to persistent buoy lines. To be effective, areas should not cause
predictable relocation of lines to areas of high co-occurrence with right whales, inadvertently
displacing risk. In considering areas, the primary goal was to find areas and seasons where there
was an increased likelihood of right whale presence while minimizing undesirable consequences.
For optimal conservation, the area needs to be sufficiently large to provide protection for whales
despite annual variation in whale presence, but not designed such that large numbers of lines
would relocate to other areas of high risk or to create a fencing effect along the borders of the
restricted area. Hotspots of high buoy line and right whale co-occurrence were identified and
tested with the DST to look for overall risk reduction. The approach for selecting hotspot areas is
discussed below.
3.1.2.5

South of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket

Several proposals from Team members and during the scoping process included the need for a
restricted area south of Cape Cod and several areas of varying sizes and configurations were
considered in this analysis (Figure 3.1). This area was also predicted as viable right whale habitat
based on oceanographic models showing suitable habitat and prey availability (Pendleton et al.
78

2012). The Preferred Alternative analyzed for final rulemaking would implement a larger area
closure than was identified in the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS but that was analyzed within
the Non-preferred Alternative. Right, humpback, fin, minke, and sei whales were all sighted
throughout the restricted areas from spring of 2011 through spring of 2015, extending from the
area south of Nantucket to the west past Martha’s Vineyard (Stone et al. 2017). During this
period, all demographic classes of right whales were seen, within the 196 individuals identified.
Thirty-five of the whales identified between 2011 and 2015 were not seen in other right whale
habitats during this period. Right whale sightings occurred primarily from December through
April, but were highest in February and March (Leiter et al. 2017). Though right whale
occurrence peaks in winter and spring, there does appear to be some year round presence in this
region (Oleson et al. 2020). The newest right whale density model from Duke University
(version 11) captures the distribution shift in recent years (2010 to 2018) when compared to the
previous nine year period (Roberts et al. 2020). Although the identification of this area as an
important foraging area could partly be due to increased survey effort in this area due to wind
energy development, it was predicted by models of copepod distribution (Pendleton et al. 2012).
When considering a restricted area in this region, we compared a number of options to consider
the relative protection offered by different sizes and shapes towards achieving 60 percent risk
reduction for LMA 2. Ultimately, three different shapes were selected for analysis in the DEIS
based on the most recent five year NARWC sightings data (data downloaded in 2019). NMFS
revisited these areas in selecting a Preferred Alternatives for the FEIS and for rulemaking based
on public comment, an updated right whale density model within the DST that takes into account
the most recent data from 2010 through 2018, and new sightings data that are not in the right
whale density model but demonstrates high use of a broader area than was preferred in the DEIS.
This area south of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket represents an area where right
whale aggregations have increased in recent years and therefore the most recent data is essential
for delineating an area that is likely to have an impact on right whale entanglement risk.
The restricted area that was included in the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS was proposed by
Massachusetts because it encompassed most of the sightings in the most recent two years when
whale use of the area appeared to have shifted to the East. The restricted area bolstered the risk
reduction that they were proposing for southern New England’s LMA 2. However, updated
aerial data collected between 2017 through 2021 demonstrate annual variation in habitat use in
southern New England and that right whale aggregations are likely to shift to areas outside of the
original preferred restricted area (Figure 3.1). The DST further estimated higher, more
predictable risk reduction occurring within the larger restricted areas, therefore the area proposed
by Massachusetts and in the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS was moved into the considered
but rejected measures within this FEIS.
For the FEIS, we revisited the restricted areas included in the Non-preferred Alternative of the
DEIS. One restricted area option in the DEIS Non-preferred Alternative is an L-shaped restricted
area that encompasses the area with the most sightings over the most recent three years of data
available for the FEIS (2017 through March 3, 2020). This shape was highly tailored to the areas
where right whales have been frequently spotted from February through April, the proposed
implementation months, between 2010 and 2020 but new 2021 data demonstrates that an overly
surgical approach may not be robust to annual changes in aggregations in this area.
79

Figure 3.1: Right whale sightings data during February through April from 2017 through 2021 with the restricted
areas analyzed in the DEIS. The area in the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS is in red, the area now in the FEIS
Preferred Alternative is in black, and the grey area is in the Non-preferred alternatives in both the DEIS and FEIS.
Aerial and shipboard survey data collected by NMFS, the New England Aquarium, and The Center for Coastal
Studies and also includes opportunistic sightings data.

The largest area analyzed in the DEIS encompasses most of the recent right whales sightings
since at least 2014. This area was included in the DEIS because it encompassed most of the
smaller hotspot areas in the DST runs for the DEIS that were tested using various data sources
and proposals. This area captures the majority of sightings in the most recent five year period
during peak right whale presence according to aerial and shipboard survey data collected by
NMFS, the New England Aquarium, and The Center for Coastal Studies and through
opportunistic sightings data (February through April, Figure 3.1). This area provided over two
times the risk reduction of the more tailored L-shaped area and, notably, encompasses dense
right whale aggregations observed in spring of 2021 that would have been missed by the Lshaped area. This area better captures variability in habitat use, will be more resilient to
environmental variability in the future, and prevents relocation of lines into areas of
entanglement risk in adjacent areas. For these reasons, the larger closure analyzed in the DEIS
was incorporated into Alternative 2 (Preferred) for this FEIS, and the L-shaped area was retained
as an element of the Non-preferred Alternative 3.
3.1.2.5.1 Offshore Hotspot Analyses
A co-occurrence hotspot analysis was conducted in the offshore fishing habitats in LMA 1 and
LMA 3 to see if there were any regions where whales and buoy lines co-occurred more
frequently and where measures might be targeted to achieve the target risk reduction. The
80

offshore fishery uses stronger and longer buoy lines to retrieve trawls with more trap/pots in
deeper waters. As described by Knowlton et al. (2017), stronger gear is likely more lethal. As a
caveat, surveys are more rare in offshore areas compared to the coast but are occasionally
conducted in response to reports of sightings. In order to identify offshore areas that could
benefit from a restricted area during development of the DEIS, we used the right whale density
model, version eight, within the DST to identify the individual pixels that represent forty to 50
percent of the cumulative risk in LMA 1 (assuming MRA is closed through May, see below
identified as a “hotspot”) and in LMA 3 within the Northeast Region. Two areas were identified
as having higher than average risk: one beyond 12 miles (22.2km) offshore of Maine during fall
and winter months (Figure 3.2), which has been proposed for a seasonal buoy line closure in
Alternatives 2 and 3, and one in Georges Basin within the Northeast Channel out to the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary beginning in late spring through late summer (Figure
3.3), proposed as a lobster trap/pot management area in Alternative 2 and a seasonal buoy line
restricted area in Alternative 3. The final borders around these areas were drawn through an
iterative process, testing the risk reduction offered in each version with the Decision Support
Tool and selecting an area that is robust to annual shifts in predicted whale distribution without
being larger than is necessary. For the LMA 1 restricted area, we also considered Maine’s fishing
zone boundaries, and truncated the borders to align with the edges of the outermost two zones.
Independent observations, as well as the physical and biological features of these “hotspots”
identified by the DST confirm their relative importance. The inclusion of a new right whale
density model into version three of the DST (right whale density model, version 11), still showed
substantial risk reduction occurring in these hotspots suggesting these areas remain relatively
important between 2010 and 2018.
LMA 1: The initial hotspot analyses were conducted with an older version (version eight) of the
right whale density model that spanned from 1998 through 2017. The most updated version of
the right whale density model (version 11) allows comparison of whale distribution before and
after 2010 and suggests the Gulf of Maine, including this area, is slightly less important for right
whales in recent years than previously but remains a potential hotspot for right whales during
late fall and early winter months (Roberts et al. 2020). Though some research suggests the
presence of the preferred prey species are shifting within the Gulf of Maine, acoustic data have
still detected right whales in this area in recent years. Data from recent gliders operating in
offshore Maine waters during December and January in 2018 and 2019 detected the presence of
right whales, with positive detections within an area in the season and within the boundaries
selected with the DST. Humpback, fin, and sei whales were also detected (data available at
dcs.whoi.edu, Baumgartner et al. 2019, Baumgartner 2020). Restricting buoy lines during this
time period in this region will reduce existing entanglement risk as well as prevent movement of
the prolific nearshore fishery further offshore into this hotspot. Although aerial surveys in recent
years have been sparse for this area, Baumgartner’s recent detections coincide with the area that
had been identified as a potential winter breeding ground from 2002 to 2008 (Cole et al. 2013).
Sound traps placed along the Maine Coast this year may provide further information regarding
the value of a seasonal closure to buoy lines in this area. But at the time of writing of this FEIS,
acoustic recordings for this season had not been uploaded or analyzed.

81

Figure 3.2: A hotspot analysis of the first 50 percent of risk characterized in the right whale density model version
eight for LMA 1

LMA 3, Georges Basin: There is some evidence that this area could serve as a right whale
foraging area. Historical data from Gulf of Maine show high densities of C. finmarchicus, in this
area in May and June, particularly in areas sampled on the edge of Georges Bank in Georges
Basin (Grieve et al. 2017). The area north of Georges Bank in the Gulf of Maine typically have
higher percentages of stage five C. finmarchicus, one of the more lipid-rich stages that make up a
part of the right whale diet (Mayo et al. 2001), starting in May and extending through summer
(Harvey Walsh, NEFSC, Pers. Comm.). High C. finmarchicus densities are known to be present
in summer months through fall just across the EEZ from the area in question, which could be
connected to densities in the proposed restricted area (Plourde et al. 2019). Right whales also
begin appearing in Canada in April and May (DFO 2019), potentially transiting through
Georges’ Basin area in search of food on their way north. However, co-occurrence model results
included in the DEIS suggested that relocation of gear out of this area into adjacent productive
fishing grounds would increase risk for several large whale species just outside of the boundaries
of the area, possibly due to movement patterns through the entire region. In comments on the
DEIS, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association instead proposed a higher number of
traps per trawl for this area as a conservation equivalency that would allow shorter trawl lengths
than the 45 traps per trawl specified in the DEIS along the southern boundary of Georges Bank.
Because of the importance of this Georges Basin hotspot to right whales, this FEIS adopted this
as a Preferred Alternative. The measure offers a slightly higher line reduction measure for
vessels fishing for lobster or Jonah crab in the Georges Basin area than the rest of LMA 3 in the
Northeast without shifting co-occurrence into other potential hotspots.

82

Figure 3.3: A hotspot analysis of the first 40 percent of risk characterized in the right whale density model version
eight for LMA 3

3.1.2.5.2 Massachusetts Restricted Area Extensions
Though the time period selected for the original MRA from February through April was based
on the months where whales were known to consistently aggregate, optimal habitat conditions in
Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and surrounding areas often extend well into May (Morano
et al. 2012, Pendleton et al. 2012, Roberts et al. 2020). Thus, several options were analyzed that
recognize the state’s flexibility in reopening dates in certain areas at the end of the restricted
period in case large aggregations are still present.

3.2 Alternatives Considered
The alternatives examined in this FEIS emphasize options that are designed to reduce the
potential for entanglements or to minimize the severity of adverse impacts to right whales and
other large whales if entanglements occur, with a goal of at least 60 percent risk reduction
(Section 3.2.1). Regulatory options were combined based on a variety of factors including the
spatial risk landscape, regional fishery characteristics, safety concerns, known areas of increased
whale presence, and public input. Most of the regulatory elements within the Preferred
Alternative in the FEIS and final rule combine risk reduction measures that achieve the
principles identified by the Take Reduction Team of applying broad and resilient weak line and
line reduction measures, but the Team’s recommended relative weak rope and line reduction
measures were modified as a result of further risk reduction assessment, modifications proposed
by the New England states or the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, and conservation
equivalencies proposed during public comments on the DEIS and proposed rule.
In addition to Alternative 1 (baseline) NMFS analyzed two suites of regulatory alternatives for
consideration and identified a Preferred Alternative in this FEIS for final rulemaking. This
section delineates new risk reduction and gear marking alternatives for lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot fisheries already managed under the Plan within New England waters. The measures
included in this FEIS were modified from the analyses in the DEIS based on comments received
83

during the comment period on the DEIS but are all within the range of alternatives analyzed in
the DEIS. Risk reduction estimates include the updated measures implemented by Massachusetts
in recent months. Alternative 2 (Preferred) also adopts some of the conservation equivalency
measures for vessels in Maine, LMA 2, and LMA 3 that offer alternative measures of equivalent
or near-equivalent risk reduction that still achieve at least the minimum 60 percent target.
Described in detail below, NMFS also proposed precautionary requirements, like additional gear
marking and modifications to whale monitoring, that would apply across all the alternatives, with
the exception of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1, see section 3.2.2 for gear marking
alternatives). The requirements under these alternatives supplement existing Plan requirements,
unless otherwise noted (see Appendix 2.1 for description of current regulations).
Consistent with the recommendations of the Team, as delineated in Table 3.1, the suites of
measures developed for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 include the risk reduction contribution of
regulatory measures that will not be written into the Final Rule, including:
•

•

•
•

•

•

American lobster and Jonah crab fishery management measures that are being phased-in
or are imminent, including ongoing changes to trap allocations phased in through 2021,
and in-development regulations to further modify the trap allocation and trap transfer
program to address the poor condition of southern New England lobster stock per
Addenda 21, 22 and 26 to Amendment Three of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan
for American Lobster
Measures in Alternative 2 that will be implemented by states, including gear marking and
weak insertions in lobster buoy lines in Maine exempt waters, extension of state waters of
the Massachusetts Restricted Area season (until May 15 with the option of opening if
whales leave the area or extending if whales remain in the area), and weak insert
requirements in Massachusetts State waters.
“Credit” for the Massachusetts Restricted Area.
Measures in both alternatives include Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries
(DMF) extension of the Massachusetts Restricted Area north in Massachusetts State
waters to the New Hampshire border, which would be included in the final rule
modifying the Plan. Evaluation of the extension of the state water closure into May is
also analyzed but would not be included in the federal regulations.
Modifications of regulations implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act (ACFCMA) at 50 CFR 697.21(b)2) requiring two buoy lines on trawls
with more than three pots to accommodate Maine conservation equivalencies
Though not related to risk reduction, the minimum trawl lengths proposed for both
alternatives in LMA 3 will also require associated modifications to the regulations at 50
CFR 697.21 (b)(3) implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management
Act, increasing the allowable length of the trawl and groundline between the buoy lines
from 1.5 nautical miles (2.78 kilometers) to 1.75 nautical miles (3.24 kilometers) in
length.

84

Table 3.3: A summary of the risk reduction regulatory elements of the alternatives analyzed within the two action alternatives in this FEIS, arranged by LMA
and geographic region (where appropriate). Dark gray shaded rows represent risk reduction elements that already exist or are reasonably foreseeable under state
regulations or federal fishery management regulations and that contribute to the risk reduction goal but would not be implemented by Federal rulemaking to
amend the Take Reduction Plan. Accommodations required in the ACFCMA and gear marking modifications are not listed. OC = Outer Cape
Component

Restricted
Areas

Area

All existing and new
closures become closed to
buoy lines

LMA 1 Restricted Area,
Offshore ME LMA 1/3
border, zones C/D/E
South Island Restricted
Area
Massachusetts Restricted
Area

Line
Reduction

Massachusetts Restricted
Area North
Georges Basin Restricted
Area
ME exemption line – 3 nm
(5.6 km), Zones A, B, F, G
ME exempt area – 3 nm
(5.6 km), Zones C, D, E
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zone A West**
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zone B
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zones C, D, E, F, G
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 12 nm
(22.2 km), Zone A East**
ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),
Zone A West**

Alternative 2
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
exemption from fishery management regulations
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of
the bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.

Alternative 3
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
exemption from fishery management regulations
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of the
bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.

Oct – Jan

Oct – Feb

Feb – April: Area from Non-preferred A in DEIS.

Feb – May: L-shaped area closed to buoy lines.

Credit for Feb-Apr, state water in MRA have a soft
opening until May 15th, until no more than three whales
remain as confirmed by surveys
Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH
border

Federal extensions of restricted area throughout MRA
and LMA 1/OC state waters unless surveys confirm that
right whales have left the area.
Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH
border

-

Closed to buoy lines May through August.

3 traps/trawl

-

Status quo (2 traps/trawl)

-

8 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 4 traps/trawl per one
buoy line

Line allocations capped at 50 percent of average monthly
lines in federal waters

5 traps/trawl per one buoy line
10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
15 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 8 traps/trawl per
one buoy line

85

Same as above
Same as above
Same as above

Component
Buoy Line
Reduction
Continued

Other Line
Reduction
Buoy Weak
Link
Weak Line

Area

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),
Zone B, D, E, F

10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per
one buoy line (status quo in D, E, & F)

Same as above

ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),
Zone C, G
MA LMA 1, 6* – 12 nm
(22.2 km)
LMA 1 & OC 3 – 12 nm
(5.6 – 22.2 km)
LMA 1 over 12 nm (22.2
km)
LMA 3, north of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, south of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, Georges Basin
Restricted Area
LMA 2
LMA 3

20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
one buoy line

Same as above

15 traps/trawl

Same as above

15 traps/trawl

Same as above

25 traps/trawl

Same as above

Year-round: 45 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

May - August: 45 trap trawls; Year-round increase of
maximum trawl length from 1.5 nm (2.78 km) to 1.75nm
(3.24 km)

Year-round: 35 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

Same as above

Northeast Region
ME Exempt State Waters
ME exemption line – 3 nm
(5.6 km)
MA State Waters
NH State Waters
RI State Waters
ME Zone A West**, B, C,
D, E; federal waters 3 – 12
nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
ME Zone A East**, F, and
G; federal waters 3 – 12
nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
MA and NH LMA 1 , OC;
federal waters 3 – 12 nm
(5.6 – 22.2 km)

Year-round: 50 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)
Existing 18% reduction in the number of buoy lines
Existing and anticipated 12% reduction in buoy lines
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
system
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) in top 75% of line or
full weak line

Same as above
Retain current weak link/line requirement at surface
system but allow it to be at base of surface system or, as
currently required, at buoy
Full weak rope in the top 75% of both buoy lines
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above

2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Same as above

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Same as above

86

Component

Area
LMA 1 & OC over 12 nm
(22.2 km)
LMA 2

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line

Same as above

May - August: one weak line to 75% and 20% on other
end. Sep – Apr: two weak “toppers” down to 20%
*Note that the 6 nautical mile line refers to an approximation, described in 50 CFR 229.32 (a)(2)(ii) and a similar approximation of the 50 fathom lines would be
included in the final rule implementing the Preferred Alternative at 50 CFR 229.32 (a)(2)(iv).
**Maine Zone A East is the portion of Zone A that is east of 67°18.00' W and Maine Zone A is west of this longitude.
LMA 3

One buoy line weak year round to 75%

87

These existing or anticipated state and fishery management regulatory measures would not be
included in the final rulemaking associated with this FEIS, with the exception of the inclusion of
Massachusetts spatial extension of the MRA from February through April. The analysis still
considers the risk reduction contributed by these measures toward achieving the lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot fishery’s target of more than 60 percent. The measures not included for
rulemaking are listed but shaded in Table 3.3. The economic impact of the measures that are not
being implemented under this action are also not included in the estimated economic impacts of
Alternatives 2 and 3, with the exception of gear marking measures in Maine exempt waters.
During the scoping process, NMFS received numerous comments from diverse interested parties.
The comments included both formal written comments as well as oral comments offered at
public hearings. Appendix 3.4 summarizes the comments received during the initial stages of
rulemaking at the public scoping meetings. Even more extensive comments were received on the
DEIS and proposed rules. Those comments are summarized in Appendix 1.1. These comments
were taken into consideration with a new round of analyses described above in Section 3.1.2.3
and in the justification for alternatives in Section 3.3 below. The results of these analyses and the
public comment period informed the final alternatives included in this FEIS. Modifications to the
DEIS for the FEIS also prioritized estimating risk reduction for right whales and other large
whales with the updated right whale density model, the updated right whale population
information, feasibility of implementation and safety concerns (particularly for small entities)
that were ameliorated by conservation equivalencies, and possible indirect effects of measures
that may adversely increase co-occurrence between buoy lines and whales.
Gear marking alternatives analyzed for the FEIS are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Marking gear
does not reduce risk but if marked gear is retrieved from entangled whales it can provide
information about where entanglement incidents occur. This information can be used by the
Team to improve future amendments to the ALWTRP. Alternative 2 (Preferred) and the Final
Rule would increase the number of marks required in federal water compared to the Proposed
Rule but are still within the scope of what was analyzed in Alternative 3 in the DEIS and retained
as Alternative 3 in this FEIS.
A number of alternatives were considered in the development of the DEIS and FEIS, or as we
considered information submitted in public comments. A list of considered but rejected
alternatives can be found in Section 3.4 and some additional information about measures
considered but rejected can be found in the responses to comments found in Appendix 1.1.

Risk Reduction Alternatives
This section describes the risk reduction regulatory elements of the analyzed Alternatives.
Changes to each alternative from the DEIS to the FEIS are described in each section.
3.2.1.1

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under Alternative 1, NMFS would continue with the status quo, i.e., the baseline set of Plan
requirements currently in place. A description of the current requirements can be found in Chapter
2, Appendix 2.1.
88

3.2.1.2

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative

Alternative 2 would modify the ALWTRP requirements for lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot
fisheries in the Northeast Region in a number of ways varying by lobster management areas or
distance from shore. These measures follow general principles agreed upon by the ALWTRT
modified by measures proposed by each state or lobster management areas. Further
modifications would allow the exempted fishing permits for the harvest of lobster and Jonah crab
through fishing methods that do not use persistent buoy lines within most waters of existing and
future seasonal restricted areas, and the addition of two new “ropeless” seasonal restricted areas
implemented to reduce co-occurrence of whales and ropeless to improve the overall risk
reduction of the modifications within the Preferred Alternative and final rule. Modifications to
the risk reduction measures in Alternative 2 (Preferred) in this FEIS relative to the Alternative 2
in the DEIS includes:
•

•
•

•

•

The proposed seasonal restricted area south of Cape Cod in this alternative is larger than
the restricted area analyzed within the DEIS’ Preferred Alternative, coming instead from
a seasonal restricted area analyzed under DEIS Alternative Three.
The removal of the requirement for a weak link at the buoy was analyzed as part of
Alternative 3 in the DEIS.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 2 exchanging new trawl length requirements
with more expansive weak insert requirements throughout LMA 2
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 3 that would require more traps per trawl than
in the DEIS within the Georges Basin area that was analyzed as a restricted area in
Alternative 3 of the DEIS. This increase in number of traps per trawl was offset by a
lower number of traps required within the Northeast Regions south of a curve
representing the 50 fathom depth contour along the southern edge of Georges Bank.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for Maine waters in LMA 1, including modification of
regulations implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
(ACFCMA) at 50 CFR 697.21(b)(2) requiring two buoy lines on trawls with more than
three pots to accommodate Maine conservation equivalency options. This would allow
the use of half the minimum number of traps required with two buoy lines if only one
buoy line is used. Other differences in the FEIS Alternative 2 compared to the DEIS are
trade-offs in the number of traps per trawl based on Maine fishery zones and distance
from shore between the Maine exemption line and the 12 nautical miles line (22.2
kilometer line; see the description of conservation equivalencies). See Section 3.3.2 for a
more detailed description of the complex trawl length and weak line requirements
proposed and implemented in this FEIS.

Specific changes are summarized in Table 3.4. For more information on the comments
received from the public see Appendix 1.1 and Volume 3, and for details on the state
proposals see Appendix 3.3.

89

Table 3.4: A summary of changes to Alternative 2 from the DEIS to this FEIS
DEIS Alternative 2 (Preferred)
FEIS Alternative 2 (Preferred)
Trawl Length
MA State Measures: no singles on vessels >29’,
No longer being implemented by the state
No Trawling up, only (additional) weak inserts (LMA 2
LMA 2: Increase in trawl lengths over 3 nm
weakened rope conservation equivalency measures
below)
LMA 3: 45 traps/trawl
50 traps per trawl in Georges Basin Core area,
35 traps per trawl deeper than 50 fa south of Georges
Bank,
45 traps/trawl otherwise.
Trawling up most places by distance from shore and by
Maine LMA 1: Trawling up to three traps per trawl
zone outside exemption line. One string option with half
in state waters outside of exempt area
the traps through most of three to12 nm.
Trawling up most places by distance from shore and by
zone between 3 to 12 nautical miles. Some areas stay at
Maine LMA 1: Trawling up everywhere between
status quo, others go farther than the DEIS for an
three to 12 nm by distance from shore (eight to 15
equivalent risk reduction overall (five to 20 traps per trawl
traps per trawl with two buoy lines)
with two buoy lines). One string option with half the traps
through most of three to12 nm.
Restricted Areas
Expanded closure in MA state waters north of MRA to
border, keep the area closed along with all other state
No expansion of MRA included
waters from Outer Cape Cod through to NH border until
May 15th, with soft opening option. Final Rule will
include closure until April.
Move DEIS closure to considered but rejected, include
South Island area proposed by Massachusetts;
large South Island Restricted Area from Alternative 3 A in
closed Feb-Apr
DEIS in Alternative 2, for same season of Feb-Apr
Weak Link
Retain current weak link requirement at surface
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
system but allow it to be at base of surface system
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
or, as currently required, at buoy
system
Weakened Rope
MA State waters: 1 weak insertion at 50%
Weak inserts or full weak line every 60 ft (18.3 m) to 75%
ME State Waters: 2 inserts in state waters outside of
One insert, consistent with exempt state waters
exempt area
ME LMA 1, 3 to 12 nm: 2 weak insertions 25% and Maintain 2 weak lines except those increasing trawl
50%
lengths to 20 traps per trawl (one at 33% in these areas)
LMA 2, 3 to 12 nm: 2 weak insertions 25% and
Weak insertions every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line to
50%
75%
LMA 2, Over 12 nm: 1 weak insertion in topper at
Weak insertions every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line to
33%
75%

Trawling Up Modifications
These measures would increase the number of traps per trawl according to distance from shore.
For waters offshore of Maine, these are largely taken from the conservation equivalency
measures submitted as comments by Maine DMR and supported by many Maine fishermen and
legislators; for LMA 2 these reflect Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
and fishermen comments about conservation equivalency and for LMA 3 these measures reflect
comments from the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association.
90

Lobster Management Area 1
• Maine exempt area – 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers), Zones A, B, F, G: three traps per
trawl
• Maine exempt area – 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers), Zones C, D, E: two traps per trawl
(status quo)
• Maine 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers) – 6 nautical mile line, Zone A West**: eight
traps per two buoy lines or four traps per one buoy line
• Maine 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers) – 6 nautical mile line, Zone B: five traps per one
buoy line
• Maine 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers) – 6 nautical mile line, Zones C, D, E, F, G: 10
traps per two buoy lines or five traps per one buoy line
• Maine 3 (5.6 kilometer) – 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), Zone A East**: 20 traps
per two buoy lines or 10 traps per one buoy line
• Maine 6 nautical mile line – 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), Zone A West**: 15
traps/ per two buoy lines or eight traps per one buoy line
• Maine 6 nautical mile line – 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), Zone B, D, E, F: 10
traps per two buoy lines or five traps per one buoy line (status quo in D, E, and F).
• Maine 6 nautical mile line – 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), Zone C, G: 20 traps per
two buoy lines or 10 traps per one buoy line
• Outside of Maine, 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers) to the 6 nautical mile line: retain
minimum 10 traps per trawl (status quo)
• All LMA 1, the 6 nautical mile line to12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers): minimum 15
traps per trawl
• All LMA 1, outside of 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers): minimum 25 traps per trawl
Outer Cape Lobster Management Area
• 3 (5.6 kilometer) to 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers): minimum 15 traps per trawl
Lobster Management Area 3
• Georges Basin Management Area: minimum 50 traps per trawl
• Area south of a line representing the 50 fathom isobaths on the south edge of Georges
Bank: minimum 35 traps per trawl
• Remaining Northeast Region LMA 3: Trawl up to minimum 45 traps per trawl
• Increase allowed maximum length of trawl between buoy lines: To accommodate
trawling up modifications, increase allowable length of lobster trawl from 1.5 nautical
miles (2.8 kilometers) to 1.8 miles (3.24 kilometers).
Seasonal Restricted Areas (Open to ropeless, closed to persistent buoy lines) (Figure 3.4)
•

Modify current closures to allow fishing without persistent buoy lines; allow conditional
EFPs for ropeless fishing in Massachusetts and Great South Channel Restricted Areas
with the exception of the Outer Cape LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.
91

•
•
•
•

•

The LMA 1 Restricted Area in offshore waters (approximately 30 nautical miles/55.6
kilometers offshore) spanning Maine zones C, D, and E from Oct through January.
Risk reduction credit for existing MRA closure.
Expand MRA into Massachusetts State waters north to the New Hampshire border from
February through April (MRA North).
Consider risk reduction in the state measures that will not be implemented in the federal
regulations: maintenance of the MRA in state waters until May 15 unless whales leave the
area, soft opening or extension can be done under state authority.
Establish a large new seasonal restricted area closed to persistent buoy lines south of
Nantucket from February through April.

Figure 3.4: The trap/pot buoy line closure areas proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred) shaded in light gray. LMAs
are delineated by the grey lines. The new South Island Restricted Area is proposed as closed to trap/pot buoy lines
from February through April and the LMA 1 Restricted area is proposed from October through January. An
expansion of the MRA into Massachusetts State waters to the New Hampshire border (MRA North) and extended in
state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape through at least May 15th, with a potential opening if whales are no
longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal restricted areas that would become areas with
restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of the Outer Cape LMA.

Weak Line and Weak Insertion Modifications
Add weak inserts (break at less than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) at depths based on distance
from shore or add full weak rope to same depth on line for added risk reduction:
92

Lobster Management Area One, Maine
• Coast to 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers): one insert halfway down the buoy line
• Zone A West**, B, C, D, E; federal waters 3 – 12 nautical miles (5.6 – 22.2 kilometers):
two weak insertions, at 25 percent and 50 percent down line
• Zone A East**, F, and G; federal waters 3 – 12 nautical miles (5.6 – 22.2 kilometers):
one weak insertion 33 percent down the line
• Over 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers): one insert 33 percent of the way down the buoy
line
Lobster Management Area One, Outside of Maine & Outer Cape
• New Hampshire State Waters: 1 weak insertion 50 percent down the line
• Massachusetts State Waters: Weak inserts every 60 feet (18.3 meters) or full weak line in
top 75 percent of line
• 3 to 12 nautical miles (5.6 – 22.2 kilometers): two inserts, one 50 percent and one 25
percent down the buoy line
• Over 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers): one insert 33 percent of the way down the buoy
line
Lobster Management Area Two
• Weak inserts every 60 feet (18.3 meters) or full weak line in top 75 percent of line
Lobster Management Area Three
• Year round require one buoy line on each trawl to be weak rope on the top 75 percent of
the buoy line.
Buoy Weak Link Modification
•

Remove requirement for a weak link at the buoy.

3.2.1.3

Alternative 3: Non-Preferred Alternative

Alternative 3 takes an alternate approach to achieving risk reduction across the proposed areas,
making use of more buoy line closures and buoy line allocations rather than trawling up
measures. This FEIS Alternative 3 is modified from the DEIS Alternative 3. The weak link at the
buoy is retained with the option to place it lower, at the base of the surface system. Additionally,
only one South Island Restricted Area closure is analyzed within the FEIS Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 retained only the seasonal weak line option in LMA 3 because the other option is
analyzed in the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3 also includes the spatial expansion of the
MRA to include the state waters north to New Hampshire, as implemented by state Regulations
(see Table 3.5).

93

Figure 3.5: A summary of changes in Alternative 3 from the DEIS to the FEIS.
DEIS Alternative 3 (Non-preferred)
FEIS Alternative 3 (Non-preferred)
Restricted Areas
Expanded MRA closure in MA state waters north to the border, keep
the area closed along with all other state waters from the Outer Cape
No expansion of MRA included
LMA through to NH border until May 15th, with soft opening option.
Final Rule will include closure until April.
Two South Island Options (Feb - May): A)
Move large area from Alternative 3 A in DEIS to Alternative 2 for
Large closure B) L-shaped closure
Feb-Apr, keep only L-Shaped area from Feb - May in Alternative 3
Weak Link
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or
Retain current weak link/line requirement at surface system but allow
weak insertions, remove weak link requirement
it to be at base of surface system or, as currently required, at buoy
at surface system
Weakened Rope
LMA 3: two options for weak rope 1) fully weak
line in the top 75 percent of one line, 2) May Keep seasonal option: May - August: one weak line to 75% and 20%
August: one weak line to 75% and 20% on other on the other end. Sep – Apr: two weak “toppers” to 20%
end. Sep – Apr: two weak “toppers” to 20%

Gear Modifications
Cap the total number of lines available for trap/pot fishing outside of state waters:
Throughout federal waters of the Northeast Region
• Cap the number of buoy lines to 50 percent of the average baseline number of lines
(2017) outside of state waters.
Increase the number of traps per trawl seasonally in LMA 3 and increase length of trawl:
Lobster Management Area Three
• Minimum 45 traps per trawl, May through August. To accommodate this modification,
increase the allowable length of lobster trawl from 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 kilometers) to
1.8 miles (3.2 kilometers).
Seasonal Restricted Areas (Open to ropeless, closed to persistent buoy lines; Figure 3.5)
•

•
•
•
•

Modify current closures to areas closed to buoy lines; allow conditional EFPs for ropeless
fishing in Massachusetts and Great South Channel Restricted Areas. Federal waters in the
Outer Cape LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing from February 1 through
March 31 consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.
The LMA 1 Restricted Area in offshore waters (approximately 30 nautical miles/55.6
kilometers offshore) spanning Maine zones C, D, and E from October through February.
Extend the entire MRA closure to buoy lines through May with the potential to open it
early when surveys indicate that the whales have left the area.
Extend the MRA into Massachusetts State waters north to the New Hampshire border
February through May (MRA North)
A buoy line closure in the core Georges Basin Restricted Area from May through August.
L-shaped South Island Restricted Area from February through May (see Fig 3.2).
94

Figure 3.5: The restricted area options proposed in Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) shaded in light gray. The Lshaped South Island Restricted Area from February through April. The LMA 1 Restricted Area is proposed from
October through February. The Georges Basin Restricted Area is proposed from May through August. An expansion
of the MRA into Massachusetts State waters to the New Hampshire border and extended through at least May 15th
(MRA North), with a potential opening if whales are no longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing
seasonal restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of
the Outer Cape LMA.

Weak Line
Throughout Northeast Region
• Year round require one buoy line on each trawl to be weak rope (breaks at less than 1,700
pounds/771 kilograms) on the top 75 percent of both buoy lines, except in lobster
management area three
Lobster Management Area Three
• Seasonally, May through August, one buoy line on each trawl would consist of a full
weak rope on the top 75 percent of the line. The second buoy line would have a weak
topper in the top 20 percent of the buoy line. The rest of the year both buoy lines will
have a weak topper in the top 20 percent of the buoy line.

Gear Marking Alternatives
95

As discussed in Section 3.1.6, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team supported efforts
to expand gear marking to further improve efforts to determine entanglement location. The
current gear marking strategy does not support observation of marks from platforms such as
boats and planes, and the expansion of gear marking in 2014/2015 did not substantially increase
the ability to determine original entanglement locations. The Maine DMR has regulations,
effective September 1, 2020, to require gear marking throughout Maine waters using purple as
their unique color (DMR Chapter 75.02). Alternative 2 (Preferred) of this FEIS has a modified
gear marking scheme compared to the DEIS. Additional 1 foot green marks would be required
in federal waters under Alternative 2 (Preferred) for better discernment between fishing in U.S.
and Canada and between state and federal waters and waters of the Northeast Trap/Pot
Management Area.
3.2.2.1

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under Alternative 1, NMFS would continue with the status quo, i.e., the baseline set of Plan
requirements currently in place. A description of the current requirements can be found in Chapter
2, Appendix 2.1.

96

Table 3.6: The proposed gear marking alternatives by principle port state and/or management area. The surface
system color designations are the same for both alternatives. The shaded portion (also represented by an *)
represents an area that will be managed by a state agency rather than NMFS. The number of markings required
represent a minimum number and length of marks.
Area
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
One 3 foot (91.4 cm) long state-specific (see color below) mark
One 3 foot (91.4 cm)
Entire
within 2 fathoms (60.96 cm) of the buoy. In federal waters, at least
long state-specific (see
Northeast
four additional 1 foot (30.5 cm) green marks within 6 inches (15.2
color in Alt 2) mark
Region
cm) of each state-specific mark.
within two fathoms of the
buoy & ID tape
throughout buoy line
denoting home state and
trap/pot fishery
Purple. At least two 1 foot (30.5 cm) marks (by depth) on top and
See “Entire Northeast
Maine State
bottom half of buoy line below the surface system, through state
Region”
Waters
regulation only*
Purple. In federal waters, at least three 1 foot (30.5 cm) state
See “Entire Northeast
Maine
colored marks in the buoy line below the surface system: at top,
Region”
Federal
middle and bottom of line. At least four additional 1 foot (30.5 cm)
Waters
green marks within 6 inches (15.2 cm) of each state-specific mark.
Yellow. In state waters: at least two additional 1 foot (30.5 cm)
See “Entire Northeast
New
marks in the buoy line below the surface system: on top half and
Region”
Hampshire
bottom half of buoy line. In federal waters, at least three 1 foot
(30.5 cm) state colored marks in the buoy line below the surface
system: at top, middle and bottom of line and at least four
additional 1 foot (30.5 cm) green marks within 6 inches (15.2 cm)
of each state-specific mark.
See “Entire Northeast
Massachusetts Red. In state waters: at least two 1 foot (30.5 cm) marks in the
buoy line below the surface system: on top half and bottom half of
Region”
buoy line. In federal waters, at least three 1 foot (30.5 cm) state
colored marks in the buoy line below the surface system: at top,
middle and bottom of line and at least four additional 1 foot (30.5
cm) green marks within 1 inches (15.2 cm) of each state-specific
mark.
Silvery/Gray. In state waters: at least two 1 foot (30.5 cm) marks
See “Entire Northeast
Rhode Island
in the buoy line below the surface system: on top half and bottom
Region”
half of buoy line. In federal waters, at least three 1 foot (30.5 cm)
state colored marks in the buoy line below the surface system: at
top, middle and bottom of line and at least four additional 1 foot
(30.5 cm) green marks within 6 inches (15.2 cm) of each statespecific mark.
Black. Add at least four additional one foot (30.5 cm) green marks
See “Entire Northeast
LMA 3
within 6 inches (15.2 cm) of each LMA 3 specific black mark.
Region”

3.1.1.1 Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
Under Alternative 2 (Preferred), NMFS would mirror the Maine regulations in all non-exempted
state waters, and implement analogous marking for the other New England states (one statespecific 3 foot (91.4 centimeter) colored mark within two fathoms of the buoy, at least two
additional 1 foot long (30.5 centimeter) marks in top and bottom half of gear in state waters, and
at least three additional 1 foot long (30.5 centimeter) marks in federal waters. Additionally, gear
in federal waters would be required to include at least four 1 foot long (30.5 centimeter) green
marks within 6 inches (15.2 centimeter) of each state specific mark. The number of marks in
97

federal waters has increased from the DEIS (four 1 foot marks instead of one six inch marks).
This change is responsive to public comment, within the scope of the DEIS, and will likely be
more effective at distinguishing state from federal waters than Alternative 2 in the DEIS (See
table 3.7). This proposal would paint or tape for visibility in surface system markings but would
continue to allow multiple methods for marking line below the surface system (paint, tape, rope
tracers, etc.). Table 3.6 outlines the proposed gear marking colors.
Figure 3.7: A comparison of changes in gear marking Alternative 2 from the DEIS to the FEIS
DEIS
Alternative 2
Gear Marking
State Colors in lower buoy line: 2 in buoy line below
At least two in below surface system in state waters
surface system in state waters, 3 in federal waters (top,
and at least three in federal waters (top, middle and
middle and bottom)
bottom)
Federal waters: 6 inch green mark within 1 foot of large
Federal waters: Four 1 foot green marks adjacent to
surface system mark
ALL state color mark

3.2.2.2

Alternative 3: Non-Preferred Alternative

Under Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) one 3 foot (91.4 centimeter) state specific color would be
marked on the buoy line within two fathom of the buoy, as in the Preferred Alternative, but the
entire buoy line would also have to be replaced with a line woven with identification tape with
the home state and fishery (for example Maine, lobster/crab trap/pot) repeated in writing along
the length of the buoy line. This alternative is the same as Alternative 3 for gear marking in the
DEIS.

3.3 Justification for Regulatory Options Considered
Buoy Line Reduction
There are multiple approaches to accomplish line reduction in areas where right whales occur,
including increasing trap/trawl requirements so that fewer buoy lines are used to fish the same
number of traps and restricted areas that eliminate buoy lines during predictable seasons when
whales aggregate. The 2014/2015 rulemakings used both of these approaches. Assuming that the
co-occurrence (overlap in seasonal distribution and abundance) of buoy lines and whales is a
proxy for risk due to reduced opportunity for encounters and entanglements, those rulemakings
intended to reduce co-occurrence to reduce risk. Similar measures are considered for the
alternatives analyzed in this FEIS.
Ongoing and imminent (RIN 0648-BF01) Lobster Plan fishery management modifications that
result in line reductions relative to the 2017 baseline through trap restrictions would provide risk
reduction in the lobster fishery that would be counted towards the 60 percent goal. Phased in
lobster management measures as well as ongoing independent rulemaking being developed
concurrently with this Plan modification will restrict aggregate trap limits. Discussed in Chapter
5 and in the proposal analysis from Massachusetts and Rhode Island (Appendix 3.3), declines in
the southern New England lobster stocks as well as lobster management measures have modified
the fishery to reduce the number of permitted traps that could be fished in the fishery, known as
latent effort. In LMA 2, actively fished traps and buoy lines have declined annually since
98

measures were implemented in 2015. Buoy line numbers did not decline in LMA 3 but with
fewer latent traps available for transfer, measures currently in development are anticipated to
reduce the number of lines fished in LMA 3 (discussed further in section 3.3.5, Appendix 3.3,
and in Section 5.2.1.1.1). Inclusion of fishery management risk reduction measures towards the
risk reduction target was supported by the Team in their April 2019 recommendation.

Conservation Equivalencies
This FEIS analyzes conservation equivalencies submitted by states and fishermen, including the
Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association as comments on the DEIS Alternative 2 and
associated Proposed Rule.
•

•

Rhode Island suggested requiring weak line on the top 75 percent of the buoy lines fished
in LMA 2 (analyzed in this FEIS as a weak insertion every 60 feet in the top 75 percent
of the buoy line in line with Massachusetts State measures) in lieu of trawling up
measures because some Rhode Island vessels do not have deck capacity to handle more
traps. The risk reduction offered by this measure in this specific area was slightly greater
for expanded weak inserts than for the trawling up proposed in the DEIS’ Preferred
Alternative. Most boats in this area already fish with the proposed trawl lengths except
for a few smaller boats that are unequipped for longer trawls. Adding weak inserts to line
that is stronger than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) provides more substantive risk
reduction in this particular region (40 percent with the DEIS measures and 58 percent for
the equivalency in this FEIS).
The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association comments suggested a conservation
equivalency that would alter trawl length by area, allowing variation based on where
whale risk is highest but on the whole achieving similar risk reduction (47 percent with
the DEIS and 48 percent for the equivalency in the FEIS; Figure 3.6). Other Atlantic
Offshore Lobstermen’s Association recommendations were not adopted primarily due to
an inability to implement or analyze the effectiveness of their proposed measures.

Figure 3.6: The conservation equivalency suggested by the Offshore Lobstermen’s Association to vary trawl length
based on specific areas within the Northeast Region

99

Table 3.8: The proposed trawl lengths and weak points proposed by Maine’s Department of Marine Resources during the public comment period. Zone A, is
split between three and twelve nautical miles from north to the south at 67o 18’ longitude, south from Cross Island.
Distance
Zone A
Zone A
DEIS
Zone G
Zone F
Zone E
Zone D
Zone C
Zone B
(nm)
West
East
Exemption 3's per one buoy
3's per one
2's per one
2's per one
2's per one
3's per one
3's per one
3's per one
Traps
3
Line-3
line
buoy line
buoy line
buoy line
buoy line
buoy line
buoy line
buoy line
Per Trawl
5's per one
5's per one
5's per one
5's per one
4's per one
10's per one
5's per one buoy
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
5's per one
buoy line;
buoy line;
8
3-6
line; 10's per two
10's per two 10's per two 10's per two 10's per two buoy line
8's per two
20's per two
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
5's per one
5's per one
5's per one
10's per one 5's per one
8's per one
10's per one
10's per one buoy
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
buoy line;
15
6-12
line; 20's per two
10's per two 10's per two 10's per two 20's per two 10's per two 15's per two 20's per two
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
25's per two buoy 25's per two 20's per two 20's per two 20's per two 25's per two 25's per two 25's per two
25
12+
lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
buoy lines
1 weak
1 weak point 1 weak point 1 weak point 1 weak point 1 weak point 1 weak
1 weak point 50%
Weak
0-3
point 50%
50% down
50% down
50% down
50% down
50% down
point 50%
down line
Points
down line
line
line
line
line
line
down line
2 weak
2 weak
2 weak
2 weak
2 weak
1 weak
1 weak
1 weak point 33%
points 25%
points 25%
points 25%
points 25%
points 25%
3-12
point 33%
point 33%
down line
and 50%
and 50%
and 50%
and 50%
and 50%
down line
down line
down line
down line
down line
down line
down line
Buoy line 1: 1
weak point 33%
2 weak
2 weak
2 weak
2 weak
1 weak
1 weak point 1 weak
down line, Buoy
points 25%
points 25%
points 25%
points 25%
12+
point 33%
33% down
point 33%
line 2: 2 weak
and 50%
and 50%
and 50%
and 50%
down line
line
down line
points at 25% and
down line
down line
down line
down line
50% down line

100

•

The Maine DMR proposed an equivalent line reduction and weak rope scenario than was
in the DEIS that varied the trawling up and weak insertion combinations by state
management zones and distance from shore (Table 3.8). A primary component of this
change was the inclusion of conservation equivalencies that allow an individual to fish in
configurations that vary by distance from shore and allow a different number of traps
depending on the number of buoy lines fished. For example, where 20 traps would be the
minimum number of traps with two buoy lines there would be an option to fish 10 traps
with one buoy line. NMFS analyzed Maine’s conservation equivalencies and found most
of the proposed configurations to be an equivalent risk reduction in federal waters
between 3 and 12 nautical miles (5.6 to 22.2 kilometers; 10.4 percent with the DEIS
measures and 10.5 percent for the equivalency in the FEIS). Alternative 2 analyzes those
equivalencies recommended in this area and they would be implemented by the Final
Rule. However, there was less risk reduction in the proposal for some zones outside of 12
nautical miles (22.2 kilometers) and therefore Alternative 2 maintains the 25 traps per
trawl analyzed in the DEIS and proposed in the Proposed Rule to maintain equivalent risk
reduction in offshore waters nearby known right whale hotspots (Figure 3.7). There was
also a smaller risk reduction inside state waters in non-exempt waters (4 percent with the
DEIS measures and 1 percent in this FEIS) but the newly proposed trawl lengths in this
area were maintained in the FEIS because of the lower risk predicted in Maine State
waters.

Figure 3.7: Alternative 2(Preferred) and Final Rule Maine traps/trawl requirements: The trawl length from
Maine’s Department of Marine Resources incorporated into Alternative 2 were within state waters and federal
waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles (5.6 to 22.2 kilometers. Outside of 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), a 25
trawl length was retained to maintain risk reduction near a predicted right whale hotspot.

101

Seasonal Restrictions to Buoy Lines that Allow Ropeless Fishing
The alternatives analyzed and the measures that would be implemented in the Final Rule do not
require, or in themselves authorize, ropeless fishing. Rather, the analyzed measures would allow
fishermen with the appropriate exemptions from surface marking requirements to harvest lobster
and Jonah crab in the ALWTRP seasonal management areas. The intention of this modification
from the former approach to closing these areas to harvest is to encourage the development of
ropeless fishing technology in collaboration with fishermen under a variety of commercial
fishing conditions. Operational challenges that fishing under exempted fishing permits would
continue to address within and beyond seasonal restricted areas include improvements to
sturdiness of gear to withstand commercial fishing operations, surface detection of bottom gear
to reduce gear conflicts and enforcement detection, development of gear retrieval and reset
options or other methods to allow gear inspection.
In an effort to provide new options to reduce large whale entanglements in buoy lines, scientists,
fishermen, conservationists, and resource managers are increasingly looking to new gear and
technological options that may provide an alternative to complete area closures and other risk
reduction measures that attempt to separate whales from rope in the water column. Ropeless
systems allow fishermen to retrieve the gear from the bottom using methods such as: remotely
releasing a buoy line stored on the bottom, by remotely inflating a bag that brings the trap and
groundline to the surface, by using galvanized releases that decay over time to release a buoy
line, or by grappling the ground line from the surface, which is often done when buoys have been
parted from fishing gear. Ropeless designs are usually not actually rope-free but it is a commonly
used term. In addition to buoy lines that are often deployed for retrieval, groundlines would
continue to connect traps in a “trawl” along the seafloor. However, if operationally feasible,
“ropeless” fishing would allow fishermen to operate around whales with a greatly reduced risk of
entanglement and would provide an alternative to closures.
A number of technological, regulatory, financial, and operational barriers must be addressed
before this type of fishing gear can be considered operationally feasible on a broad scale. Only
small scale use of remote buoy line retrieval in U.S. commercial lobster fisheries has been done
to date. Gear manufacturers are continuing to adapt the gear to meet the rigors of commercial
conditions. The potential for an increase in gear conflict continues to be a major concern. In
current trap/pot operations, persistent buoy lines are required; they connect a buoy at the surface
to bottom gear including trawls of pots to allow retrieval of pots. Surface systems including
buoys and radar reflectors are also required to alert other mariners of gear being fished on the
bottom. Bottom fishing vessels which drag nets along the bottom, as well as gillnet and other
trap/pot fishermen, can avoid trawling up or overlaying gear over the lobster and Jonah crab
trawls. Ropeless fishing could also hamper enforcement as illegal trawls could be hidden and
enforcement operations would not have an easy way to retrieve fishing gear for inspection or
reset inspected gear.
Technology will be needed that allows mariners and enforcement to locate fishing gear on the
seafloor, at some cost to vessel operators in fisheries that are not causing right whale
entanglements. If developed and affordable or subsidized, technology and regulations requiring
102

vessel operators to fish without buoy lines and to use technology to detect gear set on the bottom
could replace current surface system regulations. Until then, fishermen developing ropeless
fishing practices to harvest lobster and Jonah crabs without a surface system must obtain state or
federal authorization exempting them from requirements to mark the ends of their trawls with
visible surface systems. Technology to allow enforcement to inspect the gear is also needed.
Recognizing the current hurdles, the 2020 Appropriations Bill covering the Department of
Commerce (Senate Report 116-127) directed funds toward the development of a program to
develop and test “innovative fishing gear technologies designed to reduce right whale
entanglements in partnership with relevant stakeholder. . .” NMFS, in partnership with
fishermen, environmental organizations and other nonprofits, and whale and gear researchers,
has developed and continues to expand a ropeless gear cache and partners are working under
exempted fishing permits to pilot ropeless technology. This effort is expanding to include
mobile gear fishermen working with technology already on their vessels to see if they can avoid
gear that is fished without buoy lines. The goal of this effort is to address the current challenges
under operational conditions so that ropeless fishing could allow trap/pot fisheries to continue
while also preventing right whale entanglements.
Prior to piloting ropeless research, NMFS convened a subgroup of the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Team members in 2018 to investigate the feasibility of ropeless fishing. The
subgroup evaluated the existing barriers and considered that while there might be a ropeless
fishing opportunity in the future, short-term risk reduction was a greater priority for the Team.
NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) investigating changing
existing seasonal closure areas to closures to trap/pot buoy lines (83 FR 49046, September 28,
2018). Team members at the October 2018 in-person Team meeting, as well as fishermen
responding to the ANPR and to NMFS during scoping for the DEIS expressed skepticism that
ropeless fishing would replace traditional and successful fishing methods and focused
discussions instead on immediately available risk reduction solutions. If the right whale
population continues to decline, broad implementation of seasonal closures may be required.
Further testing of ropeless retrieval and bottom gear detection is needed to resolve operational
barriers and to develop ropeless fishing methods as an alternative to broad closures. While
testing can and is being done outside of restricted areas, controlled experiments in areas closed to
the majority of lobster and Jonah crab traps and pots could accelerate ropeless testing and
demonstrate efficacy. NMFS and collaborators have invested a substantial amount of funding in
the industry's development of ropeless gear, in specific geographic areas and in general. We
anticipate that these efforts to facilitate and support the industry's development of ropeless gear
will continue, pending further appropriations. NMFS anticipates that their gear cache will grow
to about 300 ropeless units and sufficient onboard technology to support up to 30 vessels testing
10 trawls and adjacent mobile gear fishermen by 2025.
Some Team members representing environmental organizations considered seasonal closures in
areas of high whale occurrence, such as Cape Cod Bay, to be more protective than ropeless
fishing, and necessary to provide sufficient protection to right whales. NMFS believes
experimentation by fishermen during commercial fishery operations is essential to any future
operational success of ropeless fishing technology. Complete fishing closures may provide
marginally more conservation benefit in the near-term by reducing vessel traffic and removing
103

ground line and bottom-stored buoy line from closed areas. However, remotely retrieved buoy
lines would only be present in the water column upon command. As described below,
amendments to other fishery regulations with surface gear requirements would be required to
allow large scale ropeless fishing.
Because ropeless fishing requires an exemption through authorizations or permits, ropeless in
seasonal restricted areas can and would be conditioned to minimize impacts on right whales and
to include monitoring and reporting requirements. We anticipate that applicants to fish in
restricted areas (other than the Outer Cape LMA) will be required to:
Assess up-to-date right whale survey data and constrain fishing to areas that avoid the
most densely populated areas within the restricted areas (i.e. Cape Cod Bay within the
MRA) at any given time.
● Use only acoustic releases, which provide participants with the ability to maintain control
over the amount of time any buoy line remains in the water column as a potential
entanglement risk. Using these systems, fishermen must be within a close distance of the
gear in order for the signal to be received and the line released, which minimizes the time
the line spends in the water column unsupervised. If the gear is released as intended, the
risk posed by the released buoy line is minimal. Failures in tested acoustic release
systems reported to date have been caused by failed release, not early release (NMFS
gear team, pers comm, 2021). Relative to other release mechanisms (i.e. galvanized time
release), acoustic release provides a minimal timeframe where the released buoy line will
be left unattended.
● Use technology that has been tested elsewhere.
● Have previous experience using these new technologies.
●

Finally, reporting and monitoring conservation measures would ensure these experimental
fishing efforts successfully contribute to the commercial development of this gear. To the extent
that gear testing in these areas helps advance cost effective and operational solutions for ropeless
fishing, long-term entanglement risk may be reduced more quickly by fishermen’s development
and use of these technologies under commercial fishing conditions, providing long-term positive
impacts on these populations.
Based on outreach by the NMFS gear team, interest does not appear to be substantial among the
commercial fishery in the Northeast Region, and participation within any restricted area can be
limited through the authorization process. We anticipate that at least through 2025, ropeless
fishing in these restricted areas is likely to be done primarily by collaborators borrowing gear
from the NMFS gear cache, with up to an additional 10 percent of effort by other researchers and
fishermen coast wide. The NEFSC gear team projects that by 2025 they expect to have about 300
ropeless units and enough deck controllers for about 30 vessels, as well as technology to support
adjacent mobile fishing vessels. That is, at the most, coast wide, there would be up to 33 vessels
fishing 10 ropeless trawls. If congressionally appropriated and private funding remains available,
NMFS will continue to reimburse fishermen for some of their time and will provide the onboard
and in-water technology so that costs to fishermen will be minimal. To incentivize participation,
the alternatives consider modifying current seasonal restricted areas and defining new restricted
areas as seasonal closures to trap/pot fishing that use persistent buoy lines.
104

3.3.3.1

Seasonal Restricted Areas Open to “Ropeless” Fishing

Seasonal closures of predictable right whale aggregation areas have been in place to reduce right
whale exposures to buoy lines since the earliest Plan measures, when Cape Cod Bay and the
Great South Channel were seasonally closed to trap/pot fisheries (62 FR 39157, July 22, 1997).
Modified in 2015, there are currently two large seasonal trap/pot fishery closure areas, the MRA
(50 CFR 229.32(c)(3)) and the Great South Channel Trap/Pot Restricted Area (50 CFR
229.32(c)(4)). The MRA prohibits fishing with, setting, or possessing trap/pot gear in this area
unless stowed in accordance with § 229.2 from February 1 to April 30. The Great South Channel
Restricted Area prohibits fishing with, setting, or possessing trap/pot gear in this area unless
stowed in accordance with § 229.2 from April 1 through June 30. The change would not include
the Outer Cape Cod (OCC) Lobster Management Area (LMA), which would remain closed to
the lobster and Jonah crab trap-pot fishery under Massachusetts and Federal regulations (32
Mass. Reg 6.02 paragraph(7)(a) and 50 CFR 697.7(c)(1)(xxx)) implementing the Atlantic State
Marine Fisheries Commissions’ Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster.
Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, additional seasonal restricted areas are identified; however,
rather than prohibiting commercial fishing, the alternatives would modify existing closed areas
and require the new seasonal restricted areas to be open to ropeless fishing, and closed to the use
of persistent buoy lines. Under this modification, commercial fishing would be allowed using
pots or trawls that can be retrieved remotely, releasing a buoy line or the first trap on a line of
trawls, using what has become known as ropeless fishing technology in existing ALWTRP
closed areas. However, this will not lift the closure in the Outer Cape LMA, which would remain
closed to all lobster fishing consistent with the Atlantic Lobster FMP. Exemptions to fishery
management regulations that require the use of buoy lines would be needed (see Section 3.3.3.2).
Fishing would continue as normal once the seasonal time frame of the restricted areas has
passed. However, ropeless fishing may continue if the EFP or state authorization allows.
In the DEIS and proposed rule, reviewers that believe these additional restricted areas are not
warranted to achieve PBR were asked to provide specific information or analyses in support of
recommended removal of restricted areas from the Preferred Alternative. Comments were
received suggesting that the LMA One Restricted Area was overvalued due to dated whale data
that did not document the reduced use of the Gulf of Maine by right whales in recent years. As
indicated, the initial hotspot analyses for the Gulf of Maine were conducted with a version
(version two) of the right whale density model that spanned from 1998 through 2018. The model
has since been updated (version 11) and allows comparison of whale distribution before and after
2010. As commenters indicated, the Gulf of Maine, including this area, is slightly less important
for right whales. However, the more recent data confirms that this area remains a relative hotspot
for right whales during late fall and early winter months (Roberts et al. 2020). Additionally,
acoustic surveys have detected right whales in this area in recent years.
Without the seasonal restricted area, the risk reduction measures in Maine LMA One waters
were not enough to achieve 60 percent reduction in risk in this area. Commenters suggested that
rather than a default buoy line closure of the area, closure should be triggered by documented
interactions in Maine LMA 1 waters. However right whale entanglements can rarely be
105

identified to the incident location and 60 percent of right whale mortalities are unobserved,
negating the practicality of a detection-dependent trigger. For that reason, Alternative 2 and 3
analyze an LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Areas across two seasonal configurations and with an
allowance for harvest without the use of a persistent buoy line with the proper authorization.
3.3.3.2

Requirements for Exemption from Surface System Regulations

Regulations implemented under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
(ACFCMA), at 50 CFR Part 697.21 requires buoys (with identification marking) and for larger
trawls, radar reflections on each end of trawls of lobster pots. Similar regulations for bottom
tending fixed gear have been implemented under the MSA at 50 CFR 648.84. These surface
systems allow all mariners to know that there is gear on the ocean bottom between the buoys.
If ropeless fishing develops further and methods are developed that support surface detection of
bottom gear and that resolve gear conflicts and enforcement challenges, modifications to surface
system regulations could be made to negate the need for exemptions. The development of
operational solutions are the purpose of ongoing collaborative ropeless technology efforts
discussed above. Until those regulations are revised, ropeless fishing will require authorization or
exempted fishing permission from states or NMFS. Applicants will likely be required to provide
details on their operations, including objectives, reporting and monitoring plans, approach to
minimize gear conflict, and a description of possible environmental impacts including
anticipated impacts on marine mammals or endangered species. NMFS will particularly solicit
Team and public input on conditions for authorizations and exemptions in areas with seasonal
buoy line closures to protect right whales.
As required for other exempted fishing permits, conditions including those listed in Section 3.3.3
will be required to ensure safe and successful testing of the technology and reduce potential risk
posed by ropeless fishing (Table 3.9). Applicants can adopt conservation measures (Table 3.9)
for their EFP applications for buoy-lineless fishing in the restricted areas and the environmental
analysis conducted here can be relied upon to support their EFP application process and
environmental impact assessments. However, these conservation measures are not regulatory and
applicants may choose to provide separate conservation measures with an EFP application. EFP
applicants with alternative conservation measures will need to provide additional analyses to
demonstrate their alternative conservation measures meet the EFP conservation measure
objectives of minimizing environmental risks and ensuring successful research and development.
Conservation measures will meet the risk reduction conservation objectives: maintain the
ALWTRP standards, minimize risk to large whales and other protected species, as well as
provide means to minimize the chances of gear malfunction, reduce impacts on other fisheries,
and provide monitoring and reporting components. Applicants will also be required to adhere to
the current closure to lobster fishing in federal Outer Cape LMA waters from February 1 through
March 31.
Given that the current restricted areas represent areas of importance to large whales, ropeless
gear should be tested in a manner that minimizes the likelihood that operations will contribute to
entanglement or other risks to whales in these areas. As seen in Table 3.9, these include
measures that ensure that existing ALWTRP and right-whale approach protections are known
and followed, areas of high right-whale densities are avoided, and applicants are prompted to
106

become actively involved in sighting and reporting of right whales. A number of measures also
aim to reduce the likelihood of unattended buoy lines in the water by ensuring gear is pre-tested
for potential technical malfunctions, operators are experienced using the gear, and that release of
buoy lines is only activated by fishermen ready to immediately retrieve the gear. Given that
mobile fisheries are not regulated under the Plan and are still active in the area, gear conflicts are
important for EFP holders to address. To minimize gear conflict in these areas, measures also
include documenting coordination with other EFP holders and mobile fishing fleets. Though
coordination efforts may vary from one EFP to another depending on the discrete areas being
fished and the likelihood of gear conflicts in the area, documenting these efforts for federal and
state review during the application and authorization process will help identify if further
coordination is needed. Lastly, several measures focus on monitoring and reporting
specifications that will ensure these experimental fishing efforts successfully contribute to the
development of this gear.
Table 3.9: Description of required EFP conservation measure objectives and conservation measures considered to
meet objective
EFP conservation
Conservation measures to help meet objective
measures objective
Minimize activity’s
Adhere to the ALWTRP standards and restrictions, including but not limited to, gear
impact on large
marking, sinking groundline between traps, breaking strength restrictions, and trawl
whales
lengths requirements.
Maintain a 500 yard buffer if right whales are sighted, unless in the act of setting,
retrieving, or closely tending gear to maintain compliance with 50 CFR 224.104(c).
Avoid discrete areas of highest right whale abundance within the restricted areas (i.e.
Cape Cod Bay within the MRA) by assessing real time right whale sightings data prior to
trip.
Maintain vessel speeds not exceeding 10 knots.
Avoid vessel operation between dusk and dawn.
Report right whale sightings to [email protected] or to NOAA (866-755-6622) or
U.S. Coast Guard and incidental take of non-endangered/threatened marine mammals
through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program.
Minimize chances of
Crew must have prior experience setting and hauling gear being tested.
gear malfunction or
early release of stored
buoy line

Reduce impacts on
other fisheries
Monitoring and
Reporting

Demonstrate that gear being tested has been successfully tested elsewhere, under
comparable environmental conditions, by multiple fishermen over several days so basic
safety and operational feasibility is understood, and malfunction (i.e. early release) rates
are low.
Acoustic or remote release devices are used to ensure that the applicant is in the area
when buoy lines are released.
Coordination measures are documented to minimize gear conflicts with other EFP
holders and mobile fishing fleets.
Include unique buoy line identifiers, such as unique colored markings.
Include details in application for how efforts will be monitored for compliance with

107

EFP conservation
measures objective

Conservation measures to help meet objective
application, EFP objectives, and other applicable regulations.
Data collection objectives (i.e., data collection sheet) provided with application as
required by the EFP process. Data collection example is provided in Appendix 3.
Trip start and trip end hail requirements using vessel monitoring systems or Fish OnLine
for federal permit holders.
Submit final report no more than 6 months after project completion including information
on sets/effort to support future efficacy of ropeless trap/pot gear.

Because EFP applications will vary in scale and location, several of the conservation measures
noted above broadly call for EFP applicants to detail the methodology that they are planning on
using to avoid environmental risks, rather than prescribing specific ways in which these risks
may be avoided. For example, to avoid gear conflict, fishermen have noted that ropeless fishing
may be ideal in areas where bottom habitat is not suitable for mobile gear. In these circumstances
local coordination to provide notification to the mobile fleet about the areas that will be fished
may be sufficient to avoid conflicts. Alternatively, in other circumstances coordination may
include notifying a larger number of vessels of work being done in the area, or working directly
with vessels in the mobile fleet to identify test location methods or devices that would help the
mobile fleet avoid conflicts with ropeless gear that has been set. With documentation of the
coordination methodology provided directly with the application, any necessary increased
coordination can be identified in collaboration between the applicant by federal and state
reviewers.

Weak Links, Weak Inserts, and Weak Rope
3.3.4.1

Weak Links

Weak links attaching the buoy to the rope have been required for trap/pot fisheries in some areas
since the first Take Reduction Plan regulations were implemented, modified over time to include
more areas and to lower breaking strength (for a summary, see Borggaard et al. 2017). Weak
links were one of the earliest gear modifications under the take reduction plan, believed to allow
the buoy to break away and the rope to pull through the baleen if an entanglement occurs near
the surface. It is difficult to assess how well the weak link connecting the buoy to the rope line
reduces mortality and serious injury, and comments on the DEIS and proposed rule were
solicited to inform final rulemaking.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) in this FEIS and the final rule would remove the requirement for a weak
link at the buoy. This alternative was considered in Alternative 3 of the DEIS. Under the final
rule, all ropes in the Northeast Trap/Pot Management Area will be weak or have weak insertions
below the surface system. Knowlton et al. (2021) models whale interactions with weak ropes and
weak insertions, and the model suggests that rope parts below where a whale’s movement
applies force on the rope. This model suggests the weak insertion at the buoy would not
necessarily part the buoy from the rope quickly, and may not have much effect on entanglement
severity. Some commenters indicated a preference for retaining the buoy on the rope so that in
the event of an entanglement some additional information about the location of the incident
could be obtained from the buoy. Additionally at Team meetings some Team members suggested
that drag caused by the buoy could pull rope away from the whale and facilitate the shedding of
108

gear, and suggested that the buoy could provide a disentanglement team with improved access to
entangling rope. While retention of the buoy may be beneficial for some large whales, given
right whale behavior in surface aggregations, buoys may be rubbed off of gear whether or not a
weak link is present. Given the lack of confidence that a weak link in a surface system is
effectively reducing risk to right whales and the potential benefit of buoy retention for some
entangled large whales, the final rule will remove this requirement. Fishermen however would
not be prohibited from retaining a weak link in the surface system.
Alternative 3 would remove the weak link requirement for lobster/crab trap buoy lines that
would be required to use weak rope or weak insertions where weak rope or insertions are
required further down on the buoy line. A lower weak rope or insertion would presumably allow
a whale to break free of entangling gear below the surface system. Fishermen in these areas
could still use a weak link at the buoy but it would not be required.
3.3.4.2

Weak Inserts and Weak Rope

The Team’s consideration of weak line was largely based on Knowlton et al. (2016) findings that
no ropes retrieved from entangled right whales of all ages had breaking strengths that were
below 7.56 kN (1,700 pounds/771 kilograms) and suggests they can break free from these
weaker ropes and thereby avoid a life threatening entanglement. This is consistent with estimates
of the force that large whales are capable of applying, based on axial locomotor muscle
morphology study conducted by Arthur et al. (2015). The authors suggested that the maximum
force output for an adult right whale is likely sufficient to break line at that breaking strength.
That study and others recognized that a whale’s ability to break free from an entanglement is also
somewhat dependent on the complexity of the gear configuration (van der Hoop et al. 2017).
The Team recommended risk reduction measures that included comprehensive weak rope
(engineered rope that breaks at 1,700 pounds/771 kilograms or less) or weak insertions (e.g.
sleeves, generally discussed by the Team as insertions every 40 feet (12.2 meters) along the buoy
lines, although that was not explicit in the recommendations). A full buoy line of 1,700 pounds
(771 kilograms) breaking strength would theoretically allow a whale to break free no matter
where the whale encounters the line, though it is less clear where the rope would break than with
a weak insertion. Insertion of weak sleeves or other weak configurations predictably break at the
weakest point where they are attached to the line and may offer risk reduction depending on how
they are configured (MEDMR 2020). Weak rope modeling suggest that there are several factors
that contribute to likelihood a weak insert will break when a whale interacts with the line and the
time it will take to break, including the number of traps on a trawl and the location of the weak
point in relation to where the whale interacts with the rope (DeCew et al. 2017). Data from these
simulations found that tensions caused by a whale moving the buoy line are greatest at, and part
at, the weak insertions below where the whale encounters the line (DeCew et al. 2017, Knowlton
et al. 2020). The greater the number of weak points on a line, the greater the likelihood that a
weak point will be located outside of the mouth where the whale has a better chance of breaking
free from the entanglement. The lower the lowest weak insert the greater the chance that there
will be a weak insert below a whale that encounters the rope. Trawl configurations with over five
traps are more likely to break with an insert and in a shorter amount of time than without an
insert, assuming there is an insert between the whale and the traps and enough force is present to
109

allow a whale to break free of the traps. It is less clear how a weak point would break if in the
middle of a complex entanglement. Given the data available, inserts at regular intervals is
optimal to reduce the amount or likelihood of trailing line and gear involved in an entanglement.
NMFS evaluated insertions placed close enough together to minimize wrapping of a whale in full
strength rope without a weak point present (estimated to be approximately 40 feet (12.2 meters),
determined by the average adult right whale length), as equivalent to an engineered weak rope.
Configurations that are knot-free may also pose less risk, though an expert elicitation is currently
being conducted to determine the safety of using knots as weak inserts. Currently, the Plan
recommends the use of gear that is knot-free, and/or free of attachments, until the expert
elicitation is complete due previous ALWTRT recommendations that considered that smooth
line may be more likely to slide through the whale’s baleen without becoming lodged in the
mouth or elsewhere, decreasing the risk of serious injury or mortality. Insertions that have large
knots could potentially get caught in baleen if an entanglement occurs. Note that, while lacking
the ‘slide-through’ benefits of smooth line, there is evidence that splices and knots introduce
weaknesses into buoy lines. Lines undergoing breaking strength testing broke on the weaker side
of a knot or splice (MEDMR 2020).
Knowlton et al. (2016) reviewed forces needed to retrieve gear and suggested that this breaking
strength should also be strong enough to allow successful retrieval of pots in commercial trap/pot
fisheries, depending on the gear configuration, set location, and hauling behavior (for example,
less force is needed to haul while traveling over the trawl than to drag the trawl to the boat).
Preliminary studies of hauling forces encountered during commercial lobster fishing suggest that
most hauls in waters within 50 fathoms do not approach or exceed 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms;
Knowlton et al. 2018, Maine DMR 2020, Maine DMR Proposal to NMFS 2019, Appendix 3.3
see Figure 8). In deeper waters, additional force occurs on the lines once multiple pots have been
pulled up off the bottom and are in the water column. Uncontrollable conditions can also cause
additional force on the line, including gear conflict (such as a trawl overlaid on the fished trawl);
high seas, tides or currents; and trawls set in deeper water with more pots per trawl resulting in
multiple pots hanging from the buoy line during the haul. As measured during commercial
operations, while forces greater than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) breaking strength were
required to retrieve gear, particularly for gear of 35 traps and more in waters greater than 50
fathoms (91.4 m; MEDMR 2020), timed haul data indicated those higher forces were not
detected on the line until well past halfway through hauling the buoy line (for example, Figure 7
in ME proposal, Appendix 3.3). This suggests that under most operational conditions, weak rope
or a weak insertion within the top half of a buoy line would not be subjected to forces
approaching or greater than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) during haul. It is important to avoid
putting a weak point in areas where forces may exceed the breaking strength of the rope to
minimize safety risks to fishermen and occurrence of gear loss. The proposed regulation would
only require weak insertions or full weak rope for buoy lines, not sinking groundlines, to a depth
where it is operationally safe.
NMFS and fishing industry organizations are working with fishing rope manufacturers and
distributors to identify or develop commercially available line of appropriate diameters that
break at 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or less. Other options that would allow fishermen to use
their existing gear include using weak insertions (e.g. the South Shore Sleeve, a braided sleeve
110

fed over a parted line, or other configurations employing spliced-in weaker line) that reduces the
breaking strength of the line in several locations along the length of the rope. NMFS considers a
weak rope or weak insertion to be a line or gear configuration that consistently breaks within 10
percent of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) with at least 10 trials. Weak insert configurations
should be easily replicated, detectable, and enforceable. A few options have already been
approved for use in Massachusetts State waters under regulations effective May 1, 2021 (322
CMR 12.00). The approved configurations include weak sleeves and engineered red and red and
white weak line spliced into buoy lines (see Appendix 3.6 for detailed descriptions). NMFS is
continuing to work with fishermen to explore new options for weak line and weak inserts as they
are tested and will make these publicly available once they are tested and approved.

Considering Existing Risk Reduction Credits
Overall the goal of this FEIS is to evaluate new regulations to reduce entanglement risk to right
whales by at least 60 percent in the northeast lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries. However,
the take reduction team agreed at the April 2019 meeting that there are a few areas where
existing regulations or ongoing effort reduction since 2017 should contribute toward the overall
risk reduction analyzed here. Note that the economic analysis within this FEIS considers only the
economic impacts of measures that would be implemented by NMFS to modify the Take
Reduction Plan by federal rulemaking.
3.3.5.1

Massachusetts Restricted Area Credit

Given the large scale of the current MRA and increasing importance of the area for right whales,
the take reduction team agreed that Massachusetts fishermen should get equivalent credit for
maintaining the MRA closure from February through April. This closure was implemented
effective June 2015 through modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan,
impacting a portion of LMA 1 and the Outer Cape LMA. As summarized in the Massachusetts
DMF proposal (MADMF 2020, Appendix 3.3), up to 65 percent of the known right whale
population forages each spring in the Mass Bay Restricted Area, especially within Cape Cod
Bay. In a single day in April 2017, 179 individual right whales were documented. A number of
studies document the increase in importance of Cape Cod Bay in recent years, with the largest
proportion of right whales observed in the Bay than anywhere else in right whales’ range (Mayo
et al. 2018, Ganley et al. 2019). Massachusetts DMF estimates up to 10 right whales per square
mile of water have been in Cape Cod Bay in a peak foraging season. The Take Reduction Team
recognized the high and increasing value of this recently expanded area, and its disproportionate
impact on Massachusetts fishermen when they recommended inclusion of the closure area risk
reduction towards the 60 percent risk reduction target.
3.3.5.2

2021 Massachusetts State Measures

Massachusetts DMF implemented new regulations in state waters to reduce entanglement risk to
right whales (Division of Marine Fisheries 322 CMR 12.00, seehttps://www.mass.gov/doc/322cmr-12-protected-species/download). They implemented an extension of the state waters portion
of the MRA in LMA 1 north to the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border from February
through May 15 (MRA North). State waters will restrict trap/pot fishing during this time period.
111

After May 1, they will implement a dynamic opening in all state waters within the new state
waters MRA bounds between May 1st and May 15th where the area will remain closed until no
more than three whales remain in the area. Additionally, lobster end lines in state waters will
require weak rope or weak inserts year round, in the form of full weak rope or inserts every 60
feet (18.3 meters) in the top 75 percent of the line. This FEIS includes the risk reduction from
both of these measures in Alternative 2 (Preferred) given their large contributions to right whale
risk reduction. However, federal procedural requirements make the implementation of a soft
opening a challenge and therefore the final rule will only be mirroring the extension of the
closure in state waters, and will not extend the closure period in federal waters into May.
Alternative 3 considered risk reduction from the state water extension of the MRA, but does not
include weak line measures implemented by state regulations because the weak line measures in
the Non-preferred Alternative offer more risk reduction than those in the Preferred Alternative.
3.3.5.3

Ongoing Effort Reduction

As described below, lobster fishery management efforts in LMA 2 and 3 have or will soon
reduce the estimated buoy lines fished relative to 2017 buoy line estimates due to ongoing trap
reductions. As recommended by the Take Reduction Team, because this line reduction has
reduced entanglement risk to right whales relative to the 2017 baseline year, or will reduce the
number of lines within the timeline of the rulemaking associated with the Plan modifications,
estimated reductions are applied toward the 60 percent risk reduction targets. As detailed below,
LMA 2 has observed annual effort reduction that is expected to continue through 2021. Since
2017, the baseline year, Massachusetts and Rhode Island demonstrate that the 18 percent line
reduction for vessels fishing in LMA 2 identified within the Team recommendations will be
achieved. LMA 3 is anticipated to achieve a 12 percent line reduction in the Northeast Region as
a result of previous trap consolidation and ongoing trap aggregation efforts being developed in
Addendum XXII to the Amendment 3 of the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan.
3.3.5.4

Planned Weak Insertion Risk Reduction in Maine Exempt Waters

Maine is planning to implement precautionary measures in exempt waters to aid in efforts to
reduce the severity of potential entanglements. All lines in exempt waters within the state of
Maine will be required to have one weak insert placed halfway down the buoy line. Given the
depth of the water column in this area, the risk reduction this offers is close to but slightly under
the equivalent of weak rope (an insert every 40 feet/12.2 m) when accounting for the scope ratio
of the buoy line (estimated at 1.5 times depth in this areas, further analysis is presented in
Chapter 5). As right whales are rare in this area, this offers a reasonably precautionary measure
to reduce entanglement severity in the chance that a whale gets entangled in this area and
therefore was counted towards risk reduction in the Preferred Alternative.
3.3.5.5

Estimated Line Reduction in Response to a Line Cap

To estimate the likely reduction in line numbers with a buoy line cap, NMFS used the 2017
baseline buoy line data to test how different approaches might shift buoy line numbers and
selected likely scenarios. Table 3.10 describes how monthly line numbers might change as a
result of a 50 percent line cap based on the average number of buoy lines currently being used
112

across the Northeast Region. A cap in federal waters to 50 percent of the average lines fished
would likely result in a buoy line reduction closer to 45 percent given the current level of
fluctuation in buoy lines used throughout a fishing year. This estimate is the result of regional
variation and our anticipation of a complex response by fishermen to a line cap. Implementing a
line cap without accounting for variation across all fisheries achieves a near 50 percent reduction
in line in federal waters. However, given variation between regions and months, if this was
implemented on a regional level (a likely scenario) the actual average monthly line reduction is
closer to 45 percent due to areas with higher variation in monthly line numbers. For LMA 2 in
particular, where some months had lower line numbers than half of the monthly average, we
considered three scenarios (see below) to capture a range in responses that could not be assessed
through the co-occurrence model. Depending on how vessels respond to this line cap, during
months where 2017 line numbers fall below the line cap, vessels could either:
1. Low effort: Continue fishing at 2017 levels during months where line numbers typically
fall below the line cap and only fish at their full halved line allocation level during
months they previously fished at high effort.
2. Medium effort: Fish their entire line allocation each month even if they did not
previously fish or fished fewer lines in some months. This could make up lost wages in
other months.
3. High effort: Fish an average number of lines between the line cap and their 2017 line
number in months where 2017 effort fell below the line cap, and fish their full allotment
of lines.
Since line caps result in a very large reduction of lines during high effort months, we anticipate
the most likely scenario falls somewhere between scenarios two and three, with an increase in
use of buoy lines during months that previously had lower fishing effort. The most conservative
scenario was analyzed using the DST by using the average percent line reduction for each LMA,
with different estimates for Maine and Massachusetts in LMA 1. The average of responses two
and three above were used to estimate percent line reduction for LMA 2. Using these estimates,
federal waters still achieved well over the 60 percent risk reduction target.

113

Table 3.10: A breakdown of the monthly line numbers fished by region in 2017 and the number of lines would be allowed under a line cap in each area. Low, Mid, and High
represent the scenarios described above where, if monthly line numbers fall below the cap, they either remain as is (low), in between the cap and 2017 line numbers (mid), or at
the line cap (high). MA = Massachusetts, ME = Maine, OC = Outer Cape.
LMA
LMA
LMA
MA
ME
Federal
OC
2
2/3
3
LMA1
LMA1
Waters
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
Month
Low
Med
High
Low
Med
High
%
%
%
%
%
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
1,061
9%
9%
9%
156
0%
-10%
-19%
201
51%
3,036 44%
3,261
59%
47,728
52%
55,287
51%
Jan
701
0%
-19% -37%
71
0%
-81%
-162%
251
61%
3,102 45%
1,834
27%
31,811
28%
37,699
28%
Feb
733
0%
-16% -31%
43
0% -167% -333%
116
16%
2,791 39%
1,628
18%
34,704
34%
39,972
32%
March
1,416
32%
32%
32%
0
0%
99
2%
2,358 27%
1,869
28%
42,232
46%
47,974
44%
April
2,146
55%
55%
55%
167
0%
-6%
-12%
135
28%
3,029 43%
2,269
41%
41,213
44%
48,792
45%
May
2,684
64%
64%
64%
282
34%
34%
34%
170
43%
4,153 59%
2,026
34%
44,820
49%
53,853
50%
June
2,915
67%
67%
67%
339
45%
45%
45%
167
42%
3,913 56%
1,797
25%
44,742
49%
53,534
50%
July
3,165
70%
70%
70%
430
57%
57%
57%
179
46%
3,852 56%
2,331
42%
47,366
52%
56,893
53%
Aug
2,931
67%
67%
67%
521
64%
64%
64%
244
60%
3,807 55%
3,277
59%
54,484
58%
64,743
58%
Sept
2,266
58%
58%
58%
526
65%
65%
65%
317
69%
4,078 58%
3,644
63%
56,454
59%
66,759
60%
Oct
1,596
40%
40%
40%
578
68%
68%
68%
228
57%
3,307 48%
4,206
68%
57,176
60%
66,513
59%
Nov
1,452
34%
34%
34%
355
48%
48%
48%
233
58%
3,692 54%
4,035
67%
47,529
52%
56,941
53%
Dec
Average 1,922 41% 38%
36%
372
32% 40%
39%
195
44% 3,427 49%
2,681
44% 45,855 49%
54,080
48%
Line
961
186
98
1,713
1341
22,927
27,040
Cap

114

Selecting Gear Marking and Other Information Gathering Elements
3.3.6.1

Gear Marking

The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team supported efforts to expand gear marking to
further improve efforts to determine entanglement location. Morin et al. (2018) summarized gear
characteristics from 2013 to 2017 right whale entanglement incidents. During those five years
NMFS evaluated 62 documented right whale entanglements. No gear was present in 32 of those
incidents. Only 17 cases in which gear was present included sufficient information to identify
country of origin, including 12 that had the easy-to-identify Canadian snow crab gear, one
incident involving marked gear indicative of U.S. lobster gear (without information to further
identify state or specific area within the U.S.), one incident with gear from a Canadian weir, one
unknown Canadian case, and two cases of unknown U.S. gear. As this summary demonstrates,
gear is not present on more than half of all right whale entanglement injuries investigated.
Although disentanglement efforts attempt to retrieve gear when present, their primary focus is on
saving the animal and therefore gear is not always retrieved (for more on disentanglement
efforts, see NMFS, 2020). When gear is retrieved, it cannot always be identified to fishery or
location. The Team discussed measures to increase visibility of marks from vessels and airplanes
as well as requiring marks in all waters including those currently exempt. The gear marking
schemes in Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 (Non-preferred) would include the entire Northeast
Region from coast through the EEZ, including waters currently exempted from gear marking
requirements, and would add state-specific color markings or identification tape to lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region.
Effective September 1, 2020, Maine requires fishermen landing fish in Maine to include statespecific buoy line marking (MEDMR Regulations 13 188 Chapter 75, as amended by a
modification proposed February 19, 2020) consistent with the measures proposed in Alternative
2. Under their revised measures, Maine requires purple markings on lobster pot/trap buoy lines
fished by all state permitted fishermen from the coast to the LMA 1/LMA 3 boundary. Buoy
lines in Maine exempted water are also required to have one 3 foot (91.4 centimeter) mark within
two fathoms of the buoy. For buoy lines less than 100 feet (30.5 meter) in length one additional
mark 1 foot long would be required about half way down the line. Longer buoy lines in the
exemption area are required to have the 3 foot mark and two additional 1 foot marks, one
midway along the buoy line and one at the bottom of the buoy line. In the sliver area (between
the Maine Exemption Line and the 3 nautical mile line) and offshore throughout LMA 1, Maine
permitted fishermen are required to mark buoy lines with a 3 foot mark within the top two
fathoms and three additional 1 foot marks at the top third, middle and bottom third. And as
discussed in Section 3.1.6.1, if weak links at the buoy are no longer required on buoy lines that
are weak or have weak inserts, buoys with their identifying marks may be retained on an
entangled whale more often, providing information that can help NMFS determine the original
location of entanglements.
3.3.6.2

Non-regulatory Components

115

Monitoring requirements are a non-regulatory but important part of the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan. Three non-regulatory monitoring components are proposed to align with
recommendations from the Team in April 2019:
1. Enforcement and associated compliance monitoring: compliance support and
monitoring is achieved through outreach and enforcement efforts that inform fishermen
of the regulatory requirements to support their ability to comply, as well as through active
inspection of gear and associated enforcement actions. In state waters, NMFS supports
enforcement related to marine mammal protection through funding for joint enforcement
agreements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. NMFS, in
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and state enforcement personnel, has developed
an offshore enforcement plan that combines traditional enforcement practices with the
use of new technologies such as drones and electronic monitoring to support enforcement
throughout the EEZ (See appendix 3.5).
2. North Atlantic right whale population monitoring: In 2019, NMFS convened an
Expert Working Group to develop recommendations to (1) improve right whale
population status by identifying and tracking essential population metrics and (2)
improve our understanding of distribution and habitat use. Recommendations from the
Working Group (Oleson et al. 2020) will be used to modify surveys on a three-year
monitoring cycle that includes a report to the Team every three years to evaluate and
reconsider restricted management areas. Along with annual presentations on right whale
monitoring, the monitoring cycle report results will be considered by the Team to
recommend changes, openings, or further area management. The data included in
monitoring plans will include whale abundance and distribution as well as other
environmental characteristics that impact whale habitat use and population health,
including copepod abundance and oceanographic parameters.
3. Fishery monitoring and reporting: Lobster trap/pot gear makes up the vast majority of
buoy lines fished in the Northeast Region. The ASMFC adopted Addendum XXVI in
February 2018 to improve harvester reporting and biological data collection in both state
and federal waters to improve the spatial resolution of harvesting data, improve and
expand fishery effort data, and obtain better data on the offshore fishery and lobster stock
through biological sampling. NMFS is working on a proposed rule at this time that would
require 100 percent harvester reporting by federal permit holders as early as 2022. Maine,
currently the only New England State that does not require 100 percent harvester
reporting, has committed to 100 percent reporting by no later than 2023 and is actively
seeking funding to support harvester reporting efforts. Additionally, ASMFC has piloted
a vessel tracking study with the intention of requiring vessel tracking in federal waters.
NMFS intends to work with the ASMFC, through their open and public process, to
develop additional high resolution spatial data collection objectives and requirements,
while balancing the financial burden to industry. Fishery data will be used to monitor
effort and distribution of the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries and inform Team
discussions.

116

3.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
In the scoping efforts conducted for this rulemaking, stakeholders recommended a variety of
approaches for reducing entanglement risk to large whales. Scoping discussions included the
meeting of the full Take Reduction Team as well as a series of public meetings held at key
locations on the northeast Atlantic coast.
While NMFS solicited and considered all input from stakeholders, a number of approaches were
rejected in the formulation of alternatives. Table 3.11 summarizes these approaches and briefly
explains why NMFS chose not to integrate the approach into the regulatory alternatives under
consideration. Additional information on some of these may be found in the responses to
comments in Appendix 1.1. The rejected approaches are organized by topic. Stakeholders
identified many approaches that would apply to more than one fishery or region; hence, many of
the concepts are repeated in the table. The alternatives described are not mutually exclusive; i.e.,
some were recommended in combination, despite the fact that they are listed and addressed
separately in the table. The rejected alternatives are wide-ranging in content. Concepts that recur
frequently in the alternatives include the following:
Table 3.11: A list of the primary alternative components that were considered but rejected, with the reason for the
rejection.
Topic
Alternative Considered but Rejected
Rationale for Rejection
Line LMA 3: In Georges Basin, trawl up to Less preferable to broader scale measures, insufficient
risk-reduction
Reduction 70 traps per trawl, year round or
seasonally
LMA 1 Maine: Trap reductions
Given varied state landings reporting requirements and
rates, measures that require documented vessel landings
histories are difficult to design, assess and implement
outside of a fishery management Commission/Council
process
LMA 1 Mass and NH : 30 percent
Less than the 50% line reduction analyzed within
line reduction
Alternative 3
Only use one buoy line in LMA 3
Unpopular with stakeholders, potential gear conflicts and
year round
safety concerns
Outside 12 nm 1/2 of buoy lines
Unpopular with stakeholders, potential increased gear
ropeless
conflict and safety concerns
Reduce all traps 50 percent
Direct line reduction preferred, considered in Alternative
3
3-4 year phase-in of 400
Given varied state landings reporting requirements and
traps/fisherman trap limit with
rates, measures that require documented vessel landings
commensurate reduced end lines
histories are difficult to design, assess and implement
outside of a fishery management Commission/Council
process
Reduce trap tag limits by 50 percent
Given varied state landings reporting requirements and
commensurate with buoy line
rates, measures that require documented vessel landings
reduction.
histories are difficult to design, assess and implement
outside of a fishery management Commission/Council
process
Reduced trap limits if fishing in
Would add risk
modified Mass Restricted Area
Do not change gear configurations in
Insufficient risk reduction
state waters

117

Topic

Alternative Considered but Rejected
Trap or line cap to include all
fisheries including EFPs, gillnet,
trap/pot, aquaculture, includes seines
Requiring 15-25 traps per trawl in
LMA 2, based on distance from shore

Closures

3 traps/trawl throughout Maine State
waters outside the exempted area
8 traps/trawl between 3-6 nautical
miles in Maine LMA 1
15 traps/trawl between 3-6 nautical
miles in Maine LMA 1
Close statistical area 529
LMA 3 above 40.3 degrees Oct - Dec
LMA 1 Feb - May 15
Everywhere Jan - Apr
Extension of Massachusetts
Restricted Area to May 15
Extension of Massachusetts
Restricted Area to the New
Hampshire border
Extension of Massachusetts
Restricted Area to Cape Anne
Cape Cod Bay Closure January
Close Area 537, Nov 1 – May 14
Closure west GOM- April
South of Nantucket/Martha’s
Vineyard March - May
Closure south of Nantucket bounded
by 30-minute squares capturing 80
percent of sightings in the last three
years Dec-May
Emergency action to close area south
of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket
until ruling
Emergency action to close area in
offshore Maine in summer and fall
(LMA 1 and 3)
Create dynamic closures
Buoy line trap/pot closures during the
summer and fall in offshore waters
east of Maine in LMA 1 and LMA 3
NEAQ proposed area closure south of
Nantucket for Feb-May 15
Modify opening and closures of
Mass. Bay Restricted Area via MA
Dynamic Seasonal Extension
Massachusetts’ proposed South Island
Restricted Area

Rationale for Rejection
Given varied state landings reporting requirements and
rates, measures that require documented vessel landings
histories are difficult to design, assess and implement
outside of a fishery management Commission/Council
process
A conservation equivalency requested due to vessel
capacity, economic, and safety concerns expanded weak
inserts instead, and provided more risk reduction
Allowing an exemption in zones C, D, and E based on
zone specific scoping and conservation equivalencies
Accepted a conservation equivalency that redistributed
trawl length based on zone specific scoping
Accepted a conservation equivalency that redistributed
trawl length based on zone specific scoping
Too large, unpopular with stakeholders
Too large, unpopular with stakeholders
Too large, unpopular with stakeholders
Too large, unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders, little additional risk
reduction
Too large and too long, unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders, little additional risk
reduction
Not sufficient risk reduction
Length of closure unpopular with stakeholders

Not a part of this FEIS, potentially under a different
authority
Unpopularity with stakeholders
Not currently feasible with regulatory process
Data supported slightly different seasons for closures in
each area
Unpopular with stakeholders and/or did not achieve
sufficient risk reduction
Not feasible
Updated data suggest that the restricted area will push
effort into adjacent waters with equally high whale
density.

118

Topic

Alternative Considered but Rejected
PEW Petition for three large closures
in the Gulf of Maine and a year round
closure south of Cape Cod.

CBD petition for emergency
rulemaking in existing closures and
the DEIS Massachusetts proposed
SIRA

Ropeless
Fishing

Weak Line

Buoyless everywhere >100m
Mass Area B- Buoyless fishing FebApr
Mass Area C Buoyless in April
Limit new and transferred federal
trap/pot permits to ropeless-only
fishing (only 25 percent by grapple).
All trap/pot ropeless by 1/1/20.
Experimental and operational support
for a 5 year transition to ropeless
fishing in waters greater than 300 feet
in depth
Ropeless in all of LMA 3
Where weak rope is not feasible, 5-yr
phase in of ropeless
Require ropeless for new fixed gear
operations or fisheries, emerging gear
such as aquaculture or experimental
fisheries
Within finite sections of closed area,
allow/fund ropeless experimentation
Weak line at top 50 percent both buoy
lines, everywhere
LMA 3 Northeast (outside of N of
Georges Management Area), on
remaining strong buoy line, weak
insertion at 35 percent of scope
Mass waters: sleeves
ME 12+ 1,700 lb (771 kg) on 3/4
toppers
1,700 lb rope in top 2/3
LMA 3: Sleeves top 500m
Outside of 100m Toppers
Inside of 100m 1,700 lb (771 kg) rope

Rationale for Rejection
In total, the risk reduction of the four areas proposed by
PEW achieved a 9.3% risk reduction across the entire
northeast. Some of these areas predicted large shifts in
gear density in areas outside of the closure. Without
more broad line reduction, these closures shift risk more
than reducing it overall risk.
Emergency rulemaking does not exempt NMFS from
the NEPA process. Initiating a new EIS for an
emergency rulemaking suspend this rulemaking and
restart the lengthy rulemaking clock. It would also
dismiss the TRT process as well as the public input
requirements of the APA. It would also be difficult to
assess the effect of the rule given it is highly dependent
on when it is implemented. For example, if NMFs
implemented an emergency rule closing the
Massachusetts South Island Restricted Area as
requested starting in July, the first month would only
reduce 0.3 percent to 1.9 percent of risk within a given
month. Broader line reduction is needed to reduce
overall risk.
Needs more testing
Eliminates closure and increases risk
Eliminates closure and increases risk
Needs more testing

Needs more testing

Needs more testing
Needs more testing
Needs more testing

May occur under alternatives that require EFP but
opportunity for broader options
Safety concerns in deeper waters with more and heavier
traps/trawl
Safety concerns, unpopular with stakeholders, needs
more testing
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders

119

Topic

Gear
Marking

Alternative Considered but Rejected
Inside 100 ft isobaths, 1,700 lb rope,
outside use add-ons
Sleeves everywhere
1,700 lb (771 kg) tag line everywhere
>100m
Area 537 full weak rope or equivalent
Sub Area 537- 1,700 lb (771 kg) or
sleeves
Reduce breaking strength in all ropes
used in depths of less than 300 feet to
1,700 lb (771 kg) or sleeves every 40
feet
Tiered buoy line strength: 1,700 lb
(771 kg) breaking strength as standard
where safely feasible. Where not safe,
consider using taglines. If neither is
an option, ropeless within 5 years
Require 1,700 lb (771 kg) breaking
strength line for all fixed gear
fisheries in Area 537
Try 1,900-2,000 lb (862 – 907 kg)
breaking strength
Use predetermined bleach soak time
to weaken rope
Test reduced breaking strength gear
beyond 300 feet (91 meters)
Cap buoy line diameter in nonexempt ME state waters, and federal
waters out to the Area 1 line varied by
distance from shore, to reduce
breaking strength and prevent its
escalation
Individual fishermen/permit numbers
specific ID tape throughout buoy line
Distinctively marked 1,700 lb (771
kg) breaking strength rope
In Maine, only add a single tracer to
existing markings
Existing marking is sufficient
Different marks for different fisheries,
area fished, subregion, etc
Mark all fixed gear fisheries
Increase marking frequency
Marking lengthener
Mark to ID line type (groundline and
buoy lines)
Mark ropeless gear
Mark gear every 40 feet
Red sleeves as gear marking
Use high visibility rope
Replace and mark 20 percent of lines
each year for a 5 year phase in
Include unique country of origin
tracer in line to identify as U.S. gear
Unique for exempted areas

Rationale for Rejection
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders

Unpopular with stakeholders

Unpopular with stakeholders
Insufficient risk reduction
Difficult to standardize
Does not reduce risk
Unclear risk reduction

Unpopular with stakeholders
Manufacturing challenges
Does not add additional info when gear is not collected.
Does not meet needs
Limited color options
Not all included in this ruling
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Too slow
Increased marking should help distinguish U.S. gear
Limited color options

120

Topic

Reporting

Monitoring

Weak Links

Other

Alternative Considered but Rejected
Unique mark for sinking line in buoy
line systems
Include unique marks closure areas
(when open) and certain other key
areas.
Require VMS/AIS on all buoy line
fisheries
Require mandatory lost gear reporting
for all trap/pot and gillnet gear not
already required to report.
Effort along the U.S. east coast with
increased effort south of the islands
and in the mid-Atlantic more than
once per month. Year-round
throughout the U.S. east coast with
increased effort in the mid-Atlantic
region.
Year round throughout U.S. east coast
with increased effort in the midAtlantic region
Train lobstermen as whale observers
and disentangle teams
VMS and AIS use in fishery at 100
percent
Require VMS and VTR
Annually review and amend, high
density right whale closure areas
Weak link alternatives in northern
Area 537: 600 lb weak-link or 1,100
lb weak-link for pot gear buoy lines
In statistical area 537 lower the
breakaway requirement for all fixed
gear from a maximum of 1,500 lb to a
lower level. Analyze options for a 600
lb breakaway and another for a 1,100
lb breakaway.
Allow participating fishermen to fish
reduced number of traps with SSL
installed every 40 feet in line in
January and in green sections of the
Mass Bay Restricted Area February April (PSSLA)
Mass Feb-Apr, sleeves, some traps go
back in
Adopt all provisions agreed upon at
the TRT
Only implement new measures in
Maine over 30 mi from shore
Remove exemption line
Establish triggers in advance which
would result in prescribed
management actions for example
reduced buoy lines in a region

Rationale for Rejection
Unpopular with stakeholders
Limited color options
Logistical challenges
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders

Logistical challenges
Funding and logistical challenges
VMS implemented by a different authority, logistical
challenges
VMS implemented by a different authority, VTR will be
implemented in a separate monitoring plan.
Logistical challenges
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders

Increases entanglement risk

Increases entanglement risk
Does not take into account additional information/data
available since
Insufficient risk reduction
Unpopular with stakeholders
Logistical challenges

121

Topic

Alternative Considered but Rejected
Reduce line in surface systems in
Maine
Oppose any experimentation with
grappling for gear that would allow
any type of floating or buoyant
groundline
Implement measures that apply
equally to all fishermen in federal
waters
No aquaculture in any closed areas at
any time of year
Require all trap/pot fisheries to use
sinking groundlines with no
exemptions
5 year transition to red/orange buoy
lines to increase visibility
Colored lines throughout Area 537

Rationale for Rejection
Unpopular with stakeholders
Not risk reduction

Doesn’t take into account operation size.
Beyond the scope of the FEIS
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders
Unpopular with stakeholders

3.5 References
Arthur, L. H., W. A. McLellan, M. A. Piscitelli, S. A. Rommel, B. L. Woodward, J. P. Winn, C. W. Potter, and D.
Ann Pabst. 2015. Estimating maximal force output of cetaceans using axial locomotor muscle morphology.
Marine Mammal Science 31:1401-1426.
Baumgartner, M. 2020. Robots4Whales. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Baumgartner, M. F., J. Bonnell, S. M. Van Parijs, P. J. Corkeron, C. Hotchkin, K. Ball, L. P. Pelletier, J. Partan, D.
Peters, J. Kemp, J. Pietro, K. Newhall, A. Stokes, T. V. N. Cole, E. Quintana, S. D. Kraus, and O.
Gaggiotti. 2019. Persistent near real-time passive acoustic monitoring for baleen whales from a moored
buoy: System description and evaluation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10:1476-1489.
Borggaard, D.L., D.M Gouveia, M.A. Colligan, R.Merrick, K.S.Swails, M.J.Asaro, J.Kenney, G. Salvador and J.
Higgins. 2017. Managing U.S. Altlantic large whale entanglements: Four guiding principles. Marine Policy
84 (2017) 202–212
Cole, T., P. Hamilton, A. Henry, P. Duley, R. Pace, B. White, and T. Frasier. 2013. Evidence of a North Atlantic
right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endangered Species Research 21:55-64.
Consortium, R. W. 2019. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Sightings Database 12/05/2019 (Anderson Cabot
Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, U.S.A.).
DeCew, J. 2017. Numerical Analysis of a Lobster Pot System. New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
DFO. 2019. Review of North Atlantic right whale occurrence and risk of entanglements in fishing gear and vessel
strikes in Canadian waters.38.
Ganley, L., S. Brault, and C. Mayo. 2019. What we see is not what there is: estimating North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. Endangered Species Research 38:101-113.
Grieve, B. D., J. A. Hare, and V. S. Saba. 2017. Projecting the effects of climate change on Calanus finmarchicus
distribution within the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf. Scientific Reports 7:6264.
Knowlton, A.R., J. DeCew and T. Werner. 2020. Simulated performance of lobster fishing gear under different
configurations. Presentation to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. Accessed online at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEF6w-4yGUG5EMTVjO2mqo8k5jX8-UmC/view on February 1, 2021.

122

Knowlton, A. R., R. Malloy Jr., S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2018. Development and Evaluation of Reduced
Breaking Strength Rope to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Severity. Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean
Life, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A. McKenna, S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2016. Effects of fishing
rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv Biol 30:318-328.
Leiter, S., K. Stone, J. Thompson, C. Accardo, B. Wikgren, M. Zani, T. Cole, R. Kenney, C. Mayo, and S. Kraus.
2017. North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence in offshore wind energy areas near
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, USA. Endangered Species Research 34:45-59.
Mayo, C. A., L. Ganley, C. A. Hudak, S. Brault, M. K. Marx, E. Burke, and M. W. Brown. 2018. Distribution,
demography, and behavior of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay,
Massachusetts, 1998-2013: Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay. Marine Mammal Science 34:979-996.
Mayo, C. A., B. H. Letcher, and S. Scott. 2001. Zooplankton filtering efficiency of the baleen of a North Atlantic
right whale, Eubalaena glacialis. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3:245- 250.
McCarron, Patrice and Heather Tetreault, Lobster Pot Gear Configurations in the Gulf of Maine, 2012.
MEDMR. 2020. An Assessment of Vertical Line Use in Gulf of Maine Region Fixed Gear Fisheries and Resulting
Conservation Benefits for the Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. Submitted to NMFS GARFO as
mid year Progress Report, July 2019 – 2020, for Grant NA18NMF4720084.
Morano, J. L., A. N. Rice, J. T. Tielens, B. J. Estabrook, A. Murray, B. L. Roberts, and C. W. Clark. 2012.
Acoustically Detected Year-Round Presence of Right Whales in an Urbanized Migration Corridor: Right
Whales in Massachusetts Bay. Conservation Biology 26:698-707.
Morin, D., A. Henry, J. Higgins, and M. Minton. 2018. ALWTRT entanglement summary, SI/M and gear analysis.
Presentation to the ALWTRT October 9. 2018.
NMFS, 2020. National Report on Large Whale Entanglements Confirmed in the United States in 2018. Office of
Protected Resources Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program report retrieved August
2020 from: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/national-report-large-whale-entanglementsconfirmed-united-states-2018
Oleson, E.M, J. Baker, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore and P. Wade. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring and
Surveillance: Report and Recommendations of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Expert Working
Group. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSOPR-64 June 2020. Retrieved August 2020 from:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/north-atlantic-right-whale-monitoring-and-surveillancereport-and-recommendations
Pendleton, D., P. Sullivan, M. Brown, T. Cole, C. Good, C. Mayo, B. Monger, S. Phillips, N. Record, and A.
Pershing. 2012. Weekly predictions of North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis habitat reveal
influence of prey abundance and seasonality of habitat preferences. Endangered Species Research 18:147161.
Plourde, S., C. Lehoux, C. L. Johnson, G. Perrin, and V. Lesage. 2019. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) and its food: (I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging habitats in
Canadian waters. 00:19.
Roberts, J. J., B. D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P. N. Halpin, D. L. Palka, L. P. Garrison, K. D. Mullin, T. V. N.
Cole, C. B. Khan, W. A. McLellan, D. A. Pabst, and G. G. Lockhart. 2016. Habitat-based cetacean density
models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific Reports 6:22615.
Roberts JJ, Mannocci L, Halpin PN (2017) Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and
Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2016-2017 (Opt. Year 1). Document version 1.4. Report prepared for
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab,
Durham, NC.
Roberts JJ, Schick RS, Halpin PN 2020. Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and
Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2018-2020 (Option Year 3). Document version 1.4. Report prepared for

123

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab,
Durham, NC.
Stone, K. M., S. M. Leiter, R. D. Kenney, B. C. Wikgren, J. L. Thompson, J. K. D. Taylor, and S. D. Kraus. 2017.
Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21:527-543.
van der Hoop, J. M., P. Corkeron, A. G. Henry, A. R. Knowlton, and M. J. Moore. 2017. Predicting lethal
entanglements as a consequence of drag from fishing gear. Marine Pollution Bulletin 115:91- 104.

124

CHAPTER 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the valued ecosystem components (VECs) that may be affected by the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan) modifications. Four major
valued ecosystem components are examined in detail:
•

•

•

•

Atlantic Large Whales: The large whale valued ecosystem component includes the three
large whale species that are the focus of the ALWTRP, the North Atlantic right whale,
the humpback whale, and the fin whale, as well as the minke whale, which also benefits
from the plan and is frequently entangled by fishing gear.
Other Protected Species: Other protected species are included in a separate valued
ecosystem component from the four large whales above and includes all other protected
species that may be impacted by the proposed regulations (i.e., marine mammals and sea
turtles; Table 4.1).
Habitat: The habitat valued ecosystem component represents marine habitats, with a
focus on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC).
This includes the physical environment and benthic organisms that provide important
ecological functions.
Human Communities: This valued ecosystem component encompasses potentially
affected fisheries (lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot) with an emphasis on the economic
effects of the proposed alternatives. The proposed actions are not expected to have
significant impacts on the biological aspects of the fisheries and therefore fish biology is
not included in this analysis.

This chapter is broken down as follows:
•

•

•

Section 4.1 discusses the status of protected species that may be impacted by elements of
the ALWTRP. This has two sections: one focusing on large whales and another on all
other protected species.
Section 4.2 provides information on potentially impacted habitats and their physical
characteristics.
Section 4.3 considers the economic and social aspects of the potentially impacted
fisheries.

4.1 Protected Species

125

The following discussion examines the potential impact of management actions on protected
species. Table 4.1 shows the protected species that were considered and identifies which of those
may be impacted by the proposed action.
Table 4.1: The species and critical habitat that were considered, their current status, and which ones are likely to be
impacted by the proposed regulations.
Potential Effect
Category
Species
Status
Potentially Impacted

Marine Mammals

Sea Turtles

Not Likely to Be
Impacted

Fish

North Atlantic Right Whale
Humpback Whale
Fin Whale
Minke Whale
Sei Whale

Endangered
Protected
Endangered
Protected
Endangered

Sperm Whale
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
(Northwest Atlantic Ocean
DPS)
Leatherback Sea Turtle

Endangered

Endangered

Giant Manta Ray

Endangered

Oceanic Whitetip Shark
Atlantic Salmon
Shortnose Sturgeon

Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
New York, Chesapeake Bay,
Carolina, and South Atlantic
DPSs - endangered, Gulf of
Maine DPS as threatened
Protected
Protected
Endangered

Atlantic Sturgeon
Marine Mammals

Bryde’s Whale
Harbor Porpoise
Blue Whale
WNA Coastal Bottlenose
Dolphin
Atlantic White-Sided
Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Spotted Dolphin
Striped Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Offshore Bottlenose Dolphin

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Common Dolphin

Protected

Harbor Seal
Gray Seal

Protected
Protected

Harp Seal

Protected

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle (North
Atlantic DPS)
Hawksbill Sea Turtle

Endangered

Seals

Sea Turtles

Threatened

126

Threatened
Endangered

Potential Effect

Category
Critical Habitat

Species

Status

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle

Threatened

North Atlantic Right Whale

ESA (Protected)

The information here was compiled from a variety of sources including published literature and
official reports. The abundances, potential biological removal levels (PBR), and serious injury
and mortality rates for all marine mammals were taken from the annual NMFS stock assessments
and, if possible, supplemented by additional data from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) that has yet to be published. Sea turtle abundance and trends were available from
government and non-government reports. It should be noted that annual mortality rates for
protected species that were calculated from the detected mortalities should be considered a
biased representation estimate of human-caused mortality. Detections are arbitrary and not the
result of a systematic survey of mortality. As such, they represent a minimum estimate of
human-caused mortality which is almost certainly biased low (Hayes et al. 2020, Pace et al.
2021b).

Atlantic Large Whales
4.1.1.1

North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is a baleen whale found in temperate and
subpolar latitudes in the North Atlantic Ocean. Today they are mainly found in the western North
Atlantic, but were historically recorded south of Greenland and in the Denmark strait, as well as
in eastern North Atlantic waters (Kraus and Rolland 2007, Monsarrat et al. 2016), and with
possible historic calving grounds in the Mediterranean Sea (Rodrigues et al. 2018). Although
some individuals are occasionally sighted off of Europe and in the Gulf of Mexico, the current
geographic range is primarily from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in the south, where
calving occurs, through the mid-Atlantic to the north along the east coast of North America and
further extending north and west to the waters of Greenland and Iceland (Lien et al. 1989, Mate
et al. 1997, Morano et al. 2012, NMFS 2013, Wikgren et al. 2014, Oedekoven et al. 2015, Davis
et al. 2017, Krzystan et al. 2018, Davies et al. 2019). Other than right whales that aggregate in
small numbers on the calving grounds in the winter, aggregations are most frequently observed
in the mid-Atlantic and New England throughout Cape Cod Bay and the Gulf of Maine (Mate et
al. 1997, Wikgren et al. 2014, Davis et al. 2017, Mayo et al.2018) as well as in Canadian waters,
such as the Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, and Gulf of Saint Lawrence (Davies et al. 2019,
Plourde et al. 2019) likely in search of food.
Right whales feed primarily on copepods, in particular Calanus finmarchicus, where they occur
in high abundance (Watkins and Schevill 1976, Wishner et al. 1988, Mayo and Marx 1990,
Wishner et al. 1995, Woodley and Gaskin 1996, Kenney 2001, Baumgartner et al. 2003,
Baumgartner and Mate 2003). Right whale foraging occurs commonly at the surface or
subsurface in the spring in Cape Cod Bay (Mayo and Marx 1990) but at depth in the summer,
fall, and early winter where high densities of copepods occur (Kenney et al. 1995, Baumgartner
and Mate 2003, Baumgartner et al. 2017). Baumgartner et al. (2017) observed right whales using
all depth strata, including surface feeding on C. finmarchicus coincident with spring
phytoplankton blooms and feeding at depth spring through late fall. The high lipid content of
127

diapausing copepods that occur in late summer and early fall at depth, from 300 m (83 fm) to
1500 m (250 fm), in the Gulf of Maine Basins may be of particular importance to right whales
(Baumgartner et al. 2017, Krumhansl et al. 2018). By mid-winter, there is a decline in C.
finmarchicus availability and right whales are required to target other prey. Seasonal patterns in
C. finmarchicus aggregations and phenology have been changing (Pershing and Stamieszkin
2020), shifting distribution throughout the Gulf of Maine (Record et al. 2019) making it more
challenging to predict aggregations in known hotspots. In Canada, whales in the Bay of Fundy
were observed less often and earlier in the season in recent years in line with shifting prey
overlap (Davies et al. 2019) and foraging habitat was recently identified on the Scotian Shelf and
in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (Plourde et al. 2019).
From 1990 to 2010, the right whale population grew at a rate of 2.8 percent from an estimated
270 in 1990 to high of 483, but has declined since 2010 (Pace et al. 2017) and is experiencing an
unusual mortality event beginning in 2017 that is related to both vessel strikes and entanglement
in fishing gear (Daoust et al. 2018), particularly in the Canadian Gulf of St. Lawrence. Serious
injury and mortalities were attributed to entanglements for 63 percent of all serious injuries and
mortalities documented between 2010 and 2019 (see Chapter 2). During this time frame, there
were 185 documented incidents in the U.S. and Canada. The following is a broad overview of
the incident data:
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•

Of all 185 incidents reported, 152 of those showed injuries confirmed as caused by
entanglements or vessel strikes, 78 of which resulted in serious injury or mortality (Table
4.2).
Eleven of these entanglements would have resulted in serious injury or mortality but were
disentangled.
The vast majority of incidents cannot be identified to a known gear type. Of those with
gear retrieved and identified, more were confirmed as trap/pot gear incidents than
incidents caused by netting (see Chapter 2).
Among all entanglement incidents by country, while there appears to be a spike in
Canada, there are also a large proportion that do not have a country of origin identified.
Yearly trends demonstrate a particular increase in serious injury and mortality of right
whales since 2014.
Seventeen mortalities occurred in 2017, including 12 in Canada and 5 in the U.S.
Entanglement was identified as the cause of four of the mortalities, two in Canada’s Gulf
of St. Lawrence, and two in the U.S. Two serious injuries, one in each country, were also
documented as caused by entanglement
Three mortalities showing signs of acute entanglement were documented in 2018, all in
US waters and including one in January 2018 from which snow crab gear was removed.
During 2019, another ten mortalities were documented, including nine in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Four of the six examined were caused by injuries compatible with blunt force
trauma and attributed to vessel strikes. One individual was too decomposed to determine
cause of death. One was last seen with a new entanglement in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
shortly before stranding dead in New York where the cause of death was attributed to
Canadian line.
A number of entanglement-related serious injuries were also documented in 2019,
including a right whale disentangled from Canadian snow crab gear east of
128

Provincetown, Massachusetts.
Between 1990 and 2015, survival rates appeared relatively stable, but differed between the sexes,
with males having higher survivorship than females (males: 0.985 ± 0.0038; females: 0.968 ±
0.0073) leading to a male-biased sex ratio (approximately 1.46 males per female, Figure 2.4;
Pace et al. 2017). The best estimate of the right whale population at the end of 2019 is 368
whales with a strong male bias (approximately 60 percent male; Pace et al 2017, Pace 2021).
Additionally, an Unusual Mortality Event was declared in 2017 when 17 individuals died on the
Atlantic coast in both U.S. and Canadian waters (Pettis et al. 2018b). This event has continued
through 2021, with an additional three mortalities documented in 2018, 10 in 2019, two in 2020,
and two as of April 2021. In 2020, 15 serious injuries were included in the Unusual Mortality
event tally, including two in 2017, five in 2018, one in 2019, four in 2020, and three in 2021
(see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlanticright-whale-unusual-mortality-event).
Table 4.2: The number of entanglement and vessel strike cases, 2010 – 2019, by country, that resulted in serious
injury or mortality. This list includes individuals with prorated injuries where outcome was uncertain and assigned a
probability of serious injury and where serious injury or mortality was averted through disentanglement.
Country
Cause
# of Cases
US
First Seen US
Canada
First Seen Canada
Total

Entanglement

3

Vessel Strike

7

Entanglement

28

Vessel Strike

1

Entanglement

14

Vessel Strike

8

Entanglement

16

Vessel Strike

1

Entanglement

61

Vessel Strike

17

Based on the best available information, the greatest entanglement risk to large whales is posed
by fixed gear used in trap/pot or sink gillnet fisheries (Angliss and Demaster 1998; Cassoff et al.
2011; Kenney and Hartley 2001; Knowlton and Kraus 2001; Hartley et al. 2003; Johnson et al.
2005;Whittingham et al. 2005a,b; Knowlton et al. 2012; NMFS 2014; Hamilton and Kraus 2019;
Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2021; Sharp et al. 2019; Pace et al. 2021). Specifically, while
foraging or transiting, large whales are at risk of becoming entangled in buoy lines, or
groundlines of gillnet and trap/pot gear, as well as the net panels of gillnet gear that rise into the
water column (Baumgartner et al. 2017; Cassoff et al. 2011; Hamilton and Kraus 2019; Hartley
et al. 2003; Henry et al. 2014; Henry et al. 2015; Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Henry et
al. 2019; Johnson et al. 2005; Kenney and Hartley 2001; Knowlton and Kraus 2001;Knowlton et
al. 2012; NMFS 2014; Whittingham et al. 2005a,b; Hayes et al. 2020). Large whale interactions
(entanglements) with these features of trap/pot and/or sink gillnet gear often result in the serious
injury or mortality to the whale (Angliss and Demaster 1998; Cassoff et al. 2011; Henry et al.
2014, Henry et al. 2015, Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2019; Knowlton and
Kraus 2001, Knowlton et al. 2012; Moore and Van der Hoop 2012; NMFS 2014; Pettis et al.
129

2019; Sharp et al. 2019; van der Hoop et al. 2016; van der Hoop et al. 2017). Many
entanglements, including serious injury or mortality events, go unobserved, and the gear type,
fishery, and/or country of origin for reported entanglement events are often not traceable. The
rate of large whale entanglement, and thus, rate of serious injury and mortality due to
entanglement, are likely underestimated (Hamilton et al. 2018; Hamilton et al. 2019; Knowlton
et al. 2012; Pace et al. 2017; Robbins 2009).
Anthropogenic mortality has limited the recovery of the right whale (Corkeron et al. 2018). With
whaling prohibited, the two major known human causes of mortality are vessel strikes and
entanglement in fishing gear (Hayes et al. 2018b). While vessel strikes declined after vessel
speed regulations were implemented (78 FR 73726; Conn and Silber 2013), both entanglement in
fishing gear and vessel strikes remain a significant threat (Kraus et al. 2016, Sharp et al. 2019)
and appear to be worsening (Hayes et al. 2018b). Other potential threats to recovery include low
genetic diversity, pollution, nutritional stress, and other sublethal stressors (Best et al. 2001,
Kraus et al. 2001, Rolland et al. 2012, Rolland et al. 2016, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018).
There is evidence of declining physiological health in the population since the early 1990s,
which was also linked to several periods of poor reproduction (Rolland et al. 2016, Christiansen
et al. 2020). Calving rates have varied substantially, with low calving rates coinciding with all
three periods of decline or no growth, and with low female survival further reducing the number
of birthing females (Pace et al. 2017). This has been acute in recent years, when calf production
has decreased and the time between births has nearly doubled. Between 2009 and 2017, Pettis et
al. (2018a) observed an increased calving interval from an average of 4 to 10 years. In recent
years, low birth rates are an increasing concern for right whale recovery, with the detection of
only five births in 2017 (Pettis et al. 2018b), no births in 2018 (Pettis et al. 2018a), seven births
in 2019 (Pettis et al. 2020), and ten births in 2020 (Pettis et al. 2021). This is well below the
average: 12.8 calves per year from 2010 through 2019 or 22 per year from 2000 through 2009.
More recently, there were 17 calves in the 2020/2021 calving season, as of March 29
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-atlantic-rightwhale-calving-season-2021). While the number of births in the most recent season is
encouraging, the persistent low births are insufficient to counteract current population mortality
rates (Pace 2021), increasing concern regarding current levels of entanglement mortality. Many
factors could explain the low birth rate, including poor female health (Rolland et al. 2016) and
reduced prey availability (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015, Johnson et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod et al.
2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018). Entanglement in fishing gear also can have substantial
health and energetic costs that affect both survival and reproduction (Robbins et al. 2015, Pettis
et al. 2017, Rolland et al.2017, van der Hoop et al. 2017, Hayes et al. 2018a, Hunt et al. 2018,
Lysiak et al. 2018, Moore et al. 2021).
The resilience of the right whale to future stressors is considered very low given the existing
threats (Hayes et al. 2018a) but would be improved by the absence of human-caused serious
injury and mortality (Kenney 2018). Hayes et al. (2018a) estimates that by 2029 the population
will decline to the 1990 estimate of 123 females if the current rate of decline is not mitigated.
Recent modelling efforts by Meyer-Gutbrod et al. (2018) further indicate that because right
whales feed primarily on dense aggregations of Calanus spp. copepods, the population may
decline towards extinction if prey conditions worsen as predicted under future climate scenarios
130

(Grieve et al. 2017, Johnson et al. 2018, Krumhansl et al. 2018), and anthropogenic mortalities
are not reduced (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2018). Recent data from the Gulf of Maine and Gulf of St.
Lawrence indicate prey densities may already be declining (Johnson et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod
et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018, Record et al. 2019). Additionally, changes in prey
distribution has shifted right whales into new areas with nascent mitigation measures so they are
at additional risk of anthropogenic mortality (Plourde et al. 2019, Record et al. 2019)
The right whale is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS
believes that the right whale is well below the optimum sustainable population level. NMFS
determines a population’s PBR as the product of minimum population size, one-half the
maximum net productivity rate and a “recovery” factor for endangered, depleted, threatened
stocks or stocks of unknown status relative to an optimum sustainable population. The recovery
factor for right whales is 0.10 because this species is listed as endangered under the ESA. The
most recent abundance estimate suggests the average population size was 368 (± 11) in 2019
(Pace 2021). The PBR for the right whale has been less than one serious injury or mortality each
year, and although PBR will likely go down in the next stock assessment, it was identified as 0.8
per year for the 2019 stock assessment. (Hayes et al. 2020). During that same time frame, the
minimum estimated annual mortality and serious injury value for right whales between 2014 and
2018 was 8.15, including 6.85 attributed to fishery interactions (Hayes et al. 2020, Henry et al.
2021), well above PBR.
4.1.1.2

Humpback Whale

The Gulf of Maine humpback whale (formerly Western North Atlantic, Megaptera
novaeangliae) was previously listed as endangered under the ESA. In 2016, several distinct
population segments were removed from listing, including the West Indies distinct population
segment. The Gulf of Maine stock is largely composed of whales that reproduce in the West
Indies (81 FR 62259, September 2016). The Gulf of Maine stock is still protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
In the western North Atlantic, humpback whales calve and mate in the West Indies during the
winter and migrate to northern feeding areas during the summer months. They occur along the
entire east coast of North America and north and east across Greenland, Iceland and the
Norwegian Sea (Christensen et al. 1992, Palsbøll et al. 1997). Although not clearly delineated,
matrilineally determined stock separation between feeding grounds is evident, with a northern
boundary for the Gulf of Maine stock somewhere along the Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al. 2020).
Since the early 1990s, humpbacks, particularly juveniles, have been observed stranded dead with
increasing frequency in the mid-Atlantic (Swingle et al. 1993, Wiley et al. 1995) and have been
sighted in wintertime survey in the Southeast and mid-Atlantic (Hayes et al. 2020). In the Gulf of
Maine, sightings are most frequent from mid-March through November, with a peak in May and
August, from the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod northward to Stellwagen Bank and
Jeffreys Ledge (CETAP 1982). Acoustic detections of humpbacks indicate year-round presence
in New England waters, including the waters of Stellwagen Bank (Davis et al 2020). Distribution
in these waters appears to be correlated with prey species, including herring (Clupea harengus),
sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), and other small fishes as well as euphausiids (Paquet et al. 1997).
131

More recent surveys conducted in recent years, summarized in the 2019 Stock Assessment
Report (Hayes et al. 2020) confirm similar seasonal humpback distribution trends.
Current data suggest that the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is increasing (Hayes et al.
2020). The most recent population estimate calculated an abundance of 1,396 animals in this
stock and a minimum population estimate is 1,380. The maximum productivity rate is 0.065 and
the “recovery” factor is assumed to be 0.50, the default for stocks of unknown status, because the
listing for the distinct population segment was removed in 2016. Thus, the PBR for the Gulf of
Maine humpback whale stock is 22 whales per year (Hayes et al. 2020).
The primary known sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of humpback whales are
commercial fishing gear entanglements and ship strikes. Robbins et al. (2009) found that 64.9
percent of the North Atlantic population had entanglement scarring in 2003, encountering new
scarring at an annual rate of 12.1 percent. From 2010 to 2019, 38.8 percent of all observed
mortality and serious injury were attributed to entanglements from interactions with trap/pot,
monofilament line, netting, and unidentified gear (see Chapter 2). From 2014 through 2018,
observed human-caused mortality averaged 15.25 animals per year, with 9.45 incidental fishery
interactions and 5.8 vessel collisions (Henry et al. 2021). These results include only observed
mortality and serious injury. Unobserved anthropogenic impacts on humpback whales is likely
but to date has not been calculated. An unusual mortality event was declared in 2016 after a
spike in strandings along the east coast of the U.S. and fifty percent of the cases where cause of
death was examined had evidence of ship strike or entanglement.
Humpback whales may also be adversely affected by habitat degradation, habitat exclusion,
anthropogenic sound, harassment, or reduction in prey resources attributable to commercial
fishing, coastal development, vessel traffic, and other influences. Changes in humpback
distribution in the Gulf of Maine have been found to be associated with changes in herring,
mackerel, and sand lance abundance associated with local fishing pressures (Payne et al. 1986).
Likewise, there are strong indications that a mass mortality of humpback whales in the southern
Gulf of Maine in 1987/1988 was the result of the consumption of mackerel whose livers
contained high levels of a red-tide toxin (Geraci et al. 1989).
4.1.1.3

Fin Whale

The fin whale is found in all major oceans and was composed of three subspecies until recently:
Balaenoptera physalus physalus in the Northern Hemisphere, and B. p. quoyi and B. p.
patachonica (a pygmy form) in the Southern Hemisphere. New genetic data suggest that fin
whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans represent two different subspecies (Archer
et al. 2019). The International Whaling Commission defines a single stock of the North Atlantic
fin whale off the eastern coast of the U.S., north to Nova Scotia, and east to the southeastern
coast of Newfoundland (Donovan 1991). Fin whales are common in the waters of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone principally from Cape Hatteras northward (Hayes et al. 2020).
Of the three to seven stocks thought to occur in the North Atlantic Ocean (approximately 50,000
individuals), one occurs in U.S. waters, where National Marine Fisheries Services’ (NMFS) best
estimate of abundance is 7,418 individuals (Hayes et al. 2020, Palka 2012). The species’ overall
132

population size may provide some resilience to current threats, but trends are largely unknown.
The minimum population size of the North Atlantic fin whale stock is 6,029, and the maximum
productivity rate is 0.04, the default value for cetaceans. The “recovery” factor is assumed to be
0.10 because the fin whale is listed as endangered under the ESA. Thus, PBR for the western
North Atlantic fin whale is 12 (Hayes et al. 2020).
Like right whales and humpback whales, documented sources of anthropogenic mortality of fin
whales include entanglement in commercial fishing gear and ship strikes. Additional threats
include reduced prey availability and anthropogenic sound. Experts believe that fin whales are
struck by large vessels more frequently than any other cetaceans (Laist et al. 2001).
Approximately 22.7 percent of all observed mortality and serious injury were attributed to
entanglements between 2010 and 2019, with most interactions occurring with trap/pot and
unidentified gear (see Chapter 2). The minimum annual rate of anthropogenic mortality and
serious injury to fin whales, between 2014and 2018, was 2.35 per year, 1.55 of those from
fishing entanglement, and 0.8 per year from ship strikes (All U.S.) (Hayes et al. 2020, Henry et
al. 2021).
4.1.1.4

Minke Whale

The minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) is not listed as endangered or threatened under
the ESA but is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Minke whales off the eastern
coast of the United States are considered to be part of the Canadian east coast population, which
inhabits the area from the eastern half of Davis Strait south to the Gulf of Mexico. Minke whales
are most frequently observed in New England waters from spring to fall and are largely absent
by winter (Hayes et al. 2020). There is evidence of high acoustic occurrence during September
through April in deep-ocean waters in the eastern North Atlantic (Risch 2013, Risch et al. 2014).
Research conducted by Clark and Gagnon (2002) and Rish et al. (2014) confirmed winter
distribution in the West Indies and in mid-ocean waters southeast of Bermuda.
Data are insufficient for determining a population trend for this species. The best estimate of
population size is 24,202 (CV=0.30) minke whales in the 2019 stock assessment report, which is
substantially higher than in the 2018 stock assessment report because it now includes updated
survey data in Canadian waters. The minimum population size is calculated at 18,902 (Hayes et
al. 2020). The maximum productivity rate is 0.04, the default value for cetaceans and the
recovery factor is assumed to be 0.5 because the stock is of unknown status. Thus, PBR for this
stock of minke whales is 189 (Hayes et al. 2020).
As with other large whales in this VEC, documented sources of anthropogenic mortality of
minke whales include entanglement in commercial fishing gear and ship strikes. Minke whales
have been entangled in a variety of fishing gear, including unspecified fishing nets, unspecified
cables or lines, fish traps, weirs, seines, gillnets, and lobster gear. Between 2010 and 2019,
nearly 30 percent of all observed mortality and serious injury were attributed to entanglements,
most of which resulted from interactions with trap/pot, netting, and unidentified gear (see
Chapter 2). An unusual mortality event was declared in 2017 following an uptick in strandings
along the east coast of the U.S. Though the specific cause of the high mortality has not been
determined, several stranded whales have shown evidence of human interaction. From 2014 to
133

2018, the average annual human-caused mortality and serious injury was 10.15 minke whales per
year (below the PBR of 189), which is the sum of 8.95 minke whales per year (unknown CV)
from U.S. and Canadian fisheries using strandings and entanglement data, 1.2 per year from
vessel strikes, 0.2 takes in observed U.S. fishing gear, and 0.2 non-fishery entanglement takes
(Hayes et al. 2020).

Other Protected Species
4.1.2.1

Marine Mammals

4.1.2.1.1 Sei Whale
Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) are listed as endangered throughout their range under the
ESA. The western North Atlantic sei whale population belongs to the Northern Hemisphere
subspecies (B. b. borealis) and consists of two stocks, a Nova Scotian Shelf stock and a Labrador
Sea stock (Baker and Clapham 2004, Mitchell and Chapman 1977). The Nova Scotian Shelf
stock is the only sei whale stock within ALWTRP boundaries and range from the U.S. east coast
to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and east to 42°00’W longitude (Hayes et al. 2020). The Nova
Scotia stock in the North Atlantic is estimated at 6,292 individuals with a minimum population
size of 3,098 individuals (Hayes et al. 2020). Population growth rates for sei whales are not
available at this time as there are little to no systematic survey efforts to study sei whales.
Sei whales are often found in the deeper waters that characterize the edge of the continental shelf
(Hain et al. 1985) but NMFS aerial surveys also found substantial numbers of sei whales south of
Nantucket in spring and summer (Stone et al. 2017) and on Georges Bank in the spring and
summer (CETAP 1982). Sei whales (like right whales) are largely planktivorous, primarily
feeding on euphausiids and copepods, which has resulted in reports of sei whales in more inshore
locations.
Current threats include vessel strikes, fisheries interactions (including entanglement), climate
change, habitat loss, reduced prey availability, and anthropogenic sound. Between 2010 and
2019 eighteen serious injuries and mortalities were observed: eight with unknown causes, five
vessel strikes (all confirmed US), two entanglements, and three non-human caused mortality.
Based on Henry et al. (2021), the average annual rate of confirmed human-caused mortality and
serious injury to sei whales, between 2014 and 2018, is 1.2 incidents per year. This value
includes incidental fishery interaction records, 0.4, and records of vessel collisions, 0.8. Possible
causes of natural mortality, particularly for compromised individuals, are shark attacks, killer
whale attacks, and endoparasitic helminthes (Perry et al. 1999).
4.1.2.1.2 Sperm Whale
In the western North Atlantic, sperm whales range from Greenland to the Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean. The International Whaling Commission recognizes one stock for the entire North
Atlantic (Waring et al. 2002). The sperm whales that occur in the western North Atlantic are
believed to represent only a portion of the total stock (Blaylock et al. 1995).Waring et al. (2015)
suggests sperm whale distribution shifts north in spring to the central mid-Atlantic bight and
134

southern end of Georges Bank and into the northern end of Georges Bank, the continental shelf,
and the Northeast Channel in summer. Sperm whale presence on the continental shelf south of
New England is highest in the fall (Waring et al. 2015).
Total numbers of sperm whales off the U.S. or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown, although
estimates from selected regions of the habitat do exist for select time periods. The best recent
abundance estimate for sperm whales is the sum of the 2016 surveys and is 4,349 (CV=0.28;
Hayes et al. 2020). However, this is likely an underestimate given the data were not corrected for
dive-time, which can be long for sperm whales (Watwood et al. 2006).
Few instances of injury or mortality of sperm whales due to human impacts have been recorded
in U.S. waters. Recently, there were 38 sperm whale strandings counted between 2008 and 2020,
one of which was determined to be from interaction with fishery gear (MMHSRP Database,
queried, 2021). Human interaction was confirmed in four of the cases, only one that was found in
U.S. waters (with no confirmed country of origin) and the other three were related to Canadian
pelagic longline or trap/pot fisheries. No sperm whale mortalities or serious injuries were
reported between 2013 and 2017, though unobserved mortalities have not been calculated (PBR
is 3.9; Hayes et al. 2020). Ships can also strike sperm whales, but the offshore distribution of this
species reduces the likelihood of interactions (both ship strikes and entanglements) being
reported compared to those involving right, humpback, and fin whales, which are more often
found in nearshore areas.
Another potential human-caused source of mortality for sperm whales may be the exposure to
contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. Though not conclusive, tissue samples from 21 sperm
whales that mass stranded in the North Sea in 1994/95 showed cadmium levels twice as high as
those found in North Pacific sperm whales and possibly affected the stranded animals’ health and
behavior (Holsbeek et al. 1999). Sperm whales in the North Atlantic also have higher levels of
DDT and PCBs than baleen whales (Borrell 1993).
4.1.2.2

Sea Turtles

Loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles spend all or part of the year in the waters potentially
affected by new ALWTRP regulations and have interacted with trap/pot fisheries, with
interactions primarily associated with entanglement in buoy lines associated with this gear type.
However, they can also become entangled in groundlines or surface system lines of trap/pot gear
(Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN), unpublished data). Sea turtles continue to be
affected by many of the original threats that prompted their ESA listing, including interactions
with fishing gear, degradation of nesting beach sites, poaching, nesting predation, vessel strikes,
channel dredging, and marine pollution (including ingestion of marine debris, Lutcavage et al.
1997).
4.1.2.2.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) are circumglobal and are found in temperate and tropical
regions of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans. The species was first listed as threatened
under the ESA in 1978 (43 FR 32800). On September 22, 2011, the NMFS designated nine
135

distinct population segments (DPSs) of loggerhead turtles, with the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
DPS listed as threatened. The Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead turtles are found
along eastern North America, Central America, and northern South America. In the U.S.
Atlantic, loggerhead sea turtles occur from Florida north to Canadian waters, though primary
northern foraging habitats are in the mid-Atlantic (Braun-McNeill et al. 2020) and north through
Massachusetts (NMFS and USFWS 2008; Conant et al. 2009). They arrive at foraging areas in
the mid-Atlantic as early as mid-April and in the Gulf of Maine around June. In fall, the trend is
reversed with most turtles leaving the region’s waters by the end of November. Recent climatedriven changes in northeast U.S. Atlantic waters may increase the northern range and seasonal
duration for loggerheads along the Northwest Atlantic shelf in future years (Patel et al. 2021).
In 2010, NMFS preliminarily estimated approximately 588,000 individuals (greater than 30 cm
in size, approximate inter-quartile range of 382,000 to 817,000) from Cape Canaveral, FL to the
mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. When a portion of the unidentified turtles were considered to
be loggerheads, the number increased to 801,000 (inter-quartile range of approximately 521,000–
1,111,000) (NMFS 2011).
Sea turtle census nesting surveys are important in that they provide information on the relative
abundance of nesting each year, and the contribution of each nesting group to total nesting of the
species. Nest counts can also be used to estimate the number of reproductively mature females
nesting annually. Ceriani and Meylan (2017) reported a 5-year average (2009-2013) of more than
83,717 nests per year in the southeast United States and Mexico (excluding Cancun, Quintana
Roo, Mexico). Based on genetic information, the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead
turtles is further categorized into five recovery units (NMFS and USFWS 2008). In assessing the
population, Ceriani and Meylan (2017) and Bolten et al. (2019) looked at trends by recovery
unit. While overall the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population trend has been positive (+2%)
(Ceriani and Meylan 2017), trends by recovery unit were variable (Ceriani and Meylan 2017,
Bolten et al. 2019) and several recovery criteria delineated in the 2008 recovery plan including
target annual recovery rates have not yet been met (Bolten et al. 2019). At core index beaches in
the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (the largest nesting aggregation in the DPS), nesting
totaled a minimum of 28,876 nests in 2007 and a maximum of 65,807 nests in 2016 (Figure 4.1).
In 2020, more than 53,000 nests were documented. There have been three intervals observed in
Peninsular Florida nesting: increasing (1989-1998), decreasing (1998-2007), and increasing
(2007-2020) (https://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/). Nest
counts at Florida Panhandle index beaches show an upward trend since 2010 (Figure 4.2). An
analysis of Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (which includes Florida Panhandle) nesting
from 1997 to 2018 found that there has been a non-significant increase of 1.7 percent (Bolten et
al. 2019). Nesting in the Northern Recovery Unit shows a 35 percent increase from 2009 through
2013 (Ceriani and Meylan 2017), but a longer-term trend analysis based on data from 1983 to
2019 indicates that the annual rate of increase is 1.3 percent (Bolten et al. 2019). In the trend
analysis by Ceriani and Meylan (2017), a 53 percent increase for the Greater Caribbean
Recovery Unit was reported from 2009 through 2013. No trend analysis is available for the Dry
Tortugas Recovery Unit (Ceriani and Meylan 2017; Bolten et al. 2019).

136

Figure 4.1: Annual nest counts for loggerhead sea turtles on Florida core index beaches in peninsular Florida, 19892019. Source: https://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/.

Figure 4.2: Annual nest counts on index beaches in the Florida Panhandle, 1989-2019. Source:
https://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/.

Significant threats to loggerhead populations in the Atlantic include commercial fisheries, coastal
development, erosion of nesting beaches, pollution (including ingestion of marine debris),
marine habitat degradation, and vessel strikes. Loggerhead turtles interact with a variety of
fishing gear, including pots, gillnets, pelagic longlines, trawls, pound nets, and scallop dredges
(Bolten et al. 2019, Murray 2020, NMFS and USFWS 2008). Stranding reports indicate that
from 2010-2019, approximately 3,193 total loggerhead turtles stranded or were incidentally
captured along the U.S. coast from Virginia through Maine (319 annually, on average) from a
variety of causes, 144 of which were from entanglements or other fisheries interactions (NMFS
STSSN database, 2021). Of the cases with evidence of vertical fishing line entanglement, crab,
conch, and lobster gear were identified (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Loggerhead and leatherback buoy line entanglements by fishery between 2010 and 2019 (NMFS STSSN
database, 2021).

137

Fishery

Leatherback Loggerhead Grand Total

Blue Crab

6

6

12

Conch

13

5

18

Conch and lobster

1

1

Fish

2

2

Lobster

82

Research

1

Unknown

151

Unknown VL and Lobster
Total

1

83
1

3

154

1
257

1
15

272

4.1.2.2.2 Leatherback Sea Turtle
The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is unique among sea turtles for its large size, wide
distribution (due to thermoregulatory systems and behavior), and lack of a hard, bony carapace.
Leatherback sea turtles are found worldwide from tropical to sub-polar latitudes. Leatherbacks
range throughout the North Atlantic Ocean to 71 degrees North latitude. While the largest
nesting aggregations occur in Trinidad, French Guiana, and Panama (NMFS and USFWS 2020),
some nesting occurs in Florida and foraging habitats occur throughout U.S. coastal and pelagic
Atlantic waters north to the Gulf of St Lawrence (James et al. 2006, Nordstrom et al. 2020).
Leatherbacks occur in the Gulf of Maine from approximately June to November and in midAtlantic waters south of Massachusetts from May through November. By late fall, they have
migrated out of the region (Dodge et al. 2020).
In the North Atlantic, previous assessments of leatherbacks concluded that the Northwest
Atlantic population was stable or increasing (TEWG 2007, Tiwari et al. 2013). However, more
recent analyses indicate that the overall regional, abundance-weighted trends are negative (The
Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Working Group 2018, 2019). Leatherback nesting in the
Northwest Atlantic showed an overall negative trend through 2017, with the most notable
decrease occurring during the most recent period of 2008-2017 (The Northwest Atlantic
Leatherback Working Group 2018). NMFS and USFWS (2020) also found decreasing nest
trends at nesting aggregations with the greatest indices of nesting female abundance, suggesting
a declining trend overall. The most recent, published IUCN Red List assessment for the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean subpopulation estimated 20,000 mature individuals and approximately
23,000 nests per year (estimate to 2017; The Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Working Group
2019). However, the leatherback status review estimated that the total index of nesting female
abundance for the NW Atlantic is 20,659 females (NMFS and USFWS 2020).
NMFS and USFWS (2020) summarizes threats to the Northwest Atlantic leatherback across its
range. These include threats on nesting beaches such as the harvest of nesting females and eggs,
predation, and loss of nesting habitat due to development, erosion, and sand extraction. Lights on
or adjacent to nesting beaches alter nesting adult behavior and are often fatal to emerging
hatchlings as they are drawn to light sources and away from the sea. As with the other sea turtle
species, mortality due to fisheries interactions (including trawl, gillnet, pelagic longline, and
trap/pot gear) accounts for a large proportion of annual human-caused mortality in the ocean.
138

Other marine threats include pollution (including ingesting marine debris), oil and gas activities,
and vessel strikes. Plastic ingestion is common in leatherbacks and can block gastrointestinal
tracts leading to death. Furthermore, climate change may alter sex ratios (as temperature
determines hatchling sex), range (through expansion of foraging habitat), and habitat (through
the loss of nesting beaches, because of sea-level rise, erosion, and more frequent/severe storm
events). The species’ resilience to additional perturbation is low. Between 2010 and 2019 there
were 744 strandings or incidental captures of leatherback turtles along the U.S. coast from
Virginia through Maine (74 average annually), 323 of which had evidence of entanglement
(NMFS STSSN database, 2021). Of these vertical fishing line entanglements, lobster, fish, crab,
and conch were identified as gears involved (Table 4.3). While a large portion of leatherbacks
are released from entanglements alive, sub lethal initial impacts can cause post interaction
mortality, which was calculated between 57 and 62 percent for reported U.S. buoy line
interactions from 2015 to 2019 (Memorandum from Carrie Upite, Sea Turtle Recovery
Coordinator, to Jennifer Anderson, ARA for Protected Resources, April 26, 2021).

Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Impacted
Based on the best available information, Table 4.1 provides a list of species not likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. This determination has been made because either the
occurrence of the species has limited to no overlap with the trap/pot fisheries operating in the
proposed action area and/or interactions have never been documented or are extremely rare
between the species and trap/pot gear (see Marine Mammal Stocks Assessment Reports at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports-region; NMFS 2021; Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network, unpublished data;
NMFS Observer Program, unpublished data; see OBIS-SEAMAP at
https://seamap.env.duke.edu/). The proposed actions will not affect the essential physical and
biological features of critical habitat designated for North Atlantic right whale, the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead sea turtle or Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon; therefore,
will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of either species critical habitat (NMFS
2014a; NMFS 2015a,b).

4.2 Habitat
Modification of the ALWTRP may affect EFH. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) (16
U.S.C. 1801), EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)). To help guide regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils) in the implementation of EFH provisions, regulations
developed by NMFS encourages Councils to identify HAPC (50 CFR 600 Subpart J; 62 FR
66531; 67 FR 2343). HAPC are subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to
human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally
stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, federal projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC must
be more carefully scrutinized.
This section has three basic objectives:
139

•

•
•

First, it defines the EFH and HAPC associated with the Atlantic trap/pot fisheries
regulated by the ALWTRP.
Second, it describes key components of lobster habitat in detail.
Finally, it discusses how the ALWTRP can influence habitat, with a particular focus on
potential disturbances to benthic habitat.

Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and the regional
Councils specifically describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In addition, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery management plans minimize, to the extent
practicable, adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing activities. According to the EFH
regulations found at 50 CFR 600, information necessary to identify EFH for each managed
species includes its geographic range and habitat requirements by life stage, the distribution and
characteristics of those habitats, and current and historic stock size as it affects occurrence in
available habitats (50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Information on the temporal and spatial
distribution of each life history stage is needed to understand each species’ relationship to, or
dependence on, its various habitats.
Atlantic trap/pot fisheries are geographically widespread on the Atlantic coast and target a
diverse array of fish and shellfish species. In the context of this Environmental Impact Statement,
EFH includes the habitat for all non-target species during relevant life history stages that take
place within the proposed area (Table 4.4). Because this action is not expected to affect pelagic
habitats, the species and life stages listed below are all benthic. When viewed in the aggregate,
across all species, EFH is all benthic habitat in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone. It is
important to note that corals are currently only listed as EFH in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot
Management Area (Northeast Region) for one species, Acadian redfish. However, they are a
component of complex hard bottom habitats where a variety of structure-forming organisms are
found.
Table 4.4: A list of Essential Fish Habitat for different species and life history stages that are within the proposed
area.
Species
Life Stage
Depth (meters)
Habitat Type and Description
Sub-tidal coastal and offshore rocky reef substrates
50-200 in Gulf of Maine, with associated structure-forming epifauna (e.g.,
Acadian
Juveniles
to 600 on slope
sponges, corals), and soft sediments with cerianthid
redfish
anemones
Offshore benthic habitats on finer grained sediments
140-300 in Gulf of
Acadian
and on variable deposits of gravel, silt, clay, and
Adults
Maine, to 600 on slope
redfish
boulders
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and sand, also found
American
Juveniles
40-180
on gravel and sandy substrates bordering bedrock
plaice
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and sand, also gravel
American
Adults
40-300
and sandy substrates bordering bedrock
plaice
Structurally-complex intertidal and sub-tidal habitats,
Juveniles
Mean high water-120
including eelgrass, mixed sand and gravel, and rocky
Atlantic cod
habitats (gravel pavements, cobble, and boulder) with

140

Species

Life Stage

Depth (meters)

Atlantic cod

Adults

30-160

Atlantic
halibut
Atlantic
herring
Atlantic sea
scallop

Juveniles
& Adults

60-140 and 400-700 on
slope

Eggs
Eggs

Habitat Type and Description
and without attached macroalgae and emergent
epifauna
Structurally complex sub-tidal hard bottom habitats
with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with and
without emergent epifauna and macroalgae, also sandy
substrates and along deeper slopes of ledges
Benthic habitats on sand, gravel, or clay substrates

May-90
18-110

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on coarse sand, pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders and/or macroalgae
Inshore and offshore benthic habitats (see adults)
Inshore and offshore pelagic and benthic habitats:
pelagic larvae (“spat”), settle on variety of hard
surfaces, including shells, pebbles, and gravel and to
macroalgae and other benthic organisms such as
hydroids
Benthic habitats initially attached to shells, gravel, and
small rocks (pebble, cobble), later free-swimming
juveniles found in same habitats as adults

Atlantic sea
scallop

Larvae

No information

Atlantic sea
scallop

Juveniles

18-110

Adults

18-110

Benthic habitats with sand and gravel substrates

Juveniles
and adults

Surf zone to about 61,
abundance low >38

In substrate to depth of 3 ft

Eggs

<100

Sub-tidal benthic habitats under rocks and boulders in
nests

Juveniles

70-184

Sub-tidal benthic habitats

Atlantic
wolffish

Adults

<173

Barndoor
skate

Juveniles
and adults

40-400 on shelf and to
750 on slope

Black sea
bass

Juveniles
and adults

Inshore in summer and
spring

Juveniles

0-30

Adults

0-40

Eggs

320-640

Benthic habitats attached to female crabs

320-1300 on slope and to
2000 on seamounts
320-900 on slope and up
to 2000 on seamounts

Benthic habitats with unconsolidated and consolidated
silt-clay sediments
Benthic habitats with unconsolidated and consolidated
silt-clay sediments
Burrows in semi-lithified clay substrate, may also
utilize rocks, boulders, scour depressions beneath
boulders, and exposed rock ledges as shelter
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard sand (particularly
smooth patches between rocks), mixed sand and shell,
gravelly sand, and gravel

Atlantic sea
scallop
Atlantic
surfclams
Atlantic
wolffish
Atlantic
wolffish

Clearnose
skate
Clearnose
skate
Deep-sea red
crab
Deep-sea red
crab
Deep-sea red
crab

Juveniles
Adults

A wide variety of sub-tidal sand and gravel substrates
once they leave rocky spawning habitats, but not on
muddy bottom
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud, sand, and gravel
substrates
Benthic habitats with rough bottom, shellfish and
eelgrass beds, man-made structures in sandy-shelly
areas, also offshore clam beds and shell patches in
winter
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and sand, but also on
gravelly and rocky bottom
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and sand, but also on
gravelly and rocky bottom

Golden
tilefish

Juveniles
and adults

100-300

Haddock

Juveniles

40-140 and as shallow as
20 in coastal Gulf of
Maine

141

Species

Life Stage

Depth (meters)

Haddock

Adults

50-160

Little skate

Juveniles

Mean high water-80

Little skate

Adults

Mean high water-100

Habitat Type and Description
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard sand (particularly
smooth patches between rocks), mixed sand and shell,
gravelly sand, and gravel and adjacent to boulders and
cobbles along the margins of rocky reefs
Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and
gravel, also found on mud
Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and
gravel, also found on mud
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on a variety of habitats,
including hard sand, pebbles, gravel, broken shells, and
soft mud, also seek shelter among rocks with attached
algae
Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard sand, pebbles,
gravel, broken shells, and soft mud, but seem to prefer
soft sediments, and, like juveniles, utilize the edges of
rocky areas for feeding
Sub-tidal hard bottom habitats in sheltered nests, holes,
or rocky crevices
Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on a wide
variety of substrates, including shells, rocks, algae, soft
sediments, sand, and gravel

50-400 in the MidAtlantic, 20-400 in the
Gulf of Maine, and to
1000 on the slope
50-400 in the MidAtlantic, 20-400 in the
Gulf of Maine, and to
1000 on the slope

Monkfish

Juveniles

Monkfish

Adults

Ocean pout

Eggs

<100

Ocean pout

Juveniles

Mean high water-120

Ocean pout

Adults

20-140

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and sand,
particularly in association with structure forming
habitat types; i.e. shells, gravel, or boulders

Ocean
quahogs
Offshore
hake
Offshore
hake

Juveniles
and adults

9-244

In substrate to depth of 3 ft

Juveniles

160-750

Pelagic and benthic habitats

Adults

200-750

Pelagic and benthic habitats

Pollock

Juveniles

Pollock

Adults

Mean high water-180 in
Gulf of Maine, Long
Island Sound, and
Narragansett Bay; 40180 on Georges Bank
80-300 in Gulf of Maine
and on Georges Bank;
<80 in Long Island
Sound, Cape Cod Bay,
and Narragansett Bay

Intertidal and sub-tidal pelagic and benthic rocky
bottom habitats with attached macroalgae, small
juveniles in eelgrass beds, older juveniles move into
deeper water habitats also occupied by adults
Pelagic and benthic habitats on the tops and edges of
offshore banks and shoals with mixed rocky substrates,
often with attached macro algae

Red hake

Juveniles

Mean high water-80

Red hake

Adults

Rosette skate

Juveniles
and adults

50-750 on shelf and
slope, as shallow as 20
inshore

Intertidal and sub-tidal soft bottom habitats, esp those
that that provide shelter, such as depressions in muddy
substrates, eelgrass, macroalgae, shells, anemone and
polychaete tubes, on artificial reefs, and in live
bivalves (e.g., scallops)
Sub-tidal benthic habitats in shell beds, on soft
sediments (usually in depressions), also found on
gravel and hard bottom and artificial reefs

80-400

Benthic habitats with mud and sand substrates

Scup

Juveniles

No information

Benthic habitats, in association with inshore sand and
mud substrates, mussel and eelgrass beds

142

Species

Life Stage

Depth (meters)
No information,
generally overwinter
offshore

Habitat Type and Description

Scup

Adults

Silver hake

Juveniles

40-400 in Gulf of Maine,
>10 in Mid-Atlantic

Silver hake

Adults

>35 in Gulf of Maine,
70-400 on Georges Bank
and in the Mid-Atlantic

Smooth
skate

Juveniles

Smooth
skate

Adults

Summer
flounder
Summer
flounder
Spiny
dogfish
Spiny
dogfish
Spiny
dogfish
Spiny
dogfish
Spiny
dogfish

Benthic habitats

100-400 offshore Gulf
of Maine, <100 inshore
Gulf of Maine, to 900 on
slope
100-400 offshore Gulf
of Maine, to 900 on
slope

Pelagic and sandy sub-tidal benthic habitats in
association with sand-waves, flat sand with amphipod
tubes, shells, and in biogenic depressions
Pelagic and sandy sub-tidal benthic habitats, often in
bottom depressions or in association with sand waves
and shell fragments, also in mud habitats bordering
deep boulder reefs, on over deep boulder reefs in the
southwest Gulf of Maine
Benthic habitats, mostly on soft mud in deeper areas,
but also on sand, broken shells, gravel, and pebbles on
offshore banks in the Gulf of Maine
Benthic habitats, mostly on soft mud in deeper areas,
but also on sand, broken shells, gravel, and pebbles on
offshore banks in the Gulf of Maine
Benthic habitats, including inshore estuaries, salt marsh
creeks, seagrass beds, mudflats, and open bay areas

Juveniles

To maximum 152

Adults

To maximum 152 in
colder months

Juveniles

Deep water

Pelagic and epibenthic habitats

Wide depth range

Pelagic and epibenthic habitats

Wide depth range

Pelagic and epibenthic habitats

Wide depth range

Pelagic and epibenthic habitats

Wide depth range

Pelagic and epibenthic habitats

Female
sub-adults
Male subadults
Female
adults
Male
adults

Benthic habitats

35-400 offshore Gulf of
Maine, <35 inshore Gulf
of Maine, to 900 om
slope
35-400 offshore Gulf of
Maine, <35 inshore Gulf
of Maine, to 900 om
slope

Benthic habitats on a wide variety of bottom types,
including sand, gravel, broken shells, pebbles, and soft
mud

Thorny
skate

Juveniles

Thorny
skate

Adults

White hake

Juveniles

Mean high water - 300

Intertidal and sub-tidal estuarine and marine habitats on
fine-grained, sandy substrates in eelgrass, macroalgae,
and un-vegetated habitats

Adults

100-400 offshore Gulf
of Maine, >25 inshore
Gulf of Maine, to 900 on
slope

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on fine-grained, muddy
substrates and in mixed soft and rocky habitats

Juveniles

Mean high water - 60

Adults

Mean high water - 70

White hake
Windowpane
flounder
Windowpane
flounder

Benthic habitats on a wide variety of bottom types,
including sand, gravel, broken shells, pebbles, and soft
mud

Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and
sand substrates
Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud and
sand substrates

143

Species
Winter
flounder

Life Stage
Eggs

Depth (meters)
0-5 south of Cape Cod,
0-70 Gulf of Maine and
Georges Bank

Habitat Type and Description
Sub-tidal estuarine and coastal benthic habitats on
mud, muddy sand, sand, gravel, submerged aquatic
vegetation, and macroalgae

Winter
flounder

Juveniles

Mean high water - 60

Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on a variety of
bottom types, such as mud, sand, rocky substrates with
attached macro algae, tidal wetlands, and eelgrass;
young-of-the-year juveniles on muddy and sandy
sediments in and adjacent to eelgrass and macroalgae,
in bottom debris, and in marsh creeks

Winter
flounder

Adults

Mean high water - 70

Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on muddy and
sandy substrates, and on hard bottom on offshore
banks; for spawning adults, also see eggs

Winter skate

Juveniles

0-90

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and gravel
substrates, are also found on mud

Winter skate

Adults

0-80

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and gravel
substrates, are also found on mud

Witch
flounder

Juveniles

50-400 and to 1500 on
slope

Sub-tidal benthic habitats with mud and muddy sand
substrates

Witch
flounder

Adults

35-400 and to 1500 on
slope

Sub-tidal benthic habitats with mud and muddy sand
substrates

Yellowtail
flounder

Juveniles

20-80

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and muddy sand

Yellowtail
flounder

Adults

25-90

Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand and sand with mud,
shell hash, gravel, and rocks

Identification of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
The EFH regulations developed by NMFS encourage regional Councils to identify Habitat Areas
of Particular Concern (HAPC) and essential fish habitat areas (EFHAs) within areas designated
as EFH (Figure 4.3). In New England, these HAPCs were created for juvenile cod and multispecies Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and EFHAs for monkfish and multispecies FMPs. A
few mid-Atlantic HAPCs for golden tilefish and EFHAs for tilefish, mackerel, squid, and
butterfish FMPs overlap with the proposed area as well. The intent of this action is to help focus
conservation priorities on specific habitat areas that play a particularly important role in the life
cycles of federally managed fish species (Dobrzynski and Johnson 2001).
HAPC are defined based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•

The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat
The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation
Whether and to what extent development activities are or will be stressing the habitat
The rarity of the habitat type

The designation of HAPC has been approached in various ways according to the discretion of the
different Councils. The following sections summarize the HAPC designated by the Councils for
144

EFH in the geographic area that could be affected by this action. Several of these HAPCs are
also EFH areas closed to mobile, bottom-tending gear (trawls and dredges).

Figure 4.3: The Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) and essential fish habitat currently protected from
fishing (EFHA) within the proposed area, including those overseen by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery
Management Councils.

4.2.2.1

New England Fishery Management Council

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) previously designated discrete
geographic areas as HAPC for two of its managed species (NEFMC 1998): Atlantic cod and
Atlantic salmon. In 2018, NMFS approved the NEFMC’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat
Amendment 2, which revised EFH and HAPC in the region. Although corals are currently not
listed as HAPCs in the northeast, they have been included as a component of HAPCs for
managed species in the region that rely on complex hard bottom habitats where corals and other
types of structure-forming organisms are found.
Atlantic Cod
For juvenile Atlantic cod, the NEFMC has designated a gravel/cobble bottom area on the
northern edge of Georges Bank as HAPC. This area meets the first criterion for HAPC of
providing an important ecological function, in that the gravel/cobble substrate provides a place
145

for newly settled juvenile cod to find shelter from predation, helping to decrease typically high
mortality rates associated with the juvenile life stage. In addition, these areas are typically rich in
important prey items. This habitat also meets the second HAPC criterion of sensitivity to humaninduced environmental degradation, in that it is vulnerable to fishing practices that use mobile
fishing gear.
Atlantic Salmon
The NEFMC has designated eleven rivers in Maine as HAPC for juvenile Atlantic salmon: the
Dennys, Machias, East Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap, Kennebec, Penobscot. St.
Croix, Tunk Stream, and Sheepscot Rivers provide habitat for the distinct population segment of
Atlantic salmon. These rivers are also extremely vulnerable to anthropogenic threats, thus
fulfilling the first two criteria for designation of Habitat Area of Particular Concern: provision of
an important ecological function and sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation.
Inshore Juvenile Cod
This area includes waters between 0-20 meters within the Gulf of Maine and Southern New
England and recognizes inshore areas that are thought to be important for juvenile cod. This area
consists of complex rocky-bottom habitat and meets the first two criteria for designation of
Habitat Area of Particular Concern: provision of an important ecological function and sensitivity
to human-induced environmental degradation.
Great South Channel Juvenile Cod
Important habitat for juvenile cod was identified near the Great South Channel and extends the
shallow inshore juvenile cod HAPC with waters from 30 and 120 meters. It is characterized by
structurally complex gravel, cobble, and boulder habitat and supports a highly productive benthic
habitat. It also meets the first two criteria for designation of HAPC: provision of an important
ecological function and sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation.
Cashes Ledge
Cashes Ledge provides a unique and productive habitat characterized by rocky pinnacles. It
provides areas of refuge from predators and supports several managed species. As such, it
provides an important ecological function and is also sensitive to anthropogenic degradation.
Jeffreys Ledge/Stellwagen Bank
This area is shallow and has a variety of habitat types, such as gravel/cobble, boulder reefs, sand
plains, and deep mud basins. It is not only known as a productive area for fishing but is also
frequented by marine mammal species (CETAP 1982, Clapham 1993, Weinrich 2000). The area
is sensitive to development and fishing activities and is currently closed to certain types of
fishing.
Canyon/canyon complexes
146

Eleven canyons and canyon complexes located near Georges Bank and within the offshore of the
Mid-Atlantic Bight were also designated as HAPC Concern because they support a variety of
species and habitats. Five of these HAPCs (Heezen, Lydonia, Gilbert, Oceanographer, and
Hydrographer) occur within the geographic area included in this action.
Deep Sea Coral Amendment
Though not an HAPC, the Omnibus Deep Sea Coral Amendment will protect deep-water corals
and their sensitive habitat off the continental slope and deep sea canyons south of Georges Bank
beginning at a depth of 600 meters and extends to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone limit
by prohibiting the use of bottom tending gear within the designated area (red crab pots exempt).
The new protection zone encompasses 25,153 square miles, including 82 percent of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument (see Monument Section). It also
protects corals from bottom tending mobile gear at Outer Schoodic Ridge and Mt. Desert Rock
in the Gulf of Maine, and establishes a designated research area in Georges Basin. Once
implemented, lobster and Jonah crab trap/pots would be restricted from this area. The
Amendment is currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget and could be
implemented by late 2021.
4.2.2.2

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) has designated HAPC for summer
flounder and tilefish. HAPC have not been designated for other species under the MAFMC’s
jurisdiction due to a lack of information linking habitat type with recruitment success.
Summer Flounder
Aggregations of submerged aquatic vegetation, defined as rooted, vascular, flowering plants that,
except for some flowering structures, live and grow beneath the surface, have been identified as
HAPC for summer flounder. More specifically, this designation includes all native species of
macroalgae, seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal macrophytes in any size bed, as well as loose
aggregations used by adults and juveniles. These HAPC meet the first criterion of an important
ecological function, in that they provide both shelter from predators and sources of prey for the
juvenile and larval stages of summer flounder (MAFMC 1998).
Tilefish
Clay outcrop habitats in four submarine canyons on the outer continental shelf at depths between
100 and 300 meters (MAFMC 2008). This habitat type is also referred to as a “pueblo village” –
see Offshore Lobster Habitat, section 4.4.3.2. Five of these canyons (Lydonia, and
Oceanographer) are located within the geographic range of the habitat VEC for this action
(Figure 4.3). These HAPC meet three of the criteria required for designation: 1) they provide
shelters for tilefish, which live in burrows that they dig in the clay;
2) this habitat type is rare, occurring only in areas on the outer continental shelf like the canyons
where Pleistocene clay deposits are exposed; and 3) they are highly susceptible to damage and
147

loss from any type of disturbance, such as that caused by mobile, bottom-tending fishing gear. In
addition, three of these canyons have been added to the National System of Marine Protected
Areas (see Section 12.13).
4.2.2.3

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument

On September 15, 2016, former President Barack Obama established the Northeast Canyons and
Seamounts Marine National Monument (Monument) by Presidential Proclamation 9496 (81 FR
65159), under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Monument consists of
approximately 4,913 square miles (12,724 square kilometers) and is located about 130 miles
east-southeast of Cape Cod (see Figure 4.3). Approximately the size of Connecticut, the
monument includes two distinct areas, one that covers three canyons along the continental shelf
and one that covers four seamounts. It is the first national marine monument in the Atlantic
Ocean.
These undersea canyons and seamounts contain fragile and largely pristine deep marine
ecosystems and rich biodiversity, including important deep sea corals, endangered whales and
sea turtles, other marine mammals and numerous fish species. Relevant to this action, sperm
whales are strongly attracted to the environments created by the submarine canyons, and fin and
sei whales have been observed in both the canyons and seamounts areas. During aerial surveys,
researchers have observed several marine mammals feeding, some accompanied by calves,
indicating that this area is likely important as feeding and nursery habitat for many species of
whales and dolphins. Marine mammal migration has also been noted to occur through the
monument.
The submarine canyons and seamounts create dynamic currents and eddies that enhance
biological productivity and provide feeding grounds. Because of the steep slopes of the canyons
and seamounts, oceanographic currents that encounter them create localized eddies and result in
upwelling. Currents lift nutrients, like nitrates and phosphates, critical to the growth of
phytoplankton from the deep to sunlit surface waters. These nutrients fuel an eruption of
phytoplankton and zooplankton that form the base of the food chain. Aggregations of plankton
draw large schools of small fish and then larger animals that prey on these fish.
Under the original Presidential Proclamation, lobster and crab fishing in the Monument is
allowed through September 15, 2023. In June 2020, former President Trump issued a
Presidential Proclamation allowing all commercial fishing, as managed by the NEFMC, in the
Monument. That decision is currently under review. Once the Deep Sea Coral Amendment is
implemented (see Deep Sea Coral Amendment section), 82 percent of the Monument (waters
600 meters and deeper) will be protected from bottom tending gear (red crab pots exempt) if
management remains the responsibility of the NEFMC.

American Lobster Habitats
With more than 1,926 actively fishing permit holders, the American lobster fishery accounts for
the majority of affected vessels and gear regulated by the ALWTRP. Because lobster habitat may
148

be influenced by the proposed ALWTRP modifications, this section examines the unique aspects
of lobster habitat in greater detail.
Bottom dwelling American lobster (Homarus americanus) is distributed throughout the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Juvenile and
adult American lobsters occupy a wide variety of benthic habitats from the intertidal zone to
depths of 700 meters. They are most abundant in relatively shallow coastal waters, Temperature
and salinity along with other characteristics of water, as well as substrate and diet, are critical
habitat components (ASMFC 2015). They feed on a variety of plants and animals according to
seasonal availability, and bait in lobster traps is believed to be an important food source in areas
of intense fishing pressure ((Lawton and Lavalli 1995, Grabowski et al. 2010) cited in ASMFC
2015). Recent studies document and project future climate-driven changes in the northeast U.S.
Atlantic waters that could shift lobster habitat to deeper offshore Gulf of Maine waters as
nearshore and Southern New England waters warm to temperatures above lobster preferences
(Tanaka et al., 2020).
The following description of lobster habitats in the northeast of the U.S. (Maine to North
Carolina) is based primarily on a report prepared by Lincoln (1998) from a variety of primary
source documents. Table 4.5 provides a summary of lobster densities by habitat type. This
information has been supplemented by the addition of some more recent research results.
4.2.3.1

Inshore Lobster Habitats

Estuaries represent one key component of inshore lobster habitat, and encompass the following
environments:
•

•

•

Mud Base with Burrows: These habitats occur primarily in harbors and quiet estuaries
with low currents. Lobster shelters are formed from excavations in soft substrate. This is
an important habitat for juveniles and densities can be very high, reaching 20 animals per
square meter.
Rock, Cobble and Gravel: Juveniles and adolescents have been reported on shallow
bottom with gravel and gravelly sand substrates in the Great Bay Estuary, New
Hampshire; on gravel/cobble substrates in outer Penobscot Bay, Maine (Steneck and
Wilson 1998); and in rocky habitats in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island (Lawton and
Lavalli 1985). Densities in Penobscot Bay exceeded 0.5 juveniles and 0.75
adolescents/m2. According to unpublished information cited by Lincoln (1998) juvenile
lobsters in Great Bay prefer shallow bottoms with gravelly sand substrates.
Rock/Shell: Adult lobsters in the Great Bay Estuary utilize sand and gravel habitats in
the channels, but appear to prefer a rock/shell habitat more characteristic of the high
temperature, low salinity regimes of the central bay.

Inshore rock areas make up another important category of lobster habitat. These include the
following:

149

•

•

•

•

•

Sand Base with Rock: This is the most common inshore rock type in depths greater than
40 meters. It consists of sandy substrate overlain by flattened rocks, cobbles, and
boulders. Lobsters are associated with abundant sponges, Jonah crabs, and rock crabs.
Shelters are formed by excavating sand under a rock to form U-shaped, shallow tunnels.
Densities of sub-adult lobsters are fairly high in these areas.
Boulders Overlaying Sand: This habitat type is relatively rare in inshore New England
waters. Compared to other inshore rocky habitats, lobster densities are low.
Cobbles: Lobsters occupy shelters of varying size in the spaces between rocks, pebbles,
and boulders. Densities as high as 16 lobsters/m2 have been observed, making this the
most densely populated inshore rock habitat for lobsters in New England.
Bedrock Base with Rock and Boulder Overlay: This rock type is relatively common
inshore, from low tide to depths of 15 to 45 meters. Shelters are formed by rock
overhangs or crevices. Encrusting coralline algae and attached organisms such as
anemones, sponges, and mollusks cover exposed surfaces. Green sea urchins and starfish
are common. Cunner, tautog, sculpin, sea raven, and redfish are the most abundant fish.
Lobster densities generally are low.
Mud-Shell/Rock Substrate: This habitat type is usually found where sediment discharge
is low and shells make up the majority of the bottom. It is best described off the Rhode
Island coast. Lobster densities generally are low.

Table 4.5: A summary of American lobster habitats and densities
Habitat
Lobster Densities
Habitat Subtypes
Category
(per sq. meter)
Estuaries

Mud base with burrows

Rock, cobble & gravel

Inshore Rock
Types

Submarine
Canyons

Lobster Sizes

Up to 20

Small juveniles

< 0.01

Adults

> 0.5

Juveniles

> 0.75

Adolescents

Rock/shell

N.A.

Sand base with rock

3.2

Boulders overlaying sand

0.09-0.13

Cobbles

Up to 16

Bedrock base with rock
and boulder overlay

0.1-0.3

Mud-shell/rock substrate

0.15

Canyon rim and walls
Canyon walls
Rim and head of canyons

Source
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Steneck and
Wilson, 1998
Steneck and
Wilson, 1998

Avg. 40 mm carapace
length

Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980

0-0.0002

Adolescents and adults

Cooper et al., 1987

Up to 0.001
0.0005-0.126

Adolescents and adults
Adolescents and adults

Cooper et al., 1987
Cooper et al., 1987

150

Habitat
Category

Other

Habitat Subtypes
and at base of walls
Pueblo villages

Lobster Densities
(per sq. meter)

Lobster Sizes

Source

0.0005-0.126

Adolescents and adults

Juveniles and
adolescents
80% adolescents

Cooper et al., 1987
Barshaw and
Lavalli, 1988
Bologna and
Steneck, 1993
Barshaw and
Lavalli, 1988
Short et al., 2001

50-80 mm carapace
length in depressions

Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980
Cooper and
Uzmann, 1980

Peat

Up to 5.7

Kelp beds

1.2-1.68

Eel grass

<0.04

Sand base with rock
Clay base with burrows
and depressions
Mud-clay base with
anemones

0.1
N.A.

Adolescents

Minimum 0.001
Minimum 0.001

Other lobster habitat types are significant. For example, kelp beds represent another form of
lobster habitat. Kelp beds in New England consist primarily of Laminaria longicruris and L.
saccharina. Lobsters were attracted to transplanted kelp beds at a nearshore study site in the midcoast region of Maine, reaching densities almost ten times higher than in nearby control areas
(Bologna and Steneck 1993). Lobsters did not burrow into the sediment, but sought shelter
beneath the kelp. Only large kelp (greater than 50 cm in length) was observed sheltering lobsters
and was used in the transplant experiments.
Lobster shelters also are formed from excavations cut into peat. Reefs form from blocks of salt
marsh peat that break and fall into adjacent marsh creeks and channels and appear to provide
moderate protection for small lobsters from predators (Barshaw and Lavalli 1988). Densities are
high (up to 5.7/m2) in these areas.
Lobsters have been associated with eelgrass beds in the lower portion of the Great Bay Estuary
in New Hampshire (Short et al. 2001). Eighty percent of the lobsters collected from eelgrass beds
were adolescents. Average density was 0.1/m2, higher than reported by Barshaw and Lavalli
(1988). In mesocosm experiments, Short et al. reported that lobsters showed a clear preference
for eelgrass over bare mud. This research showed that adolescent lobsters burrow in eelgrass
beds, utilize eelgrass as an overwintering habitat, and prefer eelgrass to bare mud.
Finally, research in Maine has demonstrated the presence of early settlement, postlarval, and
juvenile lobsters in the lower intertidal zone (Cowan 1999). Two distinct size classes were
consistently present: three to 15 mm and 16 to 40 mm. Monthly mean densities during a fiveyear period ranged from zero to 8.6 individuals/m2 at 0.4 meters below mean low water.
Preliminary results indicate that areas of the lower intertidal zone serve as nursery grounds for
juvenile lobster.
4.2.3.2

Offshore Lobster Habitats

Offshore areas supply several types of lobster habitat. First, more than 15 submarine canyons cut
into the shelf edge on the south side of Georges Bank. These canyons were first surveyed in the
1930s, but were not fully explored until manned submersibles were used extensively in the
151

1980s. Detailed information on canyon habitats for American lobster are available primarily for
Oceanographer Canyon, but this information is generally applicable to other major canyons on
Georges Bank. Concentrations of adolescents and adult lobsters are substantially greater in
submarine canyons than in nearby areas that are occupied mostly by adults (Cooper and Uzmann
1980, Cooper et al. 1987). These canyons present a diverse group of habitat types:
•

•

•

•

Canyon Rim and Walls: Sediments consist of sand or semi-consolidated silt with less
than five percent overlay of gravel. The bottom is relatively featureless. Burrowing mud
anemones are common but lobster densities are low.
Canyon Walls: Sediments consist of gravelly sand, sand, or semi-consolidated silt with
more than five percent gravel. The bottom is relatively featureless. Burrowing mud
anemones are common, as are Jonah crabs, ocean pout, starfish, rosefish, and red hake.
Lobster densities are somewhat higher than in substrates that contain less gravel (see
above).
Rim and Head of Canyons at Base of Walls: Sand or semi-consolidated silt substrate is
overlain by siltstone outcrops and talus up to boulder size. The bottom is very rough and
is eroded by animals and current scouring. Lobsters are associated with rock anemones,
Jonah crabs, ocean pout, tilefish, starfish, conger eels, and white hake. Densities are
highly variable, but reach as high as 0.13 lobsters/m2.
Pueblo Villages: This habitat type exists in the clay canyon walls and extends from the
heads of canyons to middle canyon walls. It is heavily burrowed and excavated. Slopes
range from five to 70 degrees, but are generally between 20 and 50 degrees. Juvenile and
adult lobsters and associated fauna create borings up to 1.5 meters in width, one meter in
height, and two meters or more in depth. Lobsters are associated with Jonah crabs,
tilefish, hermit crabs, ocean pout, starfish, and conger eels. This habitat may well contain
the highest densities of lobsters found offshore.

In addition to canyons, lobster are associated with several other offshore habitat types, including
the following:
•

•

•

Sand Base with Rocks: Although common inshore (see above), this habitat is rather
restricted in the offshore region except along the north flank of Georges Bank.
Clay Base with Burrows and Depressions: This habitat is common on the outer
continental shelf and slope. Lobsters excavate burrows up to 1.5 meters long. There are
also large, bowl-like depressions that range in size from one to five meters in diameter
and may shelter several lobsters at a time. Minimum densities of 0.001 lobsters/m2 have
been observed in summer.
Mud-Clay Base with Anemones: This is a common habitat for lobsters on the outer
shelf or upper slope. Forests of mud anemones (Cerianthus borealis) may reach densities
of three or four per square meter. Depressions serve as shelter for relatively small lobsters
at minimum densities of 0.001/m2.
152

•

Mud Base with Burrows: This habitat occurs offshore mainly in the deep basins, in depths
up to 250 meters. This environment is extremely common offshore. Lobsters occupy this
habitat, but no density estimates are available.

Impact of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat
The environmental impact analysis presented in Chapter 5 of this Final Environmental Impact
Statement includes a discussion of how the ALWTRP may affect fishing gear and fishing
practices, and subsequently influence marine habitat. Experts believe that fixed fishing gear (e.g.
pots/traps) has a more direct impact on benthic habitat than on non-benthic (water column)
habitat because it generally comes in contact with the seafloor. Therefore, the sections below
review how fishing can affect marine habitat, with a primary focus on benthic habitat and on the
potential effects of towed gear (bottom trawls and dredges) which cause more widespread
disturbance to seafloor habitats than fixed gear (Stevenson et al. 2004). The potential effects
examined include:
•
•
•
•
•

Alteration of physical structure;
Mortality of benthic organisms;
Changes to the benthic community and ecosystem;
Sediment suspension; and
Chemical modifications.

4.2.4.1

Alteration of Physical Structure

Any type of fishing gear that is towed, dragged, or dropped on the seabed will disturb the
sediment and the resident community to varying degrees. The intensity of disturbance is
dependent on the type of gear, how long the gear is in contact with the bottom, sediment type,
sensitivity of habitat features in contact with the gear, and frequency of disturbance. Physical
effects of fishing gear, such as ploughing, smoothing of sand ripples, removal of stones, and
turning of boulders, can act to reduce the heterogeneity of the sediment surface. For example,
boulder piles, crevices, and sand ripples can provide fish and invertebrates hiding areas and a
respite from currents and tides. Removal of taxa, such as worm tubes, corals, and gorgonians that
provide relief, and the removal or shredding of submerged vegetation, can also occur, thereby
reducing the number of structures available to biota as habitat.
Most studies on habitat damage due to fishing gear focus on the effects of bottom trawls and
dredges. It has been noted by Rogers et al. (1998) that the reason there are few accounts of static
gear (e.g. traps/pots) having measurable effects on benthic biota may be because the area of
seabed affected by such gear is almost insignificant when compared to the widespread effects of
mobile gear. It is possible that benthic structures (both living and non-living) could be affected as
traps/pots are dropped or dragged along the bottom. Most studies investigating small numbers of
trap or pots per buoy line (1-3) have found minimal, short-term negative impacts on physical
structures (Eno et al. 2001, Chuenpagdee et al. 2003, Stephenson et al. 2017), Similarly, a panel
of experts that evaluated the habitat impacts of commercial fishing gears used in the northeast of
the U.S. (Maine to North Carolina) found bottom-tending static gear (e.g. traps/pots) to have a
minimal effect on benthic habitats when compared to the physical and biological impacts caused
153

by bottom trawls and dredges (NMFS 2002). The vulnerability of benthic EFH for all managed
species in the region to the impacts of pots/traps and bottom gill nets is considered to be low
(NMFS 2004). However, less is known about longer trap/pot trawls and there is limited
information that trawls with 20 or more pots may have impacts more similar to mobile gear,
though at a smaller spatial scale (Schweitzer et al. 2018).
4.2.4.2

Mortality of Benthic Organisms

In addition to effects on physical habitat, fishing gear can cause direct mortality to emergent
epifauna. In particular, erect, foliose fauna or fauna that build reef-like structures have the
potential to be destroyed by towed gear, longlines, or traps/pots (Hall 1999). Physical structure
of the biota sometimes determines their ability to withstand and recover from the physical
impacts of fishing gear. For example, thinner shelled bi-valves and sea stars often suffer higher
damage than solid shelled bi-valves (Rumohr and Krost 1991). Animals that can retract below
the penetration depth of the fishing gear and those that are more elastic and can bend upon
contact with the gear also fare much better than those that are hard and inflexible (Eno et al.
2001). Longer trap/pot trawls likely pose a greater threat to benthic organisms than individual
trap/pots or short trap/pot trawls (Schweitzer et al. 2018).
4.2.4.3

Changes to Benthic Communities and Ecosystems

The mortality of benthic organisms as a result of interaction with fishing gear can alter the
structure of the benthic community, potentially causing a shift in the community from lowproductive long-lived species (k-selected species) to highly-productive, short-lived, rapidlycolonizing species (r-selected species). For example, motile species that exhibit high fecundity
and rapid generation times will recover more quickly from fishery-induced disturbances than
non-mobile, slow-growing organisms, which may lead to a community shift in chronically fished
areas (Levin 1984).
Increased fishing pressure in a certain area may also lead to changes in species distribution.
Changes (e.g., localized depletion) could be evident in benthic, demersal, and even pelagic
species. Scientists have also speculated that mobile fishing may lead to increased populations of
opportunistic feeders in chronically fished areas.
4.2.4.4

Sediment Suspension

Resuspension of sediment can occur as fishing gear is pulled or dragged along or immediately
above the seafloor (NMFS 2002). Although resuspension of sediment is typically associated with
mobile fishing gear, it also can occur with gear such as traps/pots.
Chronic suspension of sediments and resulting turbidity can affect aquatic habitat by reducing
available light for photosynthesis, burying benthic biota, smothering spawning areas, and causing
negative effects on feeding and metabolic rates. If it occurs over large areas, resuspension can
redistribute sediments, which has implications for nutrient budgets (Mayer et al. 1991, Messieh
et al. 1991, Black and Parry 1994, Pilskaln et al. 1998).

154

Species’ reaction to turbidity depends on the particular life history characteristics of the
organism. Effects are likely to be more significant in waters that are normally clear as compared
to areas that typically experience high naturally induced turbidity (Kaiser 2000). Mobile
organisms can move out of the affected area and quickly return once the turbidity dissipates
(Coen 1995). Even if species experience high mortality within the affected area, those with high
levels of recruitment or high mobility can re-populate the affected area rapidly. However, sessile
or slow-moving species would likely be buried and could experience high mortality.
Furthermore, if effects are protracted and occur over a large area, recovery through recruitment
or immigration will be hampered. Additionally, chronic resuspension of sediments may lead to
shifts in species composition by favoring those species that are better suited to recover or those
that can take advantage of the additional nutrient supply as the nutrients are released from the
seafloor to the euphotic zone (Churchill 1989).
4.2.4.5

Chemical Modifications

Disturbances associated with fishing gear also can cause changes in the chemical composition of
the water column overlying affected sediments. In shallow water, the impacts may not be
noticeable relative to the mixing effects caused by tidal surges, storm surges, and wave action.
However, in deeper, calmer areas with more stable waters, the changes in chemistry may be
more evident (NMFS 2002). Increases in ammonia content, decreases in oxygen, and pulses of
phosphate have been observed in North Sea waters, although it is not clear how these changes
affect fish populations. Increased incidence of phytoplankton blooms could occur during seasons
when nutrients are typically low. The increase in primary productivity could have a positive
effect on zooplankton communities and on organisms up the food chain.
Eutrophication, often considered a negative effect, could also occur. However, it is important to
note that these releases of nutrients to the water act to recycle existing nutrients and, thereby,
make them available to benthic organisms rather than add new nutrients to the system (ICES
1992). This recycling is thought to be less influential in the eutrophication process than the input
of new nutrients from rivers and land runoff.

4.3 Human Communities
The following discussion examines the economic and social environment that would be impacted
by modifications to the ALWTRP. The human communities that may be affected are discussed,
particularly communities whose social and economic fabric depends in part upon commercial
fishing operations that must comply with Plan requirements. The fisheries that may be affected
under modifications considered within the scope of this Environmental Impact Statement are the
U.S. lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region.
After describing the sources of data used, the sections below provide a baseline socio- economic
characterization of these fisheries, discussing fishery management regulations, numbers of
permitted vessels, landings, revenue, and key ports. The final section references the communities
potentially affected by modifications to the Plan.

155

Data Sources
The analyses presented in this section are based primarily on data collected and maintained by
NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), NEFSC, and Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). The data represent the best available information on
the northeast coast fishing activity. Below, we describe the databases used and highlight key
sources of uncertainty in the analyses.
4.3.1.1

NMFS NEFSC/ACCSP Dealer Data

In the Northeast, all seafood dealers handling the catch of federally-permitted vessels are
required to hold dealer permits. NMFS requires that dealers to submit reports on the catch that
they purchase. Specifically, a dealer must submit a report to NMFS for each fishing trip from
which it purchased catch. Each dealer report includes information on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

date of purchase;
dealer name and address;
dealer number;
vessel name and permit number;
pounds of each species, by market category, if applicable;
value of each species, by market category, if applicable; and
port landed

Field office staff enter data into a coded form and send the data to the NEFSC to be incorporated
into NMFS’ larger Oracle database.
Analyses based on the dealer data warrant the following caveats:
•

•

The purchase reports that seafood dealers submit to NMFS are not required to provide
information on the gear used to land the catch reported. This information is deduced by
each individual NMFS Field Office based on personal knowledge of the vessel's primary
gear, the predominant species caught on the trip, or firsthand information from the
fisherman. Therefore, breakouts of catch by gear type are subject to uncertainty.
NMFS records only one gear type per dealer report. Thus, if two or more types of gear
were used to catch different species during a trip listed on the same dealer report, only the
primary gear used on the trip will be noted and gear used to catch secondary species
maybe mischaracterized. This creates further uncertainty regarding gear types.

4.3.1.2

Permit Data

Fishermen are required to hold permits to fish for all federally managed species. 3 Permit
requirements are included as part of the Fishery Management Plans developed by the regional
Councils and/or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and implemented by
NMFS. Permit data are collected when fishermen apply to renew their fishing permits.
3

Fisheries may be managed by NMFS or by cooperative agreement between NMFS and the individual states

156

The characterization of affected fisheries relies on permit data to identify the number of vessels
that may target a particular species. The analysis distinguishes between commercial and
charter/party permits using permit category data. Because fishermen may not actually target all
species for which they hold permits, this approach may lead to an overestimate of the number of
vessels actively involved in a fishery.
The analysis also relies on permit data to identify the number of vessels likely to fish with gear
regulated under the Plan. When applying for permits in the Northeast Region, fishermen are
required to indicate what gear they are likely to use, although they are not restricted to the use of
this gear (unless stipulated in the American Lobster FMP). As a result, the permit database
indicates the gear the permit holder intended to use when the permit application was filed, not
necessarily the gear currently used. The degree of inaccuracy that stems from this data limitation
is unknown, but is likely minor. In addition to the caveat above, it is important to note that
permit applications can designate multiple types of gear (ranked by likelihood of use). For
characterizing affected fisheries, the analysis examines the distribution of permits by both
primary gear (i.e., the gear that the permit holder is most likely to use) and all gear noted on the
permit application. This approach provides a more accurate indication of the number of vessels
that may be affected by Plan requirements.
4.3.1.3

Affected Fisheries

The American lobster (Homarus americanus) and Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) fisheries are the
trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region that would be affected by the risk reduction measures
identified in Alternatives 2 and 3, and are described in detail below. Other trap/pot fisheries
would not be regulated by the Plan, and are not analyzed here. The Team will be asked to
develop recommendations to reduce risk by 60 to 80 percent for U.S. fisheries along the entire
Atlantic coast.
4.3.1.3.1 American Lobster
The American lobster is a bottom-dwelling, marine crustacean characterized by a large shrimplike body and ten legs, two of which are enlarged to serve as crushing and gripping appendages.
American lobster range extends from Newfoundland south to the Mid‐Atlantic region. In the
U.S. waters, the species is most abundant from the inshore waters of Maine to Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and the abundance declines from north to south (ASMFC 2015). In the Gulf of
Maine, the inshore fishery dominates the industry, accounting for the highest percentage of
lobster harvest. The offshore fishery dominates in the Georges Bank stock unit; however, in
recent years the landings of catch from the inshore portion of Georges Bank (Statistical Area
521) has increased substantially. While historically, the inshore fishery dominated in Southern
New England, since the late 1990s the offshore fishery has accounted for the largest portion of
the total landed catch (ASMFC 2015).
Lobster growth and reproduction are linked to the molting cycle. Lobsters are encased in a hard
external skeleton that provides body support and protection. Periodically, this skeleton is cast off
to allow body size to increase and mating to take place. Eggs (7,000 to 80,000) are extruded and
157

carried under the female's abdomen during a 9 to 11 month incubation period. The eggs hatch
during late spring or early summer and the pelagic larvae undergo four molts before attaining
adult characteristics and settling to the bottom. Lobsters typically reach legal, commercial size
after five to seven growing seasons, or approximately 20 molting cycles.
Several types of gear are used in the American lobster fishery, but the majority of landings are
associated with traps/pots. In 2019, 124 million out of 127 million pounds (about 98 percent) of
lobsters were landed using traps/pots. Traps/pots may be set singly, each having its own buoy
line and buoy, or in multiple-trap/pot "trawls" where the traps/pots are linked together by
groundlines, with buoy lines and buoys (or high flyers) at the first and/or last trap/pot. Traps/pots
are further divided into general categories: inshore and offshore traps/pots. Inshore fleet is
comprised mainly of small vessels (22 to 42 feet/6.7 to 12.8 meters) that make day trips in
nearshore waters (< 12 nm/22.2 km), while offshore fishery has larger boats (55+ ft/16.8 m) that
make multi-day trips to the edge of the continental shelf (ASMFC 2015).
Harvest levels of American lobster first prompted concern in the 1970s, resulting in the first
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the American lobster, adopted in 1983. This first FMP
called for fishing effort limits, minimum carapace size requirements, a prohibition on the
possession of egg-bearing (or "berried") lobsters, and a prohibition on landing lobster parts.
Since that time, a number of plan amendments have been developed for both state and federal
waters. In December 1999, NMFS issued a Final Rule (64 FR 68228) transferring the federal
lobster fishery regulations created under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (50 CFR Part 649) to the state-oriented Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) (50 CFR Part 697). This
decision recognized that the federal FMP, which covered only federal waters, was insufficient to
address overfishing.
Currently, the American lobster fishery is managed under Amendment 3 of the ASMFC's
American Lobster Interstate Fishery Management Plan, as well as Addenda I through XXVI to
the plan. Adopted in December 1997, primary regulatory measures under Amendment 3 include
carapace size limits, protection of ovigerous females, gear restrictions, and nominal effort control
measures. In addition, Amendment 3 created seven lobster management areas (LMAs; Figure
4.4). These include the Inshore Gulf of Maine (LMA 1), Inshore Southern New England (LMA
2), Offshore Waters (LMA 3), Inshore Northern Mid-Atlantic (LMA 4), Inshore Southern MidAtlantic (LMA 5), New York and Connecticut State Waters (LMA 6), and Outer Cape Cod
(OCC). Lobster Conservation Management Teams (LCMTs), composed of industry
representatives, were formed for each management area. They advise the American Lobster
Management Board and recommend changes to the management plan within their area.

158

Figure 4.4: American lobster management areas and stock boundaries

Under federal regulations for the American lobster fishery outside of state waters, only limited
access federal permits are issued. No new entrants are allowed, although in some LMAs, permits
may be bought, sold, and transferred to another vessel. GARFO permit data indicate that 1,926
vessels were issued federal commercial lobster permits in fishing year 2019 (not including for
hire boats). The number of commercial trap/pot vessels that hold federal permits for each LMA
is presented in Table 4.6. Each state sets its own requirements for trapping/potting lobsters in
state waters. State-permitted operators who wish to fish in federal waters must also hold a federal
permit and abide by the more restrictive of the two (Federal or state) regulations.
Lobster has consistently ranked among the Atlantic coast's most commercially important species.
In 2019, dealer data shows total revenue of more than $637 million up from approximately $404
million in 2010. Additional detail on annual lobster landings and average ex-vessel revenue
between 2010 and 2019 is presented in Table 4.7.
The greater abundance of lobster in northern waters is reflected in the distribution of landings by
state. Maine consistently accounts for the greatest share of the lobster catch, with landings in
2019 of approximately 102 million pounds. Massachusetts, the second leading producer, had
landings in 2019 of 17 million pounds. Together, Maine and Massachusetts accounted for about
94 percent of total national landings. Lobster landings by state for 2010 to 2019 are presented in
Table 4.8.
159

Table 4.6: Federal commercial lobster trap/pot permits by LMA in fishing years 2010 – 2019. A single permit could
be issued for more than one LMA. Permits that were issued by fishing year 2019 extend from May 1, 2019 to April
30, 2020 (GARFO permit data).
Year

Total

LMA 1

LMA 2

LMA 3

LMA 4

LMA 5

LMA 6

OCC

2010

2,460

1,946

405

106

68

47

60

153

2011

2,455

1,964

382

105

71

44

62

139

2012

2,394

1,900

376

110

67

45

56

136

2013

2,297

1,746

356

105

62

42

52

126

2014

2,313

1,779

343

105

61

41

51

120

2015

2,136

1,758

166

100

56

41

46

20

2016

2,124

1,745

165

98

57

40

43

22

2017

1,932

1,578

150

94

59

38

42

17

2018

1,918

1,569

147

91

60

40

38

16

2019

1,926

1,569

147

91

60

40

35

16

Table 4.7: American lobster landings in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States from 2010 to 2019. All values
and prices are nominal (ACCSP Data Warehouse, 2021)
Weight
Value
Price
Year
( million lb) (million $) ($/lb)
2010

117.6

$404.1

$3.4

2011

126.3

$422.9

$3.3

2012

150.7

$431.5

$2.9

2013

150.5

$460.8

$3.1

2014

148.0

$567.1

$3.8

2015

147.0

$622.1

$4.2

2016

159.5

$670.5

$4.2

2017

137.0

$567.4

$4.1

2018

148.0

$631.8

$4.3

2019

127.2

$636.7

$5.0

Table 4.8: Lobster landing weight (million pounds) by state from 2010 to 2019.
ME

NH

MA

RI

CT-NC

Total

2010

96.2

3.6

12.8

2.9

2.0

117.6

2011

105.0

3.9

13.4

2.8

1.3

126.3

2012

127.5

4.2

14.5

2.7

1.5

150.4

2013

128.0

3.8

15.2

2.2

1.1

150.3

2014

125.0

4.4

15.3

2.4

1.0

148.0

160

ME

NH

MA

RI

CT-NC

Total

2015

122.7

4.7

16.5

2.3

0.9

147.0

2016

132.7

5.8

17.8

2.3

0.9

159.4

2017

112.1

5.5

16.5

2.0

0.8

136.9

2018

121.3

6.1

17.7

1.9

0.5

147.5

2019

101.9

6.0

17.0

1.8

0.5

127.2

Table 4.9: The top ten American lobster landing ports in 2019. Ports are listed in descending order based on the
weight of total landings (ACCSP Data Warehouse, 2021).
Weight
Value
Port
County
State
(million lb)
(million $)
Stonington
Hancock
ME
10.3
$48.8
Vinalhaven
Beals

Knox

ME

7.6

$39.2

Washington

ME

6.0

$21.6

Friendship

Knox

ME

5.0

$26.6

Newington

Rockingham

NH

4.3

$26.6

Gloucester

Essex

MA

3.9

$22.4

Spruce Head

Knox

ME

3.8

$18.4

Jonesport

Washington

ME

2.9

$10.3

Portland

Cumberland

ME

2.8

$15.0

Milbridge

Washington

ME

2.8

$12.3

Top 10 Total

49.4

$241.2

Industry Total

127.2

$636.7

Top 10 ports %

39%

38%

Table 4.9 provides additional data on the distribution of lobstering activity, highlighting the top
ten grossing ports for lobster in 2019. As shown, Maine ports account for a significant portion of
the total lobster catch. However, most lobster were landed at smaller ports along the New
England coast, rather than at a single dominant port. The total landing pounds of the top ten ports
was 49.4 million, accounting for 39 percent of the industry total landings in 2019.
4.3.1.3.2 Jonah Crab
Jonah crab is distributed in the waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean primarily from
Newfoundland, Canada to Florida. The life cycle of Jonah crab is poorly described and what is
known is largely compiled from a patchwork of studies. Female crabs are believed to move
nearshore during the late spring and summer and then return offshore in the fall and winter. The
reasons for this inshore migration are unknown, but maturation, spawning and molting have all
been postulated. Due to the lack of a widespread and well-developed aging method for
crustaceans, the age and growth of Jonah crab is poorly described. (ASMFC, 2018) Like other
cancer crab species, Jonah crab consumes a variety of prey including snails, arthropods, algae,
mussels and polychaetes.

161

Jonah crab is managed under the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Jonah Crab
(ASMFC, 2015) and its three addenda. The plan lays out specific management measures in the
commercial fishery, including a 4.75 inch (12.07 cm) minimum size with zero tolerance and a
prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing females, and requiring harvesters to have a lobster
permit. Addendum I (May 2016), establishes a bycatch limit of 1,000 crabs per trip for non‐trap
gear (e.g., otter trawls, gillnets) and non‐lobster trap gear (e.g., fish, crab, and whelk pots).
Addendum II (February 2017) establishes a coast-wide standard for claw harvest to respond to
concerns regarding the equity of the claw provision established in the FMP. Specifically, the
Addendum allows Jonah crab fishermen to detach and harvest claws at sea, with a required
minimum claw length of 2.75 inches (6.99 cm) if the volume of claws landed is greater than five
gallons. Addendum III (February 2018) addresses concerns regarding deficits in existing lobster
and Jonah crab reporting requirements by expanding the mandatory harvester reporting data
elements, improving the spatial resolution of harvester data, establishing a 5-year timeline for
implementation of 100 percent harvester reporting, and prioritizing the development of electronic
harvester reporting. Federal regulations complementing the FMP and Addenda I and II became
effective on December 12, 2019.
Jonah crabs are primarily caught in pots and traps and have long been taken as incidental catch in
the lobster fishery, or more recently as a secondary target, in the lobster fishery. On average, less
than one percent of the catch are identified to come from dredges and trawls (ASMFC 2015).
Table 4.10 shows that in 2019, pots and traps are still the primary gears used to harvest Jonah
crabs. Other gears include dredge, gill nets, hand line, trawls and long lines.
Table 4.10: 2019 Jonah crab landings in pounds by gear type (ACCSP 2021)
Gear Type

Landing Pounds

Percentage

Pots and Traps

14,381,505

89.94%

Trawls

133,293

0.83%

Dredge

54,027

0.34%

Long Lines

4,179

0.03%

Gill Nets

1,938

0.01%

Other Gears

1402.5

0.01%

Hand Line

151

0%

Not Coded

1,413,151

8.84%

Total

15,989,645

100%

Table 4.11: Jonah crab landings by state from 2010 to 2019 (ACCSP 2021)
MA
RI
RI
Other
MA
Value
Weight
Value
weight
Year
Weight
(million
(million
(million
(million
(million lb)
$)
lb)
$)
lb)

Other
Value
(million
$)

Total
Weight
(million
lb)

Total
Value
(million
$)

2010

5.7

$3.2

3.7

$1.9

2.3

$0.9

11.7

$6.0

2011

5.4

$3.6

3.2

$1.8

1.4

$0.6

9.9

$6.0

2012

7.5

$5.6

3.8

$2.6

1.2

$0.6

12.6

$8.8

162

Year

MA
Weight
(million lb)

MA
Value
(million
$)

RI
Weight
(million
lb)

RI
Value
(million
$)

Other
weight
(million
lb)

Other
Value
(million
$)

Total
Weight
(million
lb)

Total
Value
(million
$)

2013

10.1

$9.1

4.7

$3.3

1.3

$0.8

16.1

$13.3

2014

11.9

$9.3

4.4

$3.3

1.1

$0.9

17.4

$13.5

2015

9.1

$6.9

4.3

$3.0

0.8

$0.5

14.3

$10.4

2016

10.7

$8.2

4.2

$3.3

1.2

$0.8

16.1

$12.3

2017

11.7

$11.5

4.1

$3.9

1.8

$1.3

17.6

$16.7

2018

13.3

$12.5

4.6

$4.3

2.2

$1.8

20.1

$18.5

2019

9.7

$8.1

4.2

$3.4

2.1

$1.6

16.0

$13.1

The value of Jonah crab has increased recently, and along with declining lobster stocks in
Southern New England, has resulted in higher landings. Landings fluctuated between
approximately two and three million pounds throughout the 1990s (ASMFC 2015). By 2005,
landings increased to over seven million pounds and then to over 20 million pounds in 2018, and
dropped to 16 million pounds in 2019. Landings in 2019 predominantly came from
Massachusetts (61 percent), followed by Rhode Island (26 percent), New Hampshire and Maine
(five percent). Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland accounted for a combined eight percent
of landings. MA and RI together contribute more than 85 percent of Jonah crab landings and
value throughout the years (Table 4.11).
Table 4.12 The top landing ports for the Jonah crab fishery in 2019 (ACCSP 2021).
Weight
Value (million
Rank
State
Port
(million lb)
$)
1

MA

New Bedford

7.5

6.1

2

RI

Newport

1.9

1.5

3

RI

Point Judith

1.7

1.3

4

MA

Sandwich

1.6

1.5

5

NJ

Point Pleasant

0.8

0.7

Top landing ports of Jonah crab are mostly located in Southern Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Using 2014 Massachusetts and Rhode Island landings data (accounting for approximately 95
percent of all 2014 landings), Jonah crabs are primarily harvested from Statistical Area 537 (71
percent), followed by 526 (10 percent) and 525 (10 percent) (Figure 4.5, ASMFC DEIS 2018).
Table 4.12 shows the top five Jonah crab landing ports in 2017. New Bedford and Newport,
Rhode Island located in Southern New England have been the leading landing ports for years.

163

Figure 4.5: 2014 MA and RI Jonah crab landings by statistical area

4.4 Affected Communities
Appendix 4.4 describes the social and cultural setting of the communities potentially affected by
the proposed modifications to the ALWTRP.
Although rulemaking is being done under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, communities
described are as defined by the Magnuson-Steven Act: “a community which is substantially
dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet
social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United
States fish processors that are based in such community.” Potentially affected communities were
identified by looking at the ports of landings, and by the distribution of lobster and Jonah crab
harvesters across Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and associated fishery
management areas, then identifying the towns in which those harvesters reside. Geographically,
the vast majority of trap/pot landings from LMAs 1, 2, 3, and Outer Cape Cod are from ports in
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Social and cultural characteristics of
the towns with the strongest participation in the affected trap/pot fisheries are described in
Appendix 4.2. Social indicators considered here are divided into three categories: Social
Vulnerability Indices, Gentrification Pressure Indices and Fishing Engagement and Reliance
Indices. The explanation of social indicators used in Appendix 4.2 are listed in Appendix 4.3.
Among all indicators, Commercial Engagement and Commercial Reliance are most relevant to
our analysis. Commercial Engagement measures the presence of commercial fishing through
fishing activity as shown through permits and vessel landings. A high rank indicates more
engagement. Commercial Reliance measures the presence of commercial fishing in relation to
the population of a community through fishing activity. A high rank indicates more reliance.
Both indicators reveal the significance of fisheries to the community. The most engaged fishing
community in Maine is Portland. However, Portland also has the least reliance on commercial
164

fishing which means it has the most other working opportunities. While Stonington, the biggest
lobster landing port in the United States, has both high engagement and reliance on commercial
fishing. Other heavily engaged fishing communities in the Northeast Region include Gloucester
and New Bedford in Massachusetts, and Point Judith in Rhode Island. Beals in Maine and
Newington in New Hampshire have high commercial fishing reliance.

4.5 References
ACCSP. 2010-2018. Data Warehouse, Confidential Data, Commercial Landings, Summary; generated by Chao Zou
using Data Warehouse [online application].in C. Zou, editor., Arlington, VA.
Andrews, A. H., E. E. Cordes, M. M. Mahoney, K. Munk, C. K. H., G. M. Cailliet, and J. Heifetz. 2002. Age,
growth and radiometric age validation of a deep-sea, habitat-forming gorgonian (Primnoa resedaeformis)
from the Gulf of Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471:101– 110.
Archer, F. I., R. L. Brownell, B. L. Hancock-Hanser, P. A. Morin, K. M. Robertson, K. K. Sherman, J.
Calambokidis, J. Urbán R, P. E. Rosel, S. A. Mizroch, S. Panigada, and B. L. Taylor. 2019. Revision of fin
whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758) subspecies using genetics. Journal of Mammalogy
100:1653-1670.
ASMFC. 2015. American Lobster Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, Stock Assessment Report. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Baker, C. S., and P. J. Clapham. 2004. Modelling the past and future of whales and whaling. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 19:365–371.
Barshaw, D. E., and K. L. Lavalli. 1988. Predation upon postlarval lobsters Homarus americanus by cunners
Tautogolabrus adspersus and mud crabs Neopanope sayi on three different substrates: eelgrass, mud, and
rock. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48:119-123.
Baumgartner, M., T. V. N. Cole, P. J. Clapham, and B. R. Mate. 2003. North Atlantic right whale habitat in the
lower Bay of Fundy and on the SW Scotian Shelf during 1999-2001. Marine Ecology Progress Series
264:137-154.
Baumgartner, M., and B. Mate. 2003. Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 264:123-135.
Baumgartner, M., F. Wenzel, N. Lysiak, and M. Patrician. 2017. North Atlantic right whale foraging ecology and its
role in human-caused mortality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 581:165-181.
Best, P. B., J. Bannister, R. B. Jr, and G. Donovan. 2001. Right whales: worldwide status. 2:309.
Black, K. P., and G. D. Parry. 1994. Sediment transport rates and sediment disturbance due to scallop dredging in
Port Phillip Bay. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 36:327-341.
Blaylock, R. A., J. W. Hain, L. J. Hansen, D. L. Palka, and G. T. Waring. 1995. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
marine mammal stock assessments. Page 211.
Bologna, P. A., and R. S. Steneck. 1993. Kelp beds as habitat for American lobster Homarus americanus. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 100:127-134.
Bolten, A. B., L. B. Crowder, M. G. Dodd, A. M. Lauritsen, J. A. Musick, B. A. Schroeder, and
B. E. Witherington. 2019. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle
(Caretta caretta) Second Revision (2008): Assessment of Progress Toward Recovery.
Borrell, A. 1993. PCB and DDTs in blubber of cetaceans from the northeastern North Atlantic. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 26:146-151.
Braun McNeill, J., Avens, L., Goodman Hall, A., Fujisaki, I., and Iverson, A. (2020). Foraging and overwintering
behavior of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in the western North Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 641,
209–225. doi: 10.3354/meps13296

165

Ceriani, S. A., and A. B. Meylan. 2017. Caretta caretta (North West Atlantic subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2017: e.T84131194A119339029.
CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the USA
outer continental shelf. Final Report #AA551-CT8-48 Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program,
University of Rhode Island, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
Christiansen, F., S. M. Dawson, J. W. Durban, H. Fearnbach, C. A. Miller, L. Bejder, M. Uhart, M. Sironi, P.
Corkeron, W. Rayment, E. Leunissen, E. Haria, R. Ward, H. A. Warick, I. Kerr, M. S. Lynn, H. M. Pettis,
and M. J. Moore. 2020. Population comparison of right whale body condition reveals poor state of the
North Atlantic right whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 640:1-16.
Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. Oien. 1992. Seasonal distribution, exploitation and present abundance of stocks of
large baleen whales (Mysticeti) and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in Norwegian and adjacent
waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 49:341-355.
Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing
collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:517-524.
Churchill, J. H. 1989. The effect of commercial trawling on sediment resuspension and transport over the Middle
Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research 9:841-864.
Clapham, P. J., L.S. Baraff, C.A. Carlson, M.A. Christian, D.K. Mattila, C.A. Mayo, M.A. Murphy, and S. Pittman.
1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, Megaptera novaengliae, in the southern
Gulf of Maine.
Clark, C.W., and Gagnon, G.C. 2002. Low-frequency vocal behaviors of baleen whales in the North Atlantic:
Insights from IUSS detections, locations and tracking from 1992 to 1996. J. Underwater Acoust. (US
Navy), 52 (3):609-640.
Coen, L. D. 1995. A review of the potential impacts of mechanical harvesting on subtidal and intertidal shellfish
resources. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute.
Conant, T. A., P. H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S. P. Epperly, C. C. Fahy, M. H. Godfrey, S. L. MacPherson, E. E.
Possaredt, B. A. Schroeder, J. A. Seminoff, M. L. Snover, C. M. Upite, and B. W. Witherington. 2009.
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report
of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009.
Conn, P. B., and G. K. Silber. 2013. Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for North
Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere 4:1-16.
Cooper, R. A., and J. R. Uzmann. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Homarus americanus. Pages 97-142 in J. S.
Cobb and B. F. Phillips, editors. The Biology and Management of Lobsters. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Cooper, R. A., P. Valentine, J. R. Uzmann, and R. A. Slater. 1987. Submarine Canyons. Pages 53-63 in R. H.
Backus, editor. Georges Bank. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Corkeron, P., P. Hamilton, J. Bannister, P. Best, C. Charlton, K. R. Groch, K. Findlay, V. Rowntree, E. Vermeulen,
and R. M. Pace, 3rd. 2018. The recovery of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, has been
constrained by human-caused mortality. R Soc Open Sci 5:180892.
Cowan, D. F. 1999. Method for assessing relative abundance, size distribution, and growth of recently settled and
early juvenile lobsters (Homarus americanus) in the lower intertidal zone. Journal of Crustacean Biology
19:738-751.
Daoust, P.-Y., É. L. Couture, T. Wimmer, and L. Bourque. 2018. Incident report: North Atlantic right whale
mortality event in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Report, Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Marine
Animal Response Society, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Davies, K., M. Brown, P. Hamilton, A. Knowlton, C. Taggart, and A. Vanderlaan. 2019. Variation in North Atlantic
right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, over three decades. Endangered
Species Research 39:159-171.

166

Davis, G. E., M. F. Baumgartner, J. M. Bonnell, J. Bell, C. Berchok, J. Bort Thornton, S. Brault, G. Buchanan, R. A.
Charif, D. Cholewiak, C. W. Clark, P. Corkeron, J. Delarue, K. Dudzinski, L. Hatch, J. Hildebrand, L.
Hodge, H. Klinck, S. Kraus, B. Martin, D. K. Mellinger, H. Moors-Murphy, S. Nieukirk, D. P. Nowacek, S.
Parks, A. J. Read, A. N. Rice, D. Risch, A. Sirovic, M. Soldevilla, K. Stafford, J. E. Stanistreet, E.
Summers, S. Todd, A. Warde, and S. M. Van Parijs. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the
changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Sci Rep
7:13460.
Davis, G.E., M.F. Baumgartner, P.J. Corkeron, J. Bell, C. Berchok, J.M. Bonnell, J.B. Thornton, S. Brault, G.A.
Buchanan, D.M. Cholewiak, C.W. Clark, J. Delarue, L.T. Hatch, H. Klinck, S.D. Kraus, B. Martin, D.K.
Mellinger, H. Moors-Murphy, S. Nieukirk, D.P. Nowacek, S.E. Parks, D. Parry, N. Pegg, A.J. Read, A.N.
Rice, D. Risch, A. Scott, M.S. Soldevilla, K.M. Stafford, J.E. Stanistreet, E. Summers, S. Todd, and S.M.
Van Parijs. 2020. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western
North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Glob Change Biol. 00:1-29.
Dobrzynski, T., and K. Johnson. 2001. Regional Council Approaches to the Identification and Protection of Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern. NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, MD.
Dodge, K. L., B. Galuardi, T. J. Miller, and M. E. Lutcavage. 2014. Leatherback Turtle Movements, Dive Behavior,
and Habitat Characteristics in Ecoregions of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. PLoS ONE 9:e91726.
Eno, N. C., D. S. MacDonald, J. A. M. Kinnear, S. C. Amos, C. J. Chapham, R. A. Clard, F. P. D. Bunker, and C.
Munro. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:11-20.
Fossa, J. H., D. M. Furevik, P. B. Mortensen, and M. Hovland. 1999. Effects of bottom trawling on Lophelia deep
water coral reefs in Norway.in Poster presented at the ICES meeting on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing.
Geraci, J. R., D. M. Anderson, R. J. Timperi, D. J. St. Aubin, G. A. Early, J. H. Prescott, and C. A. Mayo. 1989.
Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) Fatally Poisoned by Dinoflagellate Toxin. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1895-1898.
Grabowski, J. H., E. J. Clesceri, J. Gaudette, A. Baukus, M. Weber, and P. O. Yund. 2010. Use of herring bait to
farm lobster in the Gulf of Maine. PLoS One 5: e10188.
Grieve, B. D., J. A. Hare, and V. S. Saba. 2017. Projecting the effects of climate change on Calanus finmarchicus
distribution within the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf. Scientific Reports 7:6264.
Hain, J. H. W., M. A. M. Hyman, R. D. Kenney, and H. E. Winn. 1985. The role of cetaceans in the shelfedge
region of the northeastern United States. Marine Fisheries Review 47:13-17.
Hall, S. J. 1999. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Hayes, S. A., S. Gardner, L. Garrison, A. Henry, and L. Leandro. 2018a. North Atlantic Right Whales: evaluating
their recovery challenges in 2018.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2019. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-258, NEFSC, NMFS,
NOAA, DOC, Woods Hole, MA.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P. E. Rosel, B. Byrd, S. Chavez-Rosales, T. V. N. Col, L. Engleby, L. P.
Garrison, J. Hatch, A. Henry, S. C. Horstman, J. Litz, M. C. Lyssikatos, K. D. Mullin, C. Orphanides, R.
M. Pace, D. L. Palka, M. Soldevilla, and F. W. Wenzel. 2018b. TM 245 US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2017. Page 371 in NMFS, editor, NOAA Tech Memo.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2020. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments - 2019. Page 479. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Henry, A. G., T. V. N. Cole, L. Hall, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, and A. Reid. 2016. Serious injury and mortality
determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2010-2014. Page 51.
Henry, A., M. Garron, A. Reid, D. Morin, W. Ledwell, and T. V. Cole. 2019. Serious injury and mortality
determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2012-2016. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

167

Henry, A. G., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, and T. Cole. 2020. Serious Injury and Mortality
Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2013-2017. US Dept Commer.
Henry, A.G., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, and T. Cole. 2021. Serious Injury and Mortality
Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2014-2018. US Dept Commer.
Holsbeek, L., C. R. D. Joiris, V., I. B. Ali, P. Roose, J.-P. Nellissen, S. Gobert, J. M. Bouquegneau, and M.
Bossicart. 1999. Heavy metals, organochlorines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sperm whales
stranded in the southern North Sea during the 1994/1995 winter. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38:304±313.
Hunt, J. L. J. 1974. The geology of Gray's Reef, Georgia continental shelf. M.S. thesis. Univ. Georgia, Athens.
Hunt, K. E., N. S. J. Lysiak, C. J. D. Matthews, C. Lowe, A. Fernandez Ajo, D. Dillon, C. Willing, M. P. HeideJorgensen, S. H. Ferguson, M. J. Moore, and C. L. Buck. 2018. Multi-year patterns in testosterone, cortisol
and corticosterone in baleen from adult males of three whale species. Conserv Physiol 6:coy049.
ICES. 1992. Report of the Study Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities, Copenhagen, 7-14 April. ICES
CM 1992/G:11, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Study Group on Ecosystem Effects of
Fishing Activities, , Copenhagen.
James MC, Sherrill-Mix SA, Martin K, Myers RA. 2006b. Canadian waters provide critical foraging habitat for
leatherback sea turtles. Biological Conservation 133: 347-357.
Johnson, C., E. Devred, B. Casault, E. Head, and J. Spry. 2018. Optical, Chemical, and Biological Oceanographic
Conditions on the Scotian Shelf and in the Eastern Gulf of Maine in 2016. Page 58.
Kaiser, M. J. 2000. The implications of the effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats. Pages 383-392 in
M. J. Kaiser and S. J. de Groot, editors. The Effects of Fishing on Non- target Species and Habitats.
Blackwell Science.
Kenney, R. D. 2001. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) distributions in the Gulf
of Maine. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue) 2:209-223.
Kenney, R. 2018. What if there were no fishing? North Atlantic right whale population trajectories without
entanglement mortality. Endangered Species Research 37:233-237.
Kenney, R. D., H. E. Winn, and M. Macaulay. 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research 15:385-414.
Kraus, S. D., P. K. Hamilton, R. D. Kenney, A. R. Knowlton, and C. K. Slay. 2001. Reproductive parameters of the
North Atlantic Right Whale. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:231–236.
Kraus, S. D., R. D. Kenney, C. A. Mayo, W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, and D. P. Nowacek. 2016. Recent Scientific
Publications Cast Doubt on North Atlantic Right Whale Future. Frontiers in Marine Science 3.
Kraus, S. D., and R. M. Rolland. 2007. Right whales in the urban ocean. Pages 1-38 in S. D. Kraus and R. M.
Rolland, editors. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Krumhansl, K. A., E. J. H. Head, P. Pepin, S. Plourde, N. R. Record, J. A. Runge, and C. L. Johnson. 2018.
Environmental drivers of vertical distribution in diapausing Calanus copepods in the Northwest Atlantic.
Progress in Oceanography 162:202-222.
Krzystan, A., T. Gowan, W. Kendall, J. Martin, J. Ortega-Ortiz, K. Jackson, A. Knowlton, P. Naessig, M. Zani, D.
Schulte, and C. Taylor. 2018. Characterizing residence patterns of North Atlantic right whales in the
southeastern USA with a multistate open robust design model. Endangered Species Research 36:279-295.
Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales.
Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75.
Lawton, P., and K. L. Lavalli. 1985. Postlarval, juvenile, adolescent, and adult ecology. Pages 47-88 in J. R. Factor,
editor. Biology of the Lobster Homarus americanus. Academic Press, New Yorl, NY.

168

Lawton, P., and K. L. Lavalli. 1995. Postlarval, juvenile, adolescent and adult ecology. Pages 120 – 122 pp. in J. R.
Factor, editor. Biology of the lobster, Homarus americanus.Academic Press, Inc.
Levin, L. A. 1984. Life history and dispersal patterns in a dense infaunal polychaete assemblage: community
structure and response to disturbance. Ecology 65:1185-1200.
Lien, J., R. Sears, G. B. Stenson, P. W. Jones, and I. H. Ni. 1989. Right whale, Eunbalaena glacialis, sightings in
waters off Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, 1978-1987. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 103.
Lincoln, D. 1998. Lobsters on the edge-essential lobster habitats in New England. Greenlite Consultants, Newton
Highlands, MA.
Lutcavage, M. E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P. L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pages
387-409 in P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Lysiak, N. S. J., S. J. Trumble, A. R. Knowlton, and M. J. Moore. 2018. Characterizing the Duration and Severity of
Fishing Gear Entanglement on a North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Using Stable Isotopes,
Steroid and Thyroid Hormones in Baleen. Frontiers in Marine Science 5.
MAFMC. 1998. Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan.in M.-A.
F. M. Council, editor, Dover.
MAFMC. 2003. Proposed and Final Federal Commercial Management Measures.
MAFMC. 2008. Amendment 1 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan, Volume 1.in M.-A. F. M. Council, editor.
Mate, B. R., S. L. Nieukirk, and S. D. Kraus. 1997. Satellite-Monitored Movements of the Northern Right Whale.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1393.
Mayer, L. M., D. F. Schick, R. H. Findlay, and D. L. Rice. 1991. Effects of commercial dragging on sedimentary
organic matter. Marine Environmental Research 31:249-261.
Mayo, C. A., L. Ganley, C. A. Hudak, S. Brault, M. K. Marx, E. Burke, and M. W. Brown. 2018. Distribution,
demography, and behavior of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay,
Massachusetts, 1998-2013: Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay. Marine Mammal Science 34:979-996.
Mayo, C. A., and M. K. Marx. 1990. Surface behavior of the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and
associated zooplankton characteristics. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:2214-2220.
Messieh, S. N., T. W. Rowel, D. L. Peer, and P. J. Cranford. 1991. The effects of trawling, dredging and ocean
dumping on the eastern Canadian continental shelf seabed. Continental Shelf Research 11:1237-1263.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E., C. Greene, and K. Davies. 2018. Marine Species Range Shifts Necessitate Advanced Policy
Planning: The Case of the North Atlantic Right Whale. Oceanography 31.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., and C. H. Greene. 2018. Uncertain recovery of the North Atlantic right whale in a changing
ocean. Global Change Biology 24:455-464.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., C. H. Greene, P. J. Sullivan, and A. J. Pershing. 2015. Climate-associated changes in prey
availability drive reproductive dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale population. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 535:243-258.
Mitchell, E., and D. G. Chapman. 1977. Preliminary assessment of stocks of northwest Atlantic sei whales
(Balaenoptera borealis).
Mitchell, E. D. 1991. Winter records of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacépède 1804) in the
southern North Atlantic.
MMHSRP Database. 2021 Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, NMFS, NOAA queried May
10, 2021

169

Monsarrat, S., M. G. Pennino, T. D. Smith, R. R. Reeves, C. N. Meynard, D. M. Kaplan, and A. S. Rodrigues. 2016.
A spatially explicit estimate of the prewhaling abundance of the endangered North Atlantic right whale.
Conserv Biol 30:783-791.
Moore, M., T. Rowles, D. Fauquier, J. Baker, I. Biedron, J. Durban, P. Hamilton, A. Henry, A. Knowlton, W.
McLellan, C. Miller, R. Pace, H. Pettis, S. Raverty, R. Rolland, R. Schick, S. Sharp, C. Smith, L. Thomas,
J. van der Hoop, and M. Ziccardi. 2021. REVIEW Assessing North Atlantic right whale health: threats, and
development of tools critical for conservation of the species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 143:205–226.
Morano, J. L., A. N. Rice, J. T. Tielens, B. J. Estabrook, A. Murray, B. L. Roberts, and C. W. Clark. 2012.
Acoustically Detected Year-Round Presence of Right Whales in an Urbanized Migration Corridor: Right
Whales in Massachusetts Bay. Conservation Biology 26:698-707.
Murray, K.T. 2020. Estimated magnitude of sea turtle interactions and mortality in US bottom trawl gear, 20142018. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-260. 19pp
NEFMC. 1998. Final: amendment #11 to the northeast multispecies fishery management plan - amendment #9 to the
Atlantic sea scallop fishery management plan - amendment #1 to the monkfish fishery management plan components of the proposed Atlantic herring fishery management plan for Essential Fish Habitat
incorporating the Environmental Assesment. Saugus, Massachusetts.
Newton, J. G., O. H. Pilkey, and J. O. Blanton. 1971. An oceanographic atlas of the Carolina and continental
margin. North Carolina Dept. of Conservation and Development, Raleigh, NC.
NMFS. 1996. Harvesting the Value-added Potential of Atlantic Hagfish.
NMFS. 1999. Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. NMFS, Washington, DC.
NMFS. 2002. Workshop on the effects of fishing gear on marine habitats off the Northeastern United States October
23-25, 2001 Boston, Massachusetts. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
NMFS. 2003. Status of fisheries resources off Northeaster United States - Scup. Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
NMFS. 2004. Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf,
and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat.
NMFS. 2005. A message from the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS' Report on the Status of the
U. S. Fisheries for 2004, 2005.
NMFS. 2011. Preliminary Summer 2010 Regional Abundance Estimate of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) in
Northwestern Atlantic Ocean Continental Shelf Waters.in N. M. F. S. Northeast and Southeast Fisheries
Science Centers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, editor., Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
NMFS. 2013. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Source Document for the Critical Habitat
Designation: A review of information pertaining to the definition of “critical habitat”. December
2012.166pp.
NMFS. 2014. NMFS-Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO). Memo to the record: Determination
regarding reinitiation of Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on 12 GARFO fisheries and two
Northeast Fisheries Science Center funded fisheries research surveys due to critical habitat designation for
loggerhead sea turtles. Memo issued September 17, 2014.
NMFS. 2015a. Endangered Species Act Section 4(b)(2) Report: Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic
Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office and Southeast Regional Office, December
2015. http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2016/January/16narwchsection4_b__2_report0126
16.pdf
NMFS. 2015b. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Source Document for the Critical
Habitat Designation: A review of information pertaining to the definition of “critical habitat” Prepared by
National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Southeast Regional
Office, July 2015.NMFS. 2017. 62nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (62nd SAW)

170

Assessment Summary Report.US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods
Hole, MA.
NMFS. 2017b. Process for Post-Interaction Mortality Determinations of Sea Turtles Bycaught in Trawl, Net, and
Pot/Trap Fisheries, 02-110-21.
NMFS, and USFWS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle
(Caretta caretta), Second Revision., National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Endangered Species Act status review
of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service Office of
Protected Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NMFS 2021. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the: (a) Authorization of the American Lobster,
Atlantic Bluefish, Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, Monkfish, Northeast
Multispecies, Northeast Skate Complex, Spiny Dogfish, Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass, and Jonah
Crab Fisheries and (b) Implementation of the New England Fisheries Management Council’s Omnibus
Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. NMFS GARFO May 28, 2021.
NMFS STSSN database. 2021. Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, NMFS, NOAA, queried May 11, 2021.
Nordstrom, B., M. C. James, and B. Worm. 2020. Jellyfish distribution in space and time predicts leatherback sea
turtle hot spots in the Northwest Atlantic. PLOS ONE 15:e0232628.
Oedekoven, C., E. Fleishman, P. Hamilton, J. Clark, and R. Schick. 2015. Expert elicitation of seasonal abundance
of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis in the mid- Atlantic. Endangered Species Research
29:51-58.
Pace, R. M., 3rd, P. J. Corkeron, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline
in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and Evolution 7:8730-8741.
Pace, RM. 2021. Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model: improvements for
hypothesis testing. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE 269.
Pace, R. M., R. Williams, S. D. Kraus, A. R. Knowlton, and H. M. Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic
right whales:e346.
Palka, D. 2012. Cetacean abundance estimates in US northwestern Atlantic Ocean waters from summer 2011 line
transect survey. Page 37 in N. F. S. C. R. D. US Dept Commer, editor.Palsbøll, P. J., J. Allen, M. Berube,
P. J. Clapham, T. P. Feddersen, P. S. Hammond, R. R. Hudson, H. Jørgensen, S. Katona, A. H. Larsen, F.
Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, J. Sigurjonsson, R. Sears, T. Smith, R. Sponer, P. Stevick, and N. Øien.
1997. Genetic tagging of humpback whales. Nature 388:767-769.
Paquet, D., C. Haycock, and H. Whitehead. 1997. Numbers and seasonal occurrence of humpback whales,
Megaptera novaeangliae, off Brier Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:548–552.
Parker, R. O., A. J. Chester, and R. S. Nelson. 1994. A video transect method for estimating reef fish abundance,
composition, and habitat utilization at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Georgia. Fishery Bulletin
92:787-799.
Parker, R. O., and S. W. Ross. 1986. Observing Reef Fishes from Submersibles Off North Carolina. Northeast Gulf
Science 8.
Patel, S.H., Winton, M.V., Hatch, J.M. et al. Projected shifts in loggerhead sea turtle thermal habitat in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean due to climate change. Sci Rep 11, 8850 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598021-88290-9
Payne, P. M., J. R. Nicolas, L. O'Brien, and K. D. Powers. 1986. The distribution of the humpback whale,
Megaptera novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand eel,
Ammodytes americanus. Fishery Bulletin 84:271- 227.
Perry, S. L., D. P. DeMaster, and G. K. Silber. 1999. The Great Whales: History and Status of Six Species Listed as
Endangered Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Marine Fisheries Review 61:74.

171

Pershing, A. J., and K. Stamieszkin. 2020. The North Atlantic Ecosystem, from Plankton to Whales. Annual Review
of Marine Science 12:annurev-marine-010419-010752.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, and P. K. Hamilton. 2018a. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018 Annual
Report Card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, and P. K. Hamilton. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual Report
Card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. I. Pace, R. S. Schick, and P. K. Hamilton. 2018b. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2017
annual report card.
Pettis, H. M., R. M. Rolland, P. K. Hamilton, A. R. Knowlton, E. A. Burgess, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. Body
condition changes arising from natural factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right
whales Eubalaena glacialis. Endangered Species Research 32:237-249.
Pilskaln, C. H., J. H. Churchill, and L. M. Mayer. 1998. Resuspension of sediment by bottom trawling in the Gulf of
Maine and potential geochemical consequences. Conservation Biology 12:1223-1229.
Plourde, S., C. Lehoux, C. L. Johnson, G. Perrin, and V. Lesage. 2019. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) and its food: (I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging habitats in
Canadian waters. 00:19.
Ramp, C., and R. Sears. 2013. Distribution, densities, and annual occurrence of individual blue whales (Balaenoptera
musculus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada from 1980-2008. Page 37 in C. S. A. Secretariat, editor.,
Quebec Region, Canada.
Record, N. R., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z.
Feng, S. Kraus, R. Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 2019. Rapid
Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography 32.Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, and R. L. Brownell Jr. 1998. Recovery plan for the blue
whale (Balaenoptera musculus). NMFS, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Risch, D., C.W. Clark, P.J. Dugan, M. Popescu, U. Siebert, S.M. Van Parijs. 2013. Mike whale acoustic behavior
and multi-year seasonal and diel vocalization patterns in Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 489:279-295.
Risch, D., M. Castellote, C. W. Clark, G. E. Davis, P. J. Dugan, L. E. W. Hodge, A. Kumar, K. Lucke, D. K.
Mellinger, S. L. Nieukirk, C. M. Popescu, C. Ramp, A. J. Read, A. N. Rice,
M. A. Silva, U. Siebert, K. M. Stafford, H. Verdaat, and S. M. Van Parijs. 2014. Seasonal migrations of North
Atlantic minke whales: novel insights from large-scale passive acoustic monitoring networks. Movement
Ecology 2.
Risk, M. J., D. E. McAllister, and L. Behnken. 1998. Conservation of cold- and warm-water seafans: Threatened
ancient gorgonian groves. Sea Wind 10:2-21.
Robbins, J., A. R. Knowlton, and S. Landry. 2015. Apparent survival of North Atlantic right whales after
entanglement in fishing gear. Biological Conservation 191:421-427.
Robbins, J., S. Landry, and D. K. Mattila. 2009. Estimating entanglement mortality from scar- based studies.
International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Madeira, Portugal.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., A. Charpentier, D. Bernal-Casasola, A. Gardeisen, C. Nores, J. A. P. Millán, K. McGrath, and
C. F. Speller. 2018. Forgotten Mediterranean calving grounds of grey and North Atlantic right whales:
evidence from Roman archaeological records. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B
Biological Sciences 285.
Rogers, S. I., M. J. Kaiser, and S. Jennings. 1998. Ecosystem effects of demersal fishing: a European perspective.
Pages 68-78 in E. D. Dorsey and J. Pederson, editors. Effect of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New
England. Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts.

172

Rolland, R. M., W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, C. A. Harms, E. A. Burgess, and K. E. Hunt. 2017. Fecal
glucocorticoids and anthropogenic injury and mortality in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis.
Endangered Species Research 34:417-429.
Rolland, R. M., S. E. Parks, K. E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P. J. Corkeron, D. P. Nowacek, S. K. Wasser, and S. D.
Kraus. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci 279:2363-2368.
Rolland, R. M., R. S. Schick, H. M. Pettis, A. R. Knowlton, P. K. Hamilton, J. S. Clark, and S. D. Kraus. 2016.
Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: from individual health to
demographic and population health trends. Marine Ecology Progress Series 542:265-282.
Rumohr, H., and P. Krost. 1991. Experimental evidence of damage to benthos by bottom trawling with special
reference to Arctica islandica. Meeresforschung 33:340-345.
SAFMC. 1998. Final Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in the Fishery Management
Plans of the South Atlantic Region: Amendment 3 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 1
to the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 10 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management
Plan; Amendment 10 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 1 to the
Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan; and Amendment 4 to the Coral, Coral reefs, and Live/Hard
Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan (Including Final ES/SEIS, RIR, & SIA/FIS).in
S. A. F. M. Council, editor. Charleston.Schweitzer, C. C., R. N. Lipcius, and B. G. Stevens. 2018. Impacts of a
multi-trap line on benthic habitat containing emergent epifauna within the Mid-Atlantic Bight. ICES
Journal of Marine Science.
Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and update status report on the blue whale
Balaenoptera musculus, Atlantic population and Pacific poulation, in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa 38 pp.
Sharp, S., W. McLellan, D. Rotstein, A. Costidis, S. Barco, K. Durham, T. Pitchford, K. Jackson, P. Daoust, T.
Wimmer, E. Couture, L. Bourque, T. Frasier, B. Frasier, D. Fauquier, T. Rowles, P. Hamilton, H. Pettis,
and M. Moore. 2019. Gross and histopathologic diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena
glacialis mortalities between 2003 and 2018. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 135:1-31.
Short, F. T., K. Matso, H. M. Hoven, J. Whitten, D. M. Burdick, and C. A. Short. 2001. Lobster use of eelgrass
habitat in the Piscataqua River on the New Hampshire/Maine border, USA. Estuaries 24:277-284.
Steneck, R. S., and C. Wilson. 1998. Why are there so many lobsters in Penobscot Bay? Pages 72-75 in D. D. Platt,
editor. Rim of the Gulf – Restoring Estuaries in the Gulf of Maine. The Island Institute, Rockland, ME.
Stephenson, F., A. C. Mill, C. L. Scott, N. V. C. Polunin, and C. Fitzsimmons. 2017. Experimental potting impacts
on common UK reef habitats in areas of high and low fishing pressure. ICES Journal of Marine Science
74:1648-1659.
Stone, K. M., S. M. Leiter, R. D. Kenney, B. C. Wikgren, J. L. Thompson, J. K. D. Taylor, and S. D. Kraus. 2017.
Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21:527-543.
Tanaka KR, Torre MP, Saba VS, Stock CA, Chen Y. 2020. An ensemble high‐resolution 634 projection of changes
in the future habitat of American lobster and sea scallop in the Northeast 635 US continental shelf.
Diversity and Distributions.
TEWG, (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtles population in the Atlantic
ocean. Page 116. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida.
The Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Working Group, N. 2018. Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) Status Assessment. Conservation Science Partners and the Wider Caribbean Sea
Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST), Godfrey, Illinois.
The Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Working Group, N. 2019. Dermochelys coriacea (Northwest Atlantic Ocean
subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T46967827A83327767.
Theroux, R. B., and M. D. Grosslein. 1987. Benthic fauna. Pages 283-295 in R. H. B. a. D. W. Bourne, editor.
Georges Bank. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

173

Theroux, R. B., and R. L. Wigley. 1998. Quantitative composition and distribution of the macrobenthic invertebrate
fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the northeastern United States. . Page 240 in U. S. D.
Commerce, editor.
Tiwari, M., B. P. Wallace, and M. Girondot. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea (Northwest Atlantic Ocean
subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T46967827A46967830.
van der Hoop, J., P. Corkeron, and M. Moore. 2017. Entanglement is a costly life-history stage in large whales. Ecol
Evol 7:92-106.
Waring, G. T., R. A. DiGiovanni Jr, E. Josephson, S. Wood, and J. R. Gilbert. 2015. US Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2014.
Waring, G. T., C. P. Fairfield, C. M. Ruhsam, and M. Sano. 1993. Sperm whales associated with Gulf Stream
features off the northceastern USA shelf. Fisheries Oceanography 2:101- 105.
Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine
mammal stock assessments 2010.Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2012. U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2011.
Waring, G. T., J. M. Quintal, and C. P. Fairfield. 2002. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock
assessments: 2002. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
Watkins, W. A., and W. E. Schevill. 1976. Right whale feeding and baleen rattle. Journal of Mammalogy 57:58-66.
Watwood, S. L., P. J. O. Miller, M. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, and P. L. Tyack. 2006. Deep-diving foraging behaviour
of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Journal of Animal Ecology 75:814–825.
Weinrich, M. T. K., R. D.; Hamilton, P. K. 2000. Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) on Jeffreys Ledge: a habitat of
unrecognized importance? Marine Mammal Science 16:11.
Wigley, R. L., and R. B. Theroux. 1981. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States – macrobenthic
invertebrate fauna of the middle Atlantic bight region – faunal composition and quantitative distribution
pp., 1981. Page 198.
Wikgren, B., H. Kite-Powell, and S. Kraus. 2014. Modeling the distribution of the North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis off coastal Maine by areal co-kriging. Endangered Species Research 24:21-31.
Wishner, K. F., E. Durbin, A. Durbin, M. Macaulay, H. Winn, and R. Kenney. 1988. Copepod patches and right
whales in the Great South Channel off New England. Bulletin of Marine Science 43:825-844.
Wishner, K. F., J. R. Schoenherr, R. Beardsley, and C. Chen. 1995. Abundance, distribution and population structure
of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus in a springtime right whale feeding area in the southwestern Gulf of
Maine. Continental Shelf Research 15:475-507.
Woodley, T. H., and D. E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin whale habitat
in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:75-84.

174

CHAPTER 5 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for a proposed federal action to evaluate the impacts of the action with respect to its
biological, economic, and social components. This Final EIS (FEIS) analyzes the impacts of
proposed modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) on four
valued ecosystem components (VECs): large whales, other protected species (i.e. other marine
mammals and sea turtles), the physical environment and essential fish habitat, and human
communities. As detailed in Chapter 3, the two action alternatives considered in this FEIS both
were drawn largely from proposals provided to NMFS by New England states following some of
the principles of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team’s (ALWTRT) April 2019
recommendations. The Alternatives were selected because, using the Decision Support Tool
(DST), these suites of measures which include ongoing and anticipated fishery management
measures, measures that will be regulated by Maine and Massachusetts, and the benefits of the
Massachusetts Restricted Area, achieve or exceed a minimum of 60 percent risk reduction
necessary to help reduce impacts to right whales to below the potential biological removal level
of 0.8 serious injury or mortality per year.
Of foremost concern to this evaluation is the direct effect of the potential regulations on reducing
the likelihood that North Atlantic right whales (hereafter referred to as right whale will be killed,
seriously injured, or experience sub-lethal impacts as a result of entanglement in lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot commercial fishing gear in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area
(Northeast Region). It is also necessary to consider whether new regulations could indirectly
affect this species by exposing it to different risks or by altering the habitat upon which it
depends. In addition, it is important to examine the potential effect that changes in Plan
regulations might have on other aspects of the marine environment.
This chapter analyzes the alternatives’ impacts on three of the VECs, evaluating the impact of
potential modifications to the Plan on the biological and physical VECs (Human communities
are evaluated in Chapter 6) and is organized as follows:
•

•
•

Section 5.1 discusses the changes to the Alternatives between the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to this FEIS. The discussion that follows presents an evaluation
of these impacts using the NMFS DST (See Section 3.1.2 and Appendix 3.1 for model
documentation). The DST assesses risk associated with an overlap between whale habitat
density and Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot buoy lines to help
characterize baseline entanglement risk and the impact of alternative management
measures. For this analysis, 2017 represents the baseline for the number of lines and gear
configurations because it represents the best available data for comparing the reduction
entanglement risk and severity among all alternatives. The right whale habitat density
model (right whale density model, version 11) used in this FEIS includes the most recent
available data from 2010 to 2018 (Roberts et al. 2020).
Section 5.2 provides a description of how the DST was used for the biological analysis.
Section 5.3 evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of risk reduction alternatives. The
effects of revised Plan regulations on Atlantic large whales, including right whales, are
evaluated by comparing the potential impacts of each of the regulatory alternatives under
175

consideration, including NMFS' preferred alternative, against the 2017 risk reduction
baseline (representing status quo; Section 5.3.1). The chapter also discusses other
potential impacts on marine resources − including impacts on other protected species
(Section 5.3.2) and essential fish habitat (Section 5.3.3) − and compares the alternatives
with respect to these impacts.
Section 5.4 evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of the gear marking alternatives.
Section 5.5 provides a summary of impacts.

•
•

As described in Chapter 3, the ALWTRT agreed at the April 2019 meeting that there are a few
areas where existing regulations or current effort reduction measures since 2017 should
contribute toward the overall risk reduction analyzed here. This includes ongoing buoy line
reduction that is occurring as a result of fishery management actions (e.g. trap reductions) as well
as state measures that will reduce right whale entanglement risk (e.g. state implemented
measures). The value of Massachusetts Restricted Area which was implemented in 2015 is also
considered. However, the economic analysis in Chapter 6 considers the economic impacts of
only those measures that would be implemented to modify the Take Reduction Plan by federal
rulemaking.

5.1 Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
NMFS received numerous comments from a diverse set of interested parties during the public
scoping and public comment periods on the DEIS. The comments included both formal written
comments as well as oral comments offered at public hearings. Those comments are summarized
in Appendices 1.1 and 3.4. These comments were taken into consideration with a new round of
analyses described and justified in Chapter 3, Section 3.3. The results of these analyses and the
public comment period informed the final alternatives included in this FEIS. Responsive to
comments, the modifications to the DEIS for the FEIS prioritized use of an updated right whale
density model to estimate risk reduction for right whales; the updated right whale population
status including information on unobserved mortalities; feasibility of implementation and safety
concerns (particularly for small entities) that could be ameliorated by conservation
equivalencies; and consideration of indirect effects of measures that may adversely increase cooccurrence between buoy lines and whales.
Gear marking alternatives analyzed for the FEIS are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Marking gear
does not reduce risk but if marked gear is retrieved from entangled whales it can provide
information about where entanglement incidents occur. Alternative 2 (Preferred) and the Final
Rule would increase the number of marks required in federal water compared to the Proposed
Rule but have lesser impacts within the scope of impacts considered for the buoy line
replacement analyzed in Alternative 3 in the DEIS and retained as Alternative 3 in this FEIS.
Modifications to the risk reduction measures in Alternative 2 in this FEIS relative to Alternative
2 in the DEIS includes:
•

The proposed seasonal restricted area south of Cape Cod in this Alternative is larger than
the restricted area analyzed within the DEIS Preferred Alternative, coming instead from
DEIS Alternative 3.
176

•
•

•

•

The removal of the requirement for a weak link at the buoy, which was analyzed as part
of Alternative 3 in the DEIS.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 2 exchanging new trawl length requirements
with more expansive weak insert requirements throughout the LMA
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 3 that would require more traps per trawl than
in the DEIS within the Georges Basin area that was analyzed as a restricted area in
Alternative 3 of the DEIS. This increase in number of traps per trawl was offset by a
lower number of traps required within the Northeast Region south of the 50 fathom
depth contour on the south end of Georges Bank.
Adoption of conservation equivalency recommendations submitted as public comments
on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for Maine waters in LMA 1, including modification of
regulations implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
(ACFCMA) at 50 CFR 697.21(b)(2) requiring two buoy lines on trawls with more than
three pots to accommodate Maine conservation equivalency options. This would allow
the use of half the minimum number of traps required with two buoy lines if only one
buoy line is used. Other differences in the FEIS Alternative 2 compared to the DEIS are
trade-offs in the number of traps on a trawl based on Maine fishery zones and distance
from shore between the Maine exemption line and the 12 nautical mile line (22.2
kilometer line, see the description of conservation). See Section 3.3.2 for a more detailed
description of the complex trawl length and weak line requirements proposed and
implemented in this FEIS.

Changes in Alternative 3 risk reduction elements analyzed in this FEIS relative to the DEIS
Alternative 3 include retaining the weak link at the buoy or allowing it to be lowered to the base
of the surface system and retaining only one South Island Restricted Area closure. Additionally,
Alternative 3 retained only the seasonal weak line option in LMA 3 because the other option is
analyzed in the preferred alternative and includes the special expansion of the MRA into state
waters as implemented by state Regulations (see Table 3.5).
The only gear marking alternative that changed between the DEIS and FEIS is Alternative 2. The
DEIS only required one 6 inch (15.2 centimeters) green mark to be included in state waters
within the top two fathoms of the buoy. In the FEIS, gear in federal waters would be required to
include at least four 1 foot long (30.5 centimeter) green marks within 6 inches (15.2 centimeters)
of each state specific mark. The number of marks in federal waters has increased from the DEIS
(four 1 foot/30.5 centimeter marks instead of one 6 inch/15.2 centimeter marks). This change is
responsive to concerns about distinguishing state and federal buoy lines, identified during public
hearings. Additionally, recently retrieved gear from a right whale included gear marks of 6 and 9
inches long (15.2 and 22.9 centimeters, inconsistent with current U.S. gear marking requirements
but consistent with past Canadian gear marks. Use of a minimum of a 12 inch (30.5 centimeter)
mark in U.S. commercial fisheries could help distinguish U.S. marks from Canadian gear. The
change is within the scope of impacts analyzed within the DEIS, and would increase gear
specialists’ ability to distinguish state from federal waters than Alternative 2 in the DEIS. For
more information on the details of the alternatives, changes from the DEIS, and on the comments
received from the public see Chapter 3 and Appendix 1.1 and Volume 3.
177

5.2 Evaluating Impacts of the Alternatives
The discussion of the biological impacts of new Plan requirements on the biological VECs
included in this analysis is largely qualitative. This approach is similar to past analyses of Plan
modifications and is necessary because, while the DST was designed to quantitatively analyze
changes in entanglement risk as a result of different management actions, uncertainties in the
underlying data sources prevent precise risk reduction estimates but provide a comparison of
relative risk reduction between options. The DST does not provide a precise analysis of
biological effects. The DST is also limited in its capacity to assess the impact of the alternatives
on other protected species or marine habitats because it was built specifically for analyzing
entanglement risk to right whales and other large whales. Some quantitative criteria from the
DST can be applicable to entanglement risk for other species that are not built into the DST?,
such as sea turtles, including percent reduction in lines but other criteria are species or VEC
specific. Therefore the analysis of other protected species and habitats primarily rely upon
qualitative data.
The analyses within this FEIS will use the same metrics used for previous analyses of ALWTRP
modifications, including changes in line numbers and co-occurrence based on sightings data and
vertical buoy line distribution data from the IEc Vertical Line Model. This analysis uses a right
whale density model (version 11, Roberts et al. 2020) in lieu of a layer based on whale sightings
per unit effort, which differs from the DEIS and previous analyses. The right whale density
model is an improvement upon the whale distribution model used in the DEIS because it uses a
more recent time frame (2010-2018) and provides better predictions of whale density in areas
where there is lower monitoring effort. This also addresses the comments received during the
comment period that requested the use of updated data for the analyses included in the FEIS. The
DST also includes a humpback density model and a fin whale density model for the period of
1999 through 2017 (Roberts et al. 2017), though the fin whale density model currently does not
support the use of a gear threat model and can only be used to examine co-occurrence. As such,
the potential biological impacts of the alternatives on large whales were assessed primarily with
the DST, described below, generating both qualitative and qualitative measures.
As indicated previously and endorsed by the Team, the Alternatives in this FEIS include line
reduction that occurred as a result of fishery management actions (e.g. trap reductions) as well as
state measures that will reduce right whale entanglement risk (e.g. state implemented measures).
However, the analysis only includes measures implemented since 2017. This does not match the
risk reduction estimates within the DEIS for Alternative 2 because it does not include the
Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA) credit. The risk reduction estimates for Alternative 3
already used the 2017 baseline because it did not include the MRA credit and therefore data in
Chapter 5 match those presented in Chapter 3. This allows for a comparison between alternatives
using the same baseline year, 2017. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not include state
implemented measures if they are less conservative than Alternative 3 measures, such as weak
rope measures. This alternative analyzed options that offered greater risk reduction for those
specific measures and relied largely on new measures, with the exception of the extension of the
MRA north into Massachusetts State waters to the New Hampshire border. The economic
analysis in Chapter 6 only considers the economic impacts of only those measures that would be
178

implemented to modify the Take Reduction Plan by federal rulemaking, though it does report the
cost of new gear marking in Maine State waters.
Table 5.1: Criteria used to compare the risk reduction impact of the proposed alternatives on large whales.
Type
Measure
Species and/or VEC
Criteria
Right, humpback, and fin whales ● Change in co-occurrence
Entanglement Trawl up
Risk Reduction
Right and humpback whales
● Relative risk reduction
All VECs
● Relative reduction in lines
Planned fishery
Right, humpback, and fin whales ● Change in co-occurrence
management trap
reductions
Right and humpback
● Relative risk reduction
All VECs
● Relative reduction in lines
Time/area closures to
Right, humpback, and fin whales ● Change in co-occurrence
buoy lines
Right and humpback
● Relative risk reduction
Right whales
● Recent sightings data
Line cap
Right, humpback, and fin whales ● Change in co-occurrence
Right and humpback whales
● Relative risk reduction
All VECs
● Relative reduction in lines
Right whales
● Mean line threat
Entanglement Weak insert
Severity
Reduction
Right whales
● Total change in gear threat
All VECs
● Change in overall line
strength
All VECs
● % of line above weak point
Right and humpback whales
● Relative risk reduction
Full length weak rope
Right whales
● Mean line threat
Right whales
● Total change in gear threat
All VECs
● Change in overall line
strength
All VECs
● % of line above weak point
Right and humpback whales
● Relative risk reduction
All VECs
● % increase in new marks
Gear Marking New marking scheme

The following analysis measures the impacts of the action alternatives relative to Alternative 1,
the No Action Alternative, against the 2017 baseline conditions and provides the absolute impact
of the Alternative (i.e. not in relation to Alternative 1) in the final comparisons of the measures.
In some instances, and consistent with past practice, quantitative indicators of the impact of
alternative regulations are provided, including percent changes in number of buoy lines, cooccurrence (for right, humpback, and fin whales only), as well as relative risk reduction (for right
and humpback whales only) as proxies for indicators of risk of entanglement. Change in mean
line strength for all VECs as well as change in mean line threat and total gear threat for the
relative risk of mortality and serious injury to right whales. Quantitative measures that were
possible for large whales are listed in Table 5.1 and described in more detail in sections 5.2.1 and
5.2.2. These indicators do not measure biological changes in entanglement risks or actual
encounter rate, but offer useful information on factors that likely, based on expert opinion,
correlate with such risks and allow comparison between alternatives. Percent reduction in buoy
line and strength was also used to assess relative impact of the alternatives on other protected
species, where no risk or co-occurrence measure was available.
179

Qualitative analyses were used where quantitative data was not available or sufficient. The
impacts of the risk reduction and gear marking alternatives are first examined for each VEC and
the summary of impacts on all VECs is discussed in section 5.4.

Use of NMFS Decision Support Tool
The DST was created by NMFS in 2019 to assess the impact of management measures on
entanglement risk in northeast waters of the U.S. This model built upon the co-occurrence model
originally developed by Industrial Economics, Inc (see Appendix 5.1 for a description of the IEc
Vertical Line Model). Improvements to the model were made after an independent peer review
was conducted in late 2019 by the Center for Independent Experts. Documentation of the DST
can be found in Appendix 3.1 and output from model runs are in Appendix 3.2. The DST
addresses the following types of questions related to our biological analysis:
•
•
•
•
•

Where and how do Northeast lobster and Jonah crab fisheries operate?
Where are concentrations of buoy line the greatest?
Which areas have the highest predicted overlap between whale density and the high
concentrations of buoy lines?
How much does the strength of buoy line and gear configuration impact the likely
severity of an entanglement?
What is the relative change in entanglement risk expected for different types of
management measures?

Through the integration of information on fishing activity and gear configurations, this model
characterizes geographic and temporal variations in fishing effort within the lobster and Jonah
crab fisheries and the distribution of fishing line in the Northeast Region subject to the Plan. The
DST also incorporates information on predicted whale densities (Roberts et al. 2020) and
identifies areas and times when whales and commercial fishing gear are likely to co-occur. There
are three options for whale layers: one spans from 2003 through 2018, one from 2003 through
2009, and one from 2010 through 2018. The alternatives in this FEIS were all developed using
the most recent right whale data, 2010 through 2018. The DST also includes a humpback density
model and a fin whale density model for the period of 1999 through 2017 (Roberts et al. 2017).
The fin whale density model currently does not support the use of a gear threat model and can
only be used to examine co-occurrence. The model has been updated since and analyses in this
chapter were run in high resolution with DST model version 3.1.0, line model version 3.0.0, and
the 2010 to 2018 right whale density model version 11 (Appendix 3.1, Roberts et al. 2020). See
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.3 for more information on how the DST was used in this FEIS. The data
in this chapter primarily differs from Chapter 3 in that it uses the same baseline line model (the
2017 line model without data within the MRA) in order to compare the impact alternatives with
the same baseline.
The DST also contains a gear threat model that takes into account the strength of lines used in
the fishery and how that relates to likely severity of entanglement. The DST’s final product is a
set of indicators that provide information on factors that contribute to the risk of entanglement at
various locations and at different points in time. These indicators, in particular the number of
180

buoy lines in an area, predicted whale density, resultant co-occurrence score, a gear threat score,
and an overall risk reduction score for management scenarios, are assumed to represent the
relative spatial and temporal risk and severity of entanglement. They provide a basis for
comparing the impact of alternative management measures on the potential for entanglements to
occur and the likely severity of the entanglement. Readers interested in additional information on
the model’s structure, data, assumptions, and methods should consult its documentation in
Appendix 3.1.

Evaluation of Weak Rope
Alternatives 2 and 3 propose introductions of weak rope or weak inserts for lobster and Jonah
crab buoy lines throughout the Northeast Region. This is consistent with ALWTRT
recommendations for region-wide measures that would protect right whales while outside of
known aggregation areas and would be precautionary as right whale distribution continues to
shift.
Proposed measures that modify the strength of rope used for trap/pot fisheries were analyzed
quantitatively and/or qualitatively, depending on the VEC. Lowering the strength of rope does
not reduce the risk of encounter and interaction between whales and line nor does it change cooccurrence. The intention of these measures is to reduce the potential health impact an
entanglement has on some large whale species, particularly right whales, by increasing the
chances that an entangled individual can break free of any constricting gear without resulting in a
serious injury or mortality. Knowlton et al. (2016) documented the greatest frequency of
mortality and serious injury of right whales in lines with a breaking strength greater than 1,700
pounds (771 kilograms) and suggested that large scale introduction of weak rope across fisheries
could reduce serious injuries and mortalities by up to 72 percent. This is consistent with
estimates of the force that large whales are capable of applying, based on axial locomotor muscle
morphology study conducted by Arthur et al. (2015). The authors suggested that the maximum
force output for a large, adult right whale is likely sufficient to break line at that breaking
strength. That study and others recognized that success in breaking free is also somewhat
dependent on the complexity of the entanglement (van der Hoop et al. 2017b).
Alternatives 2 and 3 propose introductions of weak rope or weak inserts for lobster and Jonah
crab buoy lines throughout the Northeast Region. This is consistent with ALWTRT
recommendations for region-wide measures that would protect right whales while outside of
known aggregation areas and would be precautionary as right whale distribution continues to
shift.
The DST attempts to quantitatively estimate the benefit of weakened buoy lines by using a gear
threat model for right and humpback whales and was developed from the data used in Knowlton
et al. (2016). However, a similar model is not available for all species included in the FEIS.
Furthermore, although empirical evidence supports the theory that weakened line would reduce
mortality and serious injury of right whales, without additional quantitative data to estimate how
different forms of weak rope or weak inserts will impact the outcome of an entanglement for
different species or age classes, additional analysis of these measures is done qualitatively within
the context of the empirical data that are available. Current research on fishing gear strength was
181

primarily used as the standard against which the measures were evaluated, particularly
evaluating how close the proposed measures compare to the types of weakened line
recommended by current research (i.e., lines with breaking strength no greater than 1,700
pounds/771 kilograms).
This analysis uses the lower bound estimate calculated for weak rope measures that use inserts
that are not considered the equivalent of full weak line, which for this analysis is considered a
weak insert every 40 feet (12.2 meters, just below the average length and girth of a right whale).
This is because of the uncertainty of the proportion to full weak line used in these calculations
and how this approximates full weak line, but it also offers a better evaluation of whether this
alternative passes the minimum 60 percent risk reduction target. When possible, relative
reduction in mean line threat and total gear threat due to the addition of full weak line or the
equivalents is provided to assess the estimated change in risk of severe entanglement. Also
included is the average change in line strength in lobster and Jonah crab fisheries with each
alternative across the Northeast Region.

Impact Designation Descriptions
Using the criteria outlined above and summarized in Table 5.1, this FEIS analyzes the expected
impacts of the proposed alternatives for the biological VECs: large whales, other protected
species, and habitat as defined in Chapter 4. The economic VEC (Human Communities) is
discussed in Chapter 6 and integrated with the biological analysis in the summary of impacts in
Chapter 7. For each alternative, impacts to each VEC will be evaluated against the current
condition of the VEC (i.e., resource described in the affected environment), as well as relative to
the other alternatives proposed. Impacts are described both in terms of their direction (negative,
positive, or no impact) and their magnitude (slight, moderate, or high) based on the guidelines
shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1.

182

Table 5.2: A key of the direction and magnitude of the actions being assessed in the biological effects analysis.
MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act. PBR = potential biological removal level
General Definitions
VEC Resource
Direction of Impact
Condition
Positive (+)
Negative (-)
No Impact (0)
Large Whales For ESA listed
For ESA listed species:
For ESA listed species:
For ESA listed
species:
alternatives that contain
alternatives that result in species:
populations at risk
specific measures to ensure interactions/take of listed alternatives that
of extinction
no interactions with
resources, including
do not impact
(endangered) or
protected species (i.e., no
actions that reduce
ESA listed
endangerment
take). For MMPA
interactions. For MMPA species, For
(threatened). For
protected species:
protected species:
MMPA protected
MMPA protected
alternatives that will
alternatives that result in species:
species: stock
maintain takes below PBR
interactions with/take of alternatives that
health may vary
and approaching the Zero
marine mammals that
do not impact
but populations
Mortality Rate Goal
could result in takes
marine mammals
remain impacted
above PBR
Other Protected Same as large
Same as large whales
Same as large whales
Same as large
Species whales
whales
Habitat Many habitats
Alternatives that improve
Alternatives that degrade Alternatives that
degraded from
the quality or quantity of
the quality, quantity or
do not impact
historical effort
habitat
increase disturbance of
habitat quality
habitat
Human Highly variable but Alternatives that increase
Alternatives that
Alternatives that
Communities generally stable in
revenue and social welldecrease revenue and
do not impact
(Socio- recent years
being of fishermen and/or
social well-being of
revenue and social
economic)
communities
fishermen and/or
well-being of
communities
fishermen and/or
communities
Magnitude of
Impact
A range of Negligible
To such a small degree to
impact qualifiers
be indistinguishable from
is used to
no impact
indicate any Slight
To a lesser degree / minor
e.g. Slight Negative or
existing
Slight Positive
uncertainty Moderate
To an average degree (i.e.,
e.g. Moderate Negative
more than “slight”, but not
or Moderate Positive
“high”)
High
To a substantial degree (not e.g. High Negative or
significant unless stated)
High Positive
Significant
Affecting the resource
condition to a great degree,
see 40 CFR 1508.27.
Likely
Some degree of uncertainty
associated with the impact

Figure 5.1: A depiction of the relative directional magnitude of impacts on VECs

183

Large Whales and Other Protected Species
The impacts of the alternatives on protected species take into account impacts to ESA-listed
species, as well as impacts to non-ESA listed MMPA protected species in good condition (i.e.,
marine mammal stocks whose potential biological removal level (PBR) have not been exceeded)
or poor condition (i.e., marine mammal stocks that have exceeded or are near exceeding their
PBR). These impact descriptors apply to both the Large Whale and Other Protected Species
VECs.
ESA-Listed Species
For ESA-listed species, any action that results in interactions or take is expected to have negative
impacts, including actions that reduce but do not prevent interactions. Actions expected to result
in positive impacts on ESA-listed species include only those that contain specific measures to
ensure no interactions (i.e., no take). None of the alternatives considered in this document would
ensure no interactions with ESA-listed species. By definition, all ESA-listed species are in poor
condition and any take can negatively impact their recovery.
MMPA Protected Species
The stock conditions for marine mammals not listed under the ESA varies by species; however,
all are in need of protection. For non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks, negative impacts would
be expected from alternatives that result in the potential for interactions between fisheries and
those stocks. For species with PBR that have not been exceeded, alternatives not expected to
increase fishing behavior or effort may positively benefit the species by maintaining takes below
the PBR and approaching the zero mortality rate goal. However, none of the alternatives
considered in this document ensure no interactions with MMPA protected species, and therefore
would be expected to have negative impacts.
Habitat
Alternatives that improve the quality or quantity of habitat are expected to have positive impacts
on habitat. Alternatives that degrade the quality or quantity, increase disturbance of habitat, or
allow for continued fishing effort are expected to have negative impacts. A reduction in fishing
effort is likely to decrease the time that fishing gear is in the water, thus reducing the potential
for interactions between fishing gear and habitat.
Human Communities
Socioeconomic impacts are considered in relation to potential changes in landings, prices,
revenues, fishing opportunities. Alternatives which could lead to increased availability of target
species and/or an increase in catch per unit effort (CPUE) could lead to increased landings.
Increased landings are generally considered to have positive socioeconomic impacts because
they could result in increased revenues; however, if an increase in landings leads to a decrease in
price or a decrease in future availability for any of the landed species, then negative
socioeconomic impacts could also occur. Conservation measures that drastically reduce catch
184

and revenue may have negative impacts in the short term, but could ensure access to the fishery
in the future, potentially with fewer restrictions.
On the other hand, similar conservation measures could have different impacts on communities
depending on their vulnerability and resilience. Communities with lower income and higher
fishery dependency, like some island fishing villages in Northern Maine, would be more
sensitive to stricter restrictions. It takes longer for them to respond to changes than communities
with higher business diversity, like those in Southern Maine and Massachusetts.

5.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Risk Reduction
Alternatives
To determine the biological impacts of all alternatives on all VECs, we used the impact
designations outlined in Table 5.11. This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed
alternatives for the biological VECs: large whales, other protected species, and habitat as defined
in Chapter 4. The economic VEC (Human Communities) is discussed in Chapter 6 and
integrated with the biological analysis in the summary of impacts in Chapter 7.

Large Whales
As noted in Chapter 2, entanglements are a primary source of anthropogenic mortality and
serious injury for the right whale. The primary threat that Northeast Region Lobster and Jonah
crab trap/pot commercial fishing poses to Atlantic large whales is the risk of serious injuries and
mortalities due to incidental entanglement in buoy lines that mark the location of pots set singly
or in trawls along the bottom. According to the NMFS/IEc line model, lobster and Jonah crab
buoy lines make up an estimated 93 percent of the buoy lines offshore of the U.S. east coast
where right whales occur. Given the above, the regulatory changes under consideration are
designed to reduce harm to large whales by reducing the likelihood of entanglement and/or
reducing the severity of an entanglement should one occur. NMFS seeks to achieve these
objectives primarily through gear modifications that reduce the number of buoy lines and line
strength as well as through time/area closures to commercial lobster and Jonah crab fishing with
persistent buoy lines.
The discussion below examines the impact of these measures on large whale entanglement risks,
beginning with an evaluation of specific line reduction requirements and then turning to an
assessment of other restrictions. It is important to note that the No Action Alternative
(Alternative 1, status quo) would not achieve the objectives listed above. If Alternative 1 were
chosen, there would likely be continued incidents of mortality and serious injury to large whales
due to entanglement in commercial fishing gear at rates that exceed PBR, rather than a reduction
in these interactions. With no action, we would continue to have similar numbers of lethal and
non-lethal takes of right, fin, and humpback whales.
5.3.1.1

Buoy Line and Co-occurrence Reduction

Fixed buoy lines (i.e., line that hangs vertically in the water column, connected from a surface
flotation device to trap/pot gear set on the ocean floor) have been identified as an entanglement
185

threat to Atlantic large whales (Johnson et al. 2005). Reduction in buoy lines, therefore, has the
potential to reduce encounter and therefore entanglement risk to these species. As provided
below, buoy line reduction can be taken by numerous means (e.g., trawling up, line caps, or
seasonal line reductions through restricted areas). In the discussion to follow, the potential direct
and indirect effects of buoy line reduction provisions that involve gear modifications (by
trawling up or line caps), and those involving seasonal buoy line closure areas are examined.
Alternative 1 would maintain the status quo fishery. Under Alternative 1, high negative impacts
are expected because there would be high risk of entanglement as the number of buoy lines in the
water would remain the same (i.e. an average of 511,369 lines but a maximum of 925,924 at a
given time in the Northeast Region). Relative to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 (Preferred
and Non-preferred) include several buoy line reduction provisions to reduce the frequency of
whale entanglements. Specifically, relative to baseline levels fished in 2017 4, these provisions
would reduce the number of trap/pot buoy lines in areas and seasons where right whales are
present. As a result of public input during federal and state scoping as well as the public
comment period, in some waters, including the exempt area in coastal Maine, those fishing
closer to shore or around islands would not be subject to trawling up requirements and would be
able to continue traditional fishing practices. Measures in exempt Maine waters are implemented
by the state so, while risk reduction and line reduction includes those areas, the description of
buoy line reduction in this FEIS relevant to these alternatives only includes line reduction in
areas outside of Maine exempt waters. Alternative 2 (Preferred) within this FEIS analyzes many
of the conservation equivalency provisions proposed by Maine during the public comment
period. Those were incorporated into Alternative 2 for areas within 12 nautical miles (22.2
kilometers) in Maine LMA 1. This included the use of one or two buoy lines depending on the
number of traps on a trawl, where half the maximum number of traps could be included on a
trawl with the use of only one buoy line for trawls of up to ten traps. For the purposes of this
analysis, these two scenarios were considered to be equivalent and thus discussed
interchangeably with all trawl length measures.
Estimated 2017 buoy line numbers are evaluated within the lobster management area (LMA) in
which they are fished as well as by distance from shore. Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and
Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) reduce the number of buoy lines in the water through measures by:
(1) specifying an increase in the minimum number of traps per trawls (“trawling up”
requirements) by area and distance from shore, (2) implementing a total line allocation cap that is
half the current average of lines fished, or (3) implementing time/area closures to buoy lines.
Line reduction through existing or concurrent fishery management measures under the lobster
Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) are also considered toward risk reduction, particularly
including those measures that reduce latent effort and establish trap caps that reduce buoy lines
in LMAs 2 and 3.
All of these provisions would result in a decrease in the number of buoy lines in the water and
therefore reduce the likelihood of an entanglement. Alternative 2 (Preferred) line reduction
requirements differ slightly from Alternative 3 (Non-preferred). The former relies more on
4

The baseline year in which risk reduction is being measured is 2017. Estimated 2017 buoy line numbers are
evaluated within the lobster management area in which they are fished as well as by distance from shore.

186

trawling up measures along with new buoy line closures, and the latter includes a universal line
cap and more extensive restricted areas. Line reduction measures, including both trawling up and
localized seasonal line reduction through restricted areas, have changed in this FEIS from the
DEIS to address public comments but remain within the scope of the DEIS. Changes in
Alternative 2 include modifications to Massachusetts State measures and the use of conservation
equivalencies in LMA 2, LMA 3, and Maine’s LMA 1. Additionally the options considered for
the South Island Restricted Area have changed in both action alternatives: the original area
included in Alternative 2 in the DEIS was removed and replaced with the larger area in
Alternative 3.
5.3.1.1.1 Gear Modifications: Trawl Length and Line Caps
5.3.1.1.1.1 Direct
5.3.1.1.1.1.1 Trawling Up
The alternatives analyzed would in several cases institute restrictions designed to reduce the
number of buoy lines that are fished in the lobster and Jonah crab fishery. Table 5.3 identifies the
estimated monthly line reductions under Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 2 would limit the
number of lines in the Northeast Region by enacting new minimum trap/trawl requirements
based on area and distance to shore, with increasing traps/trawl with increasing distance from
shore. Differing from Alternative 2 in the DEIS, trawl length modifications are no longer
included in LMA 2 because broader use of weak line offered greater risk reduction in this
specific area and was substituted in lieu of minimum trawl requirements as a conservation
equivalency.
For LMA 3, both year-round (Alternative 2) and seasonal (Alternative 3) trawling up provisions
are analyzed. Relative to the analysis in the DEIS, Alternative 3 in this FEIS analyzes an LMA 3
conservation equivalency that changes the number of traps per trawl required by area, with
longer traps on trawls inside the Georges Basin Area (proposed as a seasonal restricted area in
Alternative 3), and shorter trawl lengths in the canyons south of Georges Bank deeper than 50
fathoms. The DEIS required a uniform 45 traps per trawl across the Northeast Region LMA 3.
This equivalency maintains an average trawl length of 44 traps in LMA 3 but get 1 percent more
in risk reduction due to the increased traps per trawl in the higher risk area of Georges Basin;
therefore it is considered to have an equivalent impact on entanglement risk reduction, with a
greater reduction occurring in an area identified as a hotspot.
Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) would also institute a buoy line allocation in federal waters set at
half the average monthly buoy lines in use by fishermen in 2017. This FEIS differs from the
DEIS as the analysis better estimates the relative reduction in buoy lines from a line cap only in
federal waters, whereas the data within the DEIS estimated line reduction for the entire Northeast
Region. While the line reduction estimate in Alternative 3 for this FEIS is lower than the
estimate that was in the DEIS, it is closer to the estimated reduction that would likely be
observed with these measures.
The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) developed the distance-from-shore trawling
up scenarios analyzed in the preferred alternative in the DEIS and proposed in the proposed rule
187

based on public input and safety concerns, while recognizing that offshore of Maine whale cooccurrence and associated risk increases with distance from shore. They included increases in
traps per trawl requirements with increasing distance from shore, primarily in federal and
offshore waters where vessels are larger and capable of safely handling larger trawls. Fishermen
in Maine identified these configurations as possible with their current vessel characteristics and
buoy lines, so that costly and substantial operational changes would not be necessary and
mitigating concerns about the introduction of stronger and riskier buoy lines for longer trawl
configurations. However, during the public comment period, Maine DMR modified their
recommendations informed by numerous stakeholder meetings held during 2020, and offered
conservation equivalencies. Alternative 2 (Preferred) analyzed within this FEIS retains the same
trawl length requirements in LMA 1 in Maine outside of 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers) but
has changed within 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers) to include trawl length configurations
based on Maine lobster management zone and distance from shore. Greater trawl lengths are
included in the areas farthest east and west within Maine waters. Although not obvious from the
DST results, reducing lines in these two areas may reduce more risk in the western Gulf of
Maine and waters closest to the Bay of Fundy than the trawling up configurations analyzed in the
DEIS. However, some areas within 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers), outside of Maine exempt
waters, will maintain status quo or shorter required trawl lengths than was analyzed in the DEIS
and proposed in the proposed rule. Overall, the analysis suggests that the risk reduction of Maine
DMR’s proposed conservation equivalencies in federal waters within 12 nautical miles (22.2
kilometers) offers the same risk reduction and is therefore considered equivalent to what was
analyzed in the DEIS. The modifications Maine DMR has identified demonstrates less risk
reduction within the sliver of non-exempt Maine State waters in the FEIS Alternative 2, but right
whale aggregations are far less likely this close to shore in Maine and weak insertions
maintained in all buoy lines within state waters continue to provide precautionary benefits (see
section 5.3.1.3 for a discussion of weak line).
Table 5.3: Monthly percent buoy line reduction of Alternatives 2 and 3 compared to Alternative 1 (i.e. status quo).
Note that the percentages are relative to the number of lines within that month and therefore not additive. All
changes in line numbers include the combined changes due to gear configurations and areas closed to persistent
buoy lines. Buoy line closures were assumed to relocate lines outside of the restricted area boundaries unless they
were in state waters. MRA “credit” for seasonal line reduction is not included.
Month
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
-9%
-16%
January
-6%
-5%
February
-6%
-6%
March
-7%
-10%
April
-12%
-19%
May
-13%
-20%
June
-12%
-15%
July
-15%
-15%
August
-7%
-6%
September
-6%
-4%
October
-6%
-4%
November
-6%
-4%
December
-7%
-7%
Total

188

Associated with the LMA 3 trawling up requirement, NMFS would extend the allowable
distance between buoy lines in LMA 3 to 1.75 miles (3.24 kilometers). Currently, lobster
fishermen are restricted to fishing ground lines of no more than 1.5 miles (2.78 kilometers).
While trawls with more than 45 traps are currently fished within this constraint, fishermen in
some areas might want to increase groundline between end traps to reduce the number of pots
hanging in the water upon hauling if weak line or weak inserts are implemented in buoy lines, or
they may want to increase their total trawl length to hold fishing ground. To allow LMA 3
vessels to optimize distance between traps, under both Alternative 2 and 3, the maximum length
between the buoy lines would be extended from 1.5 miles (2.78 kilometers) to 1.75 miles (3.24
kilometers).
Cumulatively, all line reductions estimated for Alternatives 2 and 3 through trawling up and line
caps, in addition to seasonal buoy line closure areas, will reduce the number of trap/pot buoy
lines in the Northeast Region by approximately 7 percent compared to the 2017 annual baseline
(Table 5.3). This does not include the estimated seasonal line reduction “credit” of the MRA, and
is substantially lower than the line reduction estimated in the DEIS because the line reduction
reported in the DEIS did not include Maine exempt waters and the change in the Alternative 3
line cap analysis to more accurately reflect that it occurs only in federal waters. The goal of these
different buoy line reduction approaches is to reduce the number of lines, co-occurrence, and
associated encounter rates of large whales with vertical trap/pot buoy lines (e.g., North Atlantic
right, humpback, and fin whales; see Table 5.5 for changes in co-occurrence). Alternative 2,
which includes the most trawling up measures, two new restricted areas and a spatial extension
of the MRA, would have a similar overall reduction in the number of buoy lines compared to the
aggressive line cap in federal waters that would be set under Alternative 3, though this varies by
month. Greater reductions are observed during the summer months in both alternatives, with a
monthly reduction from 6 to 15 percent under Alternative 2 and 4 to 20 percent under Alternative
3. Alternative 3 gets higher line reduction in summer because it retains seasonal trawling up
measures in LMA 3 in addition to line relocation through the seasonal closure in Georges Basin
from May through August. Alternative 2 gets marginally higher line and risk reduction in
September through December and in February, though the difference is relatively small.
Trawling up substantially will likely result in some areas with longer, heavier trawls than
baseline conditions. Heavier trawls, especially if buoy line strength also goes up (discussed in
indirect effects), could increase potential entanglement severity to all whales, including adults
but particularly calves and juveniles that may be more likely to survive an interaction with a
single trap than with a trawl made up of multiple traps. This concern, that trawling up could
create more severe interactions with right whales of all ages, was voiced by Team members as
well as at stakeholder meetings by fishermen and members of the public. Small neonate calves
are weak swimmers and lack the physical and behavioral developments that increase buoyancy
(Thomas 1984) – all traits that likely contribute to a whale’s ability to survive an interaction with
fishery gear. Similarly, minke whales are more likely to be impacted negatively by an interaction
with a long, heavy trap trawl compared to larger whale species. However, the decrease in the
number of buoy lines decreases overall risk of becoming entangled specifically in areas of high
co-occurrence, likely mitigating some of the possible increased risk from serious injury or death
if entangled. Additionally, in combination with weak rope or weak inserts, longer trawls are
189

more likely to allow a whale to break free of a trawl that is anchoring it in place. DeCew et al.
(2017) found that, in simulations of weak inserts with different weak points, longer trawls more
consistently broke free during an entanglement within a shorter period of time compared to
shorter trawls. This requires that there is a weak insert below the point where a whale becomes
entangled in the line given this is the area that would be most likely to break in the case of an
entanglement. This means that the location of the lowest weak insert is an important factor in
reducing the severity of an entanglement and is discussed further in Section 5.2.1.3. Finally,
input from fishermen at stakeholder meetings suggested that the trawling up requirements
included in the FEIS are less economically egregious because they can use their existing buoy
lines, suggesting that wholescale replacement of buoy lines for stronger rope is not necessary and
unlikely. Trawling up measures are likely to reduce entanglements and overall risk assuming
weak inserts reduce line strength and entanglement severity, as predicted.
5.3.1.1.1.1.2 Potential for trawling up not impacting buoy line numbers
As noted above, trawling up was required as a line reduction measure in the 2014 buoy line
modifications to the Plan, effective June 2015. Hayes et al. (2018) reviewed data that indicated
that draft buoy line estimates for 2016 prepared by IEC using the Co-occurrence Model were
higher than the pre-regulation baseline line estimates provided in the FEIS developed for the
2014 rulemaking (NMFS 2014). Hayes et al. (2018) suggested that the line reductions
anticipated in the rule, effective in June 2015, were not achieved. However, the line estimate in
the 2014 FEIS was based on fishery data from 2009 through 2011. Beginning in 2010, there was
a steady increase in abundance in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank lobster stock. This is the
stock fished in LMA 1 where the vast majority of buoy lines are fished. The values and landings
of American lobster also rose steadily after 2010, peaking in 2016. Catch per unit effort was also
higher during this time, so without line estimates it is difficult to draw conclusions about relative
buoy line numbers, but it is likely that participation by permitted fishermen rose to near-capacity
during these lucrative years.
However, without a constraint on the total number of lines that can be fished, such as that
suggested in Alternative 3, there is no mechanism to prohibit latent effort from being activated.
Many fishermen who hold lobster licenses do not actively fish at all, and many active fishermen
do not fish all of the traps that have been allocated to them. Additionally, as discussed above,
fishermen fish different numbers of pots and trawls in different months. This results in varying
amounts of “latent effort”; permitted allocations that are not actively fished but are theoretically
available to be deployed at any time. For the following reasons, we believe that trawling up
under the present day fishery conditions would result in line reductions close to those calculated
in our analysis (see Table 5.3).
1. Relative to 2017 effort in LMA 2 and LMA 3, there is a low likelihood of future
significant latent effort reactivation. Fishery management measures to reduce latent effort
and consolidated trap allocations have been implemented in LMA 2 and LMA 3,
effective May, 2016, under Addendum XVII to Amendment Three to the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (Lobster Plan). These changes were
intended to match the size of the fishery to the size of the resource, including the
declining southern New England lobster stock. As described in Chapter 3 section 3.1.4.3,
and in the proposals submitted by Massachusetts and Rhode Island, (Appendix 3.3),
190

latency in these two LMAs does appear to be greatly reduced. In their proposal,
Massachusetts documents a reduction in fishermen actively fishing across their states,
which includes LMA 1 and the Outer Cape LMA (MADMF 2020, Appendix 3.3).
2. The Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank lobster stock is at high abundance and recruitment,
making direct management of latent effort less of a fishery management priority for LMA
1. As indicated above, positive market and lobster stock conditions incentivize fishermen
to increase fishing effort and may encourage inactive fishermen to reenter the fishery. For
that reason, it is likely that fishermen in the Gulf of Maine have been fishing at a high
capacity in recent years. Figure 1 in the proposal submitted by Maine DMR)
demonstrates the relative stability of latent licenses (Maine DMR proposal, 2019;
Appendix 3.3. As discussed in Maine’s proposal and above, these latent permits are
unlikely to be activated if they were not used during recent lucrative fishing years (see
Appendix 3.3).
3. The average age of New England lobster and Jonah crab fishermen is increasing.
Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries (DMF; 2020) provides documentation of
their aging fisherman population. Similar demographics have been noted in the Maine
fishery. A study conducted by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (2014) showed the
age of Maine lobster license holders increasing steadily from 1999 through 2013 (GMRI
2014) and suggested that at some point given the grueling nature of the work, fishermen
reduce their fishing effort as they age.

191

Figure 5.2: Mean lobster abundance in the Maine/New Hampshire trawl survey. Top left panel: map of coastal
Maine with sampling strata with reference lines for 3 and 12 miles from shore and the LMA 1/3 boundary. Bottom
right panel: survey indices by depth strata for the Fall survey.

For these reasons, we concur with Maine’s, Massachusetts’, and Rhode Island’s conclusions that
an increase in fishing effort from allowed, but inactive latent traps, above that documented in a
strong fishing year like 2017, is unlikely to occur. Under these conditions, trawling up under
Alternative 2 would, as estimated, reduce the percent of buoy lines fished relative to 2017
estimates, as detailed in Table 5.3.
Offshore of the Maine coast within LMA 1, the likelihood of encountering a right whale
increases with distance from shore (Roberts et al. 2016), as Maine DMR observed in their
proposal (ME DMR, 2019, Appendix 3.3). For this reason, reducing buoy line numbers more
substantially with increasing distance from shore provides better risk reduction for right whales.

192

Table 5.4: Trends in landings and fishing effort with distance from shore from Maine DMR.
Distance
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
from shore
(nm)
Proportion of landings
by
distance
from
shore

2015

2016

0-3

81.5%

69.8%

77.8%

75.5%

67.0%

72.8%

69.1%

64.1%

68.2%

3-12
12+
Proportion of

14.9%
3.6%
trips by

25.0%
5.2%
distance

19.3%
2.9%
from

17.3%
7.2%
shore

25.8%
7.2%

20.3%
6.9%

24.7%
6.2%

26.3%
9.6%

23.3%
8.6%

0-3

87.7%

80.9%

84.2%

83.8%

77.5%

80.9%

80.3%

77.3%

80.8%

3-12

10.4%

16.3%

14.1%

12.4%

18.6%

15.5%

15.7%

17.7%

14.6%

12+
Average
0-3

1.9%
catch
1.17

2.8%
(lb)
1.31

1.7%
Per trap
1.46

3.8%

3.9%

3.7%

4.0%

5.0%

4.5%

1.62

1.86

1.96

1.87

1.82

1.81

3-12

1.45

1.77

1.74

2.05

2.33

2.24

2.67

2.27

2.43

12+
Total
Average

1.61

1.84

1.88

2.1

2.27

2.51

2.72

2.41

2.49

1.41

1.64

1.69

1.93

2.15

2.24

2.42

2.17

2.24

The lobster resource is growing in federal nearshore waters, though lobster density is still highest
in waters less than 98 yards (90 meters) deep, which is mostly inshore of about 6 nautical miles
(12.2 kilometers; Figure 5.2). The proportions of landings and trips in the lobster fishery have
increased in federal waters and industry catch-per-unit-effort has increased across the resource in
the Maine portion of LMA 1 (Table 5.4). However, the potential for fishing effort to shift from
state to federal waters is restricted by limited entry to the federal fishery. Additionally, spatial
data is generally lacking on how fishing effort is distributed in federal waters either inside of 12
nautical miles (24.3 kilometers) or outside of 12 nautical miles (24.3 kilometers) within LMA 1.
Thus, it is unclear if changes in the distribution of lobsters or relative proportions of landings and
trips are indicative of increased density of fishing gear further from shore. However, if current
trends in lobster density continue, commercial lobstering may become more viable in deeper
waters and further from shore in the future, a possibility that would be somewhat ameliorated by
the proposed seasonal restricted area for offshore LMA 1. This uncertainty in the current and
changing spatial distribution of fishing effort complicates the assessment of entanglement risk in
this region. Thus, going forward, there is a need for adequate characterization of the spatial
distribution of fishing effort in this region, both through improved trip reporting and
implementing vessel monitoring, to monitor how the lobster fishery responds to the changing
distribution of lobsters and how this impacts risk of entanglements.
NMFS will monitor line numbers annually and associated co-occurrence with right whales to
evaluate whether predicted line reduction occurs. This will be facilitated by improved data once
NMFS and the state of Maine require 100 percent harvester reporting in the lobster fishery and
even more so once vessel tracking systems are deployed in federal waters (Maine proposal 2019,
see Appendix 3.3). While measures to implement vessel tracking have not yet been developed,
Addendum XXVI to Amendment Three to the Lobster Plan (2018) identified vessel monitoring
as a long-term recommendation to improve lobster reporting. Results from a lobster fishery
vessel tracking pilot program were presented to the ASMFC in Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 and
193

the ASFMC has formed a working group to expedite implementation of this technology, perhaps
within the next two years.
5.3.1.1.1.1.3 Buoy Line Cap in Federal Waters
As mentioned previously, this FEIS differs from the DEIS because the analysis of the line cap
included here better estimates the relative reduction in buoy lines from a line cap only in federal
waters, whereas the DEIS only had line cap reduction estimates for the entire Northeast Region.
As such, the line reduction estimates in Alternative 3 in the FEIS are lower than the DEIS
estimates but likely closer to the reduction that would likely be achieved with these measures.
This results in a far lower line reduction than Alternative 3 as it was included in the DEIS. The
majority of lines in the Northeast Region are fished in state waters and therefore a line cap in
only federal waters has a limited impact on the overall line numbers being fished in the lobster
and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery.
Because this is not the preferred alternative and therefore not in the proposed rule, the exact
regulatory mechanism for implementing a line cap has not been identified. Given the complexity
of interstate fishery management, this measure would be restricted to lobster and Jonah crab
fishermen when fishing in federal waters. State waters would still achieve risk reduction in both
alternatives due to targeted buoy line closures. Additionally, Maine DMR (2019) considered a 50
percent line reduction for Maine permitted fishermen but it did not move forward with this
consideration given that, although the large majority of Maine lobster buoy lines are fished in
state waters, it is the area of least risk to whales causing an inverse relationship between
fishermen impacted and risk reduction.
Allocation of 50 percent of the lines fished in 2017 to fishermen fishing in federal waters through
a line cap in a way that results in an actual reduction in the number of buoy lines requires data
that are not currently collected by the lobster fishery. Fair distribution of line allocations
requires documentation of vessel fishing histories or other commonly used metrics and detailed
knowledge of the amount of fishing effort by sector or individual vessel. Allocation decisions in
effort control management of capped resources (lines or traps) are also usually informed by
iterative public fishery management processes and include appeal options that are
administratively burdensome. Because the lobster fishery has variable reporting requirements
across states, only about 10 percent of Maine fishermen have been required to report in any year
and federal reporting is variable, there are no data to easily determine effective trap and line cap
measures. It was assumed that a trap cap would require work with the Commission and New
England states to qualify the number of buoy lines, and to this end the Commission instituted an
April 29, 2019 control date (84 FR 43785, August 22, 2019). That control date put American
lobster permit holders and new entrants on notice that future participation and eligibility could be
affected by past participation data (84 FR 43785, August 22, 2019). A new control date would be
established for Jonah crab permit holders. However that control date does not reduce the timeand labor-intensive workarounds for the data gaps caused by inconsistent reporting requirements.
The Commission process, including soliciting public feedback, requires, at a minimum,
approximately 6 months to develop an adaptive management action. Larger, more controversial
actions can take eight to 18 months. Once approved by the Commission, additional time would
be required for NMFS to develop a rulemaking and associated analysis to implement measures to
distribute allocations of line tags to fishermen; envisioned as one tag to be affixed to buoy, one to
194

the end trap attached to each buoy line. States and fishermen could use allocations according to
their unique fishing operations and capacity, through trap reductions, trawling-up scenarios,
single buoy line trawls, or through other options that allow them to fish with half the lines that
they have historically used. Allocation and histories would be based on vessel trip reports or, for
Maine, other data sources such as dealer records for fishing prior to April 29, 2019. The ASMFC
and NMFS established a control date of April 29, 2019, at the April 2019 ASMFC meeting.
Chapter 3 goes into greater detail regarding how a 50 percent line cap would reduce buoy lines
based on the average number of buoy lines currently being used in federal waters across the
Northeast Region. In sum, to estimate the likely reduction in line numbers with a buoy line cap,
NMFS used the 2017 baseline buoy line data to test how different approaches might shift buoy
line numbers and selected likely scenarios. A cap in federal waters to 50 percent of the average
lines fished would likely result in a buoy line reduction closer to a 45 percent average reduction
given the current level of fluctuation in buoy lines used throughout a fishing year. Our estimate
of a 45 percent reduction in buoy lines in federal waters under a 50 percent line cap is the result
of regional variation and our anticipation of a complex response by fishermen to a line cap. The
line cap would likely be implemented at a regional scale as well as across all federal fisheries in
the Northeast Region. Implementing a line cap without accounting for variation across all
fisheries achieves a near 50 percent reduction in line in federal waters. However, given variation
between regions and months, if this was implemented on a regional level (a likely scenario) the
actual average monthly line reduction is closer to 45 percent due to areas with higher variation in
monthly line numbers. For LMA 2 in particular, where February and March had lower line
numbers than half of the monthly average, we considered three scenarios (see Chapter 3 for the
calculations) to capture a range in responses. Depending on how vessels respond to this line cap,
during months where 2017 line numbers fall below the line cap, vessels could either:
1. Continue fishing at 2017 levels during months where line numbers typically fall below
the line cap and only fish at their full halved line allocation level during months they
previously fished at high effort.
2. Fish their entire line allocation each month even if they did not previously fish or fished
fewer lines in some months. This could make up lost wages in other months.
3. Fish an average number of lines between the line cap and their 2017 line number in
months where 2017 effort fell below the line cap, and fish their full allotment of lines.
Since line caps result in a very large reduction of lines during high effort months, particularly in
the summer, we anticipate the most likely scenario falls somewhere between scenarios two and
three, with an increase in use of buoy lines during months that previously had lower fishing
effort. This could increase risk in LMA 2 when right whales are likely to be in the area.
However, the line cap would only be implemented with a restricted area in LMA 2 during peak
right whale occurrence and during months where line numbers fall below the average monthly
number of lines in LMA 2. The implementation of a closure in this area during this time would
likely mitigate this potential risk. Though the Outer Cape also has a low number of lines during
these months, this area is largely closed during months of high right whale density and likely will
not be impacted by a line cap during spring. Complementing restricted areas in areas of
predictable whale aggregations, this line reduction would generally be in areas of greater risk to
right whales. Furthermore, the most conservative scenario is analyzed in the risk reduction
195

estimate provided from the DST (Chapter 3) with an estimated 44 to 49 percent reduction in lines
depending on the LMA. Using this conservative estimate of actual line reduction from a line cap
in federal waters, Alternative 2 still achieved well over the 60 percent risk reduction target.
Although a 50 percent line cap does not explicitly include any trawling up restrictions, it is
expected this measure would result in broad scale trawling up so fishermen could fish as many
traps of their allocated traps as their individual operations would safely allow under a line
allocation. Where trawling up occurs, the effects are expected to be similar to those described
above where heavier gear could be more likely to cause serious injury or mortality if an
entanglement occurs but is likely offset somewhat given the overall decrease in risk of
entanglement and full weak line or weak inserts are implemented.
Though overall co-occurrence, and associated entanglement risk, is expected to decrease
substantially with the implementation of a line cap (Table 5.4), there is additional uncertainty
over how the spatial and temporal entanglement risk will change as buoy line use adjusts to the
new measures. Monitoring would be essential for tracking these changes. It is possible certain
seasons and areas could experience an increase in co-occurrence, but that analysis is currently
unavailable. Any increase in risk is expected to be offset somewhat in combination with seasonal
buoy line closures.
5.3.1.1.1.2 Indirect
The indirect effects of the requirements described above depend upon whether they would result
in an increase in unintended changes in gear lethality, gear conflict, or loss of trawls, with a
resulting cost to fishermen and an increase in the risk that whales may become entangled in ghost
gear.
Trawling up was required as a line reduction measure in the 2014 buoy line modifications to the
Plan and some suggest that the trawling up requirements, effective in June 2015, caused
fishermen to replace buoy lines with stronger line at strengths that have been associated more
often with serious injuries and mortalities of all age classes (Knowlton et al. 2016, Hayes et al.
2018). If this occurred with these alternatives, it would reduce the benefit of trawling up
measures. It is possible that trawling up poses a higher risk of mortality and serious injury to
calves and juveniles, if entangled compared to adults, if one were to become entangled, but a
reduction in the number of lines reduces the chances of an interaction occurring, mitigating some
of this risk. However, Maine developed the proposed trawling up measures first, through
extensive outreach with Maine fishermen to discuss what they could do with existing vessels and
gear, including their existing buoy lines. For that reason, NMFS believes that these trawling up
measures are not likely to result in changes in fishers using stronger buoy lines that would
potentially reduce the effectiveness of line reduction. Note also that weak buoy line toppers and
weak insertions, discussed in section 5.2.1.2, would mitigate some of the possible risk of heavier
trawls as well.
Fishermen also voiced concerns that longer trawls make it more likely that lobster fishermen
operating in close proximity will lay gear across each other’s trawls by mistake, or that mobile
bottom trawl net fishermen will trawl their net through a lobster set, both resulting in safety
hazards for fishermen. In 2010 and 2011, the Massachusetts DMF completed a comprehensive
196

study of gear loss and “ghost” fishing (i.e., impacts from lost or derelict gear) (NMFS 2014).
Their data indicate that rather than exacerbating gear loss, increased trawling requirements may
reduce the amount of gear lost and thereby yield an economic benefit to affected fishermen.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the new trawling up measures were designed with input from
fishermen regarding how many traps could be accommodated on one trawl using existing lines
without overwhelming concern for additional gear loss. Available data assessing how trawling
up requirements including increasing the distance between buoy lines in LMA 3 could affect
gear loss are inconclusive but suggest it is unlikely to increase substantially with the proposed
measures.
LMA 3 fishermen requested an extension of the distance between buoy lines from 1.5 nautical
miles (2.78 kilometers) to 1.75 miles (3.24 kilometers) to allow them options to trawl up to 35 to
50 pots, including an option to increase distance between traps near the ends of the trawl so that
if fishing with a weakened buoy line, they will not have additional pots hanging in the water
column and requiring more force for hauling. The 1.5 mile (2.78 kilometers) distance between
buoy lines was originally instituted in 1986 gear marking requirements in Amendment One to the
New England Fishery Management Council’s Lobster Fishery Management Plan to “allow for
visual identification of entire sets, under optimum sea conditions, by mobile gear operators”
(NEFMC 1986). In making this request, offshore lobster fishermen did not identify any concerns
about increased gear conflicts or gear loss. Radar technology has advanced since 1986. A recent
report on gear marking best practices (FAO 2016) does not identify a standard for the distance
between radar reflectors on lobster. However, it suggests that spar buoys can be seen by eye from
three nautical miles (5.56 kilometers) and further if fitted with a radar reflector. The report
recommends that other line of sight position indicators are detectable from a distance of two
nautical miles (3.7 kilometers). Detection requires active searches and relies on factors such as
sea conditions and the quality and settings of radar detectors. However, modifying the distance
between radar reflectors from 1.5 (2.78 kilometers) to 1.75 miles (3.24 kilometers) appears to be
within standards acceptable with current technology and this measure is not anticipated to
increase incidents of gear conflict or gear loss.
It is possible that other areas may also observe an increase of groundline length with the
combination of increased trawl lengths and the use of full weak rope or inserts. Fishers may
increase the distance between the first and second traps in order to reduce the amount of force
being placed on the line during hauling and the likelihood of the line breaking. This could
increase entanglement risk to right whales that use the entire water column and interact with the
seafloor (Baumgartner et al. 2017, Hamilton et al. 2019). Right whales have not been observed
entangled in groundlines since the Plan restricted the use of floating groundline, effective in
2009, so this regulation may minimize the risk of entanglement in groundlines. Buoy lines are
found on right whales more frequently than groundlines (Johnson et al. 2005). The reduction in
the number of vertical buoy lines is likely greater than the risk of any potential addition of
groundlines under Alternative 2.
5.3.1.1.2 Seasonal Restricted Areas Changed To Buoy Line Closures
Currently, under Alternative 1, two new areas in the Northeast Region are seasonally closed to
trap/pot fishing: the Massachusetts Restricted Area and the Great South Channel Restricted Area.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would modify these management areas to allow ropeless fishing
197

by changing the definition from a closure to fishing, to a closure to persistent trap/pot buoy lines.
The Outer Cape LMA would remain closed for lobster management purposes.
NMFS proposed and accepted comments on this change to the management areas through an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published in September 2018 (83 FR 49046,
September 28, 2018). This definition change would open up the potential use of these areas for
ropeless fishing, and would incentivize fishermen that are currently unable to harvest lobster to
participate in the development of methods to remotely retrieve buoys or buoy lines stored on the
bottom in a manner feasible during commercial fishing operations. The ability to fish without
buoy lines to retrieve gear and allow co-occurring fishermen to detect gear on the bottom to
avoid gear conflicts requires testing and development under commercial conditions as well as
solutions regarding limited manufacture and high production costs that keep the technology out
of the reach of most lobster and Jonah crab fishermen. Testing and adaptation under commercial
fishing conditions is necessary to accelerate development of ropeless solutions so that it becomes
an alternative to broad seasonal area closures should additional risk reduction be needed. While
the risk of ropeless fishing in areas of whale aggregations may be higher than the risk of closures
in the short-term, there are long-term benefits to the accelerated development of gear that
protects right whales and supports healthy lobster and Jonah crab fisheries.
To reduce potential risks in the short term, conditions can be placed on fishing. Interested
fishermen would have to obtain authorization to fish without surface buoys and other surface
gear. The federal lobster regulations promulgated pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), at 50 CFR Part 697.21 requires buoys (with
identification marking) and for larger trawls, radar reflections on each end of trawls of lobster
pots to insure other fishermen and mariners know that there is fishing gear on the bottom
between the surface systems. Similar regulations for bottom tending fixed gear have been
implemented for New England and Mid-Atlantic fisheries managed pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), at 50 CFR 648.84. Until remote
surface detection technology is available and required on all fisheries that occur on the same
fishing grounds, allowing revision of those regulations, they remain necessary to prevent gear
conflicts and so ropeless fishing will require authorization or exempted fishing permission from
states or NMFS (See Section 3.3.3). While surface marking is required, applicants for an
exemption to those requirements will be required to provide details on their operations, including
objectives, reporting and monitoring plans, and a description of possible environmental impacts
including anticipated impacts on marine mammals or endangered species.
A few fishermen from the South Shore of Massachusetts that have experimented with ropeless
gear outside of the seasonal closure have continued to express interest in fishing with ropeless
gear in the Massachusetts Restricted Area under an exemption to the surface marking
requirements. Other fishermen currently experimenting with ropeless fishing technology in
offshore fisheries areas have not expressed interest in fishing within current seasonal restricted
areas. We anticipate that this modification to the closed areas would likely result in very low
level of lobster fishing during the seasonal restricted periods, although the using ropeless
retrieval or other ropeless systems under an exempted fishing permit or state authorization that
includes risk reduction conditions.

198

Based on outreach by the NMFS gear team, interest does not appear to be substantial among the
commercial fishery in the Northeast Region, and participation within any restricted area can be
limited through the authorization process. We anticipate that at least through 2025, ropeless
fishing in these restricted areas is likely to be done primarily by collaborators borrowing gear
from the NMFS gear cache, with up to an additional 10 percent of effort by other researchers and
fishermen coast wide. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center gear team projects that by 2025
they expect to have about 300 ropeless units and enough deck controllers for about 30 vessels, as
well as technology to support adjacent mobile fishing vessels. That is, at the most, coast-wide,
there would be up to 33 vessels fishing ten ropeless trawls. If congressionally appropriated and
private funding remains available, NMFS will continue to reimburse fishermen for some of their
time and will provide the onboard and in-water technology so that costs to fishermen will be
minimal. To incentivize participation, the alternatives consider modifying current seasonal
restricted areas and defining new restricted areas as seasonal closures to trap/pot fishing that use
persistent vertical buoy lines.
5.3.1.1.2.1 Direct
5.3.1.1.2.1.1 Decrease in Co-Occurrence of Whales and Buoy Lines
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose additional seasonal management areas which would allow
ropeless fishing but be closed to lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishing with persistent buoy
lines; allowing fishing with ropeless gear under an exempted fishing permit and significantly
minimizing the risk of entanglement from buoy lines by large whales. These closures to buoy
lines would further reduce the amount of buoy line in the water during seasons that have been
used by aggregations of right whales.
Table 5.5: Right, humpback, and fin whale co-occurrence scores by month for each alternative scenario, including
Alternative 1 (i.e. status quo). All changes in co-occurrence include the combined changes due to gear
configurations and areas closed to persistent buoy lines.
Right Whale
Humpback Whale
Fin Whale
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Month
2
3
2
3
2
3
January
-37%
-39%
-11%
-23%
-15%
-30%
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total

-30%
-36%
-55%
-92%
-30%
-32%
-15%
-17%
-39%
-47%
-23%
-54%

-45%
-51%
-67%
-95%
-62%
-70%
-22%
-23%
-44%
-46%
-23%
-60%

-14%
-17%
-18%
-18%
-13%
-13%
-11%
-10%
-10%
-11%
-11%
-12%

199

-25%
-29%
-29%
-27%
-21%
-19%
-18%
-16%
-15%
-19%
-13%
-19%

-17%
-19%
-20%
-19%
-13%
-13%
-12%
-13%
-13%
-13%
-13%
-14%

-33%
-34%
-29%
-24%
-16%
-14%
-13%
-14%
-13%
-15%
-21%
-17%

The seasonal buoy line closure areas proposed in Alternative 2 are more extensive in space than
Alternative 3, though a few areas in Alternative 3 are closed for a longer period of time. As
indicated in Table 5.5, the spatial and temporal risk reduction measures considered in the
alternatives achieve co-occurrence reduction scores with right whales of greater than
approximately 54 percent. Although co-occurrence reduction scores are higher in Alternative 3
(approximately 60 percent), both Alternatives appear to reduce co-occurrence significantly in the
months and areas where right whales and lines are most likely to overlap. These estimates are
lower than those in the DEIS because the line cap analysis in this FEIS is updated to only include
federal waters, as was intended, and because co-occurrence was estimated with the right whale
density model from 2010 to 2018 instead of the DEIS use of sightings per unit effort. The use of
the right whale density model includes more recent data and was modified to smooth issues
related survey gaps and inter-annual variability. Closures where buoy lines are fully removed
offer slightly higher co-occurrence reduction, most notably in areas where right whales are likely
to be aggregating. Humpback and fin whale co-occurrence reduction scores are also provided in
Table 5.5, demonstrating some co-occurrence reduction and resulting favorable protection,
although to a lesser extent than for right whales. These species would likely benefit from cooccurrence reduction in spring when several of the analyzed seasonal restricted areas would
reduce the use of buoy lines (Table 5.5).
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 both propose several new seasonal buoy line restricted areas.
Alternative 3 would require more closures to fishing with persistent buoy lines for longer periods
of time and therefore, offers the greatest reduction of co-occurrence, assuming lines are not
relocated. Alternative 3 would require an additional buoy line closure area in Georges Basin core
area (May through August) that is not included in Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 included consideration of state measures proposed by Massachusetts that would
seasonally close state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape LMA during the MRA restricted
period, from February through April, expanding the MRA north to the New Hampshire border
(MRA North). NMFS will be including the addition of the MRA North waters from February
through April in the Final Rule. Expansion of the MRA into Massachusetts State waters in both
Alternatives is largely assumed to result in lines being removed from the water instead of
relocation into federal waters because many state fishermen do not have federal permits. Other
Massachusetts State water measures that will not be implemented in the Final Rule have been
implemented by the state, including a closure of state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape LMA
by monitoring the areas through at least May 15th, potentially extending to the end of May or
until no more than three whales remain in those areas. However, Massachusetts and NMFS
enforcement personnel are investigating the apparent storage of trap/pot gear in waters remaining
open in Massachusetts Bay between the state’s new closed waters and the northwest border of
the MRA to determine whether the new closure area includes dual permitted fishermen that
would move rather than remove gear. However, as seen in Figure 5.3, in spring of 2021 there
was gear observed outside of state waters in between the original MRA and MRA North and also
in close proximity to right whale aggregations, so there may be unintended consequences of
these closures that need further investigation. Future rulemaking would be needed to close that
unintended gear storage area, which during 2021 resulted in high observed co-occurrence of right
whales and vertical buoy lines.

200

Figure 5.3: April 19, 2021 Aerial survey observations of buoys and whales in closed state and MRA waters and in
the area that remained open (Robert Glenn, MA DMF).

Though not included in the baseline for the analysis in this chapter, the risk reduction estimates
in Chapter 3 include a credit for the MRA as well because it was implemented relatively recently
and maintaining this area is invaluable for reducing co-occurrence between right whales and
trap/pot buoy lines, providing an additional 9 to 12 percent risk reduction and 13 percent
reduction in co-occurrence with right whales. Since right whales frequently and increasingly
(Ganley et al. 2019) aggregate in the MRA during the closure period, and because Massachusetts
State will be extending the buoy line restrictions beyond the April 31 end date included in the
proposed rule if whales remain in state waters, this restricted area is likely to have a large impact
on right whale co-occurrence. Some of the highest reductions of right whale co-occurrence are
predicted between February and May, with greater reductions in Alternative 3 due to an
extension of the entire MRA. Alternative 3 proposes an extension of the federal closure to buoy
lines throughout the MRA through May in addition to the state measures considered in
Alternative 2. A soft extension adds an additional 3 percent reduction in co-occurrence beyond
the state water closure in Alternative 2, for a 95 percent reduction in risk for the month of May,
though this would require a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to be in place for this to be
effective.
Both alternatives include an LMA 1 Restricted Area during fall and winter months (October
through January) with a month-long extension (through February) in Alternative 3. The LMA 1
Restricted Area was identified as a hotspot in the DEIS, and remained an area of concern with
201

the updated right whale density model using data from 2010 to 2018. Though this area may have
declined in importance since 2010 compared to 2003 through 2009 (Record et al. 2019, Roberts
et al. 2020), the right whale density model (version 11) still predicts higher whale densities
relative to other regions and higher entanglement risk due to the number of buoy lines used in
this area. Additionally, right whales are known to return to areas after years of low use and it
may return to pre-2010 frequency in this area in the future. As described in section (5.3.1.1.1),
the fishery in Maine may, and has the potential to, be fishing farther offshore than in previous
years, with the threat of increased buoy lines in offshore areas increasing entanglement risk for
whales that return to that area. An offshore restricted area here would prevent further increase in
lines in this offshore area that right whales have been known to use. Similar to the soft opening
in the MRA, Alternative 3 would close the LMA 1 Restricted Area for an additional month as a
soft restricted area that could be relieved by aerial or acoustic survey confirmation that there
were no right whales within the buoy line closure areas.
In this FEIS, there are two options between the two action alternatives for a seasonal buoy line
closure from February through April south of Cape Cod, the South Islands Restricted Area. The
restricted area proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred) in this FEIS now includes a larger area south
of Cape Cod, which is an area that has seen an increase in right whale aggregations throughout
the year with the majority in spring months (black outline, Figure 5.4). This area provides greater
risk reduction than the restricted area proposed in the FEIS Alternative 3. A smaller area was
previously included in Alternative 2 as proposed by the state of Massachusetts but was ultimately
rejected due to public comment and observed (red outline, Figure 5.4) and predicted movement
of lines outside of the restricted area into right whale hotspots. Both options analyzed in this
FEIS are core areas where whales have frequently been sighted by Northeast Fisheries Science
Center surveys between 2017 and 2021 (Figure 5.4). The option offered in Alternative 2 is the
larger of the two and was created using sightings and habitat data available to encompass all of
the likely hotspots based on whale presence as well as the presence of suitable right whale
habitat. This option offers the greatest protection to right whales because it has the potential to
close a substantial area known to be used by right whales. Alternative 3 includes a slightly
smaller L-shaped restricted area that encompasses the densest area of whales sighted between
2017 through March 3, 2020. However, Figure 5.4 shows this medium sized area in gray also
mapped with aerial survey data from early 2021 to check for robustness to annual variation and
missed key right whale aggregations. The L-shaped restricted area option likely offers an
intermediate to large protection for right whales because, though it is not as large as the Preferred
Alternative, it did encompass the areas of high right whale density across several years and is
somewhat robust to annual variation.

202

Figure 5.4: Right whale sightings data during February through April from 2017 through 2021 with the restricted
areas analyzed in the DEIS. The area in the preferred alternative in the DEIS is in red, the area now in the FEIS
preferred alternative is in black, and the grey area is in the non-preferred alternatives in both the DEIS and FEIS.
Aerial and shipboard survey data collected by NMFS, the New England Aquarium, and The Center for Coastal
Studies and also includes opportunistic sightings data.

The effects of additional seasonal buoy line closure areas in Alternatives 2 and 3 vary. All
would benefit right whales but are less likely to benefit fin whales and humpbacks. Restricted
areas were analyzed two ways, depending on the location and likely behavior in these areas.
First, it was assumed that 100 percent of the vessels would suspend fishing within the
Massachusetts Restricted Area and in the state water extensions (although see above for 2021
observations). We know from existing closures that this is more likely for nearshore restricted
areas, particularly the MRA, when fishermen would have a long transit to open areas and some
fishermen, without federal permits, are restricted in area choices. However, in offshore restricted
areas or for fishermen with federal permits, some fishermen would be able to move their lines
and could increase risk outside of restricted areas as occurred in 2021. Co-occurrence analysis
off restricted areas farther from shore assumed that vessels would continue to fish and would
relocate lines to nearby available areas. The effects of each of these two assumptions of response
to a restricted area differs slightly depending on how co-occurrence changes whale entanglement
risk. When fishing is suspended or ropeless technologies are employed and lines are removed
from the water entirely, there is a large decrease in co-occurrence and, as a result, a reduced risk
of entanglement. If instead lines are moved to different areas, co-occurrence could decrease or
increase depending on where lines are relocated. In some cases, restricted areas could increase
risk if the restricted area leads to fencing of buoy lines around the area, such as was predicted for
the Georges Basin Restricted area in the DEIS, exacerbated with the use of the newer whale data
in the updated DST (version 11). Restricted areas were picked based on scenarios that are more
likely to result in a net decrease in right whale co-occurrence. Given recent changes in right
203

whale distribution, continued monitoring is necessary to confirm how these measures change
buoy line density and co-occurrence. A longer trawl option offered risk reduction in Alternative
2 in lieu of a restricted area and likely avoids increasing co-occurrence in areas adjacent to this
hotspot.
The multiple restricted areas proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in local conservation
benefits to other large whales, though to a lesser degree than right whales. All large whale
species included in this VEC can occur within the proposed restricted areas at times (CETAP
1982), particularly the restricted areas proposed south of Cape Cod (Stone et al. 2017, Davis et
al. 2020). As described in Chapter 3, the restricted areas were designed and selected using either
estimates of right whale density model based on a long time series of sightings normalized over
the area applying oceanographic characteristics (version eight) or using more recent sightings per
unit effort data between 2014 and 2018 (NARWC 2019). The current analysis uses a newer
version of the right whale density model (version 11) that captures more recent data after the
regime shift that started in 2010 (Pace et al. 2017). Despite the direct intention to focus on right
whale hotspots, fin, humpback, and minke whales may experience a slight benefit from these
restricted areas as they are sometimes present in these areas during the restricted area times
(CETAP 1982, Stone et al. 2017), though these areas are not necessarily hotspots for these
species so any benefit is likely less beneficial than broad scale line reduction. Co-occurrence of
humpback and fin whales is predicted to decrease throughout the year in Alternatives 2 and 3
(Table 5.5), with a larger reduction predicted with Alternative 3. Restricted areas where lines are
fully removed would likely have the most beneficial impact on overall entanglement risk, such as
those in Massachusetts State waters. However, under the relocation scenarios, certain areas may
experience an increase in co-occurrence where gear is expected to move to areas of higher whale
density along the border of the restricted area, though the predicted increases are likely to be
relatively small. Overall, co-occurrence of large whales with buoy lines and associated
entanglement risk will likely decline substantially when paired with the other line reduction
measures discussed above.
5.3.1.1.2.1.2 Impacts of Allowing Ropeless Gear in Restricted Areas
Impacts caused by modifying the definition of the existing seasonal restricted areas
(Massachusetts and Great South Channel Restricted Areas) to include ropeless fishing are
anticipated to be very small because fishing under the new definition would be limited and
conditional under exemptions to gear marking requirements. The Outer Cape LMA would not be
open to ropeless fishing because it was originally closed for lobster management purposes.
Exempted fishing permits would likely also restrict access to Cape Cod Bay where the highest
density of right whale aggregations are most common. After the ANPR was published in
September 2018, a cost benefit analysis of a short term exempted fishery in the restricted areas
was conducted (Black et al. 2019). The analysis considered primarily qualitative information
gained from interviews with stakeholders in 2018. Interviewees included a lobster fisherman and
representative that were targeted because they had expressed the most interest in developing
alternatives to the fishery closures, particularly in Massachusetts Bay. At that time, industry
representatives interviewed estimated that approximately eight to twelve fishermen from the
South Shore of Massachusetts might consider applying for an authorization or an exempted
fishing permit to explore ropeless fishing under commercial conditions in the closure area. In
204

addition to operational challenges, the high cost of ropeless systems—at that time estimated to
range from over $55,000 to over $240,000 per vessel—was identified as a constraint although
support by ropeless developers, NMFS, and NGOs was considered likely to defray costs during
initial efforts. Additional constraints related to time, costs, and logistics associated with
permitting, data collect, monitoring, and reporting were also identified.
Ropeless research in the lobster fishery has occurred since that analysis was done. In 2019, the
New England Aquarium initiated a study under an exempted fishing permit outside of the Take
Reduction Plan closure areas. Additionally, NMFS has begun assembling ropeless gear to loan to
fishermen and researchers, and is working with a handful of fishermen, with the support of
environmental organizations, to test ropeless fishing under an exempted fishing permit. A few
Massachusetts lobster fishermen have conducted trials with ropeless fishing technology outside
closure areas and therefore have some understanding of operational issues associated with the
technologies. In most of the work done to date, the high costs of the technology has not been
borne by the individual fishermen. While these efforts demonstrate a growing interest in
developing ropeless fishing, they also suggest that modifying the closure areas would not result
in a large influx of fishermen into currently closed areas, especially if they are required to
purchase ropeless systems themselves. Any increased testing of ropeless systems, though, could
accelerate the timeline for feasibility of ropeless technologies, providing a long-term benefit to
right whales and other large whales and to the trap/pot fisheries that operate in close proximity to
them. NOAA has invested a substantial amount of funding in the industry's development of
ropeless gear, in specific geographic areas and in general. We anticipate that these efforts to
facilitate and support the industry's development of ropeless gear will continue, pending
appropriations. At this time, we expect the number of individuals testing ropeless fishing to be
constrained by the high cost of ropeless technology and to use gear borrowed from other entities,
such as the Northeast Fisheries Science Center or NGOs. Given plans for gear caches being
developed for this purpose, it is estimated that participants could be expanded from
approximately five vessels and 50 trawls in 2021 to about 33 vessels fishing 330 trawls using
330 stored buoy lines (with one system per trawl). Gear would also be available for participating
mobile gear fishermen working to ensure affordable methods of detecting gear fished on the
bottom and preventing gear conflicts.
By permitting ropeless trap/pot fishing in seasonally Restricted Areas during the period of time
they have traditionally been entirely closed to trap/pot fishing (with persistent buoy lines), this
Alternative introduces some level of interaction risk to protected species that previously did not
exist in both areas during the seasonal closures. Even though participants will not be using
persistent buoy lines, they will be using sinking groundlines, and therefore, some level of
entanglement risk remains from introducing gear into areas with high densities of feeding
whales. As mentioned in Chapter 2, large whales are at risk of becoming entangled not just in
buoy lines, but entanglement may also occur in groundlines of trap/pot gear. Bottom foraging
increases the risk of whale interaction with groundlines. Evidence of right whale bottom feeding
in all feeding habitats and all months indicates that even sinking groundline may pose some risk
to right whales, though the frequency of these dives and interactions is uncertain (Hamilton and
Kraus 2019) and sinking groundline rules implemented in 2009 reduces groundline threats.

205

While the groundline of any trap/pot gear may pose some risk (Hamilton and Kraus 2019),
conservation measures adopted under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would require participants
to utilize areas that will minimize their interactions with large whales, especially right whales,
the large whale species likely to be present in greatest numbers at the time participants will be
permitted to fish ropeless. By assessing the most up-to-date right whale survey data, applicants
may avoid the most densely populated areas within the restricted areas (i.e. Cape Cod Bay within
the MRA) at any given time. Therefore, the risk of right whale entanglement, even in groundline,
has the potential to be minimized. In addition, in alignment with right whale reporting
conservation measures, participants may support whale disentanglement efforts by reporting
entangled right whale sightings sooner than they would have been reported otherwise, therefore
helping to provide some benefit to the health of an entangled whale.
In addition to the entanglement risk posed by sinking groundlines, entanglement risks are also
introduced during the deployment of buoy lines during retrieval; however the level of risk differs
between ropeless systems. For example, time-released ropeless devices have a higher risk of
encountering and incidentally entangling a protected species because it may be released prior to
the fisherman’s presence due to weather or other factors that would prevent the fishermen from
being present at the time that the surface system is released from storage.
By incorporating the full suite of conservation measures addressed in Section 3.3.3 through
surface buoy exemption authorization processes, it is expected that entanglement risk will be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The conservation measure that limits retrieval
mechanism to acoustic release allows participants to maintain control over the amount of time
any buoy line remains in the water column as a potential entanglement risk. Fishermen must be
within a close distance of the gear in order for the signal to be received and the line released,
which minimizes the time the line spends in the water column unsupervised. If the gear is
released as intended, the risk posed by the released buoy line is minimal. Relative to other
release mechanisms (i.e. galvanized time release), acoustic release provides a minimal timeframe
where the released buoy line will be left unattended.
Furthermore, failure rates (defined here as premature or failed release of the stored buoy line or
retrieval systems) of the technologies are minimized through the use of technology that has been
tested elsewhere, and that are set and hauled by crews with experience using these new
technologies, as recommended by the conservation measures in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
5.3.1.1.2.2 Indirect
Proposed seasonal restricted areas that are closed to persistent buoy lines could have indirect
beneficial effects on large whales by tempering the possible expansion of trap/pot fisheries into
areas of whale co-occurrence. Any vessels entering into these fisheries would be subject to the
seasonal buoy line closure of the restricted areas or to obtaining conditional experimental fishing
permits to allow them to fish with ropeless gear, such as remotely triggered buoys that bring line
stored on the bottom to the surface at retrieval time. Further development of operational ropeless
fishing systems would have indirect positive effects through the potential future conservation
benefits of technology informed and accelerated by experienced commercial fishermen’s use
under commercial fishing operations.
206

Testing of ropeless gear, particularly in test phases, could indirectly contribute to ghost gear that
pose an entanglement risk. It is assumed that gear loss from ropeless equipment failure would be
small given fishermen are more likely to test gear that have lower gear failure rates and gear loss
has not yet been reported in testing conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Additionally, most ropeless systems incorporate a transponder or other technology that provide
fishermen with location information. Fishermen would be able to reclaim gear through grappling,
further reducing the amount of abandoned gear in the environment and a collateral benefit to
fishermen who already lose gear due to storms and gear conflicts. A concern that arose during
the public comment period was the potential loss of ropeless gear trawled up by mobile
fishermen. Given the expected low volume of participants testing ropeless as well as anticipated
exemption collaboration recommendations, increased ghost gear and gear conflicts from
interactions with mobile gear is not expected to be noticeably higher than what currently occurs
in the fishery. Furthermore, fishermen would be required to call in and out of exempted fishing
trials and report locations precisely, so that effort can be easily monitored. Additional effort will
be made to communicate with the mobile fleet in the area to alert other vessels of locations
where ropeless gear is being fished.
The trap/pot buoy line closures could also have negative indirect effects if fishing effort is
relocated just outside of the restricted areas adjacent to valuable whale habitats. This relocated
effort may result in a wall of fishing gear, which would increase entanglement risk as whales
move in and out of these management areas. For this reason, the Georges Basin Restricted Area
is not preferred due to the potential to push gear outside the area into equally risky habitat and
the originally preferred South of Island closure recommended by Massachusetts has been
rejected as a seasonal closure area.
Another potential indirect effect of an increase in ropeless fishing could be increased vessel
traffic in areas with high whale densities. Right whales in the Massachusetts Restricted Area are
vulnerable to vessel strikes. Vessels 65 feet (19.8 m) and larger operate under seasonal speed
reductions of 10 knots or less in Cape Cod Bay from January 1 to May 15th, and along the Outer
Cape LMA from March 1 to April 30th. Despite these restrictions, since 2009 there have been
eight known vessel strikes in or near Cape Cod Bay: two mortalities, one significant injury, and 5
additional injuries (Caroline Good, Pers. Comm.). It is unclear whether this was due to noncompliance of the speed restrictions or that the current restrictions are insufficient to protect right
whales. Based on discussions with fishermen, we do not anticipate more than a few fishermen
would operate in the Restricted Area in Massachusetts Bay, outside of Cape Cod Bay, under
exempted fishing permits until ropeless fishing gear becomes affordable and effective at marking
buoyless gear for fixed and mobile gear fishermen and other mariners. Fishermen operating
under an exemption will likely not increase vessel traffic above the current baseline during these
months. However, to prevent an increased risk of vessel strikes, any ropeless fishing occurring
under an exemption to the surface marking requirements during the seasonal closure to buoy
lines and the seasonal speed reduction areas, regardless of vessels size, can be restricted under
permit conditions to transit speeds of 10 knots or less, have a designated observer on board
looking for whales, and be in contact with the Center for Coastal Studies or other contracted
aerial survey teams to ensure knowledge of the most recent information about right whale
distribution. Authorization may not be given for areas of particular high right whale abundance.
207

Both Massachusetts DMF and NMFS may be involved in developing conditions for ropeless
fishing in these areas and the Take Reduction Team will be apprised of outcomes at an annual
monitoring meeting. Generally, indirect effects of seasonal buoy line closures are expected to be
minimal.
5.3.1.2

Changes to Weak Link Requirements

5.3.1.2.1 Direct
As discussed in Chapter 3, ALWTRP measures include incorporation of weak links or weak rope
to create breakaway buoy lines on fixed commercial fishing gear. Prescriptive breaking strengths
by fishery and area were created after field testing to determine operational feasibility. The use
of breakaway buoys or weak buoy lines were required because “. . . this measure would reduce
the potential for a whale to become wrapped in the buoy line and sustain serious injury or
mortality from either the buoy line itself or from dragging the whole lobster pot trawl (62 FR
16108, April 4, 1997).” This modification recognized the observation that line through the mouth
of a baleen whale appeared to be one of the more frequent forms of entanglement (Knowlton &
Kraus 2001). Entanglement involving baleen results in more complicated outcomes through
persistent entanglements that can reduce feeding efficiency and increase the chance of a serious
injury or mortality. Where an entanglement happens near the surface system of a buoy line, weak
links may improve the outcome by allowing buoyless line to slip through the baleen in some
cases. In gillnet gear, the placement of weak links in multiple places around gillnet panels
appears to frequently allow right whales and other large whales to break through without serious
injury. The effectiveness of weak links attaching buoys to the trap/pot buoy lines are less clear.
As discussed below, weak inserts lower down on the line are more likely to have a risk reduction
benefit. Under Alternative 2 (Preferred) and the final rule, all ropes in the Northeast Trap/Pot
Management Area would be weak or have weak insertions below the surface system. Knowlton
et al. (2020) models whale interactions with weak ropes and weak insertions, and the model
suggests that rope parts below where a whale’s movement applies force on the rope. This model
suggests the weak insertion at the buoy would not necessarily part the buoy from the rope
quickly, and may not have much effect on entanglement severity. Some commenters indicated a
preference for retaining the buoy on the rope so that in the event of an entanglement some
additional information about the location of the incident could be obtained from the buoy.
Additionally at Team meetings some Team members suggested that drag caused by the buoy
could pull rope away from the whale and facilitate the shedding of gear, and suggested that the
buoy could provide a disentanglement team with improved access to entangling rope. While
retention of the buoy may be beneficial for some large whales, given right whale behavior in
surface aggregations, buoys may be rubbed off of gear whether or not a weak link is present.
Given the lack of confidence that a weak link in a surface system is effectively reducing risk to
right whales and the potential benefit of buoy retention for some entangled large whales,
Alternative 2 of this FEIS and the final rule would remove this requirement. Fishermen however,
would not be prohibited from retaining a weak link in the surface system.
For all large whale entanglement cases between 2010 and 2018 where a whale was entangled but
the gear was not recovered, 38 percent had buoys still attached, suggesting a weak link was not
present or the whale was not always able to break the weak link (Moise pers. comm., April 9,
208

2020). There are a small number of cases including one observed in 2020 that demonstrate that
buoys may complicate entanglements that involve the mouth or baleen. However, even where no
buoys are involved, right whales and other large whales entangled at the mouth are often still left
with constricting rope that can seriously impact their health and ability to feed. Disentanglement
team members suggest that trailing gear that includes a buoy could aid disentanglement teams in
grappling and pulling gear away from a whale or attaching a tracking buoy to facilitate tracking
and further disentanglement attempts. Additionally, buoys could help whales shed gear by
providing resistance against the water, pulling line away from a whale. Additionally, commercial
fishing buoys are marked with identifying information that can help pinpoint the location of
entanglement events if retrieved.
For these reasons, the measure included in Alternative 2 that would remove the weak link
requirement for lobster/crab trap buoy lines that use weak rope or weak insertions further down
on the buoy line likely has a negligible impact on entanglement risk and a potential positive
impact on future determinations of gear type and set location. Discussed further below, a weak
buoy line would likely do more than a weak link at the buoy to allow a whale to break away from
a crab or lobster trawl and minimize entanglement severity and reduce serious injuries and
mortalities. Additionally, Alternative 3 would make the use of weak links optional. Surface
systems sometimes include two or more lines connecting buoys and radar reflector to the buoy
line used to haul gear aboard. Public comments on these two alternatives would provide valuable
insights on the disentanglement and fishing operational benefits to these potential modifications
to the Plan.
5.3.1.2.2 Indirect
Weak link requirements have been implemented under previous ALWTRP initiatives, and the
NMFS Gear Research Team reports that they have received few comments regarding problems
with the failure of any of these devices. The NMFS Gear Research Team has conducted a series
of research projects that measured the loads exerted on buoy systems when used in typical
conditions at different locations (NMFS 2002a, 2003). Allowing an option to remove the weak
link at the buoy if weak rope or weak inserts are introduced to the buoy line lower down
(Alternative 2), or make the use of a weak link optional (Alternative 3) are not likely to indirectly
affect large whales through gear loss but could provide fishermen with operational
improvements. Input from fishermen and disentanglement responders from public comments
would be useful on this element. Providing an option to move the weak link should minimize the
amount of gear loss but it will be important to follow up after regulations are implemented to see
whether gear loss rates have changed.
5.3.1.3

Weak Rope

Weak rope requirements are designed to increase the chance that a whale will quickly break free
of gear, and reduce the number of interactions between whales and commercial fishing gear that
result in a serious entanglement (i.e., results in serious injury or mortality). As previously noted,
buoy lines have been identified as a source of entanglement risk (Knowlton et al. 2016, Sharp et
al. 2019). The requirement to weaken the strength of buoy lines is specifically designed to reduce
serious injury or mortality as a result of interactions with buoy lines and surface systems. The
theory is that the combination of the whale's momentum and the force it exerts against the weight
209

of the gear, or the force exerted across a line entangled around the whale in particular
entanglement scenarios (e.g. if the whale is entangled through its mouth and tail stock or
attached to a long, heavy trawl), will cause the force to increase until the rope or weak insertions
break the line, allowing whales to break free of some gear. Replacing buoy lines with rope that
breaks at less than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms), a weak rope topper of 20 to 75 percent of the
length of the buoy line, a weak buoy line or topper with weak inserts at 40 foot (12.2 m)
intervals, or fewer weak inserts into full strength line all, to varying degrees, increase the
likelihood that a whale will break away from a buoy line before sustaining more serious injuries
or dying from the impacts of entanglement.
Alternatives 2 and 3 take different approaches to reducing line strength and our analysis
considers how these differ in how they relate to research on the likely effectiveness of full weak
rope. The theory behind weak rope is based on the observed strength of lines taken off of
entangled whales associated with serious injuries and mortalities. Rope remaining on right and
humpback whales included disproportionately (relative to availability in the environment) higher
rope strengths, suggesting these species could break free from lighter line (Knowlton et al.
2016). During ALWTRT presentations and Team discussions, researchers suggested that, in lieu
of fully manufactured weak rope, inserts of the same breaking strength at 40 foot (12.2 meters)
intervals would ensure sufficient breaking points to allow a whale to break free. The proposed
distance of every 40 feet (12.2 meters) is just less than the average length of an adult right whale,
increasing the likelihood that a whale interacting with a line would encounter a weak spot. In the
hope of being able to re-enter the Mass Bay Restricted Area, fishermen that belong to the South
Shore Lobster Fishermen’s Association developed a hollow braided sleeve that breaks at less
than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) that they can rapidly splice into a buoy line, and proposed
inserts at every 40 feet (12.2 meters). A comparison of these lines to other buoy lines used by
Massachusetts fishermen showed comparable performance during commercial fishing operations
(Knowlton et al. 2018). Insertions every 40 feet (12.2 meters) would be somewhat labor
intensive for fishermen in deep waters, prompting New England states to propose fewer weak
insertions. However, the broad regional use of weak rope in buoy lines, or frequent weak inserts
increases the likelihood that an entanglement would include a point where a whale can exert
sufficient force needed to break the line and potentially avoid more severe injuries.
Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 (Non-preferred) would require the use of weak line or weak
inserts with breaking strengths of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or less. Engineered weak line
that breaks at 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or less are available in commercial quantities at line
diameters of 3/8ths (0.95 centimeters) and 5/16ths inches (2.1 centimeters), commonly used in
lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in nearshore waters. NMFS is working with gear
manufacturers to determine if these lines can be produced with one strand of alternating color
included to assist in the detection and enforcement of engineered weak line since much stronger
line is also available at these diameters. NMFS has also been collaborating with Maine DMR and
Massachusetts DMF to determine what weak insertions, gear configurations, or full weak options
reliably break at 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms, within a 10 percent range). Weak insertions can
be as simple as splicing in the South Shore Sleeve, or splicing in a length of manufactured weak
rope. Additional weak insertions are being proposed by lobster fishermen and tested, primarily
by Maine DMR through a NMFS grant. Interim results show some solutions that use relatively
inexpensive commercially available materials (MEDMR 2020). The state of Massachusetts is
requiring the use of full weak line or weak inserts every 60 feet (18.3 meters) in the top 75
210

percent of the line as of May 2021 and has approved a few options that use a manufactured red
rope spliced into 3/8ths inch line (0.95 centimeter line; see Chapter 3 and Appendix 3.6).
Offshore vessels are configured to use lines of larger diameters. The Atlantic Offshore
Lobstermen’s Association is working with NMFS and gear manufacturers to find engineered line
of 5/8ths inch (1.6 centimeters) or other larger diameters that breaks at 1,700 pounds (771
kilograms) and can work with their hauling block. Offshore fishermen are testing acquired line
as weak inserts and toppers. NMFS will continue to work with gear manufacturers and
distributors as well as the states and commercial fishermen to ensure that weak rope and
insertion is available at commercial quantities well before the effective date of final regulations.
Compared to Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the average
maximum breaking strength of buoy lines in the Northeast Region from an estimated 2,162
pounds to an estimated 1,976 pounds (896 kilograms) in Alternative 2 and 1,753 pounds (795
kilogram) in Alternative 3 (Table 5.6). This relies on the estimated proportion of the weak insert
configurations in Alternative 2 to full weak line. The analysis in this Chapter relies on the lower
bound estimate of risk reduction, which assumes that the equivalent to full weak line is an insert
at least every 40 feet (12.2 meters) and relies upon the depth data and scope ratio used to
estimate line length in Chapter 3. The depth data used a weighted mean depth according to the
number of lines fished at depths in a particular area and scope ratio was estimated from
McCarron and Tetrault (2021), both of which represent the best available data at the time of this
FEIS. Scope ratio ranged from 1.1 to two times the depth of the area being fished.
Chapter 3 also included an upper bound estimate that only considered the proportion of line
above the lowest weak insert, which takes into account the depth of an insert but without
considering the number or frequency of inserts as with the lower bound estimate. Weak insert
simulations found that entanglements were more likely to part a line when a weak insert was
below where a whale interacted with the line and when the trawl was longer (e.g. greater than
five traps per trawl; DeCew et al. 2017, Knowlton et al. 2020). Thus, the lower down an insert,
the more likely it would break when on a longer trawl in the event of an entanglement, though
this may differ if there is only one insert and it may vary with distance from the entanglement
point. The use of weak inserts at regular intervals on a buoy line or a full length of weak rope to
reduce the likelihood that interactions between whales and commercial fishing gear will likely
result in entanglements that cause serious injury or mortality. Alternative 1 would maintain the
status quo, and the potential for entanglements to result in mortality and serious injury would not
be decreased. The primary difference between weak rope requirements in Alternative 2
(Preferred) and Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) is that Alternative 2 relies primarily on weak
inserts and at intervals that do not simulate full weak rope (except in shallow waters where
inserts would be placed every 40 feet/12.2 meters) and therefore does not quite achieve an
average line strength of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) across the northeast; whereas Alternative
3 requires more weak insertions or the use of lengths of engineered weak rope and the average
line strength achieved with these measures is estimated at 1,753 pounds (795 kilograms). The
weak line measures included in Alternative 2 in this FEIS provide greater conservation benefits
than those analyzed in the DEIS, with broader use of weak line through state measures in
Massachusetts and throughout LMA 2.
Table 5.6: A comparison of mean line strength and change in gear threat under each alternative.

211

Alternative:

2 (Preferred)
1,976 lb/
896 kg.

3
1,753 lb/
795 kg.

Change in Line Strength

8.6%

18.9%

Change in Gear Threat

17.2%

28.6%

Mean Line Strength

1 (No Action)
2,162 lb/
981 kg.

5.3.1.3.1 Direct
The alternatives included in this analysis were selected based on the approximate risk reduction
estimated for weak line in the DST, which used an empirically-based gear threat model that
compares an individual whales’ likelihood of retaining gear of different strengths (see Appendix
3.1). The model predicts that whales are significantly more likely to be observed with gear
attached as the breaking strength increases (Appendix 3.1). The probability of lethality also
increases with breaking strength given the available data (Appendix 3.1). These findings are in
line with similar analyses showing no entangled adult right whales found in line that break at
1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) or below (Knowlton et al. 2016). Thus, broader use of line with a
maximum breaking strength of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) should reduce the number of
observed adult right whales entangled in heavy gear and the overall lethality of the gear in the
Northeast Region trap/pot areas. Knowlton et al. (2016) found stronger average rope strength on
entangled adults than juveniles, suggesting adults are better able to break out of weaker gear
under a certain breaking strength. Given this, calves and juveniles may not experience the same
benefit given they may be less able to break line of the same breaking strength as adult whales.

212

Figure 5.5: The relative mean rope strength, relative gear threat, and mean line threat for each alternative, including
the baseline (baseline represents Alternative 1).

Figure 5.5 shows the change in average breaking strength of buoy lines between the baseline and
Alternatives 2 and 3 as well as the associated change in mean line threat (i.e. threat of a single
line) and total combined gear threat for the entire northeast. The weak line measures in
Alternatives 3, which would require greater use of full weak rope or the equivalent (weak
insertions every 40 feet/12.2 meters), offers the most direct benefit to whales by reducing likely
entanglement severity compared to Alternative 2.
Weak buoy lines, particularly in areas with deep waters, waters with high currents, storm waves,
large tidal ranges, or high chance of gear conflicts, have a high likelihood of breaking upon
retrieval or snapping due to other conditions. Thus, requiring all buoy lines to be completely
weak would result in increased lost gear and potential safety risks to fishermen.
Therefore, the alternatives, taken from proposals from New England state fishery management
agencies, include other strategies that provide a few weak points. Generally, these requirements
are for nearly all rope and would be required in areas or seasons of relatively low whale
abundance. Such universal requirements would provide a precautionary measure to right whales
outside of their predictable aggregation areas and would protect large whales across the
Northeast Region.

213

However, whales that encounter buoy lines below weak rope or weak inserts are not likely to
benefit from these modifications. Where the number of proposed inserts decreases as water depth
increases (e.g. in Alternative 2 in areas outside of 12 nautical miles/22.2 kilometers), there is
more risk reduction benefit than for a full-strength rope as whales encountering line above the
break should be able to break free and would have an increased chance of shedding gear without
serious injury/mortality, but the risk reduction benefit is not the equivalent of a full weak line.
Although telemetry data are not available for right whales over deep waters off the continental
shelf edge, current evidence suggests right whales use the entire water column to search for food
and that they frequently interact with the seafloor (Baumgartner et al. 2017, Hamilton and Kraus
2019). That is, right whales can encounter buoy lines at all depths. The amount of protection a
few inserts near the upper 33 to 50 percent of the buoy line offers is far less risk reduction than
that of a full weak line or line with continuous 40 foot (12.2 m) interval inserts to the sea floor. A
right whale or other large whale encountering rope above a weak point has a greater likelihood of
breaking free from bottom gear as the whale exerts force against the weight of the trap/pots and
anchor below. Depending on the length of time it takes for a whale to break free and the
associated complexity of the entanglement, these weak inserts would reduce the risk of serious
injury or mortality. However, if the whale encounters the rope below the lowest weak point,
there would likely be no benefit given the lack of a weak point between a whale and the heaviest
gear component. This scenario would still likely result in a whale dragging heavy gear or
drowning below the surface. Drag can result in mortality and serious injury (van der Hoop et al.
2016, van der Hoop et al. 2017a, van der Hoop et al. 2017b).
Serious entanglements can cause death in up to 6 months (Moore and van der Hoop 2012).
Chronic entanglements with gear retained and dragging can also contribute to lower birth rates
(Moore and Browman 2019). For some areas where fewer weak points are proposed or where
weak inserts are not far down the buoy line (e.g. beyond 12 nautical miles/22.2 kilometers), cooccurrence is higher between buoy lines and right whales relative to nearshore Maine waters,
further reducing the risk reduction benefit in these areas.
The depth of the lowest weak point in Alternative 2 ranges from 33 percent to 75 percent. There
is an option for full manufactured weak line only in Massachusetts State waters, though it is
anticipated that most fishermen will choose the use of weak inserts every 60 feet (18.3 meters) in
the top 75 percent of the buoy line. Under Alternative 2, LMA 3 would only have one weak buoy
line topper in the top 75 percent of the line. Conversely, Alternative 3 includes broader use of
full weak line or the equivalent in the top 75 percent of all buoy lines outside of LMA 3, which is
more extensive than the nearshore options in Alternative 3. However, weak line measures are
less extensive in LMA 3, which includes only a 20 percent weak rope topper year round with one
end weakened in the top 75 percent only from May through June. This configuration may have
more risk than the LMA 3 option in Alternative 2, particularly during summer months when right
whales are more likely to be found in offshore waters.
There also may be reduced benefit depending on how weak insertions are configured and how a
whale interacts with the line. The greater the number of weak points the greater the likelihood
that a weak point will be located outside of the mouth, where the whale has a better chance of
breaking free from the buoy line. Line through the mouth of a baleen whale is thought to be one
of the more frequent forms of entanglement (Knowlton and Kraus. 2001) and involvement with
baleen results in more complicated and persistent entanglements that can reduce feeding
214

efficiency and increase the chance of a serious injury or mortality. Configurations that are knotfree may also pose less risk. Currently, the Plan recommends the use of gear that is knot-free,
and/or free of attachments due to the belief that smooth line may be more likely to slide through
the whale’s baleen without becoming lodged in the mouth or elsewhere and increasing the
possibility of serious injury or mortality risk. Weak insertions that depend on large knots could
potentially get caught in baleen if an entanglement occurs. Note, however, that there is evidence
that splices and knots introduce weaknesses into buoy lines. Lines undergoing breaking strength
testing broke on the smaller side of knots and splices (MEDMR 2020). Configurations for weak
insertions currently being developed by fishermen are likely to include some with knots. Further
evaluation is needed before adding knotted configurations to a list of approved weak insertions.
NMFS is currently seeking input through an expert elicitation from scientists investigating Large
Whale Unusual Mortality Events to determine the safety of approving knots as weak inserts and,
if so, if there are particular knots that are less likely to complicate an entanglement.
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 aim to reduce the severity (i.e. serious injury or mortality) of future
entanglements while maintaining safe conditions for fishermen without increasing gear loss. The
alternatives offer different approaches that are expected to reduce the risk of serious
entanglement for large whales relative to the status quo (Alternative 1), particularly for right
whales and humpback whales (Knowlton et al. 2016) but also potentially for fin whales (Arthur
et al. 2015). Knowlton et al. (2016) reported that age plays a role in a right whale’s ability to
break free of rope and that adults may be better able to break free from ropes of lower breaking
strength than ropes of greater breaking strength so these measures may benefit adults more than
calves or juveniles. Smaller species like minke whales and leatherback turtles are not expected to
benefit from weak rope given they are frequently found entangled in rope of lower strengths and
likely do not exert forces strong enough to allow disentanglement (Arthur et al. 2015, Knowlton
et al. 2016). While Alternative 3 may offer higher risk reduction from weak rope than
Alternative 2 (Table 5.6), they both offer some precautionary benefit to some large whales in
some life stages in the event of an entanglement. Alternative 2 likely reduces the strength of
more line in offshore waters in LMA 3 where gear is also stronger and more likely to cause
serious injury or mortality if they were to become involved in an entanglement.
5.3.1.3.2 Indirect
The installation of weak rope could increase the rate of gear loss that could increase the risk that
whales could become entangled in ghost gear. This may depend on which weak rope or weak
insertion solution fishermen elect to use, although over time they would be expected to select for
the solutions that cause the least gear loss. In a study of weak inserts conducted by New England
Aquarium for the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Knowlton et al.
(2018) documented sleeves designed with reduced breaking strength breaking in only 11.8
percent of hauls relative to 8.5 percent of control buoy lines, which they did not find statistically
significant. Information from Maine DMR studies of measured forces during gear hauling
indicates that the proposed scenarios are appropriate for the areas and conditions where they are
to be used (MEDMR 2020). While forces greater than 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) breaking
strength were required for some configurations, particularly for trawls of 35 traps and more in
waters greater than 50 fathoms (91.4 meters, MEDMR 2020), timed haul data indicated those
higher forces were not detected on the line until well past the halfway time during a haul (for
example, Figure 7 in ME 2019 Proposal, Appendix 3.3). Both Alternatives propose a broader use
215

of weak line or inserts in more shallow waters. In deeper offshore waters where there are
increased forces needed for hauling, as well as added safety concerns and conditions that can
inadvertently break a weak rope, the alternatives allow at least one buoy line either fully strong
(LMA 3 Alternative 2), a weak insert at 33 percent down (12 nautical miles /22.2 kilometers to
LMA 3 border), or a weak topper at 20 percent down on one end on trap/pot trawls set in deeper
waters (LMA 3 Alternative 3). Alternative 2, with limited weak inserts half way or 33 percent of
the way down the line, a smaller proportion of line is considered to be the equivalent of weak
line and could have lower likelihood of contributing to gear loss, if weak rope is found to
contribute to gear loss. Overall, weak rope elements considered in the Alternatives should
minimize the amount of gear loss caused by reduced rope strength but it will be important to
follow up after regulations are implemented to see whether gear loss rates have changed.
The broad requirement to use weak lines or inserts may make disentanglement more difficult.
Disentanglement teams rely upon added floatation or drag to slow the whale down and provide
an opportunity to safely release the whale from the lines. Weak inserts or line may prevent this
additional drag from being applied thus potentially making the effort more dangerous and
difficult. Colorful or contrasting weak inserts that are easily recognized would help
disentanglement responders recognize these potential obstacles and adjust accordingly. Chapter 2
includes the number of whales for which serious injury or mortality was averted because they
were disentangled, demonstrating disentanglement’s positive impacts on entanglement outcomes.
However, disentanglement is not always possible or feasible so prevention of serious
entanglements is likely to be more beneficial to the population in the long term.
5.3.1.4

Enforceability

The measures described above for Alternatives 2 and 3 would only provide a conservation
benefit if they are broadly adhered to and result in a measurable change in entanglement risk and
severity. This requires the measures to be enforceable by NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement
(OLE) as well as the U.S. Coast Guard and especially state enforcement agencies. The impact of
trawling up measures was discussed briefly in 5.3.1.1.1. Agencies already do their best to
enforce current measures, including restricted areas and minimum trawl lengths as well as other
gear configurations. Enforcement has been a particular challenge in LMA 3 offshore waters,
where fishing operations are largely unobserved and deep sets of long trawls are beyond the haul
capabilities of prevent enforcement vessels. OLE has successfully tested the use of remotely
operated vehicles to aid in enforcement in offshore waters when hauling gear is not possible.
This technology has the capabilities of improving enforcement of the current and FEIS measures
in offshore waters.
The conversion of seasonal closures to buoy line closures where ropeless fishing is allowed with
an EFP provides an additional enforcement challenge. Enforcement boats will need to have
access to the locations of all ropeless gear in order to properly enforce their use and ensure they
are not within areas where ropeless fishing is not allowed (e.g. in Cape Cod Bay during spring).
Currently, the testing of ropeless fishing with an EFP is limited and conducted in close
collaboration with NOAA or other entities with strict adherence to conditions including location
reporting (outlined in Chapter 3). NOAA has been developing standards for the technology used
to locate and retrieve gear to ensure the development of industry standards and the ability of law
216

enforcement to have access to gear locations and configurations. Testing of ropeless gear in
restricted areas will allow testing of these technologies and collaboration with enforcement
officials to develop protocols for enforcement of ropeless fishing. This testing phase allowed
under both Alternatives 2 and 3 will prepare enforcement agencies for broader use of ropeless
fishing.
Weak inserts are also an area where enforcement may be a challenge. Comments on the DEIS
expressed a concern with the ability of agencies to enforce the use of weak rope or inserts.
Enforcement of weak rope or weak inserts requires the gear to be configured such that they are
detectable by enforcement agencies. This is a challenge given it requires fully manufactured rope
to look distinct from other fishing line and for weak insert configurations to be identifiable.
Furthermore, areas where regular weak inserts are required in lieu of full manufactured weak line
will be difficult to detect and enforce without the capability to measure length between inserts.
NMFS is working with OLE and other fishery enforcement agencies to ensure the approved
weak inserts are identifiable and enforceable. In this FEIS, the line cap in Alternative 3 would be
particularly challenging to enforce, even if a mechanism for implementation was identified. The
use of gear configurations and restricted areas that rely on enforcement are not expected to differ
between Alternatives 2 and 3. For more information on enforcement plans see Appendix 3.5.
5.3.1.5

Analysis of Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Alternatives on Large
Whales

The biological impacts described in the previous section focus on impacts to the right whale and
vary across the regulatory alternatives. This section compares the direct and indirect biological
impacts of each alternative. Where sufficient information is available, the alternatives are
compared using quantitative criteria.
Table 5.7 compares the annual impacts of the alternatives using a variety of indicators that are
likely to correlate with reduced large whale entanglement risk and severity. The change in line
numbers, co-occurrence, and gear threat for the impact alternatives, compared to Alternative
One, were summed to provide an annual total for the purpose of comparing the alternatives. This
analysis evaluates the impact of alternatives to modify the ALWTRP requirements relative to the
status quo Alternative 1 (the No Action baseline that assumes no change in existing Plan
requirements). As previously stated, it is important to note that the No Action Alternative
(Alternative 1) would not achieve the objective of reducing mortality and serious injury of right
whales below PBR. If Alternative 1 were chosen, the current rate of mortality and serious injury
to large whales due to U.S. entanglements in commercial fishing gear would continue to exceed
PBR, rather than be reduced.
The risk of an interaction is associated with the quantity of gear in the water (e.g., number of
buoy lines), gear soak duration, and the temporal and spatial overlap of the gear and protected
species. Increases in any of these factors equates to elevated interaction risk to protected species,
while decreases in these factors equates to a lower interaction risk. As the lobster and Jonah crab
fisheries use trap/pot gear, and the distribution of protected species of large whales (North
Atlantic right, humpback, minke, fin) overlaps with the fisheries, interactions with protected
species are possible and some level of negative impacts to protected species is likely.
217

Table 5.7: The annual summary of all quantitative measures for each alternative, including the change in annual
buoy line numbers (summed across months), co-occurrence, and total annual conversion to weak line. The risk
reduction and co-occurrence estimates from Chapter 3 are also shown, which include the credit for the
implementation of the MRA with the upper and lower bound estimates provided for weak inserts)
Alternative: 1 (status quo)
2 (Preferred)
3 (Non-preferred)
Line Reduction

% Reduction
60%

Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction (with MRA Credit)

% Reduction
72%

69% – 73%

Line Reduction

7%

7%

Co-Occurrence

% Reduction
54%

% Reduction
60%

Right Whale
Right Whale (with MRA Credit)

65%

Humpback Whale

12%

19%

Fin Whale

14%

17%

1,976 lb/
896 kg.
9%

1,753 lb/
795 kg.
19%

17%

29%

Weak Line
Mean Line Strength
Change in Line Strength

2,162 lb/
981 kg.

Change in Gear Threat

Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in geographic range and requirements. As such, each alternative
reduces co-occurrence and, by proxy, predicted entanglement risk within the 60 to 80 percent
target (Figure 5.6). Each alternative also proposed gear modifications that would increase the
likelihood that a whale could break free of gear before becoming seriously injured or killed. The
substantial differences among the alternatives is the number of restricted areas and the different
approaches taken to reduce the number and breaking strength of vertical buoy lines. Alternative
2 (Preferred) would reduce co-occurrence with less impact on total fishing effort (e.g. the
number of trap/pots fished or the number of restricted areas) than Alternative 3 and with less of
an impact on line strength. Alternative 2 additionally considers the risk reduction credit offered
by the maintenance of the MRA, which results in equal re Broad scale implementation of weak
inserts or toppers with full weak line are also included in areas of lower co-occurrence and
represent risk reduction that is also precautionary for right whales in the Northeast Region
outside of high use areas and seasons. The highest degree of protection results from Alternative 3
(Non-preferred) due to the combination of the most proposed closures to persistent buoy lines
and the broadest requirement for full weak rope.

218

Figure 5.6: The relative change in right whale risk and co-occurrence from Alternative 1 (represented by baseline,
i.e. status quo) to Alternative 2 (Preferred) and 3, relative to the risk reduction targets.

An average of 511,369 lines are fished monthly, with a maximum of 925,924, in the Northeast
Region. The restrictions on the number of buoy lines in the Northeast Region considered in the
alternatives include minimum trap trawl requirements, line caps, and seasonal buoy line closures.
Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the number of lines by roughly the same proportion across the entire
Northeast Region (7 percent, Table 5.8). This includes Maine Exempt Waters where there will be
no line reduction, which generally have lower levels of co-occurrence so this area is largely
reducing risk via precautionary measures rather than line reduction. All of the risk reduction
options analyzed here within Maine Exempt Waters will be implemented and regulated by Maine
DMR but considered here for their precautionary risk reduction benefit. The reduction in buoy
lines in these alternatives will likely result in an equivalent reduction of the potential risk of
entanglement by reducing the likelihood that whales and gear would co-occur in the same area at
the same time.

219

Table 5.8: Monthly percent risk reduction for right and humpback whales compared to Alternative 1 (i.e. status
quo). Since a gear threat model is not currently available for fin whales, there are no risk reduction estimates for this
species. Relative risk includes the combined changes due to gear configurations, areas closed to persistent buoy
lines, and maximum line strength.
Relative Risk
Line Reduction
Right Whale
Humpback Whale
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Month
-9%
-16%
-46%
-61%
-18%
-45%
January
-6%
-5%
-53%
-66%
-22%
-48%
February
-6%
-6%
-60%
-69%
-25%
-51%
March
-7%
-10%
-65%
-79%
-27%
-52%
April
-12%
-19%
-89%
-96%
-25%
-48%
May
-13%
-20%
-49%
-80%
-22%
-44%
June
-12%
-15%
-50%
-83%
-22%
-42%
July
-15%
-15%
-23%
-43%
-21%
-41%
August
-7%
-6%
-24%
-43%
-19%
-38%
September
-6%
-4%
-42%
-64%
-18%
-37%
October
-6%
-4%
-50%
-65%
-20%
-44%
November
-6%
-4%
-40%
-48%
-19%
-36%
December
-7%
-7%
-60%
-72%
-21%
-41%
Total

Alternative 3 predicts greater reduction in large whale co-occurrence compared to Alternative 2
(Table 5.8). This is because of the more extensive reduction of lines as well as a greater number
of areas that would be closed to vertical buoy lines. Buoy line closures that relocate lines outside
of the restricted area can increase risk near the restricted area, as is the case near Georges Basin
in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 could also have unintended consequences for all large whales if
the line cap restriction results in increased effort in months where effort has been relatively low
and potentially increase co-occurrence to a greater degree than is reflected in this analysis but
this is less likely in combination with a restricted area in LMA 2. The line reduction and cooccurrence measures proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred) and Alternative 3 both substantially
reduce right whale co-occurrence. Though Alternative 3 will likely reduce co-occurrence
between large whales and buoy lines to a larger degree than Alternative 2, significantly
decreasing entanglement risk for large whales, Alternative 2 will be less likely to increase cooccurrence in the Northeast Region, better accommodates small scale fishing operations and
traditional practices, considers fishing safety concerns, and is more enforceable.
The addition of weak line throughout the proposed area will not reduce co-occurrence but is
predicted to reduce the likelihood that an entanglement will result in serious injury or mortality.
Alternative 3 proposes a larger percentage of full weak rope to be required on vertical buoy lines
across the proposed areas. While Alternative 2 similarly proposes broad scale use of weak rope,
this alternative differs in that it relies upon weak inserts. Weak insertions may, in some ways, be
optimal to full weak rope because insets provide a focused low breaking strength location when
compared to a full weak line where breaking strengths often vary more widely across a line.
However, the fewer insertions that are required in a full line and the deeper the water column, the
less protection an insertion requirement will offer compared to full weak line or the equivalent.
In Alternative 2, the proposed insertions within nearshore shallow waters are very close to a full
220

weak line equivalent (an insertion every 40 feet/12.2 meters). In deeper waters within nearshore
trap/pot management waters, where fewer insertions are proposed within the top proportions of
the buoy line, the risk reduction benefit of the weak insert is reduced. This may result in fewer
weak rope benefits in offshore areas where right whales are more likely to occur but these areas
would be subject to greater line reduction. The weak insertions in Alternative 2 would provide
some risk reduction benefit across the entire Northeast Region, providing a precautionary
measure resilient to changes in right whale distribution.
The combination of line reduction, co-occurrence reduction, and line weakening measures are
estimated to reduce the overall risk of severe entanglement by approximately 60 percent in
Alternative 2 and 72 percent in Alternative 3. This estimate does not take into account additional
risk reduction achieved by maintaining the Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA) in Alternative
2. Because of the increasing value of the MRA over time (Ganley et al. 2019), the Take
Reduction Team recommended including the MRA risk reduction in the overall risk reduction
score. Including the risk reduction value of the MRA results in an estimated 69 to 73 percent risk
reduction to right whales under Alternative 2 (Preferred) and the associated Final Rule.
Likewise, Alternative 3 does not take into account estimated line reduction through state or
fisheries management actions not being implemented by NMFS. The effectiveness of Alternative
2 and 3 both depend on the past effectiveness of these measures on line and risk reduction.
Expected line reduction measures in these alternatives would be far more effective at reducing
overall entanglement risk than weak rope. Including weak inserts in areas with no line reduction
and low right whale co-occurrence, such as exempt areas in Maine, or in areas with longer trawl
lengths, such as in LMA 3, provides an additional important precautionary measure to reduce
entanglement severity.
Based on the information above, Alternative 1 is expected to have high negative to moderate
negative impacts to large whales. Current ALWTRP regulations will be maintained, providing no
incentive for vessels to change effort or fishing behavior, new or elevated entanglement risks to
protected species are not expected. For ESA-listed species of large whales, the risk of
interactions with trap/pot gear remains, and the current rate of mortality and serious injury will
likely continue and U.S. entanglements in commercial fishing gear would continue to exceed
PBR, resulting in moderate negative to high negative impacts. Moderate negative impacts are
expected for other MMPA protected species of large whales because, while the PBR for these
species has not been exceeded while the fishery has operated and the ALWTRP regulations have
been in place, interactions may still occur. Because observed mortality and serious injury only
represents a fraction of observed cases, some of these species may be experiencing human
caused injuries at a rate above PBR once unobserved mortality is taken into account (see Chapter
2).
Considered independently, the fishery under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are expected to
result in moderate negative to slight negative impacts for ESA-listed and MMPA-protected
species of large whales. While entanglement risk for large whales will likely be lessened by
reducing co-occurrence (i.e., additional seasonal restricted areas restricting buoy lines) and
introducing gear modifications that would increase the likelihood that a whale could break free
of gear before becoming seriously injured or killed (i.e., trawling up, end line restrictions, and
weak link requirements), the risk of entanglement remains (i.e., entanglement in groundlines and
221

the continued presence of buoy lines), albeit less so than under Alternative 1. Therefore, ESAlisted and MMPA-protected species of large whales are expected to have slight negative to
moderate negative impacts. Relative to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 both
substantially reduce right whale co-occurrence due to line reduction and co-occurrence measures
proposed, therefore are expected to have slight positive to moderate positive impacts to ESAlisted and MMPA-protected species of large whales, depending on the species.
Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 impacts are expected to be negligible to slight positive
(i.e, a larger percentage of full weak rope to be required on vertical buoy lines across the
proposed areas and predicts greater reduction in large whale co-occurrence). Alternative 3 likely
reduces entanglement risk to a slightly greater degree than Alternative 2 with a slightly higher
decrease in co-occurrence and the strength of lines. A larger decrease in co-occurrence and
strength will likely offer more benefits, particularly to right whales. Though this analysis does
not take into account the MRA risk reduction credit, which achieved a higher co-occurrence
reduction than Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 likely contains fewer regulations that would lead
to uncertain outcomes that could potentially increase line in some areas. Minke whales are less
likely to benefit from line strength reduction and are more likely to be negatively impacted by
long trawl lengths. Therefore, compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is likely to have
negligible to slight positive impacts in large whales. Meanwhile, relative to Alternative 3,
Alternative 2 impacts will be slight negative to moderate negative, because it will be less likely
to increase co-occurrence in the Northeast Region.

Other Protected Species
In addition to impacts on large whale species, other protected species occur in the Northeast
Region that can be entangled in commercial fishing gear. This section assesses the potential
impact of modifications in Alternatives 2 and 3 to the ALWTRP on other ESA-listed species of
marine mammals, including sei and sperm whales as well as ESA-listed sea turtles, including
loggerhead and leatherback (see Chapter 4 for more information). The alternatives differ with
respect to the ancillary benefits they would afford other protected species. As the following
discussion explains, these differences stem from differences in the extent to which the
alternatives would mandate gear modification requirements that could prove beneficial to other
potentially affected ESA-listed species of large whales and sea turtles.
5.3.2.1

Buoy Line and Co-occurrence Reduction

Similar to large whales, it is anticipated that proposed line reduction strategies will reduce
overall risk of entanglement for other protected species, including other large whales and
leatherback and to a lesser extent loggerhead sea turtles. The proposed changes would reduce the
number of buoy lines in the water through measures specifying the minimum number of traps
fished along lobster trawls by area and distance from shore, and/or through a buoy line allocation
cap in federal waters. Alternative 2 (Preferred) requirements differ slightly from Alternative 3
(Non-preferred) where the former relies more on trawling up measures and the later includes a
universal line cap and a greater number of restricted areas. The potential direct or indirect
impacts are discussed below in two sections: gear modifications and seasonal area management.

222

5.3.2.1.1 Gear Modifications: Trawl Length and Line Caps
In addition to the large whales discussed in Section 5.2.1, other protected species in the waters
subject to regulation under the Plan are known to become entangled in lobster and other trap/pot
lines (NMFS 2001c, a, b, d, STDN, 85 FR 21079, April 16, 2020, Henry et al. 2016, Henry et al.
2021). Alternative 1 (No Action) would not result in additional conservation gain for other ESAlisted protected species of large whales and sea turtles and this VEC would continue to sustain
current levels of entanglement in trap/pot gear. Proposed gear modifications that aim to reduce
buoy line are discussed in additional detail in section 5.2.1.1.1. As described previously, the
regulatory changes proposed under Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 include several provisions
that reduce buoy line that could reduce protected species entanglement risks. The alternatives
analyzed would impose restrictions on the number of buoy lines that trap/pot fishermen employ
in the Northeast Region. In Alternative 2, fishermen would be required to use trawls of from two
to 50 trap per trawl, depending on area and season, contributing to an estimated 7 percent
reduction of line. Alternative 3 cuts the number of buoy lines nearly in half using a line cap in
federal waters also contributing to a similar estimated 7 percent reduction of line with added
flexibility with how vessels implemented the line cap.
5.3.2.1.1.1 Direct
Absolute line reduction across the proposed area should benefit all protected species that use the
areas where and when line is reduced. This comprehensive line reduction would likely benefit
other protected species identified in Chapter 4, specifically ESA-listed large whales (i.e., sei and
sperm) and sea turtles, by also reducing the likelihood that individuals would encounter and
become entangled in line.
Sea turtles would be best protected by line reductions that occur when waters are warm enough
to support sea turtles in the Northeast Region (i.e., approximately May through the end of
November; see Chapter 4). Thus, the implementation of a line cap that reduces line numbers
more significantly in summer months, when effort is typically high, likely provides the most
significant reduction in sea turtle entanglement risk. Changes in buoy line numbers during winter
are not likely to impact sea turtle entanglement rates, given that they are typically only present in
the Northeast Region when the water is sufficiently warm.
As provided in Chapter 4, sei and sperm whales have the potential to be impacted by the
proposed regulations. Although the commercial fisheries regulated under the Plan may affect
sperm whales, there seems to be significant separation between the known feeding/or breeding
range of this species and primary fishing areas. Therefore, the gear modifications in the
commercial fisheries regulated under the Plan may be less beneficial for this species. Due to
similarities in distribution, feeding behavior, and other characteristics, sei whales are believed to
benefit from ALWTRP measures in much the same manner as the large whale species the Plan is
designed to protect.
5.3.2.1.1.2 Indirect
The indirect effects of reducing buoy lines are similar to those for large whales described above
depend upon predicted changes in gear loss, enforceability, and gear movement. Increased gear
223

loss, which generally appears unlikely across the alternatives, could cause an increase in the risk
that whales and sea turtles may become entangled in ghost gear.
5.3.2.1.2 Seasonal Restricted Areas Closed to Persistent Buoy Lines
Alternatives 2 and 3 consider line reduction via seasonal closure of trap/pot fisheries to persistent
buoy lines and are described in section 5.2.1.1.2. Under the No Action Alternative, the number
of closures currently in place would remain the same but they would be closed to persistent buoy
lines rather than to lobster fishing. Under exempted fishing permits, a low level of fishing with
ropeless technology could occur that would have minimal impact on protected species in the
short term and that could result in an acceleration of the development of commercial ropeless
fishing technology that reduce impacts to protected species in the future. There would be no
additional conservation benefit to other protected species as a result of Alternative 1.
5.3.2.1.2.1 Direct
Several of the proposed seasonal buoy line closures could have a beneficial impact on other
protected species, but such benefits are likely to be limited. Leatherback and loggerhead sea
turtles generally do not appear in the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area or Gulf of Maine until June,
when there are no current or proposed restricted areas. One restricted area is proposed during
summer months in Georges Basin in the non-preferred alternative and is likely the only restricted
area to potentially have any small positive effect, if any, on leatherbacks and loggerheads (James
et al. 2006, Dodge et al. 2014, AMAPPS 2015, Dodge et al. 2015). Displacement of effort could
negate benefits of the closed areas. The benefits of these restricted areas are likely to be minor
but could potentially prevent the future expansion of trap/pot fisheries into this area.
Given that the majority of known entanglements for these species in trap/pot gear occur in the
buoy line and surface systems, entanglement risk to sea turtles in ropeless trap/pot gear is
considered negligible because the potential for new unattended buoy line into the water column
would be limited if the recommended conservation measures, or their equivalent, are
implemented.
The restricted areas described above could have a beneficial impact on sei and sperm whales, but
such benefits are likely to be limited and may be negated by relocation of fishing lines. Given
their offshore distribution, the only restricted area that is most likely to have a positive effect on
sperm whales is the Georges Basin Restricted Area. The distribution of sperm whales in the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ also typically occurs farther on the edge of the continental shelf, over the
continental slope, and into mid-ocean (Waring et al., 2007), though have been spotted south of
Massachusetts near proposed South Island Restricted Areas in spring (Stone et al. 2017) and near
Georges Bank in summer (CETAP 1982). Given the distinct offshore distribution of this species,
sperm whales are also less likely to benefit from inshore fishery restricted areas particularly not
the proposed LMA 1 Restricted Area.
Sei whales may also benefit from fishery restricted areas proposed closer to shore (Davis et al.
2020). Although sei whales are often found in the deeper waters that characterize the edge of the
continental shelf (Hain et al. 1985), NMFS aerial surveys found substantial numbers of sei
whales south of Nantucket in spring (when a restricted area is proposed in Alternative 3) and
224

summer (Stone et al. 2017), and Georges Bank in the spring and summer (CETAP 1982). Sei
whales (like right whales) are largely planktivorous, primarily feeding on euphausiids and
copepods, which has resulted in reports of sei whales in more inshore locations. Therefore, sei
whales may benefit from the restricted area extensions in Cape Cod Bay, a restricted area south
of Nantucket, and potentially a restricted area in Georges Basin.
5.3.2.1.2.2 Indirect
The indirect effects of proposed restricted areas are similar to that of large whales and could have
indirect beneficial effects on protected by tempering the possible expansion of trap/pot fisheries
or negative indirect benefits if effort is relocated just outside the restricted area into more
sensitive areas. This relocated effort may result in a wall of fishing gear, which would increase
risk of entanglement in the area directly adjacent to the closed areas.
5.3.2.2

Changes to Weak Link Requirements

5.3.2.2.1 Direct
Changes in weak link requirements are not likely to have a significant direct impact on other
protected species. Similar to large whales, sperm or sei whales could potentially have a greater
likelihood of breaking free if the weak link was in a different position on the line. However, the
requirement to switch to some form of weakened line likely accomplishes this objective on a
broader scale. Sea turtles will likely not be impacted from changes to current weak link
requirements given they are unlikely to break line in an entanglement.
5.3.2.2.2 Indirect
Different weak link requirements could potentially increase the amount of ghost gear but, as
discussed above, this is an unlikely outcome and this measure is not anticipated to have any
substantial indirect effects on other protected species.
5.3.2.3

Weak Rope

Both proposed alternatives, would require conversion of a certain proportion of line to weak rope
or the equivalent (see section 5.3.1.3 for more details).
5.3.2.3.1 Direct
Regulations reducing the breaking strength of rope, or requiring weak inserts in rope, are more
likely to benefit other ESA listed species of large whales. Data from Arthur et al. (2015) suggest
larger whale species, such as sperm and sei whales could be able to exert a high enough force to
exceed 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) line. Protected marine mammal species (e.g. sperm and sei
whales) are estimated to exert lower maximum forces than right whales (Arthur et al. 2015) and
therefore the likelihood of these species breaking out of weak rope may be slightly lower.
However, reduced breaking strength could benefit most other protected marine mammals
analyzed here by reducing the likelihood of serious entanglements when an individual is able to
exert enough force to break free. The use of weak inserts lower down on the line may allow other
225

large whales to avoid getting anchored if the entangled whale could generate sufficient force.
Similar to large whales, Alternative 3 may provide slightly greater reduction in potential
entanglement severity to other protected whale species compared to Alternative 2 given the
proposed use of more full weak line.
Sea turtles are unlikely to be able to free themselves at the proposed breaking strength of 1,700
pounds (771 kilograms). Given this, sea turtles are not expected to benefit from reduced rope
strength proposed under Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 given their size and physiology limits
their ability to break free of any entanglement regardless of rope strength.
5.3.2.3.2 Indirect
Indirect effects of the use of weak rope or inserts on other protected species are similar to that of
large whales. There could be potential indirect effects from gear loss that could increase the risk
of entanglement. However, the proposed measures aim to minimize the amount of gear that is
potentially lost as a result of changes in rope strength and so the indirect effects are expected to
be minimal.
5.3.2.4

Comparison of Alternatives

There were few quantitative criteria available to compare the biological effect of the alternatives
on other protected species. As noted above, the No Action (Alternative 1) maintains current
ALWTRP regulations, and therefore, provides no incentive for vessels to change effort or fishing
behavior, new or elevated entanglement risks to protected species are not expected. Under
Alternative 1, impacts are expected to be moderately negative. As discussed in Chapter 4, ESAlisted species of large whales and sea turtles are at risk of interacting with trap/pot gear,
specifically via the entanglement in buoy lines or groundlines associated with this gear type.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are expected to have a slight negative impacts to other ESAlisted species. Other ESA-listed species of large whales (i.e., sei and sperm whales) may not
benefit from the closed areas due to limited co-occurrence and may have increased elevated
entanglement risks outside closure areas due to relocation of fishing lines, though these impacts
would occur close to the restricted area where these species are not commonly sighted. . Other
ESA-listed species of large whales (e.g. sperm and sei whales) are less likely to break out of
weak rope, and therefore not able to benefit. ESA-listed species of sea turtles are not expected to
benefit from reduced rope strength proposed under Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 given their size
and physiology limits their ability to break free of any entanglement regardless of rope strength.
Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is expected to have negligible to slight positive impacts
to sea turtles due to closures in areas of possible co-occurrence.
Based on the information above, relative to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
impacts are expected to be negligible (i.e. little change in line where these species are commonly
sighted) to slight positive (i.e., reducing co-occurrence of buoy lines protected species, weak
links requirements, and line reduction provisions) for ESA-listed protected species. Therefore,
compared to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, Alternative 1 is expected to have slight negative to
negligible impacts to ESA-listed species.
226

Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is expected to have negligible to slight positive impacts
to ESA-listed species (i.e., reduced co-occurrence of buoy lines and sea turtles, use of more full
weak line to lessen entanglement severity for large whales, weak line requirements, and line
reduction provisions). However these provisions will likely not benefit whales that spend more
time in deeper waters, such as sperm whales, and there is a greater risk of an increase in lines
outside of Georges Basin Restricted Area into important habitat. Therefore, compared to
Alternative 3, Alternative 2 is expected to have negligible to slight negative impacts to ESAlisted species.

Habitat
As noted in Chapter 4, traps/pots regulated under the ALWTRP can affect fish habitat primarily
through the gear's impacts on the benthic environment. Such impacts generally arise as a result
of contact between fishing gear and the sea floor, especially during the setting and retrieval of
the gear. In some cases, bottom contact can alter the physical structure of the seabed, injure or
kill benthic organisms, alter the structure and productivity of the benthic community, contribute
to the suspension of sediments, and cause changes in the chemical composition of the water
column overlying affected sediments. The habitat impacts attributed to fixed, bottom- tending
gear are less severe than the impacts of mobile, bottom-tending gear. The regulatory alternatives
under consideration are likely to have a temporary or minimally adverse impact on the benthic
environment. The regulatory provisions with the greatest potential to affect benthic habitat are
those that may influence contact between ALWTRP-regulated gear and the sea floor. As
discussed below, the provisions of interest are those pertaining to trawling up measures and
restricted areas.
5.3.3.1

Buoy Line and Co-occurrence Reduction

5.3.3.1.1 Gear Modifications: Trawl Length and Line Caps
With the exception of Alternative 1 (No Action, i.e. status quo), all of the regulatory alternatives
under consideration would require increasing the minimum number of traps per trawl fished in
the Northeast Region. This increase in trawl length under Alternatives 2 and 3 (Preferred and
Non-Preferred) may in turn increase the use of sinking groundline (see section 5.2.1.1.3 for more
details on proposed changes). Alternative 1 would maintain the current levels of biological
impact of trap/pot fishing on benthic habitats.
5.3.3.1.1.1 Direct
It is likely that in total, the amount of sinking groundline that may be used will not be
substantially different from Alternative 1. Fewer trawls will be fished with an increase to the
minimum number of traps per trawl. Those trawls with more traps, however, may be longer so a
reduction would not be equivalent to removing all groundline from the reduced trawls. A
provision to allow trawls to be lengthened in LMA 3 from 1.5 miles (2.78 kilometers) between
buoy lines to 1.75 miles (3.24 kilometers) is included that may result in some fishermen fishing
disproportionately longer trawls if they think it will increase catch per unit effort by providing
more space between traps on 35 to 50 trap trawls. Fishermen choose to add additional traps to
227

their trawls to ensure that LMA 3 fishermen can achieve an average of 45 trap trawls,
compensating for vessels that cannot be configured to accommodate longer trap trawls, or
lengthen groundlines near the buoy line to reduce the number of pots hanging in the water
column during haul-up so the forces do not break a weakened buoy line.
If these measures in Alternative 2 and 3 result in increased amount of sinking groundline along
the bottom, there will be increased line contact with the seafloor, creating the potential for
adverse impacts on benthic habitat. The expected impacts of sinking groundline on benthic
habitat would occur primarily when the trawl lines of pots are hauled to the surface. During this
process, the line may snag on bottom features and organisms as it is dragged across the bottom.
Such impacts are not expected to be more than minimally greater than current impacts for shorter
trawls and are likely temporary in nature. Most studies investigating small numbers of traps or
pots per buoy line (one to three) have found minimal, short-term impacts on physical structures
(Eno et al. 2001, Chuenpagdee et al. 2003, Stephenson et al. 2017). Similarly, a panel of experts
that evaluated the habitat impacts of commercial fishing gears used in the Northeast Region of
the U.S. (Maine to North Carolina) found bottom-tending static gear (e.g. traps/pots) to have a
minimal effect on benthic habitats when compared to the physical and biological impacts caused
by bottom trawls and dredges (NMFS 2002b). The vulnerability of benthic essential fish habitat
for all managed species in the region to the impacts of trap/pots is considered to be low (NMFS
2004). However, less is known about longer trap/pot trawls and there is limited information that
trawls with 20 or more pots may have impacts more similar to mobile gear, though at a smaller
spatial scale (Schweitzer et al. 2018). Areas where trawl lengths reach 20 pots per trawl or more
may have a greater impact of benthic habitats than areas with shorter trawls. In Alternative 2,
longer trawls will primarily occur beyond 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometers) in deeper waters.
In Alternative 3, this could impact inshore waters if longer trawls are used closer to the shore in
response to the line cap.
Current knowledge suggests that trap/pot fishermen minimize the distance at which gear is
drawn across the sea floor when hauling in their gear, as this contact causes abrasion of the
protective coating on the traps themselves. Hence, fishermen try to position their vessels above
their gear, pulling sets up through the water column instead of across the sea floor. This practice
minimizes the adverse impact of long trap trawls and sinking groundline on benthic habitat.
Furthermore, the amount of bottom area that would be disturbed by sinking groundline on long
trap trawls, and the frequency of disturbance in the exact same area from repeated contact with
sinking groundline, would be very small, allowing enough time for recovery of benthic
communities that would potentially be affected. Therefore, any adverse impacts associated with
longer trap trawls or the increased use of sinking groundline in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
would be temporary but slightly higher offshore where longer trawls are being fished.
5.3.3.1.1.2 Indirect
As with other VECs, an increase in ghost gear is possible if trawling up led to the loss of more
gear, but this is not expected to occur in higher numbers than the baseline given the trawl
configurations proposed in Alternative 2. There is some uncertainty regarding the impact of a
line cap on trawl configurations in Alternative 3, but it is expected that fishers will continue
configuring gear such that the risk of gear loss is minimized. Thus, indirect impacts from gear
configurations Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are expected to have a negligible impact on
228

habitat, and expected to have negligible impacts in comparison to Alternative 1 and to each
other.
5.3.3.1.2 Seasonal Restricted Areas Closed to Persistent Buoy Lines
Both proposed alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Action), include seasonal
restricted areas that would further reduce the use of persistent buoy lines during times when right
whales are more likely to aggregate (see section 5.2.1.1.2 for more details).
5.3.3.1.2.1 Direct
The seasonal restricted areas proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 could lead to additional habitat
protections where fewer lines and traps are coming into contact with the bottom, leading to less
structural damage or mortality of benthic organisms. However, there will be little benefit to the
habitat if ropeless fishing expands in use within these areas, particularly with longer trawls that
increase the amount of sinking groundline comes into contact with benthic habitats. If ropeless
fishing expands widely in closed areas, habitat is expected to experience similar levels of
disturbance as described in section 5.2.3.1.1 where longer trawls could potentially have an
impact on benthic habitats. Although the implementation of seasonal restrictions would limit
bottom contact to certain times of year, the overall impacts to biological communities would be
the same since most affected organisms would require more than a few months to recover from
disturbance.
5.3.3.1.2.2 Indirect
Seasonal restricted areas where no lobster or Jonah crab trap/pot trawls are fished are not likely
to have many indirect impacts other than any potential beneficial effects that result from
protection of benthic habitats from bottom tending gear, though these are expected to be minimal
given the scale of the restricted areas. If ropeless equipment is broadly used in seasonal
management areas, it could indirectly impact the habitat in the event of equipment failure that
could increase the presence of ghost gear. Using transponders to help fishermen locate their gear
on the bottom in ropeless systems could reduce the likelihood of gear lost compared with current
gear losses after storm events or other incidents. Alternatively, expansion of ropeless gear in
restricted areas could reduce bottom trawling in the region, preventing more invasive practices
from harming benthic habitats and possibly leading to a positive impact on habitats. The loss of
gear is not expected to be significantly higher than with traditional trap/trawl fishing practices so
any impact is likely minimal. It is possible that an increase in grappling for lost gear could
impact habitat quality given its known effect on the sea floor.
5.3.3.2

Changes to Weak Link Requirements

5.3.3.2.1 Direct
Changes in weak link requirements are not likely to have any impact on habitat quality because it
will not come into direct contact with the benthic environment.
5.3.3.2.2 Indirect
229

Different weak link requirements could potentially increase the amount of ghost gear but, as
discussed above, this is an unlikely outcome and this measure is not anticipated to have any
substantial indirect effects on habitat.
5.3.3.3

Weak Rope

Both proposed alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Action), would require
conversion of a certain proportion of line to weak rope or the equivalent (see section 5.2.1.2 for
more details).
5.3.3.3.1 Direct
The use of weak rope, as required by regulatory Alternatives 2 and 3 (Preferred and Nonpreferred), is unlikely to have a significant direct impact on habitat. It largely will not come in
direct contact with the seafloor and should not significantly result in any changes to the
configuration of trap/pot trawls.
5.3.3.3.2 Indirect
Weak rope requirements could have minor indirect impacts on fish habitat or benthic organisms
if there is any increase in lost gear. Ghost gear could impact habitat quality and benthic
organisms if it comes in contact. It is possible that weak rope could benefit essential fish habitat
by reducing the likelihood that an entangled whale would drag heavy gear over sensitive areas if
gear is releasing more readily. If this occurs, potential direct damage to the marine environment
could be avoided. Overall, weak rope requirements are not expected to create high amounts of
ghost gear, as discussed in section 5.2.1.2 and therefore the indirect impacts to habitat are
presumed to be minimal.
5.3.3.4

Comparison of Alternatives

No quantitative criteria are available to formally compare the biological effect of the alternatives
on habitat. Alternative 1 will maintain baseline levels of biological impacts on benthic habitats,
slight direct negative impacts to habitat due to disturbance to benthic habitat to indirect
negligible impacts on habitat due to ghost gear.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in negligible to slight negative direct impacts on
habitat. This possible impact is likely limited to offshore environments with Alternative 2 and
could impact offshore and nearshore environments with Alternative 3 in the event that trap/pot
trawls are expanded in these areas in response to a large cap in the number of lines allotted to
each vessel. However, areas too close to shore (i.e., those within state waters), are unlikely to
experience excessively long trap/pot trawls given the nature of the fishery and the vessels
operating in these areas. If ropeless fishing is implemented widely in closed areas, it is not
expected that Alternative 2 or 3 will significantly change the amount of gear that comes into
contact with the seafloor.

230

Given the information above, in comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are
expected to have negligible to slight negative direct impacts on the Northeast Region habitat.
Negligible due to the minimal addition of lines for ropeless fishing and unlikely significant
biological impacts due to weak rope and slightly negative due to the presence of groundline that
is not present under Alternative 1 and the potential increase in risk posed by long trap/pot trawls
in contact with the sea floor. Compared to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, Alternative 1 is
expected to have negligible impacts on affected fish habitats. There may be some additional
impact on habitat under Alternative 2 compared to 3 because trawl lengths will likely be longer
throughout the year under Alternative 2 compared to 3 but these impacts are likely not
measurable and thus impacts between the two alternatives is likely negligible.

5.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Gear Marking Alternatives
When compared to Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternatives 2 and 3 would both strengthen most
of the Plan’s current gear marking requirements. Currently the marking system requires buoy
lines to be marked three times (top, middle, bottom) with a mark equal to 12 inches (30.5
centimeters in length, with exemptions in inshore waters in some areas.
Both alternatives would modify gear markings to add state-specific colors. Both alternatives
include at least one 3 foot (0.9 m) long colored mark within two fathoms of the buoy using the
state-specific colors to increase the chance that it can be seen from platforms of opportunity,
such as vessels or small planes, to distinguish gear from different states and/or management
areas in the Northeast Region waters.
Maine has already added state specific gear marking requirements for state permitted fishermen,
including a 3 foot (0.9 meter) mark within two fathoms of the buoy, effective September 2020.
ALWTRP modifications will mirror Maine’s regulations outside of the exemption area.
Massachusetts implemented gear marking regulations in state waters that require frequent state
specific red marks, consistent with measures in this FEIS.
The goal of the long mark near the buoy is to increase the marks visibility so that even if gear is
not retrieved, it could be identified by state fishery from sighting platforms including boats and
aerial survey planes. This color scheme would be continued on at least three marks that are
already required, and at least four 1 foot (0.3 meter) long green marks would also be required
within 6 inches (15.2 centimeter) of each state specific mark for gear set in federal waters. This
is an increase from the one 6 inch (15.2 centimeter) mark required in Alternative 2 in the DEIS,
more than doubling the minimum number of marks required on federal lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot gear in the northeast. Additionally, New England waters that are currently exempt from
the gear marking requirements would be required to follow the same marking scheme as the
principle port with at least one 3 foot (0.9 meter) mark and at least two 1 foot (0.3 meter) marks
lower on the buoy line. Alternative 3 would include the same large surface system state-specific
color marking to improve detectability, but would require the use of state and fishery specific
tape along the entire buoy line, excepting any small weak inserts required in the buoy line,
instead of an increase in number of marks on the line. The No Action Alternative 1 would
continue a gear marking system that uses marks specific to management areas rather than
identifying gear to state level.
231

The gear marking provisions are designed to improve NMFS' ability to identify the gear involved
in an entanglement. As discussed below, these provisions would have no immediate direct
impact on entanglement risks. In the long run, however, they may help NMFS to target and
improve its efforts to protect large whales.

Large Whales
Despite current efforts to mark gear, there is still a high proportion of entanglements that cannot
be identified by the fishery or location of origin (as discussed in Chapter 2). No gear is retrieved
and/or the fishery of origin or type of fishing gear are not identifiable for a majority of
entanglements, including 80 percent of the right whale incidents. In many cases, this is because
there was no gear present on right whales with clear signs of entanglement. Of all large whale
entanglements between January 1, 2010 and March 16, 2020 where gear was still present, less
than half of cases had gear available for analysis and less than 14 percent of all cases had gear
marks that could be identified as originating in a U.S. management area (Table 5.9; See
Northeast Trap/pot gear guide for details regarding colors:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/94698537). Between five and 13 percent of
all large whale cases with gear present had identifiable U.S. marks and from 69 to 92 percent of
all cases did not have U.S. marks and could not be identified as Canadian gear. Only three of 62
right whale cases with gear present had gear with marks from U.S. fisheries and all were red,
representative of the large nearshore northeast lobster area. Thus, a large proportion of gear that
is recovered does not have identifiable marks using the current marking scheme. These data
suggest that the current gear marking scheme does not adequately contribute to our
understanding of where entanglement gear is originating. Additionally, regulations that would
add a large mark to the surface system will increase the number of cases where gear can be
identified even if the gear is not retrievable.

232

Table 5.9: The number of incidents with retrieved gear analyzed from January 1, 2010 - March 16, 2020 that had marks of those where origin was identified.
Total Cases with
Total
No marks/
Canadian
Total with
Red & Red & Red & Blue
Species
Red
Blue
Origin ID
Analyzed
not Canadian
Gear
U.S. Marks
Yellow
Blue
or Black
214
79
183
14
17
7
7
1
1
1
Humpback
13
2
12
0
1
1
1
Fin
59
28
47
4
8
7
Minke
62
25
43
16
3
3
Right

233

The majority of large whale entanglement cases with gear present had marks that were red,
representing a large portion of the nearshore Northeast Region trap/pot fishery. At present, all
trap/pot fisheries in federal waters, outside of exempt areas, are required to mark their gear with
red for most nearshore fisheries in the Northeast Region, and a separate color (black) for all
offshore fisheries. A few management areas have added marks to aid in identification but most
regions within the Northeast Region are indistinguishable from each other at the state level. A
more fine scale spatial resolution marking scheme will help distinguish which regions are
contributing most to large whale entanglements, allowing managers to implement more targeted
measures in the future.
5.4.1.1

Direct

While existing gear marking requirements, under Alternative 1, have increased the amount of
retrieved gear with marks, it does not provide sufficient entanglement location information. Both
Alternatives 2 and 3 include gear marking schemes expected to increase the number of marks
present by over 50 percent in federal waters, independent of line numbers. Alternative 2
(Preferred) would allow the use of inexpensive and commonly available materials and would
result in the incorporation of two new marks per line in federal waters and three new marks in
exempt waters. Alternative 3 would require the addition of fewer new marks but would also
require an identification tape throughout the buoy line denoting home state and trap/pot fishery.
Alternative 2 shows a higher number of marks than Alternative 3 because a larger number of
lines are expected to remain active in the region. However, Alternative 3 further requires tape to
be woven through the length of the line that contain state and fishery specific data, which would
mean the majority of gear that is retrieved from a commercial trap/pot line would be identifiable
to this level of information, though gear is not retrieved in a majority of entanglement incidents.
The regulatory provisions described above would have neither direct impact on the probability of
whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear nor would they affect the severity of an
entanglement should one occur. As noted below, however, potential changes in gear marking
requirements could have an indirect effect on whale entanglement risks.
5.4.1.2

Indirect

A primary barrier to understanding the nature of large whale entanglements is obtaining
information on the type and origin of the gear involved. Gear removal from entangled animals
still provides the only reliable information about the nature of entanglements (Johnson et al.
2005). However, it is often difficult to connect the gear in which a whale is entangled with a
particular fishery, state, or country because even in those instances where line remains on a
whale, entangled whales often carry only a portion of the gear they have encountered and that is
not always retrieved. The gear marking requirements under consideration would help to generate
more and more geographically specific information on the nature of the gear involved in an
entanglement and the fishing vessel’s state of origin. In addition, these provisions could increase
the number of incidents in which the origin of the gear could be identified, allowing the agency
to gather additional information on where, when, and how the gear was set. By increasing
scientific understanding of the nature of large whale entanglements, gear marking measures
would allow NMFS, over time, to improve the effectiveness of the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan. Thus, these measures are expected to contribute indirectly to the preservation
234

and restoration of whale stocks because bigger, more frequent marks would increase the chances
of identifying the source of line that may be visible on whales observed from platforms or
recovered from an entangled whale.

Other Protected Species
5.4.2.1

Direct

With the exception of Alternative 1 (No Action), all of the regulatory alternatives under
consideration would impose new gear marking requirements. Alternative 1 would maintain the
current gear marking scheme that is inadequate for identifying the gear related to many
entanglements to the ideal specificity. Alternatives 2 and 3 would expand the current gear
marking scheme for New England lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries and include statespecific gear marking. As with large whales, these requirements are intended to improve
information about the source of gear seen on or retrieved from entangled whales. But these
requirements would not have a direct impact on the probability of other ESA-listed protected
species becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear. Nor would these requirements affect the
severity of an entanglement if one occurs.
5.4.2.2

Indirect

The gear marking requirements under consideration would help to generate information on the
nature of the gear involved in a well-documented entanglements of other ESA-listed protected
species. Additional information on the source and type of fishing gear involved in entanglements
could indirectly benefit other protected species if it leads to new regulations to mitigate
entanglement risk. These provisions could, in some cases, allow NMFS to identify the origin of
the gear, and thus, allow the agency to gather additional information on where, when, and how
the gear was set. By increasing scientific understanding of the origin of entanglements, the gear
marking measures would allow NMFS, over time, to improve the effectiveness of programs
designed to reduce the entanglement risks faced by other species that experience high levels of
entanglement. Thus, these measures could contribute indirectly to the preservation and
restoration of the other potentially-affected ESA-listed protected species of large whales and sea
turtles.

Habitat
5.4.3.1

Direct

The proposed gear marking requirements are unlikely to have any measurable direct impacts on
fish habitat or benthic organisms given the gear markings will not change the amount or type of
gear touching the seafloor nor will the markings interact with any characteristics of this VEC.
5.4.3.2

Indirect

The proposed gear marking requirements are unlikely to have significant indirect impacts on fish
habitat or benthic organisms unless the gear marking provided added information that informed a
235

future restricted areas that was free of all buoy and groundlines. The type of marking material
could have a small impact on habitat if there was degradation of the materials used, though it this
is likely negligible relative the background levels of contamination.

Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative 1 would result in no changes to current rates of gear identification and would have
negligible (gear marking has no immediate direct impact on reducing entanglement risks to ESA
listed or MMPA protected species or habitat) to slight negative (indirectly not providing a
mechanism to help NMFS to target and improve its efforts to protect ESA-listed and MMPA
protected large whales) impacts.
Alternatives 2 and 3 could potentially result in a larger proportion of retrieved gear being
identifiable to country of origin and, potentially, state of origin. Since the number of proposed
marks are the same in both alternatives, the chances of visual identification of gear on large
whales and other protected species are comparable between Alternatives 2 and 3. It is notable
that Alternative 3 would have an additional marker throughout the length of the line, making this
line identifiable no matter which portion of the gear was retained on the individual and which
portion of the gear was retrieved by the gear team but it would require gear to be retrieved for
this to be beneficial, which currently occurs in approximately 20 percent of entanglement cases.
Alternative 2 has more external marks and, though this marking scheme would require a marked
portion to remain on an entanglement, there are likely to be more marks that are identifiable from
a survey platform without retrieval. Given the information above, the impacts of Alternative 2
and 3 are expected to be negligible (gear marking would not impact the direct risk of
entanglement or impact habitat) to slight positive (indirectly providing a mechanism to help
NMFS to target and improve its efforts to protect ESA-listed and MMPA protected large whales
in the long term). Based on the information above, Alternative 2 and 3 have negligible to slight
positive impacts compared to Alternative 1, and negligible impacts when compared to each
other.

5.5 Summary of Impacts
Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the current levels of impact trap/pot fishing currently
has on the VECs. Under this alternative, the impact of trap/pot fishing will remain high negative
to moderate negative because the rate of mortality and serious injury of right whales is well
above PBR and unsustainable for the population. While observed mortality and serious injury of
other MMPA protected species (i.e., minke whales and humpback whales) is above PBR,
entanglements remain a significant threat to fin whales (an ESA listed species) as well as
humpback and minke whales, particularly for humpback whales because undocumented
mortality could be occurring above PBR given the current levels of human caused incidents (see
Chapter 2). The impact of trap/pot entanglement would remain moderate negative for other ESA
listed and protected species as well under this alternative. The impacts to habitat will maintain
the status quo as defined in Chapter 4; negligible to slight negative impacts to habitat from the
use of trap/pot gear would continue. When assessed individually, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
would each have a moderate negative to slight negative impact on large whales, slight negative
236

to negligible impacts on other protected species and a negligible to slight negative impact on the
habitat (Table 5.10).
As the discussion above suggests, there are a few significant differences between Alternatives 2
and 3 (preferred and non-preferred, respectively), relative to Alternative 1, with respect to
impacts on large whales, other protected species, and habitat. The impacts from Alternatives 2
and 3 are generally expected to be slightly positive to moderately positive when compared to the
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) because the other large whale species likely benefit from
these alternatives to a lesser degree than right whales. All of the Alternatives (with the exception
of Alternative 1) include some form of gear modifications and some level of increased traps per
trawl. The main differences among these alternatives stem from differences in the approach and
magnitude of reducing the proportion of buoy lines, size or season of closures to persistent buoy
lines, and the extent of the use of weak rope or weak insertions with a maximum breaking
strength of 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) Large whales are expected to positively benefit from
the regulations proposed in both Alternatives 2 and 3 since they both effectively reduce cooccurrence between whales and buoy line as well as increase the proportion of lines with
maximum breaking strength or weak inserts. Alternative 3 likely reduces entanglement risk to a
slightly greater degree than Alternative 2 with a slightly higher decrease in co-occurrence and the
strength of lines. Though this analysis does not take into account the MRA risk reduction credit,
which achieved a higher co-occurrence reduction than Alternative 3. A larger decrease in cooccurrence and strength will likely offer more benefits, particularly to right whales, but
compliance is expected to be greater for Alternative 2, rather than 3, given that it was developed
with the states and fishermen and takes into account safety concerns. Furthermore, Alternative 2
likely contains fewer regulations that would lead to uncertain outcomes that could potentially
increase line in some areas and is also more implementable and enforceable. Minke whales are
less likely to benefit from line strength reduction and are more likely to be negatively impacted
by long trawl lengths. Therefore, compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is likely to have
negligible to slight positive impacts relating to large whales.
In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and 3 will likely have slight indirect positive
impacts on other protected species prone to entanglement in trap/pot gear , with Alternative
Three offering negligible to slightly greater positive benefits relative to Alternative 2. Any
additional indirect impacts of Alternatives 2 and Three on habitat are expected to be negligible
compared to Alternative 1 and relative to each other.

237

Table 5.10: The direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives on the three biological VECs.
Alternatives
Risk
Reduction

Alternative 1
(No Action)

Alternative 2
(Preferred)

Alternative 3
(Nonpreferred)

Large Whales

Other Protected Species

Habitat

Moderate Negative – Injury
and mortality due to
entanglement would continue to
harm ESA listed species.

Negligible to Slight
negative – Areas with
trawls above 15 traps per
trawl may have a shortterm impact.

Slight Negative– Would reduce
entanglement risk for ESA
listed species. However risk of
interactions will not be entirely
eliminated by the proposed
action.

Negligible to Slight
negative – Trawling up to
trawls above 15 traps per
trawl may have a shortterm impact.

Slight Negative – Would
reduce entanglement risk for
ESA listed species. However
risk of interactions will not be
entirely eliminated by the
proposed action.

Negligible to Slight
Negative – Areas with
trawls above 15 traps per
trawl may have a shortterm impact.

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

High Negative to Moderate
Negative– Mortality and
serious injury would continue
to occur and impact ESA listed
species’ population health.
More so for right whales and
other large whales to a lesser
degree other ESA listed or
MMPA protected species.
Moderate Negative to Slight
Negative – Would reduce
entanglement risk for ESA
listed and MMPA protected
species. However risk of
interactions will not be entirely
eliminated by the proposed
action.
Moderate Negative to Slight
Negative– Would reduce
entanglement risk for ESA
listed and MMPA protected
species. However risk of
interactions will not be entirely
eliminated by the proposed
action.

Gear Marking
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Alternative 3
(Nonpreferred)

5.6 References
AMAPPS. 2015. 2015 Annual Report of a Comprehensive Assessment of Marine Mammal, Marine Turtle, and
Seabird Abundance and Spatial Distribution in US Waters of the Western North Atlantic Ocean –
AMAPPS II.
Arthur, L. H., W. A. McLellan, M. A. Piscitelli, S. A. Rommel, B. L. Woodward, J. P. Winn, C. W. Potter, and D.
Ann Pabst. 2015. Estimating maximal force output of cetaceans using axial locomotor muscle morphology.
Marine Mammal Science 31:1401-1426.
Baumgartner, M. F., F. W. Wenzel, N. S. J. Lysiak, and M. R. Patrician. 2017. North Atlantic right whale foraging
ecology and its role in human-caused mortality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 581:165-181.
Black, B., K. Bunting, N. Manderlink, B. Morrison, and I. Inc. 2019. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Ropeless Exemption
in Select Closure Areas. Memorandum to Allison Rosner, NMFS/GARFO 7 February 2019.

238

CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the USA
outer continental shelf. Final Report #AA551-CT8-48 Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program,
University of Rhode Island, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing
collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:517-524.
Davis, G. E., M. F. Baumgartner, P. J. Corkeron, J. Bell, C. Berchok, J. M. Bonnell, J. Bort Thornton, S. Brault, G.
A. Buchanan, D. M. Cholewiak, C. W. Clark, J. Delarue, L. T. Hatch, H. Klinck, S. D. Kraus, B. Martin, D.
K. Mellinger, H. Moors‐Murphy, S. Nieukirk, D. P. Nowacek, S. E. Parks, D. Parry, N. Pegg, A. J. Read,
A. N. Rice, D. Risch, A. Scott, M. S. Soldevilla, K. M. Stafford, J. E. Stanistreet, E. Summers, S. Todd, and
S. M. Van Parijs. 2020. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the
western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Global Change Biology 26:4812–4840.
DeCew, J., P. Lane, and E. Kingston. 2017. Numerical analysis of a lobster pot system. Page 61. New England
Aquarium.
Dodge, K. L., B. Galuardi, and M. E. Lutcavage. 2015. Orientation behaviour of leatherback sea turtles within the
North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Proc Biol Sci 282:20143129.
Dodge, K. L., B. Galuardi, T. J. Miller, and M. E. Lutcavage. 2014. Leatherback turtle movements, dive behavior,
and habitat characteristics in ecoregions of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. PLoS One 9:e91726.
Eno, N. C., D. S. MacDonald, J. A. M. Kinnear, S. C. Amos, C. J. Chapham, R. A. Clard, F. P. D. Bunker, and C.
Munro. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:11-20.
FAO. 2016. Report of the Expert consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear, Rome, Italy, 4–7 April 2016. Rome,
Italy.
Ganley, L.C., Brault, S., Mayo, C.A. 2019. What we see is not what there is: estimating North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. Endangered Species Research 38:101-113.
https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00938
GMRI. 2014. Understanding opportunities and barriers to profitability in the New England lobster industry.
Hain, J. H. W., M. A. M. Hyman, R. D. Kenney, and H. E. Winn. 1985. The role of cetaceans in the shelfedge
region of the northeastern United States. Marine Fisheries Review 47:13-17.
Hamilton, P., and S. Kraus. 2019. Frequent encounters with the seafloor increase right whales’ risk of entanglement
in fishing groundlines. Endangered Species Research 39:235-246.
Hayes, S. A., S. Gardner, L. Garrison, A. Henry, and L. Leandro. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whales: evaluating
their recovery challenges in 2018.
Henry, A., T. V. N. Cole, L. Hall, W. Ledwell, D. M. Morin, and A. Reid. 2016. Serious injury and mortality
determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States, United States East Coast
and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2010-2014.957-KB.
Henry, A., M. Garron, A. Reid, D. Morin, W. Ledwell, and T. V. Cole. 2019. Serious injury and mortality
determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2012-2016. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Henry, A. G., T. V. N. Cole, M. Garron, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, and A. Reid. 2017. Serious injury and mortality
determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic
Canadian Provinces, 2011-2015. Page 57.
James, M. C., C. A. Ottensmeyer, S. A. Eckert, and R. A. Myers. 2006. Changes in diel diving patterns accompany
shifts between northern foraging and southward migration in leatherback turtles. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 84:754-765.
Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005. Fishing gear involved
in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science 21:635-645.

239

Knowlton, A.R., J. DeCew and T. Werner. 2020. Simulated performance of lobster fishing gear under different
configurations. Presentation to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. Accessed online at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEF6w-4yGUG5EMTVjO2mqo8k5jX8-UmC/view on February 1, 2021.
Knowlton, A. R., and S. D. 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., R. Malloy Jr., S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2018. Development and Evaluation of Reduced
Breaking Strength Rope to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Severity. Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean
Life, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A. McKenna, S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2016. Effects of fishing
rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv Biol 30:318-328.
McCarron, Patrice and Heather Tetreault, Lobster Pot Gear Configurations in the Gulf of Maine, 2012.
MEDMR. 2020. An Assessment of Vertical Line Use in Gulf of Maine Region Fixed Gear Fisheries and Resulting
Conservation Benefits for the Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. Submitted to NMFS GARFO as
mid year Progress Report, July 2019 – 2020, for Grant NA18NMF4720084.
Moore, M. J., and H. Browman. 2019. How we can all stop killing whales: a proposal to avoid whale entanglement
in fishing gear. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76:781-786.
Moore, M. J., and J. M. van der Hoop. 2012. The Painful Side of Trap and Fixed Net Fisheries: Chronic
Entanglement of Large Whales. Journal of Marine Biology 2012:1-4.
NEFMC. 1986. Amendment #1 to the Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, Incorporating an
Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review.
NMFS. 2001a. Authorization of fisheries under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan, Biological Opinion,
Consultation No. F/NER/2001/00546 Northeast Region Protected Resources Division.
NMFS. 2001b. Authorization of fisheries under the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan, Biological Opinion, Consultation No. F/NER/2001/01206. Northeast Region Protected
Resources Division.
NMFS. 2001c. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, Issuance of Exempted Fishing
Permit to Maine Department of Marine Resources to Develop and Test a species-specific Jonah Crab,
Cancer borealis, Trap in Federal Lobster Management Area 1, Consultation No. F/NER/2001/01251.
NMFS. 2001d. Reinitiation of Consultation on the Federal Lobster Management Plan in the Exclusive Economic
Zone, Biological Opinion, Consultation No. F/NER/2001/00651. Northeast Region Protected Resources
Division.
NMFS. 2002a. Large Whale Gear Research Summary, Prepared by the Gear Research Team. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.
NMFS. 2002b. Workshop on the effects of fishing gear on marine habitats off the Northeastern United States October
23-25, 2001 Boston, Massachusetts. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
NMFS. 2003. Supplement to the Large Whale Gear Research Summary, Prepared by the Gear Research Team.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.
NMFS. 2004. Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf,
and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat.
NMFS. 2014. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan:
Vertical Line Rule Volume I of II. NOAA, DOC.
Pace, R. M., P. J. Corkeron, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in
abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and Evolution 7:8730–8741.
Record, N., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z. Feng,
S. Kraus, R. Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 2019. Rapid Climate-

240

Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography 32.
Roberts, J. J., B. D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P. N. Halpin, D. L. Palka, L. P. Garrison, K. D. Mullin, T. V. N.
Cole, C. B. Khan, W. A. McLellan, D. A. Pabst, and G. G. Lockhart. 2016. Habitat-based cetacean density
models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific Reports 6:22615.
Roberts JJ, Mannocci L, Halpin PN (2017) Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and
Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2016-2017 (Opt. Year 1). Document version 1.4. Report prepared for
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab,
Durham, NC.
Roberts JJ, Schick RS, Halpin PN 2020. Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and
Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2018-2020 (Option Year 3). Document version 1.4. Report prepared for
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab,
Durham, NC.
Schweitzer, C. C., R. N. Lipcius, and B. G. Stevens. 2018. Impacts of a multi-trap line on benthic habitat containing
emergent epifauna within the Mid-Atlantic Bight. ICES Journal of Marine Science.
Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN), unpublished data
Stephenson, F., A. C. Mill, C. L. Scott, N. V. C. Polunin, and C. Fitzsimmons. 2017. Experimental potting impacts
on common UK reef habitats in areas of high and low fishing pressure. ICES Journal of Marine Science
74:1648-1659.
Stone, K. M., S. M. Leiter, R. D. Kenney, B. C. Wikgren, J. L. Thompson, J. K. D. Taylor, and S. D. Kraus. 2017.
Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21:527-543.
Thomas, P. O. T., S. M. 1984. Mother-Infant Interaction and Behavioral Development in Southern Right Whales,
Eubalaena australis. Behaviour 88:42-60.
van der Hoop, J., D. Nowacek, M. Moore, and M. Triantafyllou. 2017a. Swimming kinematics and efficiency of
entangled North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research 32:1-17.
van der Hoop, J. M., P. Corkeron, A. G. Henry, A. R. Knowlton, and M. J. Moore. 2017b. Predicting lethal
entanglements as a consequence of drag from fishing gear. Marine Pollution Bulletin 115:91-104.
van der Hoop, J. M., P. Corkeron, J. Kenney, S. Landry, D. Morin, J. Smith, and M. J. Moore. 2016. Drag from
fishing gear entangling North Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science 32:619-642.
Wenzel, F., D. K. Mattila, and P. J. Clapham. 1988. Balaenoptera musculus in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal
Science 4:172-175

241

CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
6.1 Introduction
The regulatory alternatives under consideration that would be implemented through proposed
modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan or ALWTRP) would
subject commercial fishermen operating in fisheries covered by the ALWTRP to a number of
new requirements. These include:
•
•
•
•

Reducing buoy lines through minimum trap/trawl or trawl-length standards;
Requirements to use weak “whale safe” ropes or weak insertions;
Seasonal designated restricted areas to lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot buoy lines; and
Gear marking requirements.

These requirements apply to lobster and Jonah crab fisheries in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot
Management Area (Northeast Region). 5 Complying with these requirements is likely to impose
additional costs to commercial fishermen and, in some instances, to have an adverse impact on
their revenues. If these impacts are large, it is possible that some fishermen may switch their
effort to other fisheries if opportunities exist, or cease fishing entirely.
For this analysis, we consider costs of only those measures that would be regulated under the
Plan modifications. Costs of ongoing and anticipated lobster fishery management measures, and
state regulations, including gear marking and weak insertion regulations within Maine exempted
waters and Massachusetts additional weak insertions, gear marking, and the extension of the
Massachusetts Restricted Area into May, are considered to be part of the baseline, and are not
analyzed here.
Fishermen would incur the costs associated with the change in equipment when new
requirements go into effect, and may have additional maintenance and replacement costs on an
ongoing basis thereafter. To appropriately reflect the costs associated with such investments, this
analysis presents these costs on an accumulated and annualized basis. The model develops a
series of potential costs year by year within the effective time of this rulemaking, which is
assumed to be 6 years. Six years represents an average replacement cycle for rope in buoy lines,
and is also the typical length of time between ALWTRP regulatory changes based on past
actions. Then yearly costs are accumulated first and then annualized, which provides an estimate
of costs as if they were constant for each year during the effective time of the new rules. We
apply both 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates to calculate the annualized value.
All costs in this analysis—except for those in cited literature and documents—are converted into
2020 dollars by using price indexes for Gross Domestic Product (BEA 2021). The year 2020 was
selected to follow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines to reflect the most

5

Existing or anticipated Maine regulations for Maine Exempt Waters and Massachusetts regulations for
Massachusetts state waters measures, while considered for risk reduction, are not included in the economic analysis
because they are not the result of the proposed rulemaking, rather are the result of the states’ actions. Existing risk
reduction measures are treated as part of the economic baseline.

242

recent available price inflation. Economic impacts described in this chapter represent the
difference between the impacts of the proposed rule relative to the regulatory landscape in 2017.
The following discussion describes the methods used to estimate the costs that commercial
fishermen would incur in complying with potential modifications to the ALWTRP, and presents
the first year cost of each measure. These cost estimates represent the direct impact of new
regulations on the commercial fishing industry at the beginning of the rulemaking. They also
provide a foundation for subsequent evaluation of the regulations’ potential effect on commercial
fishing activity, and of the implications of such effects on communities dependent on the
commercial fishing industry. At the end, a summary of accumulated values and annualized
values of each measure is provided. The discussion is organized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Section 6.2 describes the data sources and methodology employed to estimate compliance
costs associated with minimum trawl-length and weak rope requirements, including the
Vertical Line Model developed by Industrial Economics (IEc);
Section 6.3 describes the data sources and methodology employed to characterize the
economic impact of the seasonal restricted area to trap/pot buoy lines;
Section 6.4 describes the methods used to estimate the compliance costs associated with
gear marking requirements;
Section 6.5 describes the methods used to estimate the compliance costs associated with
buoy line cap reduction;
Section 6.6 presents the resulting estimates of compliance costs for each regulatory
alternative;
Section 6.7 describes the social impacts of the new requirements of the ALWTRP.

The analysis measures the cost of complying with the regulatory changes to the Plan relative to
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. The economic analysis is designed to measure costs on
an incremental basis, i.e., to measure the change in costs associated with a change in regulatory
requirements. If no change in regulatory requirements is imposed—as would be the case under
Alternative 1—the costs of complying with the ALWTRP would remain unchanged. Thus, the
incremental cost of the No Action Alternative is zero.
Much of the analysis described in this chapter builds on the foundation provided by NMFS’
Vertical Line Model created by IEc, which provides an estimate of the number and distribution
of lines as they were fished in 2017 (see Vertical Line Model documentation in Appendix 5.1).
As discussed earlier in this document, the model integrates information on fishing activity, gear
configurations, and large whale movements to provide indicators of the potential for
entanglements to occur at various locations and at different points in time because of the cooccurrence of buoy lines and large whales, focusing especially on right whales. The costs of the
management measures under consideration depend on the seasons and locations in which a
vessel operates; the regulations to which it is already subject; and the current configuration of the
vessel’s gear. The Vertical Line Model specifies operating assumptions for groups of vessels that
hold these key features in common, providing an important starting point for assessing economic
impact. The role of the model in the analysis of economic impact is described in detail below.

243

6.2 Analytic Approach: Gear Configuration Requirements
There are two major risk reduction gear configuration modifications considered in both
Alternative 2 (Preferred) and Alternative 3 (Non-preferred). Trawling-up would reduce the
number of buoy lines by establishing a the minimum trawl length requirement–i.e., prohibiting
trawls of less than a specified number of traps or pots between buoy lines for trap/pot fisheries in
Northeast Region (referred as trawling up measure hereafter). The exact nature of this
requirement varies by location (primarily distance from shore due to greater vessel capacity) and
by Alternative. The other important risk reduction gear configuration component of the
alternatives is a requirement for using weakened, whale safe rope/weak rope. Measures analyzed
would limit the buoy line breaking strength at the depth of the weak rope or weak insertions to
no more than 1,700 lb (771 kg) or introduce a weak insert into buoy line so that an adult right
whale can break free after entanglements (Knowlton et al. 2016). The costs that fishermen are
likely to incur in complying with such requirements fall into several categories:
Trawling up: Costs of compliance with the trawling up requirements include:
•

•

Gear conversion cost: Vessels fishing shorter trawls (e.g., singles, doubles) would
need to reconfigure their gear to comply with trawling up requirements. These
changes may require expenditures on new equipment as well as investments of
fishermen’s time.
Catch/landings impact: The “catch” in this analysis refers to the lobster and Jonah
crab harvested, brought to land and sold, also known as “landings”. Catch rates may
decline for vessels that are required to convert from shorter sets to longer trawls,
reducing the revenues of affected operations.

Weak rope cost: To comply with the new weak rope requirement, vessels in different areas need
to add one or more weak insertions into their buoy lines, or replace their entire lengths of buoy
lines with weak lines no greater than 1,700 lb (771 kg) strength. These changes will cost
fishermen extra input in both materials and time.
Other Impacts: Some vessels that shift to longer trawls and/or weak ropes may experience
changes in the rate at which gear is lost. In addition, some fishermen may need to modify their
vessels or add crew to handle longer trawls.
Given the broad scope of the ALWTRP, a vessel-by-vessel analysis of the costs of complying
with these requirements is infeasible. Instead, the analysis is based upon the model vessels
defined in the Vertical Line Model. Each model vessel represents a group of vessels that fish in
the same area, share other operating characteristics, and would face similar requirements under a
given regulatory alternative. As Figure 6.1 illustrates, the analysis estimates regulatory
compliance costs for each model vessel. This cost estimate is then applied to the population of
active vessels that the model represents, and aggregated across this population to estimate
regulatory compliance costs for all vessels in a given category. 6 The sum of costs across all
6

The cohort of active vessels that a model vessel represents is based in part on vessel trip reports that indicate the
location of fishing activity. Some vessels report activity in multiple areas in a given month. To avoid double-

244

vessel categories provides an estimate of regulatory compliance costs for the commercial fishing
industry as a whole (see Section 6.2.1 and appendix 5.1).

Development of Model Vessels
The first step in analyzing the impacts of trawling up requirements is to define the relevant suite
of model vessels, i.e., groups of vessels that operate in a similar fashion and thus are likely to
face similar compliance costs. Current regulations under the ALWTRP vary by fishery, location
and season. Potential modifications to the ALWTRP, as embodied in the regulatory alternatives
under consideration, would follow a similar approach. Thus, compliance costs are likely to vary
depending upon the location in which it operates, and the seasons in which it is active. The
model vessels employed in the cost analysis are designed to capture these differences.
In addition, the model vessels are designed to take into account differences in compliance costs
that would result from the nature, configuration, and quantity of gear that vessels employ. For
example, some lobster vessels fishing in a given region may configure their traps/pots in pairs,
while others may already use longer trawls; since this difference could have a significant impact
on the costs of complying with trawling requirements, it is important that the cost analysis
differentiate between such vessels.

Figure 6.1. Economic impact assessment methodology

Analysis of the economic impact of the trawling up requirements requires comparing the
baseline configuration of gear assigned to model vessels in the Vertical Line Model with the new
configuration of gear that would be required under each regulatory alternative. This procedure
allows assessment of compliance costs for the full suite of possible outcomes. For instance, for
the set of lobster vessels fishing in exempt state waters in Maine Lobster Zone B, the Vertical
counting in such cases, the analysis assigns the vessel’s activity to each area in proportion to the distribution of trips
it reports. For example, if over the course of a month a vessel reports seven trips to Area A and three trips to Area B,
the analysis will assign 0.7 active vessels to Area A and 0.3 active vessels to Area B. Thus, all estimates of the
number of vessels active in a given area are reported on a full-time equivalent basis; the number of vessels that fish a
portion of their gear in the area each month may be higher.

245

Line Model identifies 35 possible gear configuration options, as defined by a matrix that
specifies both the number of traps fished (five categories) and the number of traps per trawl
(seven categories). The model relies on survey data to characterize the baseline distribution of
gear configurations within this matrix. The cost analysis then identifies the gear configurations
that would be prohibited under each regulatory alternative; vessels that currently fish sets shorter
than the required minimum would need to reconfigure their gear. The difference between the
baseline configuration and the new configuration of gear that each regulatory alternative would
require (which varies by area and alternative) drives the analysis of gear conversion costs; thus,
estimates of compliance costs for vessels that are subject to identical requirements will vary
depending upon the configuration of gear they currently employ. As described below, the cost
analysis takes into account a broad range of “with or without” gear configuration options.

Trawling up Gear Conversion Cost
When vessels convert from shorter sets to longer trawls, one impact is the direct cost of
converting gear to the new configuration. These costs include two major elements:
● Equipment Cost: Fishing traps in a new configuration may require the use of new
equipment. For instance, the use of longer trawls is likely to require additional
groundline. These costs may be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in the use of other
types of equipment, such as a reduction in the use of buoy lines, buoys, etc.
● Labor Cost: The costs of converting gear include the implicit value of the time that
fishermen spend reconfiguring their equipment.
Figure 6.2 illustrates the methodology employed to estimate these costs. As shown, the analysis
identifies new gear conversion requirements (i.e., modifications that are not already specified
under existing rules), estimates the material and labor required to bring all gear into compliance,
and calculates the resulting cost. For each provision, equipment costs are a function of the
quantity of gear to be converted and the unit cost of the materials needed to satisfy the trawling
requirement. Labor costs are a function of the time required to implement a specific
modification, the quantity of gear to be converted, and the implicit labor rate. All costs are
calculated on an incremental basis, taking into account any savings in equipment costs that might
result from efforts to comply with new ALWTRP regulations. The discussion below further
describes how these costs are estimated.

246

Figure 6.2. Methodology used to calculate gear conversion costs

6.2.2.1

Equipment Costs for Trawling up

Vessels that switch to longer trawls because of new ALWTRP requirements would incur costs
for new equipment, but may also realize savings on components of gear that the new
configuration would use less extensively or eliminate entirely. For example, under Alternative 2,
the use of trawls shorter than five in the 3-6 nautical miles (5.6-11.1 km) portion of Maine
Lobster Zone B would be prohibited; trap/pot vessels that currently fish short trawls would need
to switch to trawls of no fewer than five traps. The analysis assumes that the affected vessels
would fish the same number of pots, and switch to the minimum set length of the new
requirements–in this case, five traps per trawl. For vessels that previously fished triples, this
implies an increase in the quantity of groundlines and a decrease in the quantity of buoy lines. It
also implies a decrease in the number of buoys and other surface marking elements associated
with each set (surface systems). To capture this dynamic, the gear cost analysis compares “with”
and “without” new requirements for each category of affected vessels, identifying the impact of
each regulatory alternative on the gear that vessels in that category would employ. The
calculations also take into account regular replacement of surface systems, where an individual
could use their cache of surface systems instead of replacement in the future; that credit was
applied against the estimated costs.
The equipment cost that vessels would incur is also a function of the total number of traps that
must be reconfigured. For each model vessel, the cost model itemizes changes in the quantity of
247

all gear elements based on the maximum number of traps fished at any point during the year. In
this way, the estimate of gear conversion costs for each model vessel reflects the cost of
reconfiguring all of its gear, not just the subset of traps it may fish in a particular month.
Gear specifications for each model vessel are customized to the relevant fishing area. The
specification of baseline gear use is consistent with typical practices and existing regulatory
requirements, while the specification of gear use under each regulatory alternative is based on an
assessment of the changes needed to comply with the new requirements. The factors considered
in each case include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Set configuration (i.e., the number of traps and number of buoy lines per trawl)
The depth at which gear is typically set, combined with a buoy line slack factor
(to define buoy line length);
Buoy line diameters;
Buoy system features (buoy size, number, and type);
The number of anchors (if any) per set;
The distance between traps on a trawl (to define groundline length); and
groundline diameters. 7

Appendix 6.1.1 details how these parameters vary by area. As explained in the appendix, many
of these parameters are based on information provided in a lobster gear configuration report for
the Gulf of Maine (McCarron & Tetreault 2012). Additional specifications draw on data
provided by state fisheries managers to support development of the Vertical Line Model.
To evaluate the net change in equipment cost associated with fishing longer trawls, the analysis
incorporates unit cost information gathered from marine supply retailers. The unit cost estimates
represent the average of prices quoted by three major marine supply retailers in the Northeast:
Friendship Trap, New England Marine, and Brooks Trap Mill. This price information was
gathered via searches of online catalogs as well as personal communication with company
representatives. Supplementary information from other retailers provides prices for
miscellaneous gear elements. Appendix 6.1.2 summarizes the unit prices and useful life
estimates compiled for all gear elements.
6.2.2.2

Labor for Gear Conversion and Associated Costs

In addition to equipment costs, converting trap/pot gear to longer trawls would require an
investment of fishermen’s time. The following discussion summarizes the assumptions the
analysis employs to estimate the amount of time fishermen are likely to spend reconfiguring their
gear, as well as the method used to estimate the implicit value of their time.
6.2.2.2.1 Labor for Gear Conversion
Numerous factors may influence the amount of time a fisherman is likely to spend on gear
conversion, including:
7

The analysis assumes that groundlines employed in non-exempt waters is sinking line, consistent with the
ALWTRP’s current requirements.

248

•
•
•
•
•
•

The individual’s skill and experience;
The complexity of the reconfiguration required;
Whether gear is reconfigured on shore or at sea;
For reconfiguration at sea, the distance between sets;
The availability of a sternman to assist with the work; and
The method (knots, splicing, etc.) used to string traps together into trawls.

In the absence of data to support characterization of all of these factors, the labor cost analysis
applies a simplified method. Following the recommendation of National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) gear specialists, the analysis assumes 15 minutes of labor for each trap that
must be converted to a new configuration, based on the assumption that the reconfiguration will
be performed at sea. 8 To determine the number of traps that must be converted, the analysis first
calculates, for each model vessel, the number of sets that the new configuration will
accommodate. Using the model vessel’s baseline gear configuration as a starting point, it then
calculates the number of traps that must be added to each set to reach the target set length. For
example, assume as a starting point a model vessel that under baseline conditions fishes 400 sets
of doubles (a total of 800 traps), but under a given regulatory alternative would be required to
fish trawls of at least five traps. In this case:
•
•
•
•

The regulatory alternative will accommodate 160 sets of five-trap trawls (800/5 =
160);
The analysis takes as a starting point 160 sets of doubles (320 traps);
The remaining 480 traps must be added to these sets to create five-trap trawls;
At 15 minutes per trap, the analysis estimates that 120 labor-hours would be
required to reconfigure the 480 traps (480 traps times 0.25 hours per trap).

The formula for total reconfiguration labor hours is shown as below:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 0.25 ∗ (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 −

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
∗ 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)
𝑁𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑤𝑤 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

While this approach is highly simplified, it incorporates the time estimated for the suite of
considerations and steps (listed above) required to convert from current to new trawl
configurations. In addition, because it is based upon an estimate of the time required to
reconfigure gear at sea, it is designed to be more conservative (i.e., to yield a higher cost
estimate) than would be the case if the analysis assumed that the reconfiguration of gear occurred
on shore.
6.2.2.2.2 Labor Cost
The cost model assigns an implicit value to fishermen’s time based on labor rates in professions
they would pursue if not involved in fishing. This is the “opportunity cost” of time. To identify
alternative professions, the analysis relies on responses provided to a survey administered by the
Gulf of Maine Research Institute in 2005 (GMRI 2006). The GMRI survey asked a sample of
1,158 randomly selected lobstermen a variety of questions regarding education, vessel
8

Pers. comm. with NMFS gear specialists, September 24, 2012.

249

characteristics, fishing effort, and other aspects of their work. Compiled and published in 2006,
the survey findings guide a number of assumptions in the cost and socioeconomic analysis
presented in this document.
When asked about alternative professions, the GMRI survey respondents most commonly
indicated that they would be involved in carpentry, other trades, vessel maintenance, merchant
marine activity, or another aspect of commercial fishing (i.e., harvesting other species, boat
maintenance). Table 6.1 summarizes the responses.
The cost analysis uses the distribution of responses to develop a weighted average wage rate that
reflects the opportunity cost of a fisherman’s time. First, the analysis normalizes the survey
responses, eliminating the indeterminate or non-relevant responses (“other,” “don’t know,” and
“retire”). The analysis then matches the alternative occupations with Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) occupational categories, developing a simple average wage rate for each occupation (or
group of occupations) based on the May 2018 mean hourly wage rate reported by BLS. For
instance, the survey response “carpentry/trades/mechanic” is assigned an average wage rate
based on the rates that BLS reports for “Carpenters” and for “Automotive Service Technicians
and Mechanics.” Finally, the analysis weights the wage rates by the distribution of survey
responses to estimate an average opportunity cost of $25.75 per hour (Table 6.1).
6.2.2.3

Caveats and Uncertainties

The discussion above highlights several key assumptions in the analysis of gear conversion costs.
Chief among these are (1) the specific baseline configurations and gear elements used in each
fishing area; (2) the cost and useful life of various gear elements; (3) the amount of labor needed
to convert short sets to longer trawls; and (4) the implicit value of fishermen’s time. There are
uncertainties associated with each of these assumptions, but the overall direction of any potential
bias in the resulting estimates of gear conversion costs is unclear.
It is noteworthy that the analysis of gear conversion costs results in some net cost savings in gear
costs for some groups of vessels, as shown in Table 6.3. This occurs when trawling up implies
lower expenditures on key gear elements. For instance, vessels fishing in the federal waters of
LMA 1 are likely to employ relatively sophisticated and expensive surface systems. If trawling
up reduces the number of sets fished and the number of buoys used, the result is reflected as a net
cost savings, even after accounting for investments of time needed to reconfigure gear. Table 6.3
also shows savings caused by trawling up for some Maine fishermen that fish singles. Even with
some catch losses, these vessels have a net savings due to reduced gear costs when trawling up.
While the analysis incorporates these impacts, for most vessels, it also recognizes the potential
for other costs—in particular, adverse impacts on catch rates—to offset any savings as a result of
changes in gear costs. The following section discusses these impacts in greater detail.
Table 6.1: Calculation of the implicit value of a trap/pot fisherman’s time
Alternative Occupation
Percent of
Normalized Average
Respondents
Distribution Wage
That
of
Rate
Identified
Responses
Alternative
28%
41%
$23.59
Carpentry/Trades/Mechanic

250

BLS Occupational
Categories Incorporated into
Average Wage Rate
Carpenters; Vehicle and

Alternative Occupation

Percent of
Respondents
That
Identified
Alternative

Normalized
Distribution
of
Responses

Average
Wage
Rate

Other Commercial
Fishing/Merchant Marine/Boat
Building and Maintenance

26%

38%

$24.16

Other Business

8%

12%

$36.98

Truck Driver/Equipment
Operator

3%

4%

$23.71

Education

2%

3%

$27.22

Police/Firefighter/EMT/Military

1%

1%

$25.07

BLS Occupational
Categories Incorporated into
Average Wage Rate
Mobile Equipment Mechanics,
Installers, and Repairers;
Construction Trades Workers
Fishers and Related Fishing
Workers; Motorboat
Mechanics and Service
Technicians; Sailors and
Marine Oilers; Captains,
Mates, and Pilots of Water
Vessels
Business and Financial
Operations Occupations
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer
Truck Drivers; Operating
Engineers and Other
Construction Equipment
Operators
Education, Training, and
Library Occupations
Police Officers; Firefighters;
Emergency Medical
Technicians and Paramedics
Mechanical Engineers

1%
1%
$44.62
Engineering
10%
N.A.
Weighted
Other
2%
N.A.
Average:
Retire
16%
N.A.
$25.75
Don't Know
Notes: Because the survey permitted multiple responses, these figures do not sum to 100 percent. Sources:
Alternative occupation choice data from GMRI survey 2006;
Wage rate data from BLS Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 . Data accessed on March 19, 2020

Catch Impacts Associated with Trawling Up Requirements
The analysis of compliance costs associated with trawling requirements recognizes the potential
for impacts on landings under certain conditions. Fishermen use singles and other short sets for a
variety of reasons. In some cases, short sets may allow fishermen to target especially productive
bottom structure where longer trawls may be inefficient or difficult to haul (e.g., because of
fouling on bottom structure). This advantage may be most prevalent in rocky habitats, including
those around islands. Second, short sets can be distributed more widely than trawled traps. Wide
distribution may aid in the search for the target species. Likewise, wide distribution may reduce
competition between traps, increasing the catch per unit of effort.
Data to support a quantitative analysis of trawling up effects on catch are extremely limited.
Because multiple factors influence catch rates (gear configuration, gear density, the abundance of
the target species, bottom structure, soak time, individual skill, etc.), it is difficult to isolate the
effect of trawl configuration on catch. The Maine Department of Marine Resources (Maine
DMR) developed and implemented a project designed, in part, to assess the impacts of longer
251

trawls on catch in the lobster fishery (Maine DMR 2012). Participants hauled roughly 2,300 sets
of gear in control configurations (singles and doubles) and 835 sets of gear in trawls ranging
from triples to tens. The research found no statistically significant reduction in catch per trap
when comparing the control configurations to the experimental configurations.
Despite this finding, industry experts believe it is possible, and in some instances likely, that
changes in gear configuration could have an adverse impact on catch. Experts from the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (Massachusetts DMF), for example, have called
attention to the potential for catch impacts in the inshore lobster fishery around Cape Cod, where
single traps are routinely fished. 9 Research has demonstrated that the optimal spacing of lobster
traps depends upon the abundance of lobster in an area; the greater the density of lobster, the
greater the density of traps that can be fished without an adverse impact on catch per trap
(Schreiber 2010). The use of singles in the Cape region is partly attributable to this dynamic. The
density of lobsters in these waters is lower than it is off the Maine coast; under these conditions,
traps that are placed relatively close together—as would be the case when fishing trawls—are
more likely to compete with one another in attracting lobsters. As a result, traps fished in trawls
around the Cape might be less productive than traps fished as singles. 10
Gear configuration change may lead to change in fishing effectiveness and efforts, causing an
initial reduction in landings and associated lower fishing mortality. However, this is a dynamic
process: landings would drop in the first year that effort reductions are implemented, and then
increase after a few years when fishermen adapt to the new regulations and when lobster not
captured in earlier years are caught at larger and more valuable sizes. Baseline landing value
would be reached between five and seven years after implementation and baseline value would
be exceeded in subsequent years 11. Because the ALWTRP regulations are generally revised
every five to six years, long-term benefits derived from this measure are not calculated. Lacking
any systematic data linking gear configuration and catch rate, the analysis applies a simplified
approach to characterize potential impacts. To recognize the potential for catch impacts to be
greater when gear configurations change markedly, it first classifies affected vessels into two
categories:
Category A – Those subject to relatively large increases in trawl length, defined as an increase
of a factor of two or more in the number of traps in each set; and
Category B – Those subject to smaller increases in the number of traps trawled up in each set.
The analysis then incorporates two scenarios designed to provide a reasonable estimate of the
range of potential catch impacts:

9

Pers. comm. with Massachusetts DMF, November 7, 2012.
Pers. comm. with Massachusetts DMF, November 7, 2012. DMF also noted that several ports on the Outer Cape
have sandbars that can only be cleared when the tide is high. Fishermen access and haul their traps in a relatively
narrow window of time each day. While trawl fishermen tend to haul more gear to make up for lower catch rates,
this may not be an option for those whose ability to exit and return to port is limited by the tides.
11
Pers. comm. with NEFSC lobster stock assessment scientist on May 9, 2020.
10

252

Lower Bound – In the lower bound scenario, the analysis assumes that vessels in Category A
experience a 5-percent reduction in annual catch. The reduction in catch will also decrease by 20
percent per year, and reach zero at year six. The catch of vessels in Category B is assumed to be
unaffected.
Upper Bound – In the upper bound scenario, the analysis assumes that all vessels in Category A
experience a 10-percent reduction in annual catch, while those in Category B experience a 5percent reduction. For both categories, the catch reduction will decrease by 10 percent in year
two, then decrease by 20 percent per year, reaching 10 percent of the original reduction at year
six.
The impact of the year one catch reduction is calculated as follows:
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ℎ 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙/𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) 𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡/𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦) 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ℎ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (%)

Similarly, the reduction in annual landings is converted to a loss in annual revenue using the
following equation:
Reduction in Catch (lb/year) x Ex-Vessel Price ($/lb)

Table 6.2 summarizes the catch per trap and price data by state and LMA using NMFS Vessel
Trip Report (VTR 2010-2017) and dealer data (2015-2017). Vessels fishing in federal waters
with any permit requiring VTR reporting are required to report their fishing location, gear
configuration and catch amount, while prices are calculated from dealer reports using landed
pounds and transaction value. We use more years of VTR data to compensate for the lower VTR
reporting rate of 10 percent in Maine waters. The 10 percent sample for VTR reporting in Maine
is stratified by state fishing zone (Zones A through G) and license class. More specifically,
within each combination of zone and license class, a proportion of harvesters (i.e., 10 percent) is
annually selected to complete trip reports. These practices make the multi-year data more likely
to be representative for the area.
It is vital to note that the assumptions applied in estimating potential catch impacts are
generalized, and the magnitude of such impacts is highly uncertain. A given vessel may
experience catch changes greater or less than the impacts assumed in the analysis. These impacts
may diminish over time, as fishermen adapt to new gear configurations and learn to fish longer
trawls more efficiently. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that changes in gear
configurations could have an overall impact on catch rates. The analysis does so, applying a
range of assumptions to illustrate the potential magnitude of this effect.

Summary of Trawling up Cost
Trawling up measures are mainly proposed in Alternative 2 to reduce the number of buoy lines
in state and federal waters. Under Alternative 3, the only trawling up proposal is for LMA 3
offshore waters to increase the trap per trawl to 45 from May to August although trawling up is
also identified as a likely consequence of a line cap and reduction under Alternative 3. The total
economic impact from trawling up consists of three parts: cost savings from surface systems and
253

buoy lines; extra material and labor cost for groundlines; and lost revenue from catch reduction.
Table 6.3 summarizes the savings and costs for different areas.
Under Alternative 2, catch reduction impacts account for the biggest costs, ranging from $5
million to $11.8 million. After offsetting the cost saving from buoy lines and surface systems, the
total cost is between $1.5 million and $8.3 million for the first year. For Alternative 3, the
trawling up cost is around $0.9 million to $1.9 million. It is much lower than Alternative 2
because the major buoy line reduction measure for Alternative 3 is the buoy line cap reduction,
which is described later.
Table 6.2: Parameters for assessing yearly landing value reduction for vessels converting to longer trawls
Annual
Ex-Vessel
Gross
5% Revenue
10% Revenue
Fishery
Area
Catch per
Price
Revenue per Reduction per
Reduction per
Trap (lb)
($/lb)
Trap ($)
Trap ($)
Trap ($)

Lobster

Jonah Crab

ME LMA1

42.5

5.3

225.3

11.3

22.5

ME LMA3

4.4

5.3

23.4

1.2

2.3

NH LMA1

32.0

6.0

192.6

9.6

19.3

NH LMA3

26.4

6.0

158.5

7.9

15.8

MA LMA1

36.7

5.7

208.8

10.4

20.9

MA LMA2

18.1

5.7

102.8

5.1

10.3

MA LMA3

18.5

5.7

105.5

5.3

10.5

MA OCC

33.0

5.7

187.6

9.4

18.8

RI LMA2

13.1

6.1

79.3

4.0

7.9

RI LMA3

43.5

6.1

264.2

13.2

26.4

MA LMA2

13.5

0.9

11.9

0.6

1.2

MA LMA3

146.2

0.9

129.5

6.5

12.9

RI LMA 2

12.0

0.9

10.5

0.5

1.1

RI LMA3

123.5

0.9

108.1

5.4

10.8

Notes: 1. Catch per trap data is the average value calculated by state and LMA using 2010-2017 VTR.
2. Ex-vessel price is calculated by state using 2015-2017 dealer reports.
3. All values adjusted to 2020 U.S. dollars

254

Table 6.3: Savings and costs caused by trawling up measures in the first year of the new rules
Area
Surface
Buoy line
Groundline
Groundline
Catch Impact
System
Savings ($)
Line Cost ($)
Labor Cost
Lower Bound
Savings ($)
($)
($)
1,671,259
886,847
111,316
409,511
1,171,931
ME A

Catch Impact
Upper Bound
($)
3,229,184

Total Cost
Lower Bound
($)
-865,348

Total Cost
Upper Bound ($)
1,191,905

ME B

165,350

314,689

54,411

164,217

483,001

1,323,999

221,590

1,062,587

ME C

118,119

567,681

24,282

177,347

704,757

1,521,291

220,586

1,037,120

ME D

98,005

359,989

22,505

152,677

618,008

1,419,169

335,197

1,136,358

ME E

45,151

169,211

8,905

70,592

281,236

641,517

146,371

506,653

ME F

46,749

181,953

9,877

63,205

421,869

919,145

266,250

763,526

ME G

78,311

210,743

23,108

101,696

355,016

939,743

190,766

775,492

179

7,100

457

4,856

25,989

51,977

24,022

50,011

LMA3 (Alt 2)

38,149

157,505

2,135

81,343

1,176,756

2,353,512

1,064,581

2,241,337

LMA3 (Alt 3)

36,993

153,177

2,071

74,976

1,066,603

2,133,205

953,480

2,020,082

Total (Alt 2)

2,261,273

2,855,718

256,996

1,225,445

5,238,564

12,399,537

1,604,015

8,764,988

Total (Alt 3)

36,993

153,177

2,071

74,976

1,066,603

2,133,205

953,480

2,020,082

MA

Notes: 1. All values are adjusted to 2020 U.S. dollars.
2. Fishermen would save some costs in buoy lines and surface system under new gear configurations. The negative numbers are estimated savings.

255

Weak Rope Costs
The use of 1,700 lb (771 kg) test rope would be required under both alternatives to increase the
probability of an adult right whale disentangling themselves if they get wrapped up by a buoy
line. For the purposes of this document, weak inserts are considered equivalent to weak rope if
they are placed in the traditional rope every 40 ft, the average length and girth of an adult North
Atlantic right whale. For example, a 90-foot buoy line would need two weak points to be
considered equivalent to a fully weak rope.
In Alternative 2 (Preferred), all buoy lines in state waters would be required to have one weak
insertion at 50 percent down the rope. Buoy lines in waters between 3 to 12 nm (5.6 to 22.2 km)
would be required to have two weak insertions at the top 25 percent and 50 percent of the rope
except in Maine Zones A East, F, and G which would have one weak insertion 33 percent of the
way down the rope. Buoy lines outside 12 nm (> 22km from shore) to the LMA 1 border are
required to have one weak insertion at top 33 percent. For LMA 3, the Preferred Alternative
would require fishermen to use fully engineered weak rope or equivalent in one of their buoy
lines for the top 75 percent year round.
In Alternative 3 (Non-preferred), buoy lines in all but LMA 3 waters would be required to have a
fully engineered weak line or equivalent in the top 75 percent of the buoy lines. There are two
options for LMA 3 lines: 1. Have one buoy line with 75 percent weak seasonally (May to
August) and one line with 20 percent topper (top 20 percent of the buoy line) year round; 2.
Have one buoy line with 75 percent weak year round.
Vessels fishing in inshore (state waters) or nearshore (within 12 nm) waters usually use 3/8 inch
(1 cm) diameter ropes. Offshore vessels (beyond 12 nm) use 1/2 (1.3 cm) or 9/16 inch (1.4 cm)
ropes. Fully engineered 3/8 inch (1 cm) diameter ropes that break at 1,700 lb (771 kg) or less
(weak rope), according to a gear manufacturer, 12 would cost about 15 cents per foot, higher than
the 11 cents per foot for traditional 3/8 inch (1 cm) diameter ropes. The price for offshore weak
ropes are assumed to be 30 percent more expensive than original ropes at the same diameter. The
life span of these ropes are assumed to be 6 years. 13
There are a few other ways to make a buoy line weak, and the costs vary: The first one is to
splice a three ft piece of weaker rope into the original rope. Costs would include five minutes of
labor for each insertion and the costs of the piece of weak rope. The life of this weak insertion is
assumed to be the same as the original rope, about six years.
Another way is to introduce a 3-ft hollow sleeve, designed by South Shore fishermen, to the
original rope. Two cut ends of the original rope meet in the middle of the sleeve, and the two
ends of the sleeve are anchored into the original ropes in three tucks or splices. The estimated
time to finish the work is around five minutes, and the cost of the sleeve is $2 with an average
life span of four years (Knowlton et. al. 2018).

12
13

Pers. comm. with Shippagan Ltd on March 17, 2020.
Detailed gear price and life span can be found at Appendix.

256

In this analysis we adopt the costs of the South Shore sleeves as a proxy for weak insertion, and
for LMA 3 where fully weak rope will be required, we use 3/4 in. (2 cm) weak rope as a proxy.
The sleeves manufactured by Novatec Braid Ltd. have been tested by the South Shore Lobster
Fishermen’s Association and the New England Aquarium in various locations and weather
conditions (Knowlton et. al. 2018). Results indicate that these sleeves are consistent in
maintaining integrity and breaking strength over time, so they could be used for multiple
seasons. The cost of one sleeve insertion is $6.10 including labor cost, and the cost of 3/8 weak
rope is $0.15 per foot. The price for 3/4 in. fully engineered weak rope is not available, but with
an estimate of 30 percent increase from regular rope, it is around $0.34 per foot.
The cost estimation for weak ropes is listed in the Table 6.4 below: The investment in weak
ropes will generate costs only in the first year, and potentially last for six years without
additional input. The total cost would be around $2.1 million for Alternative 2. For Alternative 3,
the total cost would be $10 million due to the requirement to replace half of the buoy lines with
fully weak ropes.
Table 6.4: Affected buoy lines and annual costs of weak lines by alternative in the first year
Affected
Affected Buoy
Weak Rope Cost
Weak Rope Cost
Vessels
Lines
Alternative 2 ($)
Alternative 3 ($)
ME A

545

47,247

234,564

1,939,267

ME B

256

25,731

154,779

1,014,326

ME C

439

60,137

306,502

2,076,992

ME D

432

52,503

270,033

1,409,119

ME E

209

17,531

96,780

568,358

ME F

233

16,277

70,299

1,086,206

ME G

187

14,064

60,744

713,151

NH

241

14,814

63,982

147,619

MA

1,216

100,695

465,453

1,145,628

RI

134

6,824

40,572

72,788

LMA 3

81

3,886

479,651

400,055

3,973

359,709

2,243,359

10,573,507

Total

Notes: 1. All dollar values are adjusted to 2020.
2. Weak lines and inserts are assumed to last for six years. Depending on fishing areas, some ropes might last shorter
due to weather or bottom condition. Therefore, annual cost could be higher in some areas.

Other Potential Impacts Associated with Gear Configuration
Requirements
The analysis does not attempt to quantify several other impacts potentially associated with
changes in ALWTRP gear configuration requirements. These include:
•

Costs associated with increased gear loss;
257

•
•

The potential need for a larger crew to handle longer trawls; and
Vessel modification costs.

The analysis addresses these impacts qualitatively, either because data to develop reasonable
estimates are lacking or because available information suggests the impacts will be relatively
small. The subsections below address each of these costs in greater detail.
6.2.6.1

Gear Loss Costs

Some gear configuration requirements affecting fixed-gear fisheries have the potential to affect
rates of gear loss. Substantial changes in equipment losses can have important cost implications,
and should therefore be examined carefully.
The impact of minimum trawl length requirements on gear loss in trap/pot fisheries is difficult to
predict with confidence. The uncertainty is largely attributable to the array of underlying factors
responsible for gear loss. On the one hand, longer trawls may increase the likelihood that
groundline will foul on bottom structure, increasing the potential for line to part while hauling
traps. Longer trawls may also increase the potential for gear conflicts, particularly situations in
which one fisherman’s gear is laid across another’s. This could be exacerbated by the Maine
conservation equivalencies which will allow fishermen to fish trawls of up to 10 traps with only
one buoy line. Overlain gear can cause one party to inadvertently sever another’s lines, making it
impossible to retrieve all or some of the gear. A longer trawl also increases the consequences of
such incidents; i.e., the more gear on a single trawl, the more gear is lost when that trawl is
rendered irretrievable.
In other ways, trawling up requirements may reduce the potential for gear loss. The fundamental
objective of longer trawls is to limit the number of buoy lines in the water column and reduce
encounters with large whales; such encounters are one possible source of gear loss. Likewise, a
decrease in the number of buoy lines may reduce the frequency with which gear is entangled in
vessel propellers or mobile fishing gear. Furthermore, in areas where trawling up requirements
necessitate addition of a second buoy line (e.g., for configurations greater than 20 traps or a
vessel going from triples to 10-trap trawls), the second buoy line may make it easier to locate and
retrieve gear in case one buoy line is lost. Longer trawls are also heavier and may be less likely
to be swept away during extreme storm or tidal events.
Available data assessing how trawling up requirements could affect gear loss are inconclusive.
The Maine DMR trawling project (discussed above) asked participants to record whether they
lost gear while hauling. An analysis of the raw data provided by Maine DMR shows that of the
roughly 3,100 sets of gear, 28 were lost. Of the lost sets, all but six were trawls of three traps or
longer (Maine DMR 2012). While this outcome suggests a potential increase in gear loss when
trawls are required, nine of the lost sets were 7- and 10-trap trawls fished with a single buoy line
(an intentional feature of the project design). This gear configuration was identified as a
conservation equivalency in some Maine Zones, although outside of Maine waters it does not
occur in normal practice. The conservation equivalency measures were developed by Maine
DMR through an iterative collaborative process with the Maine Zone Councils. As fishermen
within the Zones provided the measures, there is likely some confidence that gear conflict and
258

associated loss can be avoided in those areas where more than three traps are fished on a trawl
with only one end marked with a buoy. In the Maine DMR (2012) study, participants fished the
trawls on an experimental basis; for example, they may have intentionally placed some trawls on
bottom structure unsuited to the experimental configuration. Overall, the sample of gear loss
incidents in the project is too small to draw reliable conclusions about how trawling up or single
end lines influences gear loss.
In 2010 and 2011, the Massachusetts DMF completed a comprehensive study of gear loss and
“ghost” fishing (i.e., impacts from lost or derelict gear). Roughly 520 Massachusetts lobstermen
responded to the survey (about 59 percent of all the lobstermen permitted in the
Commonwealth); the responses were distributed across LMA 1, 2, 3 and the Outer Cape in
approximate proportion to lobstering activity. Respondents characterized the extent of their gear
loss in different seasons and discussed the perceived causes of gear loss. Table 6.5 summarizes
key information gathered in the survey. The findings demonstrate that gear loss is common and
represents a significant cost for many lobstermen (Massachusetts DMF 2011).
Table 6.5: Summary of findings from Massachusetts DMF gear loss and ghost gear survey
LMA
Average Number of
Primary Causes of
Average Value of Gear
Traps Lost per Vessel
Gear Loss
Lost per Vessel
1

10 to 23

Storm events and
vessel traffic

$640 to $1,570

Outer
Cape

14 to 34

Storm events and
vessel traffic

$1,410 to $2,950

2

8 to 21

Vessel traffic and
bottom hang ups

$570 to $1,500

3

19 to 46

Gear conflicts, line
wear, storm events

$3,860 to $7,140

Source: Massachusetts DMF, 2011

The survey also included questions about typical gear configurations, allowing DMF to examine
how gear loss varies with trawl length. Table 6.6 summarizes the findings. The minimum gear
loss rates reported for each configuration show slightly higher losses associated with singles. The
maximum rates more strongly suggest that gear loss is greater when fishing singles and doubles
than when trawls of three or more traps are used. Overall, these data indicate that rather than
exacerbating gear loss, up to a point trawling up requirements may reduce the amount of gear
lost and thereby yield an economic benefit to affected fishermen.
Table 6.6: Influence of configuration on gear loss: Massachusetts DMF gear loss and ghost gear survey
Trap Loss Rate
Trap Loss Rate
Configuration
Minimum
Maximum
2.70%
21.40%
Singles
Doubles
Trawls (three or more
traps)
Source: Massachusetts DMF 2011

1.60%

19.30%

2.10%

8.70%

259

Overall, the effect of trawling up on gear loss is unclear. While data from the Maine trawling
project suggest some potential for increased gear loss during fishermen’s transition to trawls, the
more extensive data from the Massachusetts ghost gear survey suggest that trawls are less subject
to gear loss in steady-state conditions. Gear loss is likely a function of numerous variables that
extend well beyond the trawl configuration, including bottom structure, shipping traffic, gear
density, gear conflicts, tides, currents, experience of adjacent fishermen, and weather events. The
net effect of trawling up in the context of all these variables is difficult to characterize or
quantify. Hence, the cost estimates discussed in this chapter do not explicitly incorporate the
impact of gear loss changes.
6.2.6.2

Addition of Crew

Fishermen operating alone could potentially have difficulty handling the longer trawls required
under some of the regulatory alternatives. The physical demands of hauling trawls may be
challenging for fishermen who haul by hand rather than with a mechanized hauler. Even with a
hauler, older fishermen may find it difficult to manage longer trawls. Addition of a sternman or
other crew is one possible response for affected vessels. However, fishing alone is relatively
uncommon on most vessels in ALWTRP-regulated waters. In addition, the cost of adding crew is
prohibitive for most vessel operators. The subsections below present data suggesting that the
addition of crew is unlikely as a response to the trawling requirements.
6.2.6.2.1 Crew on Affected Vessels
Numerous inshore lobstermen choose to fish alone for a number of reasons: limited by permit
type, limited by vessel size, or in consideration of vessel profitability. In Maine state waters,
permit type LC1 holders are required to be operator only. Adding another crew to the vessel is
not allowed. Maine DMR 2017-2019 permit data indicate that 24 percent of applicants hold LC1
permits.
Most other lobster fishermen in the Northeast Region fish with more than one crew onboard.
According to the cost survey data collected by NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) for fishing year 2011, 2012 and 2015, only 7 percent of survey respondents from New
England states fish without any crew members, and 97 percent vessels longer than 25 feet have
at least one crew. Table 6.7 displays the number of crew by vessel size using NMFS survey data.
Table 6.7: Number of crew by vessel size
Crew

25-

26-35

36-45

46-55

55+

Sum

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

5
1
1
1
0
0
0
8

6
39
42
10
0
0
0
97

10
64
73
30
1
2
1
181

0
0
3
1
0
0
0
4

0
1
1
3
5
2
0
12

21
105
120
45
6
4
1
302

6.2.6.2.2 Sternman Costs
260

Vessel operators choose to work with crew primarily for economic reasons. For instance, a
sternman may be cost-effective when lobster abundance is high, harvests are large, and fishing
effort is high. Sternmen may also be hired for non-economic reasons, such as safety in offshore
waters and for apprenticing purposes.
Sternmen are typically paid a percentage of the vessel’s gross (or sometimes net) revenue. Table
6.8 summarizes data from NMFS cost survey for lobster vessels (Zou, Thunberg and Ardini
2021). As the exhibit indicates, payments to sternmen represent a substantial operating cost. A
single sternman may be paid roughly 20 percent of gross revenue. On offshore vessels that
typically operate with multiple crew members, sternmen may be paid a third of gross revenues.
Table 6.8: Crew payment for lobster vessels by size (in 2018 U.S. Dollars)
Crew
Fishing
Vessel
Vessel
Percentage
Payment
Revenue
Size
Number
($)
($)
13
20,208
107,793
19%
35277
36,391
168,108
22%
36-45
11
51,986
255,200
20%
46-55
15
275,800
752,497
37%
55+
Source: NEFSC Cost Survey (Zou, Thunberg and Ardini 2021)

6.2.6.2.3 Conclusions
As indicated above, the addition of a sternman is a major economic decision for a vessel
operator, and is dependent upon many factors. Given the costs, an operator who fishes alone is
not likely to alter that practice due to trawling up requirements. The available data suggest that
vessel operators who work without a sternman are not necessarily limited to fishing singles. For
example, of the Massachusetts lobster vessel operators who work alone, over two-thirds already
fish trawls of three or more traps. 14 Anecdotal discussions with fisheries managers also indicate
that trawls are routinely fished by vessel operators working alone. 15 Finally, the trawling up
configurations proposed in Alternative 2 are based on measures proposed by Maine DMR after
extensive scoping with Maine lobstermen and were described as modifications that fishermen
can accommodate within their current capacity and fishing practices.
Nonetheless, safety concerns and the physical demands of hauling trawls may prove to be a
challenge to some lone operators. In Maine, these vessels may have the option of relocating to
exempt waters. Beyond this option, it is possible that the trawling up requirements may force
some fishermen to fundamentally reconsider their operations, including crew choices. For
instance, an operator fishing alone may choose to hire a sternman, fish more traps, and possibly
move to a new location. NMFS does not believe such changes will be widespread, and the
analysis does not reflect the cost of such major operational shifts.
6.2.6.3

14
15

Vessel Modification

Based on analysis of Massachusetts DMF permit and 2009 Catch Report data.
Pers. comm. with Maine DMR (August 30, 2012) and Massachusetts DMF (November 7, 2012)

261

For a variety of reasons, operators of smaller vessels may find it difficult to fish trawls. Some
small vessels, for example, may lack the deck space to accommodate trawls. Experts with Maine
DMR, however, note that in some cases, operators of smaller vessels have made it feasible to use
trawls by affixing plywood sheeting to the stern or the rail of their vessels, thus extending the
available deck space. 16 The proposed federal regulations would not include trawling up
requirements in exempted waters; however, operators of small vessels affected by the proposed
trawling up requirements may choose to make similar modifications.
Estimating the number of vessels that would need this type of modification would require data
on vessel size and other features that are not readily available; thus, the estimate of compliance
costs does not specifically incorporate vessel modification costs. All else equal, the exclusion of
these costs biases the estimate downward. In aggregate, however, these costs are likely to be
relatively low; thus, the magnitude of any bias is likely to be minor.

6.3 Analytic Approach: Seasonal Restricted Area closed to
Trap/Pot Buoy Lines
As described in Chapter 3, seasonal restricted areas that would allow ropeless fishing but be
closed to fishing for lobster and Jonah crab with persistent buoy lines are proposed in
Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 (Non-preferred): Maine LMA 1 Offshore Restricted Area, across
the Maine Lobster Management Zones C, D and E; Massachusetts Restricted Area with the
exception of the Outer Cape Cod LMA; South of Islands (Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard)
Restricted Area options; and Georges Basin Restricted Area. Figure 6.3 and 6.4 depict the shape
of these restricted areas, and Table 6.9 describes the details of the restricted areas and the number
of affected vessels. Analysis of available data on vessel activity indicates that the practical
impact of these proposals would be limited to the lobster and Jonah crab fishery. How a vessel is
likely to respond to a given restricted area depends on the features of the restricted area as well
as the type of permit that a vessel holds. In general, vessel operators will likely choose one of the
three responses:
Suspend Fishing—If alternative fishing grounds are not readily available, vessel operators may
suspend fishing while their regular grounds are closed, and resume fishing when the restricted
area ends. For example, if a vessel only holds a state permit, while during the restricted period no
other state waters is available, this vessel will be assumed to suspend operation.
Relocate—It may be possible for vessel operators to fish for lobsters in other areas during the
restricted period. The potential for relocation depends on many factors, including regulatory
restrictions on access to alternative areas, the distance to those grounds, the productivity of the
grounds, and the potential for competition with others to limit access to a new area.
Ropeless Retrieval—Use ropeless fishing techniques such as remote retrieval of buoy line that is
stored on the bottom. Given the need for an exemption to buoy line requirements and the high
costs of ropeless fishing units and deck technology, fishermen interested in using ropeless
technology within seasonal restricted areas are likely to be limited to those participating in
16

Pers. comm. with Maine DMR, August 30, 2012

262

collaborative gear research and borrowing gear from the NMFS NEFSC gear cache. Given the
existing and anticipated ropeless units available, fewer than 35 fishermen across the Northeast
Region fishing up to 10 trawls each are likely to be able to participate until the technology is
more affordable and operationally feasible under commercial fishing conditions.
These responses have different implications for economic welfare, and affected fishermen may
respond differently, depending upon individual circumstances. The following discussion
examines this issue, beginning with describing the general approach the analysis employs to
analyze the costs associated with restricted areas. Then it examines each of the proposed buoy
line restricted areas individually, and estimates the compliance costs.

Figure 6.3: The trap/pot buoy line seasonal restricted areas proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred). LMAs are
delineated by the gray lines. The new South Island Restricted Area is proposed as closed to trap/pot buoy lines from
February through April and the LMA 1 Restricted area is proposed from October through January. An expansion of
the MRA into Massachusetts state waters to the New Hampshire border and under state regulations, extended in
state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape through at least May 15, with a potential opening if whales are no longer
present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions
to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of the Outer Cape Cod LMA, which would remain closed to lobster
harvest from February through March. This change is intended to encourage ropeless gear testing and accelerate the
development of commercially feasible ropeless fishing and associated long-term benefits to right whales. The area
north and east of the checked line and west of the EEZ encompasses the Northeast Region.

263

Figure 6.4: The buoy line restriction options proposed in Alternative 3 (Non-preferred). The LMA 1 Restricted Area
is proposed from October through February. The South of Island Restricted Area from February to April is L-shaped
and covers most LMA 2 waters and a small portion of LMA 3. The Georges Basin Restricted Area is proposed from
May through August. An extension of the Massachusetts Restricted Area through May, with a potential opening if
whales are no longer present, is also included. The MRA North is included in Alternative 3 as well. In dark gray are
existing seasonal restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the
exception of the Outer Cape Cod LMA, which would remain closed to lobster harvest from February through
March. This change is intended to encourage ropeless gear testing and accelerate the development of ropeless
fishing and associated long-term benefits to right whales. The area north and east of the checked line and west of the
EEZ encompasses the Northeast Region.

264

Table 6.9: Summary table of seasonal buoy line restricted areas and the number of affected vessels
Restricted
Size (Square
Max vesselsMax vesselsRestricted Area
Alternative
Period
miles)
lines out
relocation
967
2
Oct - Jan
0
62
ME LMA1
(2,505 km2)
497
2
Feb - Apr
106
0
MRA North
(1,287 km2)
5,468
2
Feb - Apr
16
11
South Island
(14,162 km2)
967
3
Oct - Feb
0
62
ME LMA1
(2,505 km2)
497
3
Feb - May
193
0
MRA North
(1,287 km2)
3,566
3
May
138
21
MRA
(9,326km2)
557
3
May - Aug
16
Georges Basin
(1443 km2)
3,506
3
Feb - May
3
7
South Island
(9080 km2)

Costs of Suspending Fishing
6.3.1.1

Lost Revenue and Saved Operation Costs

Fishermen may respond to restricted areas by suspending fishing during the restricted period.
The forgone revenue associated with inactivity would be the primary cost for fishermen who
choose to sit out restricted areas. At the same time, fishermen would save operation costs by not
fishing. The total cost variation will be the summation of these two parts. The sections below
describe the general method used to estimate costs for trap/pot vessels that suspend fishing
activity.
The analysis of the cost of suspending fishing is based on estimates of revenue per trap, which
are then used to estimate forgone revenue based on the number of traps fished on affected
vessels. The estimates of revenue impacts are tailored to the area and season each restricted area
would affect. In each case, the analysis incorporates catch-per-trap estimates based on the best
available data. As described in the gear configuration approach section, the catch per trap data
are estimated using VTR data from 2010 to 2017.
Catch per trap is then combined with ex-vessel price data to estimate gross revenue per trap. To
characterize typical market conditions, the analysis incorporates the average price data for the
three most recent years available (2015 to 2017). To align prices with the area and season
specific catch-per-trap data, the analysis uses ex-vessel price data from the states and months
relevant to each restricted area.
Gross revenue per trap is the product of the catch per trap and the applicable ex-vessel price for
each restricted area. A final adjustment is needed to convert gross revenue per trap to net revenue
per trap. Fishermen who suspend fishing during restricted areas will forgo revenue but will save
the operating costs associated with the effort (while continuing to pay fixed costs such as boat
265

payments). Operating costs are the costs that vary with fishing effort, and primarily include bait,
fuel, and payments to sternmen (when relevant). In this analysis, we adopt the operation costs
from a recent economic research on lobster vessel profitability conducted by NFMS using cost
survey data collected by the Social Science Branch of NMFS NEFSC. On average, vessels less
than 35 ft have an annual operation cost of $68,858; the operation cost for medium-sized vessels
(35-44 ft) is $120,704. For large (45-54 ft) and extra-large (55+ ft) vessels, the operation costs
are $182,137 and $718,034 respectively. (Zou, Thunberg, and Ardini 2021). From VTR data, we
calculate the percentage of trips that vessels take during the restricted months, and then we
estimate the average operation costs during the restricted time.
As discussed further below, the analysis includes a restricted area-specific estimate of the
number of traps fished per vessel. Thus, the impact of the restricted area on the net revenue of
each affected vessel is the product of the number of traps the vessel would ordinarily fish in the
closed area and the estimate of forgone revenue per trap, net of operating cost savings.
6.3.1.2

Caveats

VTR data have been used extensively in the calculation of catch per trap and trip percentage
during the closed period. We are aware that VTR are self-reported data and the catch and
location data are limited in accuracy and variation for some vessels. However, the geographic
information and gear configuration data could not be found in any other data sources consistently
for trap and pot fisheries. In addition, the data quality has been largely improved in recent years
due to the use of new technology like electronic reporting. Therefore, we decided to use the
recent years’ data after carefully reviewing and the removal of outliers. (See Appendix 6.2 for
documentation)
It is also important to note that the analysis of the revenue losses associated with suspending
fishing assumes that fishermen lose all the catch they would ordinarily harvest during the
restricted period. The loss in landings may actually be less, depending on lobster movements and
behavior. Specifically, some of the lobsters not caught during the closure may simply be
harvested once the closed area is reopened (i.e., catch rates may be higher than normal following
the restricted area). To the extent that this occurs, the analysis may overstate the economic losses
associated with suspending fishing.

Relocation Costs
When a vessel has the opportunity to relocate its traps during the closed period, it may do so if
the expected returns of fishing elsewhere exceed costs. Assuming restricted areas will not affect
lobster prices and most operating costs, such as bait, will be unaffected. Relocation has two
major impacts on the vessel: change in catch rate and fuel consumption. Some other factors, like
time and transition cost, may also affect total costs, however, these costs could not be reliably
estimated so we do not include them in the quantitative analysis in this section.
6.3.2.1

Fuel Costs

266

One potential impact of relocating effort during restricted time is a change in operating costs
associated with fuel consumption. This is a function of the change in distance that a vessel
operator must travel in order to tend his or her gear, the number of trips taken during the period
in question, the vessel’s fuel efficiency, and the price of fuel.
The difference of travel distance before and after relocation is determined by the size of the
restricted area. We assume vessels relocate their traps in areas adjacent to the restricted area
where the difference in travel is measured from the center to the edge of the restricted area. Most
restricted areas are in irregular shape, so we take the shortest route as the lower bound of
relocation and the longest as the upper bound. Additional information on the areas to which
vessels were assumed to relocate is provided in the detailed discussion of the analysis of each
restricted area. In all cases, however, the method assumes that relocation to the substitute fishing
area is temporary, and that the affected vessels will return to their preferred fishing grounds
when the restricted area has ended.
Once the alternative fishing location is identified, the total change in distance traveled depends
on the number of fishing trips made during the restricted period. In this analysis, only vessels in
federal waters are assumed to relocate their traps, so we use multi-year VTR data to estimate the
average number of trips each model vessel will take in a certain month.
Any change in fuel costs also depends on the fuel-efficiency of the affected vessels, which is a
function of engine size (horsepower). Information on the engines with which affected vessels are
equipped is not available; however, it is possible to estimate the horsepower of affected vessels
based on the general correlation between horsepower and vessel length. The analysis employs an
equation characterizing this relationship, using it, in combination with an estimate of the average
length of affected vessels, to estimate the horsepower of vessels that may relocate their effort
while a restricted area is in effect (Table 6.10).
Consistent with data from a study by the Maine Maritime Academy (MMA 2011), the analysis
assumes that marine engines burn 0.053 gallons of diesel fuel per hour for each unit of
horsepower delivered. The analysis uses this figure to estimate total fuel use per hour for all
affected vessels. Based on input from NMFS gear specialists, the analysis also assumes that
vessels steam at an average speed of 14 knots (25.9 km/hr). This figure, in combination with data
on distances, provides a basis for estimating the change in steaming time to and from alternative
fishing grounds. The analysis then multiplies this figure by the estimate of diesel use per hour to
obtain an estimate of the change in fuel use per trip.
Multiplying fuel use per trip by the number of trips and price of diesel fuel yields the change in
fuel costs. In calculating the change in costs attributable to each regulatory alternative, average
diesel price data from 2017 to 2019 from the American Petroleum Institute for the New England
Area were used. The adjusted price for all areas is $3.11 per gallon in 2020 U.S. dollars.
Table 6.10: Summary of fuel use parameters used in restricted area cost assessment

267

Parameter

Value/Estimation Method

Source

Horsepower (Lobster Vessels)

HP = -16.3566 + 9.71*(Vessel
Length in Feet)

NMFS Permit Data (2011)

Fuel Consumption at Cruising
Speed

0.053 gallons/hour/HP

Maine Maritime Academy,
2011

Typical Cruising Speed (Lobster
Vessels)

14 knots

NMFS Gear Specialists

Retail Price for Diesel Fuel (Tax
included, New England Area)

$3.11 per gallon

Energy Information
Administration, 2017-2019

6.3.2.2

Catch Impacts

It is also possible that relocating vessels will experience a reduction in catch relative to their
preferred fishing location inside the closed area. Catch reductions could result because of
crowding and heightened competition in the areas to which fishermen relocate; because
fishermen are less familiar with the bottom structure or other determinants of catch in the new
area; or simply because the available alternative fishing grounds are less productive than those
inside the closed area.
The data required to develop a rigorous estimate of potential catch impacts are not available.
Such an estimate would require a well-defined characterization of catch rates in the closed area
and similar knowledge of conditions (e.g., lobster density) in a specific alternative fishing area.
In practice, the potential impact is likely to vary significantly from individual to individual,
depending upon the fisherman’s expertise and ability to adapt to a new area. As a result, any
catch reduction estimated for vessels that relocate their effort is subject to significant uncertainty.
Lacking more specific data, it was assumed that vessels that choose to relocate would experience
reduction in catch during the restricted period. Using catch per trap and price data from previous
analysis, then multiplying the total traps fished in each period, we can estimate the total value of
each month. Five percent of total value is the lower bound of lost revenue and 10 percent is the
upper bound. Unlike catch reduction from trawling up measures, these reductions are assumed to
happen every year.
6.3.2.3

Caveats

In addition to the assumptions noted above, the analysis of relocation costs is based on a number
of other assumptions about fishermen behavior that are subject to considerable uncertainty.
These include:
• The assumption that fishermen would reconfigure their gear, as necessary, to meet the
minimum trawl length requirement in any area to which they relocate, but would incur no
gear conversion costs beyond those associated with meeting these requirements;

268

• The assumption that fishermen who relocate their effort would continue to fish the same
number of end lines and traps they used in the closed area.
• The assumption that fishermen will find productive ground to relocate to and would not have
a reason to create dense gear fencing around the perimeter that could pose a risk to whales
entering or leaving the buoy line closure area.
• The assumption that fishermen will continue to make the same number of fishing trips while
using the alternate location.
Reviewers expressed concerns that restricted areas to protect whales would cause a “curtain
effect” resulting from fishermen lining up to surround a restricted area. Curtain effects have been
observed around finfish closure areas that were closed to protect spawning areas or for other
target species’ conservation purposes. Target species become more productive within those
closed areas and spill across the restricted area borders. This productivity prompts fishermen to
fish around restricted area edges. Areas closed to protect whales would have some seasonal
protection for lobster, but once opened, those lobsters would again be available for harvest.
Rather than line up around the perimeter of an area that is not designed to increase target species
production, to prevent conflict agile fishermen would be more likely to search for and relocate to
productive bottom nearby. Responses would be dependent on other fishery practices, such as
seasonal fishing habits nearshore, for example, in areas where most gear is removed seasonally,
relative to offshore areas where gear is relocated.
Though movement of gear to productive fishing grounds closest to a restricted area is
anticipated, and it is important to properly place a restricted area to avoid increasing line density
in areas of high whale density, actively fishing fishermen are unlikely to overcrowd gear because
of the impacts on catch rates. To functionally create a fence or curtain of vertical buoy lines, gear
would need to be set up close enough to adjacent gear for the buoy lines to have a non-additive
effect. It is unclear how close gear would have to be to have this non-additive effect but it seems
improbable that offshore fishers would set their gear this close to adjacent gear on a broad scale.
However, in response to comments like these, the analyses in the FEIS reconsidered areas where
gear would be moved into areas of high risk. As a result, a different South Island Restricted Area
was chosen and the Georges Basin Restricted Area was not selected in the Preferred Alternative
based on their tendency to push gear into high risk areas in the DEIS. Please see Chapters 3, 5,
and 6 for more details.
Until 2021, no curtain effects were observed around existing seasonal restricted areas. However
in 2021, Massachusetts modified their regulations to close state waters to lobster fishing into
mid-May. Between the northwest MRA closure and state waters, a narrow band of
Massachusetts Bay was still open to fishing. Dual permitted fishermen apparently moved their
gear out of state waters and federal permit holders began moving gear from the beach to stage
outside of MRA to prepare for the May 1 opening. NMFS and Massachusetts DMF are
investigating and an extension of the MRA closure to the beach will be considered for further
rulemaking to prevent that in the future. Outside of that incident, however, and despite heavy
surveillance, similar concentration of gear along a seasonal restricted area has not been
documented and is not anticipated.
269

The net effect of these assumptions on the cost estimates is unclear. The methodological
discussion for each of the individual restricted areas highlights additional uncertainties
associated with the selection of specific relocation sites for affected vessels.

Ropeless fishing
Under a revised restricted area definition, Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot
fishermen could fish with trap/pot gear using “ropeless” methods, although exempted fishing
permits would be required to exempt fishermen from surface marking requirements under current
laws. The gear would still require ropes between pots in the trawls on the ocean floor. Most
designs also include buoy lines, but they are stored on the bottom until retrieved acoustically by
a vessel operator. Team members disagreed about further consideration of “ropeless fishing” for
multiple reasons, including but not limited to: costs of the technology; concerns about gear
conflicts; lack of testing under commercial fishing conditions; questions about impacts on
trawlers and other mobile gear fishermen; ability of enforcement agents to retrieve, inspect, and
reset the gear; and the belief that it could not be rapidly adapted for commercial use. Some Team
members recognized that ropeless fishing could provide an alternative to seasonal closures and
many strongly supported the need for commercial fishermen to be involved in the further
development and design of ropeless gear. Because the overall sense was that the Team would not
provide a consensus recommendation on modifications to the closed areas to allow ropeless
fishing, NMFS did not move the action further in 2018.
Since 2018, NOAA has invested a substantial amount of funding in the industry's development
of ropeless gear, in specific geographic areas and in general. We anticipate that these efforts to
facilitate and support the industry's development of ropeless gear would continue, pending
appropriations, and would be essential to defray costs for early adopters. Through these efforts,
and associated outreach by the NMFS gear team, interest does not appear to be substantial
among the commercial fishery in the Northeast Region, and participation within any restricted
area can be limited through the authorization process. We anticipate that at least through 2025,
ropeless fishing in these restricted areas is likely to be done primarily by collaborators borrowing
gear from the NMFS gear cache, with up to an additional 10 percent of effort by other
researchers and fishermen coast-wide. The NEFSC gear team projects that by 2025, they expect
to have about 300 ropeless units and enough deck controllers for about 30 vessels, as well as
technology to support adjacent mobile fishing vessels. That is, coast-wide, there would be up to
33 vessels fishing ten ropeless trawls. If congressionally appropriated and private funding
remains available, NMFS will continue to reimburse participating fishermen for some of their
time and will provide the onboard and in-water technology so that costs to fishermen will be
minimal and could be offset by higher catch rates within an area closed to most fishermen. To
incentivize participation, the alternatives consider modifying current seasonal restricted areas
and defining new restricted areas as seasonal closures to trap/pot fishing that use persistent
vertical buoy lines. The economic impacts of ropeless fishing is expected to be primarily borne
by NMFS and collaborators, and costs to fishermen are expected to be negligible over the next
few years.
The costs of converting to ropeless are described as high at this time (estimated to range from
over $55,000 to over $240,000 per vessel; Black et al. 2019). Participating vessels may still incur
270

some costs with transitioning gear to ropeless fishing within these areas. For example, switching
to ropeless gear takes time. Additionally, participants in research note that it takes additional
time to set and haul the gear, due in part to logistical differences from traditional gear and crew
familiarity with ropeless gear, which improves over time. Researchers are working on
quantifying this difference in operational costs, but currently are unable to estimate how this
difference may impact revenue opportunities. 17
Generally, participants are expected to benefit due to the revenue they gain from ropeless fishing
in these areas during seasonal restriction, in comparison to suspending fishing activities due to
the seasonal restrictions. Because of the uncertainty regarding the operational differences in
tending this gear, we are unable to estimate how monthly revenue may differ between traditional
trap/pot and ropeless gear. However, we expect that ropeless participants will be able to gain a
portion of the revenue that is currently estimated to be lost due to inactivity during the closures.

Analysis of Specific Restricted Area Scenarios
Vessel operators are likely to respond to a particular restricted area in the way they believe
would have the least adverse impact on their income, subject to financial, regulatory, and other
constraints on the options available to them. Their responses will depend not only on the nature
of their fishing operations (e.g., fishery, vessel type, quantity of affected gear) but also on the
features of the restricted area itself (area and time period). The variety of possible outcomes and
the large number of potentially affected fishermen precludes a vessel-by-vessel analysis of likely
responses.
As noted above, this analysis examines three general response scenarios to evaluate the potential
impact of restricted areas: relocation or suspension of fishing effort. Within that framework,
however, the analysis of economic impact seeks to recognize key variables that may differ from
case to case, such as the number of vessels a particular restricted area would affect, the scale of
the fishing operations affected, regional differences in the prices that affected vessels may
receive for their catch, and the availability of alternative fishing sites. The sections below discuss
each restricted area individually, focusing on unique aspects of the approach to analyzing their
potential impacts.
6.3.4.1

Offshore Waters of Maine Zone C, D, and E

The buoy line restricted area approximately 30 nm (55 km) offshore of Maine, across the Maine
lobster management Zones C, D, and E provide protection for right whales in an area of
relatively high co-occurrence during the fall and winter according to both the DST and the
NMFS/IEC co-occurrence model. In Alternative 2, the proposed season is from October to
January, and in Alternative 3, one more month of restricted area in February is proposed.
As shown in Figure 6.3, the entire 967 square miles (2,505 km2) of closed area is located in
federal waters offshore of LMA 1. All vessels fishing in this area are required to have a federal
permit with a designated fishing area of LMA 1. Using VTRs, the analysis in the DEIS identified
17

Pers. comm. with NEFSC gear specialist Henry Milliken.

271

about 45 vessels that would be affected by the LMA 1 seasonal restricted area. However, public
comment from Maine fishermen suggested that this estimate was very low, likely in part because
reporting is not mandatory for all Maine and federally permitted vessels. As a result of public
comment, for this analysis, the Maine DMR harvester report and dealer report data, we estimated
that at least 123 vessels fished outside 12 nm in Zone C, D, and E, where half of the area is
covered by the proposed restricted area. Without further detailed location information of these
vessels, we assume a uniform distribution and assign half of them to the restricted area. We also
assume these vessels within the restricted area would re-locate all their traps within the same
zone but closer to shore for two reasons: firstly, vessels with only LMA 1 permit are not able to
get over the Eastern border of the restricted area to fish in LMA 3. Secondly, even though
vessels in Zone C and E could move a portion of their traps into adjacent zones, the trap numbers
and available fishing grounds are limited. It is unlikely to be economically efficient to tend traps
in two distant areas.
Based on the assumptions above, fuel costs for affected vessels will go down due to shorter
travelling distance, but may be counter-balanced by lost revenue from catch impacts by moving
traps out of their premium fishing ground. Table 6.11 shows the details of affected vessels and
the fuel cost changes. The average vessel horsepower in this area is 349, the lower bound of
saved distance from relocation is 10 miles (16 km) per round trip and the upper bound is 20
miles (32 km).
Table 6.11: Cost savings from relocation in me closed area by month
Month
Average
Affected
Fuel Cost Saving
Trip
Vessel
Lower Bound ($)
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Oct-Jan (Alt 2)
Oct-Feb (Alt 3)

11.3
8.9
5.2
3.6
2.5

36.2
43.8
50.5
61.5
43.1

12,542
18,258
11,125
11,822
4,935
53,747
58,681

Fuel Cost Saving
Upper Bound ($)
25,085
36,514
22,249
23,644
9,870
107,492
117,362

Offsetting fuel savings is reduced catch. We assume vessels that fish in the closed area choose it
as primary fishing ground based on their gear setup. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume catch
reduction if they have to relocate their gears to secondary ground. Additionally, the crowding
effects created by the relocated vessels would also reduce landings for other vessels outside 12
nm in Zone C, D, and E. From the dealer report data, we could assess the monthly landings in
each zone; and from the harvester report data, we could estimate the proportion of landings by
distance from shore. Combining results from these two data sources, we could provide an
estimate of landings in areas outside 12 nm (22.2 km) from October to February (Table 6.12).
With assumptions from the previous section, we apply a 5 percent to 10 percent catch reduction
on all traps fished in the closed area.

272

Table 6.12: Catch impacts outside 12 nm (22.2 km) in Maine Zone C, D, and E by month
Month
Price Total Catch 5% Value 10% Value
($/lb)
(lb)
($)
($)
Oct

3.9

552,871

107,810

215,620

Nov

3.9

1,135,207

221,365

442,731

Dec

4.1

843,463

172,910

345,820

Jan

4.8

555,956

133,430

266,859

Feb

6.4

193,725

61,992

123,983

Oct-Jan (Alt 2)

3,087,497

635,515

1,271,030

Oct-Feb (Alt 3)

3,281,222

697,507

1,395,013

6.3.4.2

Massachusetts Restricted Areas

The Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA) has been closed from February through April since
2015, with extensions of the state water closure into May by Massachusetts when right whales
remain in the area. Modifications to the seasonal restricted areas are analyzed as part of
Alternative 2 and 3. In 2021, Massachusetts DMR expanded the MRA in Northern state waters
to the New Hampshire border (Code of Massachusetts Regulations 322 Section 12) and extended
the closure to May 15, with the option of opening early or delaying the opening of state waters
when right whales have left the area. Under Alternative 2 (Preferred), the Plan would adopt the
extension of the MRA in state waters to the New Hampshire border, mirroring the state
regulations. The seasonal extension into May would not be included. In Alternative 3 extension
of the entire MRA into May is analyzed, with possible reopening if surveys demonstrate that
right whales have left the restricted area. In addition, Alternative 3 includes the expansion of the
MRA in northern state waters.
Table 6.13 summarizes key features of the restricted areas and associated costs. The general
approach used to assess the impact on affected vessels is the same for all the restricted areas.
MRA North (Massachusetts state waters north to New Hampshire), Cape Cod Bay, and Outer
Cape Cod are state waters; we assume all vessels will suspend fishing during the seasonal
restriction. In the federal waters, both relocation and suspending fishing are analyzed.
Considering both lost revenue and saved operation costs, Alternative 2 would have the total cost
of $0.3 million, and Alternative 3 would have a total cost of $1.8 million.
Table 6.13: Cost for affected vessels in Massachusetts Restricted Area
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 3
Alt 3
Area
Month
Action
Cost Type
Affected Vessels
Catch per Trap
(lb)
Average Trip per

Alt 3

MRA
North
Feb-Apr

MRA
North
Feb-May

MRA

MRA

MRA

May

May

May

Lines Out
Catch
impacts
106
0.8-1.3

Lines Out
Catch
impacts
193
2.4

Lines out
Catch
impacts
137.6
2.2

Relocation
Catch
impact
20.5
2.2

Relocation
Extra Fuel

3.3-5.7

8.6

8.1

8.1

8.1

273

20.5

Total
(Alt 2)
MRA
North
Feb-Apr

Total
(Alt 3)
MRA

106

351

FebMay

Month
Price ($/lb)
Total Traps
Total Landing
Value ($)
5% Lost
Revenue Lower
Bound ($)
10% Lost
Revenue Upper
Bound ($)
Cost Saving($)
Lower Total Cost
($)
Upper Total Cost
($)

6.3.4.3

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 3

Alt 3

5.9-7.4
75,859
618,289

5.9
82,765
1,221,589

5.9
70,507
1,008,462

5.9
12,603

Alt 3

Total
(Alt 2)

Total
(Alt 3)

1,778,4
40
1,792,7
58

9,013
18,026
305,504
312,784

210,207
1,324,165

573,810
434,652

9,013

10,610

312,784

312,784

1,324,165

434,652

18,026

15,916

312,784

Massachusetts South Island Restricted Area

In recent years, right whale aggregations have appeared in the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard
and Nantucket. Two different seasonal restricted areas to buoy lines are analyzed in Alternative 2
and 3 as shown in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4. Consistent with the restricted area in MRA, the
period for the South Island Restricted Area would be from February through April in the
Preferred Alternative and February through May in the Non-preferred.
Table 6.14: Number of affected vessels by area and month
Affected vessels (lines
Alternative
Month
out only)
2

3

Affected vessels
(relocated)

Total

Feb

9.19

8.92

18.11

Mar

9.02

8.16

17.18

Apr

15.03

11.14

26.17

Feb

1.14

3.73

4.87

Mar

1.14

3.76

4.89

Apr

2.27

6.96

9.23

May

2.92

7.25

10.18

The seasonal buoy line closed area in Alternative 2 is a large rectangle area that covers both most
LMA 2 waters and a small portion of LMA 3 waters. The Vertical Line Model suggests that 17
to 26 vessels fish in this area during the months it would be closed.
Table 6.15: Costs of suspending fishing in the South Island Restricted Area
Catch
Catch per Price
Price
Value
Total
per Trap
Trap
Jonah
Lobste Lobster
Traps
Lobster
Jonah
Crab
r ($/lb)
($)
(lb)
Crab (kg) ($/kg)
Alternative
2
13,389
0.6
6.2
55,637
10.8
0.8
Feb
11,764
1.0
6.9
81,398
8.6
0.8
Mar

274

Value
Jonah
Crab
($)

Operatio
n Cost
Savings

122,626
85,270

25,326
37,395

Total Cost

15,618

Catch
per Trap
Lobster
(lb)
1.9

Alternative
3,679
3,568
5,894
5,522

3
0.6
1.0
1.9
2.4

Total
Traps
Apr
Sum
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Sum

Price
Lobste
r ($/lb)

Value
Lobster
($)

7.4

233,046
370,081

6.2
6.9
7.4
5.8

15,289
24,685
87,944
79,376
207,294

Catch per
Trap
Jonah
Crab (kg)
2.7

Price
Jonah
Crab
($/kg)
0.8

Value
Jonah
Crab
($)
37,284
245,179

10.8
8.6
2.7
2.5

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8

33,696
25,859
14,070
12,063
85,689

Operatio
n Cost
Savings

Total Cost

150,189
212,910

381,557

3,135
4,719
22,722
52,905
83,480

209,503

Given the size and proximity to shore, for both restricted areas in Alternative 2 and 3, some
vessels may suspend fishing and some vessels may relocate their gears depending on the type of
permits they hold. Table 6.14 displays the number of vessels that are affected by these two
restricted areas. Applying a similar analysis to that previously described when vessels suspend
fishing, they will lose all the revenue they could normally generate during that time period, but
they will also save on operation costs. For vessels that may relocate, they have to pay extra fuel
costs to get to the new fishing grounds, and bear the assumed loss of 5 to 10 percent of their
catch due to the loss of their primary fishing location. Both alternatives capture important winter
fishing grounds for Jonah crab, which has become an important target species in winter months
and a major contributor to revenue for Southern New England fishermen. While a seasonal
closure would likely increase lobster catch rates once an area opens, making up for lost landings
during the closure, Jonah crab landings are limited only by trap and vessel capacity. Catch
cannot be made up during the open fishing season. Because Jonah crabs are normally caught
together with lobsters, for this analysis they are added to the total harvest of traps in these closed
areas. Table 6.15 to 6.17 shows the details of all the costs incurred from the two restricted areas
in Alternative 2 and 3.
Table 6.16: Costs of relocation in the South Island Restricted Area
5%
10%
5%
10%
5%
Jonah Jonah
Total
Lobster
Lobster
Crab
Crab
Value
Value
Value ($)
Value
Value
($)
($)
($)
($)
Alternative
2
1,629
3,258
3,591
7,181
5,220
Feb
2,162
4,323
2,265
4,529
4,427
Mar
5,593
11,185
894
1,789
6,487
Apr
9,384
18,767
7,573
15,147
16,956
Sum
Alternative
3
700
1,401
1,544
3,089
2,245
Feb
1,154
2,307
1,208
2,417
2,362
Mar
3,877
7,755
620
1,241
4,497
Apr
3,297
6,594
501
1,002
3,798
May
9,029
18,057
3,874
7,748
12,903
Sum

10%
Total
Value
($)

Lower
Fuel
Cost
($)

Upper
Fuel
Cost
($)

Total
Lower
Cost
($)

Total
Upper
Cost
($)

10,440
8,854
12,975
33,914

2,798
3,218
6,732
12,749

3,730
4,291
8,977
16,997

29,705

50,911

4,489
4,725
8,995
7,597
25,806

780
988
2,802
4,288
8,858

1,172
1,482
4,202
6,431
13,287

21,761

39,092

Table 6.17: Cost estimation of vessels in the South Island Restricted Area

275

Catch
Impact
Lower($)

Catch
Impact
Upper ($)

Fuel
Impact
Lower ($)

Fuel
Impact
Upper ($)

Lines Out
($)

Total
Lower ($)

Total
Upper ($)

Alt 2

16,956

33,914

22,220

29,626

402,350

432,055

453,261

Alt 3

12,903

25,806

8,858

13,287

209,503

231,264

248,595

6.3.4.4

Georges Basin Restricted Area

Unlike the other restricted areas discussed earlier, the Georges Basin Restricted Area is located
far offshore, on the EEZ border within LMA 3, and is mostly fished by lobster vessels from New
Hampshire. Right whales have been sighted using the grounds during summer months while
transiting from Southern waters to Northern feeding grounds.
The average distance from homeport to Georges Basin is more than 100 miles (160 km). Based
on NMFS VTR and permit data, most vessels take multiple-day trips to fish this ground. The
average vessel length exceeds 65 feet and most of them currently fish 35 traps per trawl. All
vessels hold federal lobster permits and submit VTRs regularly.
The duration of the Georges Basin Restricted Area would be from May through August. Vessels
would be required to remove gear from the area during the restricted season and are most likely
to relocate their traps to productive waters adjacent to the restricted area. Since the transit
distance to adjacent areas is the same as to the restricted area, fuel costs would not change,
however, catch rates may be lower. Following previous assumptions, all catch may be reduced
by 5 to 10 percent if vessels have to relocate their traps during May to August. Table 6.18
displays the catch impacts from this restricted area.
Table 6.18: Costs of relocation in Georges Basin Restricted Area
Month

Catch per
Trap (lb)

Price ($/lb)

Total
Traps

Total Landings
(lb)

5% Value
($)

10% Value
($)

May

16.5

5.7

10,410

381,345

52,238

104,476

June

21.8

5.6

17,487

842,098

112,292

224,586

July

16.1

5.5

14,956

527,064

69,715

139,430

August

34.0

5.4

11,549

862,861

111,649

223,298

345,895

691,789

Sum

6.3.4.5

Summary

Table 6.19 summarizes the economic impact analysis of all proposed restricted areas in
Alternative 2 (Preferred) and Alternative 3 (Non-preferred). The total cost of the seasonal
restricted areas analyzed for Alternative 2 range from $1.2 to $1.9 million. The seasonal
restricted areas analyzed in Alternative 3 would have economic impacts ranging from $2.8 to
$3.9 million because there are more restricted areas and closures of longer duration.

276

Table 6.19: Summary of Economic Impact of Restricted areas
Restricted
area

Alternative

Analysis
period

ME LMA1

2

Oct - Jan

MRA North

2

Feb - Apr

South of
Islands

2

Feb - Apr

Total

2

ME LMA1

3

Oct - Feb

MRA North

3

Feb - May

MRA

3

May

3

May - Aug

3

Feb - May

Georges
Basin
South of
Islands
Total

3

Size (Square
miles)
967
(2,505 km2)
497
(1287 km2)
5,468
(14,162 km2)
6,932
(17,954 km2)
967
(2,505 km2)
497
(1287 km2)
3,566
(9,32649 km2)
557
(1,443 km2)
3,506
(9,080 km2)
8,099
(20,976 km2)

Max
vesselslines out

Max
vesselsrelocation

Lower
Bound
Cost ($)

Upper
Bound
Cost ($)

0

62

562,656

1,232,804

106

0

312,784

312,784

16

11

432,055

453,261

122

73

1,307,495

1,998,849

0

62

618,156

1,353,674

193

0

1,324,165

1,324,165

138

32

454,275

468,593

0

16

345,895

691,789

3

7

231,264

248,595

141

117

2,973,755

4,086,817

Commenters on the DEIS and Proposed Rule were asked to consider whether a trigger
mechanism was feasible for the LMA 1 Restricted Area so that the area could remain open to
fishing unless some trigger threshold was reached. The seasonal closure of LMA 1 is estimated
to make up approximately 5 to 6 percent of the risk reduction achieved by the risk reduction
elements of Alternative 2 (Preferred). Although some commenters expressed a preference for a
trigger, no trigger thresholds were proposed that could ensure a similar level of right whale risk
reduction. Maine DMR, for example, suggested a trigger based on right whale entanglement
rates within Maine LMA 1, however, because right whale entanglements are often documented
miles and months away from the original incident, this type of trigger could not be demonstrated
to be an effective or protective measure on a year to year basis.

6.4 Analytic Approach: Gear Marking Requirements
The proposed action would implement additional gear marking requirements compared to no
action. As explained in Chapter 3, under Alternative 2 (Preferred), NMFS would mirror the
Maine state regulations for all non-exempted waters, and would implement analogous marking
for the other New England states. In state waters, the gear marking requirement would include
one state-specific 3-foot (91cm) colored mark within 2 fathoms (3.7 m) of the buoy and at least
two additional 1-foot (30 cm) marks in the top and bottom half of the gear. In federal waters, in
addition to the top 3-foot (91 cm) mark, an additional green 1-foot (30 cm) mark would be
required in the top 2 fathoms (3.7 m) of line, and at least three 1-foot (30 cm) marks would be
required in the top, middle, and bottom of the buoy line below the surface system. Within 6
inches of each 1-foot state-colored mark, another 1-foot green mark would also be required to
277

distinguish lines in federal waters from state waters. This Alternative would continue to allow
multiple methods for marking line below the surface system (paint, tape, rope twine inserts, etc.),
with highly visible paint required for the 3-foot mark in the surface system. Under Alternative 3
(Non-preferred) the 3-foot (91 cm) state-specific color would be marked on the buoy line within
2 fathoms (3.7 m) of the buoy, as in the Preferred, but the entire line would also have to be
replaced with a line woven with identification tape with the home state and fishery (for example
Maine, lobster/crab trap/pot) repeated in writing along the length of the buoy line.
The analysis relies on the Vertical Line Model to estimate the number of vertical lines that would
be necessary to mark under Alternative 2 and 3. In each case, the estimate of gear marking
demands is consistent with the new trawling requirements the alternative specifies. Aggregate
gear marking costs are based on numbers of active vessels estimated in the Vertical Line Model.
The estimate of gear marking costs considers both the cost of material/equipment and labor
costs. A few assumptions are made here based on communication with our gear specialists 18:
1. The NMFS gear specialist indicated that fishermen replace external marks annually. That
assumption is not the case for buoy line with inserted ID tape. So the time and cost
burden are the same for each year in Alternative 2. In Alternative 3, markings are
assumed to repeat every year, while ID tape lasts for six years.
2. Time for marking: 20 min per line + 2 min per mark if using taping or painting. For
twines in federal waters, the time is estimated to be 10 min per mark. For example: a
five-mark line with taping would cost 20+2*5=30 min; an eight-mark line with twines
would cost 20+10*8=100 min. For dual-permitted vessels moving from state to federal
waters, twine is the likely marking that will be used to insert the green federal water
mark, because paint and tape are unlikely to be effective on wet rope. Note that this is an
increase from past estimates based on observations during 2020 marking conducted by
Maine fishermen in response to similar gear marking requirements.
3. Material cost for each foot marking is $0.04 per foot (see below for detail calculation);
the cost for enough twine to make a one foot mark once woven in is up to $0.5. Labor
cost per hour is $25.15 in 2017 dollars ($26.52 in 2020 dollars, see table 6.1 for details).
ID tape ropes are not available at this time. Suppliers that have produced it in small batches
could not provide an estimate of the price range. On a conservative basis, here we assume that
the cost of ID tape rope will be twice as much as conventional rope, which costs $0.11 per foot
for 3/8 in. rope and $0.26 per foot for 3/4 in. rope. Table 6.20 describes the gear marking cost for
Alternative 2 and 3.
Table 6.20: The first year gear marking cost for Alternative 2 and 3

18

Email correspondence with NMFS gear specialists from June 30, 2020 to May 9, 2021.

278

Number
of
Affected
Vessels

Number
of
Endlines

Total
Lower
Cost Alt 2
($)

Total
Upper
Cost Alt 2
($)

Marking
Cost Alt 3
($)

ID Tape
Cost Alt 3
($)

Total Cost
Alt 3 ($)

ME

2,301

233,508

3,107,273

4,407,985

2,300,229

8,611,698

10,911,927

NH

241

14,815

173,382

173,382

145,939

144,339

290,278

MA

1,216

100,651

1,215,509

1,346,020

991,488

1,120,599

2,112,087

RI

131

6,525

88,260

129,581

64,276

71,170

135,446

LMA 3

81

4,119

55,835

122,088

40,575

977,683

1,018,259

0

0

0

0

0

4,640,260

6,179,056

3,542,507

10,925,490

14,467,997

Total

3,970

359,618

Notes: 1. All dollar values are adjusted to 2020.
2. Gear marking is assumed to repeat every year except for ID tape. Depending on fishing areas, some marks might
need replacement earlier due to weather or bottom condition. Therefore, annual costs could be higher in some areas.

6.5 Analytic Approach: Line Cap Reduction
Under Alternative 3, a 50 percent line cap reduction is proposed for federal waters to reduce the
risk score by 45 percent in federal waters. Line tags would likely be the implementation
mechanism, with permitting entities distributing enough tags for 50 percent of the 2017 vertical
line estimate fished under their permitting authority. No specific measures are proposed at this
time, so each state could identify distribution methods and fishermen could choose their own line
reduction measures to fish under this limit. Vessels could keep fishing all their traps with twice
as many traps per trawl, or maintain their gear configuration but reduce the total active fishing
traps by half; or they can combine trawling up and trap reduction at the same time toward a 50
percent buoy line reduction goal. The estimation of the economic impact of line cap reduction is
difficult without knowing the exact measures of each area. Therefore, we estimate the more
likely (and more expensive) situation to get an estimate of economic impact, by assuming all
vessels comply by trawling up.
Similar to the trawling up measure in Section 6.2, the economic impact of a change in line cap
reduction includes the change in gear configuration costs and impacts on total catch. Gear
configuration costs would include cost savings from fewer surface systems and buoy lines, but
costs would increase due to the need for more groundlines and the associated labor costs from
converting gear to meet the end line cap reduction goal. Table 6.21 describes the details of the
cost estimation using a worst-case scenario of trawling up, which assumes twice the fishermen’s
current traps per trawl on half the trawls.

279

Table 6.21: Estimation for 50 percent line cap reduction in federal waters by area at year one
Surface
System
Savings ($)

Buoy line
Savings ($)

Groundline
Material
Cost ($)

Groundline
Labor Cost
($)

5% Catch
Impact
Lower
Bound ($)

10% Catch
Impact
Upper
Bound ($)

Total Cost
Lower Bound
($)

Total Cost
Upper
Bound ($)

ME A

2,324,719

1,023,539

53,130

557,086

1,892,903

3,785,805

-845,140

1,047,763

ME B

143,525

477,511

40,201

227,060

771,527

1,543,055

417,752

1,189,280

ME C

188,538

902,198

37,464

332,767

1,130,311

2,260,621

409,807

1,540,117

ME D

253,048

740,393

40,830

354,337

1,203,690

2,407,381

605,416

1,809,106

ME E

94,027

349,626

17,433

150,215

510,450

1,020,900

234,445

744,895

ME F

163,258

757,685

22,988

305,455

1,038,003

2,076,005

445,502

1,483,505

ME G

89,032

368,978

19,905

190,341

646,706

1,293,410

398,941

1,045,646

MA

38,123

206,765

13,738

391,554

1,107,742

2,215,485

1,268,146

2,375,889

RI

11,661

21,067

4,786

71,194

89,614

179,228

132,868

222,482

LMA3

134,823

547,795

7,544

284,607

1,176,756

2,353,512

786,290

1,963,046

Total

3,440,755

5,395,556

258,018

2,864,618

9,567,702

19,135,401

3,854,028

13,421,728

Notes: All values are adjusted to 2020 dollars.

Alternative Responses to Line Cap Reduction
The economic analysis above considers the first option described below—a fairly costly response
that would cause safety challenges for some fishermen by doubling the number of traps per
trawl. Other potential line cap reduction approaches that were not analyzed for costs are briefly
described below.
6.5.1.1

Trawling up to double trap/trawl number and length, no trap reductions

A 50 percent line cap could result in broad scale trawling up in federal waters across the
Northeast Region. In areas where two buoy lines are allowed on trap/trawls given current
configurations, this would require double the number of traps per trawl. Vessels with higher
capacity for longer trap trawls will likely have the ability to mitigate the impacts of a line cap
and increase the number of traps per trawl, though this is anticipated to vary by distance to shore.
Those fishing farther offshore are most likely to double their trap trawl lengths and fish the same
number of traps. This represents the lower bound of changes to fishing effort where the number
of traps fished does not change.
6.5.1.2

Reduce traps

If a 50 percent line cap was implemented, it is unlikely that all vessels would be capable of
trawling up in order to fish the same number of traps. Reducing trap caps by half could also
achieve a 50 percent reduction in buoy lines when paired with traps/trawl requirements.
Fisheries managers that participated in public meetings of the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries
Commission and the Team have expressed confidence that on productive fishing grounds, lobster
280

trap reductions could occur without negative economic consequences. Described further below, a
number of studies have demonstrated this, for example Myers and Moore (2020) and Acheson
(2013). However, to be a reduction in the number of buoy lines actively being fished, and to be
fairly distributed based on vessel fishing histories or other commonly used metrics, detailed
knowledge of the amount of fishing effort by sector or individual vessel is required. Allocation
decisions in effort control management of a capped resource (lines or traps) are also usually
informed by iterative public fishery management processes and include appeal options that are
administratively burdensome. Because the lobster/Jonah crab fishery has variable reporting
requirements across states, and because only about 10 percent of Maine fishermen have been
required to report in any year and federal reporting has not been mandatory, existing data are not
available to easily determine effective trap and line cap measures. This was demonstrated by the
failed attempt by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to identify an effort limit
addendum, described in Chapter 3 Section 3.1.1.2.
A line cap that would allow fishermen to choose could result in some choosing trap reductions.
Trap reduction applications would likely differ based on the location and size of fishing
operations. In federal waters, outside of 3 nautical miles (5.6 km), most areas have minimum trap
trawl configurations already, with the exception of a few small exempted areas outside of 3 nm
(5.6 km) offshore of Maine. Common configurations in this area start at one to three traps per
trawl and increase with distance from shore. There is a minimum of 10 traps per trawl outside of
state waters and a minimum of 14 traps per trawl in offshore waters. Therefore it is likely that
there will be some trap reductions as a result of a line cap, which could fall under a few different
categories:
•

Vessels constrained by vessel size, rope storage constraints, hauling block capacity,
number of crew, or other operational constraints would have to either invest in major
modifications to their vessel and capacity or reduce the number of traps fished by up to
50 percent of their current trap level. This is a more likely scenario with smaller vessels
that are not capable of trawling up from their current capacity, especially those still
fishing singles. A 50-percent trap reduction represents the upper bound of potential
changes to fishing effort to achieve a 50-percent line reduction, likely limited to regional
areas where no trawling up would be expected.

•

Some degree of trawling up is most likely to occur in some nearshore and all offshore
waters but in many cases doubling the traps/trawls would still be prohibitive. Given not
all vessels will be able to adjust the scale of their vessel or current operations it is most
likely that there will be a response somewhere in the middle, where a combination of
trawling up and trap reductions occurs. In federal waters outside of Maine lobster zones,
most fishermen are already trawling up to at least ten traps per trawl so the capacity to
trawl up further will be dependent on the size of the operation, the number of buoy lines
currently used for each trawl, and safety concerns. A doubling of traps per trawl would
strain smaller fishing operations, requiring a greater reduction in total traps fished than on
larger vessels. Predicting how many allocated traps would be latent is difficult to estimate
without additional details on vessel class and capacity.

6.5.1.3

Ropeless on one end
281

One additional scenario available is the use of only one tagged buoy line on trap/pot trawls with
no buoy line or the incorporation of a ropeless fishing device on the other end. Under Alternative
2 (Preferred), Maine DMR’s conservation equivalency that would allow trawls of up to ten traps
to be fished with one buoy line is analyzed. Those trawls would be fished without a ropeless
retrieval unit on the buoyless end of the groundline. For longer trawls, a ropeless unit could be
used. There are a number of manufacturers of devices to remotely retrieve buoy lines that are
working with NMFS and commercial fishermen. Currently an authorization for an exemption to
surface marking requirements under the Atlantic Coastal Act is required; however, in some areas
where gear is more dispersed and gear conflicts may be of less concern, modifications to surface
marking requirements could be developed to allow ropeless operations. Costs vary, but for some
devices are as low as $5,000 per retrieval device. A buoy line on one end and a stored buoy line
on the other end would achieve a 50-percent line cap without impacting the number of traps
being fished in federal waters. Because ropeless devices are being developed to transmit location
information, increased gear loss would not be anticipated. The primary costs would be those
associated with purchasing and maintaining the equipment necessary to deploy, locate, and
retrieve the buoy line.

Potential Impacts:
As discussed above, if the first scenario is widely adopted, the cost of the line cap comes
primarily from catch impacts as a result of trawling up, estimated in the analysis as being from 5
to 10 percent. Additionally costs to reconfigure vessels to accommodate line or to hire additional
crew may also be incurred. There could be some savings in the amount of buoy lines that need to
be purchased and replaced. It is likely that this response is limited to larger, offshore vessels and
it would not be feasible or safe to double or quadruple trawl lengths. Total costs would range
from $3.9 million to nearly $13.4 million, a range of costs that likely encompasses most of the
alternative options discussed qualitatively below.
Areas closer to shore would likely experience either a mix of responses, ranging from a
combination of trawling up and reduced traps fished, or a halving of traps fished with the same
trap/trawl configuration to achieve the line cap (up to a 50-percent trap reduction). Cost impacts
are difficult to estimate and are likely to be variable by area fished. Effort reduction could
increase profits and salaries of lobster fishermen if operation costs decrease and the size, and
subsequent value, of harvested lobster increases (Richardson and Gates 1986, Wang and Kellog
1988, Meyers et al. 2007, Steinbeck et al. 2008, Holland et al. 2011, Dayton et al. 2018). Some
indicate this level would have to be fairly high to have a measurable impact on profitability
(Steinbeck et al. 2008, Holland et al. 2011). There is evidence the industry is overcapitalized and
that many vessels are not operating at full efficiency, suggesting that effort reduction could help,
particularly if it resulted in a decline in operating costs (Dayton et al. 2018). Previous research
also suggests that reducing effort has a more measurable impact than solely relying on minimum
size classes to maintain a healthy fishery (Richardson and Gates 1986).
Steinbeck et al. (2008) posits that personal income would increase with sharp decreases in trap
numbers. Myers and Moore (2020) also agree that reducing effort in the U.S. lobster fishery
could lead to higher profits and more protection for right whales. Canadian lobster fisheries in
282

Nova Scotia have maintained profitability despite only operating seasonally, indicating effort
reduction does not necessarily correlate with a decline in profitability (Meyers et al. 2007, GMRI
2014) while U.S. profitability has decreased despite increases in landings and will need to reduce
effort to maintain a profit (GMRI 2014). If effort is not sufficiently reduced, it is possible
widespread trap reductions as a result of a line cap would not necessarily translate into a change
in profitability.
The trap reduction necessary to increase profitability may be higher than what would be expected
with the implementation of a 50-percent line cap. The maximum trap reduction would be around
50 percent, but a mixed-response scenario where some trawling up is used to recoup traps and
some traps become latent is far more likely. If effort reduction does not result in fewer trips and
other adjustments that reduce operational costs, it is possible that the effort reduction would be
less effective at increasing profitability. The proposed line cap does not require a change from
year-round fishing, thus it would be left to the vessel operators whether or how to reduce
operational costs in response to a reduction in traps. Plan modifications conducted under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act are not normally done to control fishing effort, but rather are
more commonly a goal of fishery management measures under the Atlantic Coastal Act, As a
result, there is likely to be more variation in how vessel operators respond to trap reduction.
Effort reduction might not translate into an increase in the size and value of harvested lobster and
overall profitability of fishing operations.
The last response scenario suggested is the use of ropeless devices on one end in the event of a
50 percent line cap of 2017 buoy line estimates. Similar to first scenario, where no trap reduction
would be anticipated and current trawl configurations would be maintained, this alternative
would allow vessels to continue operating at their current capacity. This scenario would likely
have the smallest impact on landings. However, there would be at least a short term increase in
the cost of operations with the need to purchase new equipment. The estimated initial per vessel
investment for switching to full ropeless fishing is around $56,000 to $243,000 depending on
which technology is preferable (Black et al. 2019). Fishermen are likely to choose the more
affordable technology and would likely only modify half of their buoy lines. Additional
maintenance costs would include replacement and maintenance of gear. Increased gear conflict
might occur, causing costs in lost gear or time to find and retrieve gear. Despite the costs, the
benefits of this approach would be to maintain the current level of operation and minimize lost
revenue. The more vessels that switch over to using ropeless devices, the more affordable the
equipment will become in the future, minimizing the future costs of this approach.
This Final Rule also proposed measures to allow ropeless fishing in areas that are seasonally
closed to persistent buoy lines. Thus, an investment in ropeless equipment as a result of a line
cap could also allow vessels with this capacity to access fishing areas that would be otherwise
unavailable (though this would require an additional exempt fishing permit).

6.6 Estimated Compliance Costs By Alternative
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the economic analysis is designed to measure
regulatory compliance costs of the Plan modifications that would be implemented by federal
rulemaking on an incremental basis, i.e., to measure the change in costs associated with a change
283

in regulatory requirements. If no change in regulatory requirements is imposed as would be the
case under Alternative 1 the economic burden attributable to the ALWTRP would be unchanged.
Thus, Alternative 1 would impose no additional costs on the regulated community.
For this analysis, we consider costs of only those measures that would be regulated under the
federal Plan modifications. Costs of ongoing and anticipated lobster fishery management
measures, measures within Maine exempted waters, and the extension into May of a buoy line
closure for state waters in the Massachusetts Restricted Area, are not analyzed.
The cost changes in Alternative 2 and 3 are displayed in Table 6.22. Three sets of values are
presented: the first year costs, the total six year costs, and the annualized value using both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates. In general, the largest cost changes originate from the
assumed catch impacts associated with the gear configuration change. In Alternative 2, using a 7
percent discount rate (this rate applies to all annualized costs below) trawling up measures were
estimated to cost between $2.5 million to $8.3 million annually, and in total $12.1 million to
$39.8 million over six years. The full range of costs for the options under Alternative 3,
including primarily the 50-percent buoy line reduction in federal waters, is estimated to be $5.5
million to $14.4 million annually, and $26.1 million to $68.6 million in total.
The total cost of all proposed measures for Alternative—including gear marking, weak rope,
seasonal restricted areas, and gear conversion costs—ranges from $10.5 million to $19.1 million
annually, and $50 million to $91.1 million in total. It is much lower than the Alternative 3, which
ranges from $29.6 million to $40 million annually, and $141.3 million to $190.5 million in total.

284

Table 6.22: Summary of compliance costs by alternatives (in million $)
Gear
Gear
Discount
Weak
Trawling
Marking Marking
Rate
Rope
up Lower
Lower
Upper
Alt 2
4.6
6.2
2.2
1.6
Year 1
Alt 2
27.8
37.1
2.2
12.1
Total
Alt 2 AV
3%
5.1
6.8
0.4
2.2
Alt 2 AV
7%
5.8
7.8
0.5
2.5
Alt 3
Year 1
Alt 3
Total
Alt 3 AV
Alt 3 AV

3%
7%

Trawling
up Upper

Restricted
Area
Lower

Restricted
Area
Upper

Line
Cap
Lower

Line
Cap
Upper

Total
Lower

Total
Upper

8.8

1.3

2.0

0.0

0.0

9.8

19.2

39.8

7.8

12.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

91.1

7.3
8.3

1.4
1.6

2.2
2.5

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

9.2
10.5

16.8
19.1

14.5

0.0

10.6

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.1

3.9

13.4

32.8

44.6

86.8

0.0

10.6

3.1

7.4

17.8

24.5

23.0

61.3

141.3

190.5

16.0
18.2

0.0
0.0

2.0
2.2

0.6
0.6

1.4
1.5

3.3
3.7

4.5
5.1

4.2
4.8

11.3
12.9

26.1
29.6

35.2
40.0

Notes:
1. Year 1 values are in 2020 dollars
2. Total represents value of year 1 to year 6, in 2020 dollars.
3. AV represents annualized value of the net present value. It is an equalized yearly cost during the 6-year time period with 3% and 7% discount rate.

285

6.7 Social Impact
The social impact assessment examines the social consequences of the potential changes to the
ALWTRP that are under consideration. In this section, we will identify the groups of vessels that
may be affected; then we provide a detailed socioeconomic characterization of the communities
that may be affected by modifications to the ALWTRP, and assesses the vulnerability of these
communities to adverse impacts. The analysis involves two basic elements:
First, based on the results of the economic impact assessment, the social impact analysis
identifies the number of affected vessels by each proposed measure, and characterizes the
changes in fishing practices and fishing activity that may occur.
Second, the analysis uses county-level socioeconomic data and fishery-dependent data to assess
the vulnerability of communities (i.e., counties) to adverse social impacts stemming from
promulgation of commercial fishing regulations under the ALWTRP. The analysis is primarily
built on data from NMFS VTR, dealer reports, and social indicator databases, as well as
demographic and socioeconomic data from the U.S. Census and the U.S. Department of Labor.
This analysis also qualitatively considers various other social impacts—both negative and
positive—that may result from modification of the ALWTRP. In all cases, the analysis measures
these impacts relative to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

Characterization of Affected Vessels under ALWTRP
According to the estimation in the Vertical Line Model, there are 3,970 vessels in trap/pot
fisheries in the Northeast Region, not including Maine exempt waters. Most of them are fishing
for lobster and a few in Southern New England waters also fish for Jonah crab. This rule will
affect vessels differently based on the fishing area. Table 6.23 displays the number of affected
vessels under each measure except for restricted areas, which is shown separately in Table 6.24.
Gear marking proposed in both Alternatives 2 and 3 and the weak rope requirements in
Alternative 2 would affect all vessels in the Northeast Region, except for those in Maine exempt
waters, where Maine would be responsible for rulemaking. Maine has the most affected vessels,
and Massachusetts has the second most. The minimum trap/trawl requirement in Alternative 2
affects the most vessels in Maine outside the exempt waters. Fewer inshore or nearshore vessels
outside of Maine are affected by trawling up measures because they already fish with the
proposed minimum trawl length or more traps per trawl. Vessels in LMA 2 would not be
required to trawl up; instead they could use weak rope as a conservation equivalency. Under
Alternative 2, all LMA 3 vessels would be required to trawl up from 35 to 50 traps, depending on
where they fish. Under Alternative 3, LMA 3 vessels are only required to trawl up to 45 traps
from May to August, which would affect 74 offshore vessels. Alternative 3 also requires vessels
in the federal waters to reduce their line cap of average monthly buoy lines by 50 percent. A total
of 1,491 vessels would be affected, most of them from Maine.
A number of vessels would be impacted by proposed seasonal buoy line restricted areas in
Alternatives 2 and.3. Under Alternative 2, the Maine LMA 1 seasonal restricted area from
286

October through January would affect at least 123 vessels outside 12 nm in Zone C, D a,nd E.
The MRA North expansion from February through April would affect 106 vessels, and the South
Island Restricted Area would affect 27 vessels. Under Alternative 3, the Massachusetts
Restricted Area extension in May would affect 159 vessels, most of which are state permit
holders and have to suspend fishing during the seasonal restrictions. The Massachusetts
Restricted Area would affect more vessels because of the larger closed area, including 138
vessels that fish in state waters and 21 in federal waters. The MRA North extension in May
analyzed in Alternative 3 would affect 50 more vessels than the Preferred Alternative. A Georges
Basin buoy line restricted area from May through August would affect 16 offshore vessels, most
of which are from Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The L-shaped South Island Restricted
Area analyzed in Alternative 3 would affect ten vessels in total. Table 6.24 shows the details of
the number of affected vessels by restricted area under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Table 6.23: Number of affected vessels by measures and area
Gear Marking, Weak
Trawling up
Trawling up
Rope
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
376
ME A
545
178
ME B
256
137
ME C
439
122
ME D
432
74
ME E
209
103
ME F
233
129
ME G
187
NH
241
0
MA
1,216
7
RI
131
0
LMA 3
82
82
74
Total
3,970
1,206
74

Line Cap
281
129
189
191
107
179
109
0
187
37
82
1,491

Table 6.24: Number of affected vessels in different restricted areas
Restricted Area

Alternative

Restricted
Period

ME LMA1

2

Oct - Jan

Northern MRA

2

Feb - Apr

South Island

2

Feb - Apr

ME LMA1

3

Oct - Feb

Northern MRA

3

Feb - May

MRA

3

May

Georges Basin

3

May - Aug

South Island

3

Feb - May

Size (Square
miles)
967
(2,505 km2)
497
(1,287 km2)
5,468
(14,162 km2)
967
(2,505 km2)
497
(1,287 km2)
3,069
(7,949 km2)
557
(1443 km2)
3,506
(9080 km2)

287

Max vesselslines out

Max vesselsrelocation

0

62

106

0

16

11

0

62

193

0

138

21
16

3

7

The compliance costs for these vessels were discussed in the economic analysis section (see
Section 6.2-6.6). In the next section, we will focus on the community level impacts.

Characterization of Vulnerability and Resilience in Fishing
Communities
6.7.2.1

Factors Affecting Vulnerability and Resilience

When considering the effect of proposed regulations on fishing communities, one potential
approach is to focus the analysis on individual ports or municipalities. Clearly, however, fishing
communities can extend beyond the boundaries of a particular port or city. Fish can be landed in
one town and processed in a neighboring town. Likewise, a fisherman can land catch in one
town, live in a neighboring town, and register his vessel in yet another location. In recognition of
these factors, this analysis focuses at the county level. 19 While a county’s political boundaries do
not limit the network of social interactions and economic resource flows described above, the use
of counties as an analytic focus offers several advantages. First, the geographic range of the
county is a useful spatial mid-point between individual towns/ports and large regions; this is
especially important given that ALWTRP regulations apply to such an extensive geographic area
(virtually the entire northeast coast of the U.S.). In addition, many of the data used to
characterize communities (e.g., unemployment rate, population) are readily available at the
county level.
This analysis focuses primarily on coastal counties in the Northeast that landed ALWTRP
affected species at values greater than $1 million per year. As Figure 6.5 indicates, this includes
most coastal counties in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. For these
counties, NMFS 2018 data shows that more than $628 million in ex-vessel revenue was
attributable to trap/pot lobster and Jonah crab landings. Trap/pot vessels operating out of ports in
this region are most likely to be affected by the weak rope, minimum trawl length, gear marking,
and restricted area requirements.
In both fishing and non-fishing communities, the ability to adapt to change varies with social,
political, and economic considerations. The vulnerability of fishing communities, however, is
influenced by additional factors, including the importance of familial relationships, the
vulnerability of infrastructure, and the commitment to fishing as a culture and way of life (Clay
and Olson 2008). From an analytic perspective, vulnerability includes the characteristics of
“exposure, sensitivity, and capacity of response to change or perturbation” (Gallopín 2006, as
cited in Colburn and Jepson 2012). Consistent with Gallopin’s definition, this social impact
assessment considers each county’s vulnerability to be a function of the extent to which its
fishing industry is affected by the regulations (i.e., exposure), the significance of the fishing
industry within the county (i.e., sensitivity), and baseline factors that may affect communities’
ability to absorb the economic costs imposed by the regulations (i.e., capacity to respond to
change). The discussion that follows briefly describes the parameters used to evaluate each
aspect of vulnerability.

19

This discussion thus uses the terms “counties” and “communities” interchangeably

288

Figure 6.5: Counties considered in the social impact analysis

Exposure: The analysis first considers the extent to which the local fishing industry is exposed
to ALWTRP regulations. Exposure is defined in two ways:
•

Value/proportion of harvest associated with affected gear—The counties most likely
to experience adverse social impacts are those in which gear regulated under the
ALWTRP is an important source of commercial fishing revenue, either on an absolute or
a relative basis.

•

Number of entities affected—Similarly, the most vulnerable counties are likely to be
those that are home to the greatest number of vessels that fish with gear regulated under
the ALWTRP.

Sensitivity: Those communities that are more heavily dependent (both economically and
socially) on the fishing industry are more likely to experience adverse social impacts due to
fishing regulations. This analysis relies upon a measure of fishing dependence designed to take
289

additional factors into account. This measure, the Occupational Alternative Ratio Summary
(OARS), emphasizes the importance of fishing as an occupation to participants in the labor force
as a whole, and the dependence of the local economy on the fishing industry. In general, a higher
score indicates a greater dependence on fishing as an occupation, and a lower likelihood that
displaced fishermen can easily enter into alternate occupations. 20
Capacity to Respond to Change: A number of economic and demographic factors will
influence a community’s ability to absorb economic stress, tempering or exacerbating
vulnerability to social impacts stemming from ALWTRP regulations:
•

Unemployment rate, poverty rate, median income—Fundamental economic indicators
such as the unemployment rate, poverty rate, and median income can indicate the local
economy’s resilience to regulatory impacts. Communities that are already economically
depressed may find it more difficult to absorb the economic effects of regulatory changes
and may be subject to greater social impacts.

•

Gentrification—Gentrification can be a key source of coastal community vulnerability
(Jacob et al. 2010 and Clay and Olson 2008, as cited in Colburn and Jepson 2012).
According to Hall-Arber et al. (2001), as former working waterfronts succumb to the
pressures of gentrification, community character and culture are lost, diversity
diminishes, and the fishing community is less able to adapt to changes in the
environment. Additional fishing regulations can make it even more difficult for
individuals to maintain a “fishing way of life.” Communities that are already
experiencing gentrification will likely be more susceptible to social impacts as ALWTRP
regulations are implemented. Hall-Arber et al. (2001) integrate various measures of
gentrification into a score that can be used to characterize community vulnerability.

6.7.2.2

Assessment of Community Vulnerability

Table 6.25 presents socioeconomic data for each county identified as potentially vulnerable to
social impacts due to ALWTRP regulations. By evaluating the vulnerability indicators described
above, the analysis characterizes the extent to which the counties are susceptible to regulatorydriven social impacts.
Counties in mid-coast and Downeast Maine, where the lobster fishery is the major driver of the
commercial fishing economy, tend to be the most vulnerable to adverse social impacts from
ALWTRP regulations. Hundreds of lobster vessels are based in these counties, and their landings
are extensive (see Table 6.26). Hancock and Knox counties report the greatest value of landings
with ALWTRP gear ($156 million and $136 million in 2018, respectively), as well as the
greatest number of vessels fishing with such gear (approximately 1150 and 950, respectively).
20

Measures of fishing dependence and gentrification (see below) are based on Hall-Arber et al. (2001). At the time
this analysis was developed, these data represented the most recent published attempt to address these issues
systematically, allowing for a direct comparison between counties. Colburn and Jepsen (2012) have developed
additional indices allowing for evaluation of fishing dependence and gentrification; however, they have yet to be
broadly applied. For a qualitative discussion of these issues, see the Community Profiles for Northeast U.S. Marine
Fisheries developed by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (2010). These profiles are available online at:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/communityProfiles.html

290

The exposure of these counties to adverse impacts is heightened by the fact that landings made
with ALWTRP gear account for a high percentage (around 90 percent in both cases) of overall
ex-vessel revenues. Washington County (Maine) is also highly exposed, with potentially affected
landings of $81 million. Each of these counties is highly dependent on fishing, as measured by
commercial dependence and commercial reliance indicator. Moreover, the high poverty and
unemployment rates in these counties suggest that they have limited capacity to absorb
additional economic stress. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of
ALWTRP regulations. In addition to commercial fisheries, more entities along the industry
supply chain could be affected by the Plan modification such as seafood wholesalers,
distributors, processors, vessel and gear suppliers and maintenance businesses et al. Based on an
economic impact analysis of the lobster distribution supply chain in Maine conducted by
researchers from Colby College (Donihue and Tselikis 2018), the wholesale lobster distribution
supply chain contributed more than $967 million to Maine’s economy and supported over 5,500
workers in 2016.
More than 50 percent of ex-vessel revenue in Maine’s other coastal counties is attributable to
landings made with ALWTRP gear. In some instances, however, such as Waldo County, the
overall value of these landings is relatively low. In others, such as Lincoln, Sagadahoc,
Cumberland, and York, the value of potentially affected landings is substantial, but the economy
as a whole is more diversified. As a result, these counties are somewhat less sensitive to adverse
impacts that may stem from changes in ALWTRP regulations. The same is true of New
Hampshire’s Rockingham County. There, 90 percent of ex-vessel revenue is derived from
landings made with ALWTRP gear, which suggests that the county’s harvesting sector is highly
exposed. The sensitivity of the county’s economy as a whole, however, is tempered by its low
commercial dependence score. In addition, Rockingham County’s unemployment rate is lower
than most other counties analyzed; this suggests that its economy has a relatively strong capacity
to respond to change and that the region is less vulnerable to adverse impacts than areas where
the unemployment rate is higher.
In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the situation is more varied. In general, the value of landings
made with ALWTRP gear in the counties of these states is lower than that reported for counties
in Maine and New Hampshire, both on an absolute and a relative basis. In addition, the
economies of coastal counties in Massachusetts and Rhode Island tend to be more diversified and
less dependent on the commercial fishing sector. Nonetheless, ALWTRP gear accounts for exvessel revenues of more than $15 million per year in Essex (Massachusetts), Barnstable
(Massachusetts), and Bristol (Massachusetts) counties, suggesting that exposure to adverse
impacts in these counties may be substantial.

291

Table 6.25: Social-economic indicators for coastal communities

Beals Island/Jonesport,
31,490
41,384
18.30%
4.90%
1.11
1.50
2.46
1.00
1.71
Cutler, Eastport, Lubec
Stonington/Deer Isle,
ME
Hancock
54,811
53,068
11.60%
3.80%
1.00
1.14
2.18
1.00
1.86
Bucksport
ME
Waldo
Belfast, Searsport, Northport 39,694
51,564
13.70%
3.50%
1.00
1.53
1.93
1.00
1.00
Rockland, Vinalhaven, Port
ME
Knox
39,771
55,402
11.00%
3.20%
0.94
1.28
1.72
0.94
2.11
Clyde
South Bristol, Boothbay
ME
Lincoln
34,342
55,180
11.10%
3.30%
1.00
1.12
1.59
1.00
1.59
Harbor
ME
Sagadahoc
Georgetown, Phippsburg
35,634
62,131
8.70%
2.70%
1.00
1.00
1.89
1.00
1.33
ME
Cumberland
Portland, Harpswell
293,557
69,708
8.20%
2.70%
1.00
1.04
1.48
1.08
1.44
Kennebunkport/Cape
ME
York
206,229
65,538
9.00%
3.00%
1.00
1.13
1.96
1.04
1.38
Porpoise, York
Hampton/Seabrook,
NH
Rockingham
309,176
90,429
5.30%
2.8%
1.00
1.06
1.65
1.76
1.38
Portsmouth, Isle of Shoals
Gloucester, Rockport,
MA
Essex
790,638
75,878
10.70%
3.60%
1.24
1.21
1.55
2.79
1.42
Marblehead
MA
Suffolk
Boston Harbor
807,252
64,582
17.50%
4.50%
3.33
2.33
2.67
4.00
2.00
MA
Norfolk
Cohasset
705,388
99,511
6.50%
3.00%
1.16
1.08
1.68
2.84
1.04
Plymouth, Scituate,
MA
Plymouth
518,132
85,654
6.20%
3.20%
1.11
1.11
2.25
2.46
1.50
Hingham
Sandwich, Hyannis,
MA
Barnstable
Chatham, Provincetown,
213,413
70,621
8.00%
2.40%
1.00
1.03
3.03
1.75
1.63
Woods Hole
New Bedford, Fairhaven,
MA
Bristol
564,022
66,157
10.80%
3.20%
1.15
1.30
1.95
2.10
1.50
Westport
Jamestown, Newport,
RI
Newport
82,542
77,237
8.10%
3.00%
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.83
Tiverton, Sakonnet Point
RI
Washington Point Judith/Galilee
126,179
81,301
8.00%
4.50%
1.00
1.29
2.43
1.29
2.14
Source: NMFS social indicator data from 2016; Maine.gov https://www.maine.gov/labor/cwri/county-economic-profiles/countyProfiles.html , 1/28/2020 U.S;
Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/washingtoncountymaine,ME/INC110218 U.S. Census Bureau 2018 :ACS 1-year estimates data
profiles; FRED https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MADUKE7URN. Notes: social indicator data are categorical, ranging from 0 to 4. Higher numbers indicate
communities that are more vulnerable.
ME

Washington

292

Commercial
Reliance

Commercial
Engagement

Urban Sprawl

Housing
Disruption

Personal
Disruption

Population
Composition

Unemployment
Rate (2018)

Persons below
Poverty Level
(2014-2018)

Key Ports

Median
Household
Income (20142018)

County

Population
(2018)

State

1.82
1.93
1.00
1.94
1.59
1.22
1.24
1.17
1.12
1.06
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.25
1.10
1.17
1.29

Table 6.26: Socioeconomic Profile of Substantively Affected Counties – Harvest Parameters
State

County

Top Species Landed by Value

2018
ALWTRP
Harvest
Value ($)

ALWTRP
Harvest Value
as% of Total
Harvest Value

Estimated Number
of Vessels Fishing
with ALWTRP
Gear

Total Estimated
Employment on
ALWTRP
Vessels_Lower

Total Estimated
Employment on
ALWTRP
Vessels_upper

ME

Washington

Lobster, softshell clam, sea scallop

81,003,814

81%

838

1,601

2,514

ME

Hancock

Lobster, American eel, softshell clam

156,154,329

89%

1158

2,221

3,472

ME

Waldo

Lobster, American eel, sea scallop

3,041,380

72%

113

196

322

ME

Knox

Lobster, softshell clam, Atlantic herring

136,413,697

92%

945

1,834

2,872

ME

Lincoln

Lobster, oysters, softshell clam

29,770,294

69%

465

859

1,374

ME
ME
ME
NH
MA
MA

Sagadahoc
Cumberland
York
Rockingham
Essex
Suffolk

Lobster, worms, quahog
Lobster, pollock, cod
Lobster, bluefin tuna, cod
Lobster, cod, pollock
Lobster, cod, pollock
Cod, lobster, pollock

5,808,239
60,664,397
21,354,828
35,026,477
30,202,297
2,631,553

75%
69%
93%
91%
39%
16%

210
646
261
179
277
28

375
1,204
479
396
579
18

621
1,950
770
574
856
25

MA

Norfolk

Lobster, softshell clam, bluefin tuna

1,916,586

99%

24

47

70

MA

Plymouth

Lobster, oysters, cod

13,502,085

49%

192

421

613

MA

Barnstable

Lobster, sea scallops, bluefin tuna

17,499,519

24%

173

346

519

MA

Bristol

Sea scallop, cod, lobster

26,829,026

6%

97

670

865

RI

Newport

Lobster, sea scallop, monkfish

7,313,508

60%

63

152

215

RI

Washington

Loligo squid, lobster, illex squid

5,923,447

81%

128

349

480

293

6.8 References
Acheson JM: Co-management in the Maine lobster industry: a study in factional politics. Conserv Soc 2013, 11: 60–
71.
American Petroleum Institute, “Notes to State Motor Fuel Excise and Other Taxes,” accessed online at:
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/industry-economics/fuel-taxes.aspx.
BEA. 2021. Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product [online Document]. URL
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=11#reqid=19&ste
p=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=11 (accessed 5.25.21).
Black, R., N. Manderlink, B. Morrison. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Ropeless Exemption in Select Closure Areas
Memorandum. February 7, 2019.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, accessed online at http://www.bls.gov/oes/, March
2020.
Christiansen, F., S. M. Dawson, J. W. Durban, H. Fearnbach, C. A. Miller, L. Bejder, M. Uhart, M. Sironi, P.
Corkeron, W. Rayment, E. Leunissen, E. Haria, R. Ward, H. A. Warick, I. Kerr, M. S. Lynn, H. M. Pettis,
and M. J. Moore. 2020. Population comparison of right whale body condition reveals poor state of the
North Atlantic right whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 640:1-16.
Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Lobster Socioeconomic Impact Survey, prepared by Market Decisions, prepared
for Laura Taylor Singer and Daniel S. Holland, November 16, 2006.
Dayton, A. 2018. Assessing Economic Performance of Maine's Lobster Fleet Under Changing Ecosystem
Conditions in the Gulf of Maine. University of Maine. Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A.
McKenna, S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2016. Effects of fishing rope strength on the severity of large
whale entanglements. Conserv Biol 30:318-328.
Donihue M, Tselikis. A. 2018. From Lobsters to Dollars: An Economic Analysis of the Distribution Supply Chain in
Maine. [Internet]. Waterville (ME): Colby College. [cited 2020 Feb 10]. Available from:
http://colbycollege.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=e0c247dcb1a34d8293d953f92f360eb
9.
GMRI. 2014. Understanding Opportunities and Barriers to Profitability in the New England Lobster Industry.
Holland, D. S. 2011. Planning for changing productivity and catchability in the Maine lobster fishery. Fisheries
Research 110:47-58.
Knowlton, A. R., R. Malloy Jr., S. D. Kraus, and T. B. Werner. 2018. Development and Evaluation of Reduced
Breaking Strength Rope to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Severity. Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean
Life, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
Maine Department of Marine Resources, Gear Trawling Project: How Long is Too Long for a Trawl? A
collaboration between the Department of Maine Resources, the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation, and the
lobster industry, February 2012.
Maine Maritime Academy, “Lobster Boat Efficiency Project,” CEI Fuel Efficiency Workshop, Vinalhaven, Maine,
December 6, 2011.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Comparative Economic Survey and Analysis of Northeast Fishery
Sector 10 (South Shore, Massachusetts), prepared by Dr. David Pierce, Brant McAfee, and Story Reed,
November 2011.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Impact of Ghost Fishing to the American Lobster Fishery, 2011.
McCarron, Patrice and Heather Tetreault, Lobster Pot Gear Configurations in the Gulf of Maine, 2012.
Myers, H., Moore, M., 2020. Reducing effort in the U.S. American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery to prevent
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) entanglements may support higher profits and long-term
sustainability. Marine Policy 118, 104017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104017

294

Myers, R. A., S. A. Boudreau, R. D. Kenney, M. J. Moore, A. A. Rosenberg, S. A. Sherrill-Mix, and B. Worm.
2007. Saving endangered whales at no cost. Curr Biol 17:R10-11.
Richardson, E. J., and J. M. Gates. 1986. Economic Benefits of American Lobster Fishery Management Regulations.
Marine Resource Economics 2:353-382.
Schreiber, Laurie, “Lobster Catch-to-Trap Ratio Studied,” Fisherman’s Voice, Vol. 15, No. 4, April 2010.
Steinback, S. R., Allen, R. B., and Thunberg, E. 2008. The Benefits of Rationalization: The Case of the American
Lobster Fishery. Marine Resource Economics 23:pp. 37–63.
Thunberg, E., Demographic and Economic Trends in the Northeastern United States Lobster (Homarus americanus)
Fishery, 1970-2005, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center Reference Document 07-17, October 2007.
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, 2012.
Wang, S. D. H., and Kellogg, C. B. 1988. An Econometric Model for American Lobster. Marine Resource
Economics 5:pp. 61-70.
Zou C, Thunberg E, Ardini G. 2021. Economic profile for American lobster (Homarus Americanus) fleets in the
Northeastern United States. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 21-03; 24 p.

295

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF IMPACT
FINDINGS
This chapter summarizes and integrates the findings of the biological, economic, and social
impact analyses presented in the two preceding chapters, assessing the relative merits of the
regulatory alternatives considered in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In all
cases, the analysis measures these impacts of the action alternatives relative to Alternative 1, the
No Action Alternative, which considers the fishery as it was fished in 2017.
Alternative 1 would make no change in the requirements of the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan), preserving the regulatory status quo under the Plan.
Ongoing changes in management of the lobster and Jonah crab fishery may reduce buoy line
numbers, and states may modify fisheries in state waters that could reduce risk to large whales,
but no regulations modifying the Plan would be implemented. Alternative 1 would have no
economic impact beyond those analyzed for baseline fishery management and state management,
and no additional effects on social conditions in fishing communities. Alternative 1 would likely
maintain the rate at which North Atlantic right whales, North Atlantic humpback whales, fin
whales, or minke whales are seriously injured or killed as the result of incidental entanglement in
commercial fishing gear.
As Chapter 2 discusses in detail, the available data indicate that additional action is needed to
reduce the risk of entanglement and achieve the degree of protection mandated for these species,
right whales in particular, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). Accordingly, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
considering modifications to the Plan designed to meet the requirements of the ESA and MMPA.
NMFS estimated that to reduce mortality and serious injury below the potential biological
removal level (PBR), entanglement risk across U.S. fisheries needs to be reduced by 60 to 80
percent. The vast majority of buoy lines along the east coast belong to lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area (Northeast Region). This
FEIS focusses on these fisheries to speed up rulemaking. The Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team (ALWTRT or Team) has been informed of the intention to consider all fixed
gear fisheries coast-wide during the next Team deliberations. Large whale entanglement data and
the rationale for the scope of the alternatives considered in this FEIS are also described in greater
detail in Chapter 2: Purposes and Needs.
The modifications analyzed in this FEIS are detailed in Table 1.1. All risk reduction measures
are analyzed toward the target of a 60 to 80 percent risk reduction for lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot fisheries. The economic analysis considers only those measures that would be
implemented to modify the Plan, with the exception of measures in Maine exempt waters.
Measures analyzed include:
•
•

Minimum trawl-length requirements (traps per trawl), which would apply to the certain
regions of the Northeast lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries
New gear configuration requirements including requiring weak rope or weak inserts in
buoy lines and change in weak link requirements, which would apply to all lobster and
Jonah crab trap/pot buoy lines in the Northeast Region except for Maine exempt waters
296

•

•
•

A change in existing seasonal restricted areas to modify them from trap/pot closure areas
to closures to persistent buoy lines that would allow ropeless fishing under exemption
authorization. New seasonal restricted areas that would be closed to persistent buoy lines
would be implemented
New gear marking requirements, which would apply to all regulated lobster and Jonah
crab trap/pot buoy lines in the Northeast Region except for Maine exempt waters
Line cap allocation at 50 percent of the average monthly of 2017 buoy line numbers in
federal waters

NMFS has specified two action alternatives – Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 – that include
different parameters and combinations of these measures. NMFS’ assessment of the biological
impacts of these alternatives and the economic and social impacts of the components that would
be implemented by federal regulations to modify the Plan are summarized below.

7.1 Biological Impacts
Impacts on Large Whales
The provisions that would be implemented by federal and state rulemaking to reduce
entanglement risk under consideration are likely to have a direct effect on large whales. Under
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the number of buoy lines in the water column would
not change. Estimates of right whale mortalities and serious injuries in U.S. commercial fisheries
would continue to exceed the population’s PBR. Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 incorporate
various provisions that would reduce the number of trap/pot buoy lines fished by Northeast
lobster and Jonah crab fishermen to levels below the 2017 buoy line estimate. Analysis using the
NMFS Decision Support Tool (DST) (version three) indicates that the line reduction measures in
the two alternatives, which include ongoing fishery management measures in lobster
management areas (LMAs) 2 and 3 as well as state measures in Maine and Massachusetts, as
well as a credit for the Massachusetts Restricted Area (MRA) in Alternative 2, would reduce the
number of buoy lines in the Northeast Region by approximately seven percent under each
alternative. By reducing the number of buoy lines in the water column, these provisions would
help to reduce the co-occurrence of whales and lines, lowering encounter rates and reducing the
frequency of entanglements. Though line reduction is similar between the two alternatives, cooccurrence is reduced more through more expansive closures in Alternative 3. However, both
alternatives include additional risk reduction measures that accomplish substantial levels of cooccurrence reduction.
Under Alternative 2 (Preferred), exempt state waters would remain exempt from minimum trawllength regulations. Other than in waters closed to trap/pot fisheries in Massachusetts Bay, whales
are less likely to be found in persistent aggregations in most nearshore areas. Under
Massachusetts state and federal regulations, the MRA will be expanded into coastal state waters
in LMA 1 to reduce some of the risk in Massachusetts Bay and the closures will be extended
through state regulations until at least May 15th if whales remain in the area, further mitigating
the threat of buoy lines in coastal waters. NMFS believes that keeping state exemption areas
from minimum trawl-length regulations would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact
on ESA-listed or MMPA-protected whales compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative,
297

and the exemption allows the continuation of traditional fishing practices by smaller vessels and
entry level fishermen. Broad weak rope insertion requirements will be implemented by state or
federal regulations in these waters, a precautionary measure that would minimize entanglement
severity should one occur.
Beyond the provisions described above, Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 would also allow
ropeless fishing but seasonally close designated areas in the Northeast to persistent trap/pot buoy
lines during months in which right whales are most likely to be present (Table 7.1). Ropeless
fishing will only be tested outside of Cape Cod Bay and Outer Cape where whale densities are
likely to be very high while the MRA is in place, which will further reduce the potential for
interactions with groundlines. Buoy line closures of these areas further reduce co-occurrence to
reduce the risk of entanglement compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. These
seasonal restricted areas are expected to primarily benefit right whales; the co-occurrence model
estimates a reduction in co-occurrence for other large whale species (Table 7.2).
Table 7.1: The length and size of the proposed restricted areas included in both alternatives.
Restricted Area

Alternative

Time Period

Offshore Maine
Cape Cod Bay
Outer Cape State Waters
Large South Island Restricted Area
Massachusetts Restricted Area North
Offshore Maine

2
2
2
2
2&3
3
3
3
3

October - January
May, until only 3 whales remain
May, until only 3 whales remain
February - April
Feb – Apr, soft opening into May
October - February
May - August
May, possible early open
February - May

Georges Basin Core Area
Massachusetts Restricted Area
L-shaped South Island Restricted Area

Size
(Square Miles)
967
644
260
5,468
497
967
557
3,069
3,506

Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 would also introduce additional gear restrictions for lobster and
Jonah crab vessels fishing trap/pot gear in the northeast. These restrictions would require weak
rope or weak insertions, breaking at 1,700 pounds or less, to allow large whales to break free
from gear before a mortality or serious injury can occur. Different configurations would be
required based on lobster management area and distance from shore. The weak rope/weak
insertion requirements seek to minimize the severity of an entanglement should one occur,
reducing the number of serious injuries and mortalities caused by trap/pot gear. Under
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, no additional safeguards would be put in place.
Alternative 3 reduces the strength of buoy lines closer to an average of 1,700 pounds, or the
equivalent of Alternative 2, and though this provision does not reduce the risk of entanglement, it
would provide additional protection against mortality and serious injury should an entanglement
occur.
All of the action alternatives include provisions that would revise the gear marking requirements
specified under the Plan. Under gear marking Alternatives 2 and 3, the new requirements would
apply to all lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot gear in the Northeast Region. Under Alternative 2
(Preferred), gear marking will be required under federal rulemaking except that Maine already
implemented regulations for gear set in Maine exempted waters, which was effective September
2020. The new gear-marking provisions would have no immediate impact on entanglement risks.
298

In the long run, however, they may help NMFS target and improve its efforts to protect large
whales. As has been noted, whales showing signs of entanglement often have no gear remaining
on them once seen, or gear is not retrieved. However, even when gear is retrieved, it is often
difficult to identify the particular location or fishery where an entanglement occurred. The gear
marking requirements, including a large mark in the surface system that may be detectable from
shipboard or aerial surveys, would increase gear identification and help to generate information
on the origins of gear involved in entanglements. The goal is to allow the ALWTRT and NMFS
to improve the effectiveness of the ALWTRP. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative,
no additional improvements to the effectiveness of the ALWTRP would occur.

Other Biological Impacts
In addition to impacts on large whale species, changes to Plan regulations may affect other
aspects of the marine environment, including other protected species (ESA-listed large whales
and sea turtles) and habitat. Reductions in buoy line are also likely to benefit other protected
species prone to entanglement. Specifically, NMFS believes that trawling up requirements and
line caps could help reduce entanglement risks for sea turtles and other large whales. With
similar line reduction it is unclear if either alternative is more advantageous for other protected
species, though Alternative 3 would reduce more lines during summer months in offshore LMA
3 and may provide added benefit to species in offshore areas during that time.
Likewise, weak line requirements will result in a net positive impact on other protected species,
particularly benefiting sei and sperm whales by reducing entanglement severity similar to the
large whale Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC). These changes are not likely to impact sea
turtle species or minke whales negatively but also do not provide a benefit since the weak line is
likely not weak enough for smaller animals to break out, therefore it would likely not decrease
entanglement severity for smaller animals. Overall, both Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 (NonPreferred) could reduce mortality and serious injury in other protected large whales compared to
Alternative 1 (No Action), where Alternatives 3 may reduce entanglement severity to a greater
degree than Alternative 2 (Preferred).
Alternative 2 (Preferred) does not require small vessels fishing in state waters to trawl up and
reduce buoy lines. However, weak rope or weak inserts are required as a precautionary measure
to reduce the severity of entanglements. These changes would not benefit other protected species
since weak line would likely not decrease entanglement severity for smaller animals such as
leatherback sea turtles.
The closure of designated areas in the Northeast Region to trap/pot buoy lines could provide
ancillary benefits to sea turtles and sei whales that may be present when the restricted areas are
in effect. Compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, these benefits are likely to be
greatest under Alternative 3, which proposes larger restricted areas for longer periods of time,
and lower under Alternative 2 (Preferred), which proposes the less extensive restricted areas for
slightly shorter time periods (see Table 7.1).
There are not likely significant differences among Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 with respect
to impacts on habitat; any impacts on habitat from the presence of trap/pot gear, as well as
299

proposed gear modifications, are generally expected to be slightly negative. Any possible impact
is likely limited to offshore environments with Alternative 2 and could impact offshore and
nearshore environments with Alternative 3 in the event that trap/pot trawls are expanded in these
areas in response to a large cap in the number of lines allotted to each vessel. Areas too close to
shore (i.e., those within state waters), are unlikely to experience excessively long trap/pot trawls
given the nature of the fishery and the vessels operating in these areas. If ropeless fishing is
implemented widely in closed areas, it is not expected that Alternative 2 or 3 will significantly
change the amount of gear that comes into contact with the seafloor. Though there may be some
additional impact on habitat under Alternative 2 compared to 3 because trawl lengths will likely
be longer throughout the year under Alternative 2 compared to 2, these impacts are likely not
measurable and thus impacts between the two alternatives is likely negligible.

Comparison of Biological Impacts across Alternatives
The biological impacts analysis presented in Chapter 5 relies primarily on NMFS’ DST (version
three) to examine how the regulatory alternatives might reduce the possibility of interactions
between whales and fishing gear. As discussed in that chapter, the model integrates information
on fishing activity, gear configurations, and right whale habitat density models to provide
indicators of the potential for entanglements to occur and the potential severity of an
entanglement if it occurred. The fundamental measures of change in entanglement potential are
change in line numbers, co-occurrence, and estimated risk. The measures used to evaluate
potential severity include change in mean line strength and total gear threat. The co-occurrence
value estimated in the model is an index figure, integrated across the spatial grid, indicating the
degree to which whales and the buoy line employed in trap/pot fisheries coincide in the waters
subject to the Plan. Risk is an integration of the co-occurrence measure with the total gear threat.
Biological impacts are characterized with respect to the percentage reduction in the overall cooccurrence indicator each alternative would achieve.
Table 7.2: The annual summary of all quantitative measures for each alternative, including the change in annual
buoy line numbers, co-occurrence, and reduction in gear threat from conversion to weak line.
Alternative: 1 (status quo)
2 (Preferred)
3 (Non-preferred)
Line Reduction
% Reduction
% Reduction
Risk Reduction
60%
72%
Risk Reduction (with MRA Credit)

69% – 73%

Line Reduction
Co-Occurrence

7%

7%

% Reduction

% Reduction
60%

Right Whale

54%

Right Whale (with MRA Credit)

65%

Humpback Whale

12%

19%

Fin Whale

14%

17%

1,976 lb/
896 kg.
9%

1,753 lb/
795 kg.
19%

17%

29%

Weak Line
Mean Line Strength
Change in Line Strength

2,162 lb/
981 kg.

Change in Gear Threat

300

Table 7.2 summarizes the estimated change in co-occurrence, reduction in entanglement risk,
and threat of gear according to the strength of buoy lines under each action alternative relative to
the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative 2, which includes trawling requirements,
restricted areas, and broad use of weak inserts, is estimated to yield a reduction in co-occurrence
of approximately 54 percent for right whales without the MRA credit recommended by the
ALWTRT and 65 percent with the MRA credit. Alternative 2 will reduce line strength by nine
percent for an average of 1,976 pounds per buoy line. Alternative 3 estimates a co-occurrence
reduction of 60 percent and reduces line strength by 19 percent to an average 1,753 pounds. The
estimated impact of restricted areas is greater when affected vessels are assumed to suspend
fishing rather than relocate to alternative fishing grounds but it is anticipated most proposed
restricted areas, aside from those in the MRA, will result in relocation of lines. Alternative 2 also
includes conversion of less rope to fully weak buoy line and therefore would result in a higher
mean line strength than Alternative 3, which does not directly reduce entanglement risk, and
provides fewer positive benefits for other protected species. Though co-occurrence reduction is
slightly greater in Alternative 3, there is greater uncertainty of how a line cap would be
implemented and if it will increase lines and potentially co-occurrence in some months. The
variation in co-occurrence between alternatives options is fairly small for right whales between
alternatives, with Alternative 2 offering similar line reduction with fewer gear modifications and
higher compliance rates. Both alternatives meet the minimum risk reduction target requirement.

7.2 Economic Impacts
Chapter 6 evaluates the economic and social impacts of Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3 relative
to the status quo (Alternative 1), including a yearly distribution of the compliance costs for the
six years following implementation. For the purpose of summarizing and comparing the
economic impact of the alternatives, this discussion will focus on initial implementation costs of
the two action alternatives.
The first year costs of all proposed measures for Alternative 2 including gear marking, weak
rope, restricted areas, and trawling up costs range from $9.8 million to $19.2 million. As
described in Chapters 6, the range of costs depends primarily on assumptions about catch loss
caused by trawling up and about whether fishermen choose to remove lines or relocate due to
buoy line closures. Year one compliance costs for Alternative 3 range from $32.8 million to
$44.6 million. Thus, the costs associated with Alternative 2 are well under one third the Total
costs associated with Alternatives 3.
Alternative 2 achieves less risk reduction than Alternative 3. The DST indicated Alternative 2
would likely achieve the 60 percent risk reduction, on average, for lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot buoys in the Northeast Region, within the target established for reaching right whale
PBR. The co-occurrence model suggested right whale co-occurrence would be reduced by over
54 percent. The first year costs associated with the co-occurrence reduction (trawling up and
buoy line closures) under Alternative 2 range from $2.9 million to $10.8 million (Table 7.3),
depending on implementation assumptions (buoy lines relocated vs. buoy lines removed). For
every unit of co-occurrence reduction, the costs of Alternative 2 is estimated at $54,000 to
$199,000.
301

Alternative 3 performed better at reducing risk than Alternative 2, achieving a risk reduction of
nearly 72 percent from the DST, and co-occurrence reduction of approximately 60 percent. This
alternative would increase the likelihood of achieving PBR, even when considering unobserved
mortality of right whales. However, the first year costs associated with co-occurrence reduction
in Alternatives 3 (trawling up, buoy line closures, federal water line caps) are substantially
higher, ranging from $7.8 million to $19.5 million dollars; or $130,000 to $325,000 for each unit
of co-occurrence reduction. That is, each risk reduction unit of Alternative 3 would cost about
two to three times the cost per risk reduction unit in Alternative 2.
Analysis of the weak rope modification measures are similar, with Alternative 3 performing
better but at a high cost. Proposed modifications in Alternative 2 would impact every buoy line
in the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery outside Maine exempt waters,
weakening mean line strength by nine percent, with an estimated cost of $2.2 million dollars, or
about $250,000 for each percent of line strength weakened (Table 7.2). Alternative 3 would
weaken line by approximately 19 percent of the buoy lines to weak rope, with an estimated cost
of $10.6 million or about $557,000 for each percent of line strength weakened.
Table 7.3: A summary of first year initial compliance costs related to right whale co-occurrence (2020 dollars).
Note: the lower and upper bounds of co-occurrence reduction score are based on the assumptions of 100 percent
lines out and 100 percent relocation respectively.
Alternative 3
Alternative 2
Trawling Up Lower

$1.6 million

$1.0 million

Trawling Up Upper

$8.8 million

$2.0 million

New Buoy Line Closure Lower

$1.3 million

$3.0 million

New Buoy Line Closure Upper
Line Cap Lower
Line Cap Upper
Total Lower
Total Upper
Co-occurrence Reduction

$2.0 million

$4.1 million
$3.9 million
$13.4 million
$7.8 million
$19.5 million
60%

$2.9 million
$10.8 million
54% – 65%

Chapter 6 provides a full analysis and comparison of the economic impacts of the elements of the
alternatives that would modify the Plan through federal rulemaking. While the Table 7.3
comparison of the costs of implementation of the risk reduction elements in each action
alternative is an oversimplification, it demonstrates that relative economic impacts, and shows
that Alternative 2 meets the purposes and needs laid out in Chapter 2 of this FEIS while
minimizing the potential economic impacts of the proposed modifications to the Plan.

7.3 Social Impact of Alternatives
The social impacts are analyzed in Chapter 6. The analysis estimates that 3,970 vessels in lobster
and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region except for Maine exempt waters (which
will be regulated by the state of Maine) would be impacted by either action alternative. These
represent 3,504 unique entities including 3,500 small entities, although impacts do not appear to
be disproportionate across small and large entities. These vessels fish primarily for lobster and
Jonah crab. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed gear marking and weak rope requirements
302

would affect every lobster and Jonah crab vessel fishing in the Northeast Region outside Maine
exempt waters. Line reduction measures (i.e. trawling up) under Alternative 2 would affect 1,206
vessels, slightly fewer than the 1,565 vessels affected by the Alternative 3 line reduction
measures (line caps, trawling up in LMA 3). Federally regulated seasonal buoy line closures of
Alternative 2 would affect up to 256 vessels, compared to more than 501 vessels affected by the
buoy line closures under Alternative 3. Chapter 6 provides further details on the economic
impacts of the alternatives.
Community impacts vary across the region, with more vulnerable communities in Downeast and
mid-coast Maine, where the lobster fishery is a major economic driver. The value of 2020 lobster
landings in Hancock and Knox Counties each exceeded $100 million. Southern Maine and New
Hampshire have a more diversified economy, making communities more resilient to adverse
economic impacts that may stem from Plan modifications. Similarly, revenues from ALWTRP
fisheries exceed $15 million per year in some counties in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
communities suggesting that the economic stability and well-being of those counties rely to some
extent on these fisheries. However, relative to Maine communities, the economies are more
diversified in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so there may be other job and economic
opportunities within these communities, making them more resilient to loss of fishery revenue.

7.4 Integration of Results
Comparison of Biological, Social, and Economic Analyses
Because some of the value of the benefits of potential changes to the ALWTRP are qualitative, it
is difficult to provide a quantitative benefit-cost analysis to identify the regulatory alternative
that would likely provide the greatest net benefit. Instead, Table 7.4 summarizes the estimated
cost of complying with each federally regulated element in the alternatives, coupled with the
estimated decrease in co-occurrence estimated by the NMFS DST. Nonetheless, the costeffectiveness figures provide a useful means of comparing the relative impacts of the regulatory
provisions that each alternative incorporates.
Table 7.4: The annual summary of all quantitative measures Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3, including the
biological, economic, and social impacts expected compared to Alternative 1 (baseline). The risk reduction and right
whale co-occurrence range represents the lower bound estimate of the measures with and without the MRA credit.
Alternative:
2
3
Risk Reduction

Percent Reduction
60% - 69%

Percent Reduction
72%

Line Reduction

7%

7%

54 - 65%

60%

Humpback Whale Co-Occurrence

12%

19%

Fin Whale Co-Occurrence

14%

17%

Change in Line Strength

9%

19%

Change in Gear Threat
Economic and Social Impacts

17%

29%

$9.8 -19.2 million

$32.8 -44.6 million

Biological Impacts

Right Whale Co-Occurrence

Cost

303

Alternative:
Number of Vessels Impacted

2
3,970

3
3,970

Table 7.4 reveals several noteworthy findings:
•

•

•
•

Co-occurrence reduction: Under Alternative 2, the costs associated with the cooccurrence reduction (trawling up and buoy line closures) range from $2.9 million to
$10.8 million. For every unit of co-occurrence reduction, the costs are estimated at
$54,000 to $199,000. Under Alternative 3, the costs associated with co-occurrence
reduction in (trawling up, buoy line closures, federal water line caps) are substantially
higher, ranging from $7.8 million to $19.5 million dollars; or $130,000 to $325,000 for
each unit of co-occurrence reduction
Weak Rope: Under Alternative 2 proposed modifications would reduce the mean strength
of rope in all Northeast Region by nine percent in lobster and Jonah crab buoy lines
outside of Maine exempt waters to weak, with an estimated cost of $2.2 million dollars,
about $249,000 for each percent of line strength weakened. Alternative 3 weak line
measures would reduce the mean strength of rope by 19 percent in Northeast Region
trap/pot buoy outside of Maine exempted waters to weak rope, with an estimated cost of
$10.6 million or about $557,000 for each percent of line converted.
Both Alternatives reduce co-occurrence by 60 percent or more and modify all buoy lines
to include some weak rope.
Taking into account the value of the MRA in Alternative 2 achieves a substantially higher
risk reduction.

NMFS believes that Alternative 2 (Preferred) offers the best option for achieving compliance
with MMPA and ESA requirements. Alternative 2 (Preferred) provides substantial benefits to
large whales, has more stakeholder buy in, and is less likely to have unintended consequences
compared to the implementation of a line cap in Alternative 3. Based on these considerations,
NMFS has identified Alternative 2 (Preferred) as its proposed approach to achieve the goals of
the Plan.

Final Impact Determinations
Table 7.4 summarizes the results from the biological, economic, and social impact analyses from
Chapters 5 and 6. To compare the biological, economic, and social impacts of all alternatives on
all VECs we used the impact designations outlined in Table 7.5. Table 7.6 describes the direct
and indirect impacts of the alternatives on the four VECs.
Alternative 1 (No Action) maintains the Plan’s current levels of impacts on the VECs. With this
alternative, the impact of trap/pot fishing will remain at a moderate to high negative because the
rate of mortality and serious injury of right whales is well above PBR and therefore
unsustainable for the population. While observed mortality and serious injury of other MMPA
protected large whale species (i.e. minke whales and humpback whales) is above PBR,
entanglements remain a significant threat to fin whales (an ESA-listed species) as well as
humpback and minke whales, particularly for humpback whales because undocumented
mortality could be occurring above PBR given the current levels of human caused incidents (see
304

Chapter 2). The impact of trap/pot fisheries would remain a slight to moderate negative for other
protected species and negligible to slightly negative for habitat as defined in Chapter 4. Under
Alternative 1, the impact of continuing the fishery in its current state would be mixed for Human
Communities, with a moderate positive impact on harvesters but slight negative impacts to the
intrinsic public benefits of healthy whale populations due to population declines. It is important
to note that, when assessed individually, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would each have a
moderate negative to slight negative impact on large whales, a slight negative impact on other
protected species, and a negligible to slight negative impact on the habitat.
Table 7.5: A key of the direction and magnitude of the actions being assessed in the biological and economic effects
analysis.
General Definitions
VEC Resource
Direction of Impact
Condition
Positive (+)
Negative (-)
No Impact (0)
Large Whales For ESA listed
For ESA listed species:
For ESA listed species:
For ESA listed
species:
alternatives that contain
alternatives that result in species:
populations at risk
specific measures to ensure interactions/take of listed alternatives that
of extinction
no interactions with
resources, including
do not impact
(endangered) or
protected species (i.e., no
actions that reduce
ESA listed
endangerment
take). For MMPA
interactions. For MMPA species, For
(threatened). For
protected species:
protected species:
MMPA protected
MMPA protected
alternatives that will
alternatives that result in species:
species: stock
maintain takes below PBR
interactions with/take of alternatives that
health may vary
and approaching the Zero
marine mammals that
do not impact
but populations
Mortality Rate Goal
could result in takes
marine mammals
remain impacted
above PBR
Other Protected Same as large
Same as large whales
Same as large whales
Same as large
Species whales
whales
Habitat Many habitats
Alternatives that improve
Alternatives that degrade Alternatives that
degraded from
the quality or quantity of
the quality, quantity or
do not impact
historical effort
habitat
increase disturbance of
habitat quality
habitat
Human Highly variable but Alternatives that increase
Alternatives that
Alternatives that
Communities generally stable in
revenue and social welldecrease revenue and
do not impact
(Socio- recent years
being of fishermen and/or
social well-being of
revenue and social
economic)
communities
fishermen and/or
well-being of
communities
fishermen and/or
communities
Magnitude of Impact
A range of Negligible
To such a small degree to
impact qualifiers
be indistinguishable from
is used to
no impact
indicate any Slight
To a lesser degree / minor
e.g. Slight Negative or
existing
Slight Positive
uncertainty Moderate
To an average degree (i.e.,
e.g. Moderate Negative
more than “slight”, but not or Moderate Positive
“high”)
High
To a substantial degree (not e.g. High Negative or
significant unless stated)
High Positive
Significant
Affecting the resource
See 40 CFR 1508.27.
condition to a great degree,
Likely
Some degree of uncertainty
associated with the impact

305

There are a few important differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 (Preferred and NonPreferred, respectively), relative to Alternative 1, with respect to impacts on all four VEC’s. All
of the Alternatives (with the exception of Alternative 1) include some form of gear modifications
and some level of increased traps per trawl. The main differences among these alternatives stem
from differences in the approach and magnitude of buoy line reductions, size or season of
closures to persistent buoy lines, and the extent of the use of weak rope or weak insertions. Since
both action alternatives effectively reduce the number of buoy lines and co-occurrence between
whales and buoy line as well as reduce the mean line strength closer to the equivalent of 1,700
pounds breaking strength through engineered weak rope or weak inserts, impacts are assumed to
be relatively positive for all large whales compared to the baseline. Large whales would see a
slight to moderately positive benefit from implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 compared
to Alternative 1 because the other large whale species likely benefit from these alternatives to a
lesser degree than right whales. Alternative 3 likely reduces entanglement risk to a slightly
greater degree than Alternative 2 with a slightly higher decrease in co-occurrence and the
strength of lines. Though this analysis does not take into account the MRA risk reduction credit,
which achieved a higher co-occurrence reduction than Alternative 3. A larger decrease in cooccurrence and strength will likely offer more benefits, particularly to right whales, though
compliance is expected to be greater for Alternative 2 rather than Alternative 3 because
Alternative 2 reflects extensive state and stakeholder input and associated preferences as well as
safety concerns. Furthermore, Alternative 2 likely contains fewer regulations that would lead to
uncertain outcomes that could potentially increase line in some areas. Minke whales are less
likely to benefit from line strength reduction and are more likely to be negatively impacted by
long trawl lengths. Therefore, compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is likely to have
negligible to slight positive impacts on large whales.
Other protected species prone to entanglement in trap/pot gear would also positively benefit from
the Plan modifications being considered. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and 3 will
provide negligible (i.e. little change in line where these species are commonly sighted) to slight
positive (i.e., reducing co-occurrence of buoy lines protected species, weak links requirements,
and line reduction provisions) for ESA-listed protected species. Relative to Alternative 2,
Alternative 3 is expected to have negligible to slight positive impacts to ESA-listed species (i.e.,
reduced co-occurrence of buoy lines and sea turtles, use of more full weak line to lessen
entanglement severity for large whales, weak line requirements, and line reduction provisions).
Any additional indirect impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 on habitat are expected to be extremely
small and not measurable (i.e. negligible). Compared to Alternative 1, the impact of Alternative
2 and 3 on Human Communities are expected to be a slight negative and moderate negative,
respectively, due to the initial gear modifications and anticipated short term catch impacts,
though this impact may decline over time. Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would have
slight negative impacts because it requires more costs for gear modifications and potentially
greater catch losses.

306

Table 7.6: The direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives on the four VECs.
Other Protected
Alternatives
Large Whales
Habitat
Species
Risk
Reduction
High Negative to
Moderate Negative–
Negligible to
Moderate
Mortality and Serious
Slight
Negative –
injury would continue to
Negative –
Mortality and
occur and impact ESA
Areas with
serious injury due
Alternative 1
listed species’ population
trawls above
to entanglement
(No Action)
health. More so for right
15 traps per
would continue to
whales and other large
trawl may
harm ESA listed
whales to a lesser degree
have a shortspecies.
other ESA listed or MMPA
term impact.
protected species.
Slight Negative–
Negligible to
Moderate Negative to
Would reduce
Slight
Slight Negative – Would
Negative –
entanglement risk
reduce entanglement risk
Trawling up to
for ESA listed
Alternative 2 for ESA listed and MMPA
trawls above
species. However
protected species. However
(Preferred)
risk of interactions 15 traps per
risk of interactions will not
will not be entirely trawl may
be entirely eliminated by
have a shorteliminated by the
the proposed action.
proposed action.
term impact.
Slight Negative –
Negligible to
Moderate Negative to
Would reduce
Slight
Slight Negative– Would
Negative –
entanglement risk
reduce entanglement risk
Areas with
for ESA listed
Alternative 3
for ESA listed and MMPA
trawls above
species. However
(Nonprotected species. However
risk of interactions 15 traps per
preferred)
risk of interactions will not
will not be entirely trawl may
be entirely eliminated by
have a shorteliminated by the
the proposed action.
proposed action.
term impact.
Gear
Marking
Alternative 1
(No Action)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Alternative 2
(Preferred)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Alternative 3
(NonPreferred)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

307

Human Communities

Slight Negative to Moderate
Positive – Positive in that
there are no new impacts or
costs to harvesters and
markets but the lack of
recovery of whale species has
a slight negative impact on
public welfare benefits due to
whale population declines.

Slight Negative – Fisheries
would experience extra costs
and catch reduction in the
short term term that could ease
over the long term.

Moderate Negative – Costs
of gear modifications and
catch reduction would be
significant.

Slight Negative – Current
gear marking costs would
have a slight economic burden
on fishermen.
Slight Negative – Gear
marking requirements would
generate economic burden to
fishermen, but could lower the
future regulatory costs.
Slight Negative to Negative –
Gear marking requirements
would generate high economic
burden to fishermen, but could
lower the future regulatory
costs.

CHAPTER 8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
This chapter describes the cumulative effects analysis (CEA) and examines the consequences of
the regulatory alternatives within the context of past, present, and future factors that influence
resources associated with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan or ALWTRP). It
is organized as follows:
●
●
●
●

Section 8.1 contains background information on the Cumulative Effects Analysis.
Section 8.2 provides Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) status and trends.
Section 8.3 contains effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Section 8.4 is a summary of the direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives covered in
Chapters 5 through 8.
● Section 8.5 is a summary of the Cumulative Impacts of Alternatives for the Preferred
Alternative (Alternative 2).

8.1 Introduction
Under the 1978 regulations this document is written under, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requires all environmental impact statements for proposed federal actions to include
a cumulative effects analysis that examines the impact of the actions in conjunction with other
factors that affect the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resource components of the
affected environment. The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis is to ensure that federal
decisions consider the full range of an action’s consequences, incorporating this information into
the planning process. This document follows steps depicted in Figure 8.1 to conduct a
cumulative effects analysis of the proposed actions. Table 8.1 provides the framework used to
determine the impacts actions had on each valued ecosystem component.

Figure 8.1: Cumulative effects analysis steps, and how they inform the cumulative effects analysis (adapted from
Canter 2012).

Valued Ecosystem Components
The following Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) would be affected by changes to the
ALWTRP and are addressed in this analysis:
1. Large whales (based on frequency of entanglement in ALWTRP fisheries): North
Atlantic right whale, fin whale, humpback whale, and minke whale
2. Other protected species: Sei whale, sperm whale, leatherback sea turtle, and
loggerhead sea turtle
3. Habitat: The physical environment, benthic organisms, and essential fish habitat
308

4.

Human communities: The economic and social aspects of the potentially affected
fisheries

Table 8.1: Guidelines for defining the direction and magnitude of the impacts of alternatives on the VECs in the
cumulative impacts analysis.
General Definitions
VEC Resource
Direction of Impact
Condition
Positive (+)
Negative (-)
No Impact (0)
Large Whales For ESA-listed
For ESA-listed species:
For ESA-listed species:
For ESA-listed
species:
alternatives that contain
alternatives that result in species:
populations at risk
specific measures to ensure interactions/take of listed alternatives that
of extinction
no interactions with
resources, including
do not impact
(endangered) or
protected species (i.e., no
actions that reduce
ESA listed
endangerment
take). For MMPA
interactions. For MMPA species. For
(threatened). For
protected species:
protected species:
MMPA protected
MMPA protected
alternatives that will
alternatives that result in species:
species: stock
maintain takes below PBR
interactions with/take of alternatives that
health may vary
and approaching the Zero
marine mammals that
do not impact
but populations
Mortality Rate Goal
could result in takes
marine mammals
remain impacted
above PBR
Other Protected Same as large
Same as large whales
Same as large whales
Same as large
Species whales
whales
Habitat Many habitats
Alternatives that improve
Alternatives that degrade Alternatives that
degraded from
the quality or quantity of
the quality, quantity or
do not impact
historical effort
habitat
increase disturbance of
habitat quality
habitat
Human Highly variable but Alternatives that increase
Alternatives that
Alternatives that
Communities generally stable in
revenue and social welldecrease revenue and
do not impact
(Socio- recent years
being of fishermen and/or
social well-being of
revenue and social
economic)
communities
fishermen and/or
well-being of
communities
fishermen and/or
communities
Magnitude of Impact
A range of Negligible
To such a small degree to
impact qualifiers
be indistinguishable from
is used to
no impact
indicate any Slight
To a lesser degree / minor
e.g. Slight Negative or
existing
Slight Positive
uncertainty Moderate
To an average degree (i.e.,
e.g. Moderate Negative
more than “slight” but not
or Moderate Positive
“high”)
High
To a substantial degree (not e.g. High Negative or
significant unless stated)
High Positive
Significant
Affecting the resource
condition to a great degree,
see 40 CFR 1508.27.
Likely
Some degree of uncertainty
associated with the impact

Geographic and Temporal Scope
This analysis and most of the actions considered are focused primarily on the Northeast Region
Trap/Pot Management Area (Northeast Region) of the ALWTRP. This includes waters from the
309

U.S./Canada border south to a straight line from Watch Hill Point, Rhode Island to 40° 00′ N.
latitude bounded on the west by land or the 71°51.5′ W. longitude line, and on the east by the
eastern edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This is an area currently subject to the
requirements of the ALWTRP and includes the seawater and sea bottom of the Atlantic Ocean
within U.S. jurisdiction. We also consider serious injury and mortality that is occurring in
Canadian waters as a result of human activities (primarily entanglement and vessel strikes)
because of the magnitude of impact this is having on the population (see Section 8.3.3.10).
The temporal scope of the analysis varies by resource. In all instances, the analysis attempts to
take into account past (primarily the past two decades), present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions (within five years) that could affect valuable physical, biological, or
socioeconomic resources. The discussion here focuses on impacts of management actions as well
as the direct impact of potential stressors: interactions with commercial and recreational
fisheries, vessel strikes, pollution, noise, climate change, renewable energy development, oil and
gas development, harmful algal blooms, and prey availability. Stressors that are not expected to
impact a VEC may be noted but will not be analyzed.

8.2 VEC Status and Trends
The status and trends of each VEC was presented in Chapter 4 and is summarized in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2: A summary of the current status and trends of the four valued ecosystem components
Affected
Historical
Possible Future
Implications of Conditions
Resource of
Current Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Relative to Sustainability
Concern
Right and fin whales are
The stocks are very
Stocks were
Under current
endangered. Right whale
vulnerable to anthropogenic
depleted by
conditions, right
stock is declining,
perturbations due small
Large
whaling and other
whales are likely
humpbacks are slightly
sizes and population
Whales
anthropogenic
to continue
increasing, and the trends
declines (right whales and
impacts.
declining.
of the others are unknown.
fin whales).
Sperm and sei whales, and
Many whale
leatherback turtles are
Certain protected
species were
endangered. Loggerheads
species may be
Certain stocks that are still
previously
are threatened. Trends are
resilient to future
depleted are still vulnerable
Other
depleted. Sea turtle unavailable for the whales, changes while
to additional anthropogenic
Protected
species were
loggerheads have been
others may
stressors and population
Species
overharvested and stable with short term
remain small or
decline.
caught excessively increases, and
continue to
as bycatch.
leatherbacks are generally decline.
decreasing in numbers.
Shifts in habitat
The habitat has
features are
The habitat is rapidly
slowly degraded
expected to
shifting from historical
over time with
continue as the
baselines from the impacts
The habitat is vulnerable to
increasing
climate shifts
Habitat
of climate change as well
additional disturbance.
exposure to
and alters the
as other anthropogenic
anthropogenic
frequency and
stressors.
stressors.
magnitude of
disturbance.
American Lobster
Total lobster landings
GOM lobster
Target species, lobster and
Human

310

Affected
Resource of
Concern
Communities

Historical
Conditions

Current Conditions

Possible Future
Conditions

Implications of Conditions
Relative to Sustainability

stocks have been
abundant in GOM
but depleted in
SNE waters; Jonah
Crab fishery was
supplement of
lobster fishery.

peaked in 2015 and started
to decrease. GOM
represents about 80
percent of all lobster
landings; Southern MA
and RI landed the most
Jonah crabs.

landing will keep
trending down
and SNE stock
stays depleted;
more Jonah crabs
will be landed
from SNE.

Jonah crab, are vulnerable
to anthropogenic and
environmental stressors,
posing a threat to human
communities that depend on
commercial fisheries.

8.3 Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions
Fishery Management Actions
Fishery management actions include the creation of a new Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and
additional amendments and addenda that modify how the fishery is conducted. These
amendments and addenda can include actions such as quotas, trap reductions, administration of
taxes, and guidelines on how data is collected and shared with management agencies. These
actions can have a variety of impacts on the economic aspects of fisheries as well as the
environment. These are summarized in Table 8.3 and discussed below.
Table 8.3: A summary of the past, present, and foreseeable future fishery management actions on the four VECs.
Fishery

American
Lobster

Northern
Black Sea
Bass
Hagfish

Red Crab

Management Action
Amendment 3
Addenda I and IV trap reductions
Addenda XVII - Area 2 trap
reductions
Addenda XXI, XXII – Area 2
aggregate trap cap, Area 3 active
trap cap with banking• Addendum
XXIV - conservation tax
Addendum XXVI – expand
reporting and sampling
Vessel tracking
Amendment 9 harvest quotas
Amendment 13 harvest quotas
2020-2021 implemented increased
quota up to 60%
State managed
Red Crab FMP harvest quota
Amendment 3 (ACL/AM)
Amendment 4 - bycatch reporting
2020-2023 new specifications
implemented

Large
Whales

Other
Protected
Species

Habitat

Human
Communities

Moderate
Negative

Slight
Negative
to
Moderate
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

Slight
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

N/A

Slight
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

Negligible
to
Moderate
Negative
Negligible
to Slight
Negative
Slight
Negative to
Moderate
Negative

311

Fishery

Management Action

Scup

Jonah Crab
Conch/
Whelk

Amendment 8 harvest quota
Amendment 18 (review quota
allocations) future action
Addendum XXIX - quota periods
2020-2021 specifications
implemented
Initial FMP, Addenda I and II
Addendum III - the reporting and
data collection

Large
Whales

Other
Protected
Species

Habitat

Human
Communities

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

Moderate
Negative

Moderate
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Slight
Negative to
Moderate
Negative

Slight
Negative

Negligible
to Slight
Negative

Slight Positive

State managed

Net Impact
Summary

While not specifically a fishery management action, to assess impacts on large whale and sea
turtle species protected under the ESA, NMFS has prepared Biological Opinions for the
continued authorization of federal fisheries under federal regulations for the deep-sea red crab
and lobster fishery, among others, as well as consultations on rulemakings to modify the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Per an October 17, 2017, ESA 7(a)(2)/7(d) memo issued by
NMFS, consultation has been reinitiated on the federally permitted Atlantic deep sea red crab
and American lobster fisheries as well as other fisheries that use fixed gillnet and trap/pot gear.
A Biological Opinion was issued on May 27, 2021, that considered the effects of the NMFS’
authorization of ten fishery management plans (FMP), NMFS’ North Atlantic Right Whale
Conservation Framework, and the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus
Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat
The 2021 Opinion determined that the proposed action may adversely affect, but is not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of North Atlantic right, fin, sei, or sperm whales; the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (DPS) of loggerhead, leatherback,
Kemp’s ridley, or North Atlantic DPS of green sea turtles; any of the five DPSs of Atlantic
sturgeon; Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic salmon; or giant manta rays. The Biological Opinion also
concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for
North Atlantic right whales, the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, U.S.
DPS of smalltooth sawfish, Johnson’s seagrass, or elkhorn and staghorn corals. An Incidental
Take Statement (ITS) was issued in the Opinion. The ITS includes reasonable and prudent
measures and their implementing terms and conditions, which NMFS determined are necessary
or appropriate to minimize impacts of the incidental take in the fisheries assessed in this Opinion.
8.3.1.1

Large Whales

Fishery Management Plans and their amendments can mitigate some of the impact of fishing
gear on protected large whale species. The amendments and addenda included here were
primarily intended to optimize fishing practices, restrict overfishing, manage bycatch, and gather
information to better manage the stock. Lobster and crab management that reduces rope in the
312

water column would be an improvement compared to current conditions, improved reporting and
monitoring would inform future management and may have an indirect net positive impact, and
modifications to maintain or restrict fishing on other species and likely would cause negligible
impacts. However, any fishing generally has a negative effect on protected species because any
line in the water increases the risk of interaction so, while fisheries management can mitigate
some of this, the overall effect is anticipated to be between slight negative to moderate negative.
8.3.1.2

Other Protected Species

The impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future fishery management actions that
reduce rope in the water column and improve data collection for lobster and crab fisheries would
partially mitigate the negative impacts on some protected species, such as leatherback sea turtles.
However, this is not enough to eliminate risk entirely and the overall impact of fishing activity is
expected to be a slight negative.
8.3.1.3

Habitat

The operation of trap/pot fisheries that operate longer trap trawls could have a slightly
deleterious impact on the habitat. Setting quotas and trap limits that reduce gear on the bottom
are likely indirectly better for the habitat than unmanaged fisheries. Overall, the impact of
trap/pot fisheries management on habitat is considered to be negligible to slight negative.
8.3.1.4

Human Communities

The aims of many of these management actions include improving maintenance of the target
stock and mitigating bycatch. Both of these goals are likely to have a slight positive impact on
the economics of the fishery by allowing the continuation of a healthy fishery as a source of
income for human communities.

Conservation Management Actions
Several management actions have been implemented to mitigate the impact of stressors on
wildlife and habitats. Though climate change mitigation is intended to have long term impacts on
the VECs analyzed here, the effects of these regional measures are likely not sufficient to impact
climate change on a larger scale, particularly within the scope of this analysis, and is therefore
considered to have a negligible impact. The impact of other past, present, and foreseeable future
actions are discussed below.
8.3.2.1

Large Whales

All of these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions aim to mitigate the impact of
known human or environmental stressors. All of these stressors are known or thought to
negatively impact large whales and, therefore, mitigating actions are expected to improve
impacts on this VEC. U.S. vessel strike management measures may be effective (Conn and
Silber 2013) but given changes in right whale distribution and status, they are being reviewed
and evaluated and are expected to be modified to further reduce the impacts of vessels on right
whales. Actions like speed reductions and observers would also benefit other large whale
313

species. However, the risk of entanglement with vertical lines and vessel strikes remains, albeit
less so after these mitigation measures are taken. Therefore, ESA-listed species of large whales
are expected to experience moderate negative to slight positive impacts and MMPA-protected
species of large whales are expected to have slight positive impacts (i.e., PBR not exceeded, see
Table 8.1).
8.3.2.2

Other Protected Species

Similar to large whales, the mitigation measures for each of these stressors that have been or are
expected to be enacted are likely to reduce the impact of the stressor on other protected species.
The combination of multiple stressors can impede population health and recovery. For example,
sea level rise, coastal development, and climate change have all been factors in reducing
available nesting habitat for loggerhead turtles in Florida, where climate change and
development have pushed nests toward areas with increased erosion risk (Reece et al. 2013).
While many species can survive and reproduce despite exposure to environmental stressors, an
increasing stress load reduces an organisms’ capacity to respond, behaviorally or
physiologically, to avoid negative consequences. Mitigating the impact of multiple stressors in
the environment by protecting habitats and habitat quality can reduce the overall stress by
reducing the energy necessary to adapt to new baselines. Multiple conservation measures are
likely to be beneficial to other protected species, similar to the large whale VEC. However,
because there is still a risk of interaction with these other ESA-listed protected species, impacts
are still moderate negative to slight positive.
8.3.2.3

Habitat

Some of the environmental mitigation actions are likely to reduce the number or magnitude of
stressors on fish habitat and benthic organisms in the Northeast Region, particularly those related
to regulating pollutants. Pollution and climate change can contribute to habitat degradation
through mechanical disruption of habitat structure and negative impacts on the health of
organisms (see the next section). Measures that directly protect habitats, address the effects of
climate change, or protect water and sediment quality via pollution mitigation will prevent
additional environmental degradation as a result of these stressors. These measures are expected
to have positive impacts on marine habitats. Other regulations likely have a negligible impact on
habitat, such as vessel strike regulations, that are not expected to interact with the physical
environment. However, continued fishing effort will continue to impact habitats. Therefore, the
impacts of the fishery on the physical environment are not expected to change relative to the
current condition under the preferred alternative (i.e., slight negative for the physical
environment). The net impact of all actions is likely slight negative to slight positive.
8.3.2.4

Human Communities

Most of the mitigation actions included in this analysis are expected to have negligible impact on
the human communities that rely on fisheries. Actions that have been implemented to mitigate
entanglement likely have a negative impact on this VEC, whereas those that have a positive
impact on fishery habitat are expected to have a slight positive impact by supporting healthy
fisheries. It is expected that these management actions have a negligible impact on the VEC
when combined.
314

Other Human Activities
There are several anthropogenic actions that could potentially impact the VECs included in this
analysis, including fishing, aquaculture, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, military
activities, shipping, and climate change. These activities can have an impact individually as well
as collectively and should be considered when proposing management actions. The nature of
these activities are listed in Table 8.4 with the predicted impact of past, present, and foreseeable
future actions on each VEC.

315

Table 8.4: A summary of human activities on the four VECs.
Action
Description
Aquaculture

Large Whales

Placement of fish pens and lines in the water

Climate
Change
Entanglement
Noise

Ocean warming, increased climatic variability, ocean acidification,
more extreme weather events
Interaction with fishing gear
Sources of anthropogenic noise, including vessels, military
exercises, seismic surveys, etc. (wind turbines discussed below)

Offshore
wind farm
Pollution/wat
er quality
Oil and gas

Construction and operation of wind turbine structures in specified
area
Land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, seepage, or
hydrologic modification; Point-source and unpermitted discharges
Prospecting for, construction of, and operation of oil and/or gas
platforms in marine areas. Transport of oil. May include geological
and geophysical surveys (e.g., certain seismic surveys).
Changes in primary production and prey species (i.e. nutritional
stress)
Injury or mortality from vessel collision

Prey
availability
Vessel Strikes
Harmful algal
blooms
Canadian
Mortalities
Net Impact
Summary

Overgrowth of algal species that produce biotoxins and also
contribute to oxygen-depletion
Serious injury and mortality as a result of entanglement and vessel
strike in Canadian waters as well as other unknown causes.

316

Moderate
Negative
High Negative
Negative
Slight
Negative to
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Slight
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
High Negative
Moderate
Negative
High Negative
Moderate
Negative

Other
Protected
Species
Moderate
Negative
Likely
Negative
Negative
Slight
Negative to
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Slight
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Slight
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Slight
Negative
Moderate
Negative

Habitat

Human
Communities

Negligible to
Slight Negative
High Negative

Slight Negative
to Negligible
High Negative

Negligible

Slight Negative
Negligible

N/A
Moderate
Negative
Slight Negative

Moderate
Negative
Negligible

Moderate
Negative

Moderate
Negative

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate
Negative

Moderate
Negative

N/A
Moderate
Negative

N/A
Moderate
Negative

8.3.3.1

Aquaculture

Aquaculture can have a variety of impacts on the environment, some that differ based on the
species being farmed. Figure 8.2 shows the distribution of aquaculture structures along the coast
of New England, primarily within embayments and river mouths or nearshore. Two proposals to
expand existing offshore aquaculture operations are anticipated. One proposal would expand a
longline mussel operation from 3 to 20 horizontal long lines on a 33-acre (0.13 square km) lease
site 8.5 miles (13.7 km) off the coast of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. The second proposal would
expand existing experimental aquaculture installations off the Isle of Shoals in New Hampshire.
The expansion includes a kelp array, as well as an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture raft.
Neither the Cape Ann nor the Isle of Shoals project expansions have received permits, nor have
they undergone ESA section 7 consultation.
An informal programmatic section 7 consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers has been
conducted for aquaculture projects in the Northeast U.S. The programmatic consultation
analyzes impacts on endangered and threatened species caused by small-scale shellfish
aquaculture (almost entirely oyster shell on bottom, cage on bottom, and floating cage/bags). The
vast majority of projects occur in the nearshore environment (bays, inlets, and other
estuarine/brackish waters). Thirty one New England District (Maine through Connecticut)
aquaculture projects were analyzed under the terms of this programmatic consultation in 2019,
and a similar number is expected annually moving forward. Considerations for this cumulative
impacts analysis are listed below.

317

Figure 8.2: The aquaculture structures currently in place along the coast of New England by type (Northeast Ocean
Data Portal, 2021).

8.3.3.1.1 Large Whales
Aquaculture structures in open water that involve lines or nets in the water can pose an
entanglement risk to large whales in the affected area. Although farms are currently not as
abundant compared to other fisheries that entangle large whales, right, humpback, and minke
whales have all been found entangled in aquaculture-specific gear (Young 2015, Price et al.
2017). The outcomes of entanglement in aquaculture gear are expected to be similar to
entanglement in other fishing gear, ranging from minor injury to mortality (Chapters 2 and 5).
Aquaculture also is associated with an increase in vessel traffic due to operation and maintenance
of the gear as well as from recreational fishermen that aggregate to fish around the gear.
Increased vessel traffic would cause increased risk of vessel strike for right whales. NMFS is
developing best practices for minimizing the impacts of aquaculture installations on large whales
and other protected species. Therefore, this risk is assumed to be moderate negative at current
and reasonably foreseeable aquaculture operations within the geographic scope of this analysis.

318

8.3.3.1.2 Other Protected Species
Similar to large whales, other marine mammals and sea turtles have been found entangled in
aquaculture gear, including sperm whales, and leatherback sea turtles (Kemper et al. 2003, Lloyd
2003, Baker 2005, Clement 2013, Ishikawa et al. 2013, Young 2015, Price et al. 2017). The
impact of aquaculture on other protected species is assumed to be similar that on large whales,
moderate negative.
8.3.3.1.3 Habitat
Aquaculture can also have impacts on the physical environment and fish habitat. Aquaculture
can change the substrate, benthic organisms, and habitat or community structure (Simenstad and
Fresh 1995, Gallardi 2014). Aquaculture can result in input of excess contaminants, diseases, and
nutrients into the environment (Lai et al. 2018), which can degrade habitats. This excess filtering
of water can be positive, by removing waste from the water column, or negative through impacts
like out-competing native species for resources and altering food webs (Gallardi 2014). As
shellfish structures are more prevalent within the Northeast Region, it is likely that aquaculture
would have a negligible to slight negative impact on water quality and other habitat changes
within the scope of this analysis.
8.3.3.1.4 Human Communities
The economic impacts of aquaculture on wild fisheries and fishing communities could be
complex. On one hand, aquaculture may cause significant environmental degradation around
aquaculture sites and block coastal access, thus causing economic loss for the inshore fisheries
(Primavera 2006, Wiber et al. 2012, D’Anna and Murray 2015). On the other hand, aquaculture
could provide positive economic support to coastal communities through job creation in related
industries, such as processing and distribution (Pomeroy et al. 2014, D’Anna and Murray 2015,
Grealis et al. 2017). The overall economic impacts will depend on the scale and type of
aquaculture. Large scale finfish aquaculture will have more negative impacts on wild fisheries
than small scale and shellfish aquaculture. Combined, the impact is likely to be negligible to
slight negative.
8.3.3.2

Climate Change

The Northwest Atlantic Ocean is expected to warm at a rate of up to three times faster than the
global average (Saba et al. 2016). Climate change has already contributed to oceanographic and
marine ecosystem shifts (Doney et al. 2012), including in the North Atlantic (Greene et al. 2013).
Warming seas have shifted suitable habitats and resource availability for marine vertebrates
including marine mammals, sea turtles, and fisheries in the region (e.g. lobster (Boavida-Portugal
et al. 2018)). In addition to higher water temperatures, climate change is also expected to
increase the frequency and intensity of oxygen depletion, harmful algal blooms, ocean
stratification, and acidification (Doney et al. 2012, Stramma et al. 2012, Birchenough et al. 2015,
Deutsch et al. 2015, Gobler et al. 2017). These changes can negatively impact the physiological
health of marine organisms and habitats and their capacity to respond to additional stressors.

319

8.3.3.2.1 Large Whales
Large whales are susceptible to ecosystem changes caused by climate change. Baleen whales
will most likely expand or shift their current range in response to movement of prey species, but
the nature of the impacts varies by species (MacLeod 2009). Right whale habitat has shifted in
recent years to follow their preferred prey, the zooplankton Calanus finmarchicus, farther north
as the Gulf of Maine has warmed (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018,
Record et al. 2019a, Record et al. 2019b). In the Gulf of Maine, warming has been linked to a
decline in the summer and fall abundance of C. finmarchicus, especially after 2010. During this
time, right whales were observed spending more time in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Pershing and
Stamieszkin 2020). Increasing temperatures can decrease both the body size and egg production
of C. finmarchicus, in addition to reducing the available nutrients and dissolved oxygen in the
environment needed for their productivity (Grieve et al. 2017). Even if C. finmarchicus remains
abundant in the region, climate-induced changes in the water column could disrupt their
aggregations that right whales depend on to feed (Baumgartner et al. 2017). Increasing bottom
temperatures in the Gulf of St Lawrence may also exceed the thermal optimum for C.
finmarchicus in future years, which could push right whales into foraging areas continuously
further north (Gavrilchuk et al. 2021). Decreases in prey abundance are known to impede
reproductive success in this whale species (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015a). Humpback, fin, and
minke whales are also species known to shift their range in response to temperature (Kovacs and
Lydersen 2008, Becker et al. 2019) but, as more generalist species, may be better able to adjust
to changing climates compared to specialist species like the North Atlantic right whale
(Flemming and Crawford 2006, Víkingsson et al. 2014, Becker et al. 2019). This is consistent
with predictions that climate change range shifts will be unfavorable for the North Atlantic right
whale and neutral for minke and humpback whales (MacLeod 2009). Overall sensitivity
estimates have identified fin whales as more vulnerable to climate change due to the small
population size (Sousa et al. 2019).
Indirect effects of climate change are also important to consider, including the increase of
harmful algal blooms that can lead to die offs (see Section 8.3.3.9 on HABs) and potential
nutritional stress. Repeated exposure to conditions beyond optimal ranges can also increase the
physiological demands on aquatic organisms, reduce physiological resilience to additional
stressors, and impact reproductive success (Fair and Becker 2000, Tilbrook et al. 2000).
Additionally, because measures to reduce the impacts of shipping and fishing on protected
species are often area specific, another indirect effect of climate change is a species distribution
shift into unregulated waters, outside of managed areas. For right whales, this has had lethal
results (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018). Given the high rate of
warming projected by Saba et al. (2016) for the Northwest Atlantic, the anticipated direct and
indirect impact of climate change on large whales is likely a high negative.
8.3.3.2.2 Other Protected Species
Other marine mammals and sea turtles included in this analysis are also expected to be impacted
by climate change in a manner similar to large whales. For marine mammals, the biggest impact
is likely to species ranges, availability of prey, and additional physiological stress. MacLeod
(2009) predicted minimal significant changes in range for other large whales, including sperm
320

and sei whales. However, sperm whales were identified as a sensitive marine mammal species
based on low population sizes (Sousa et al. 2019).
Sea turtles are also vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Nest temperature is known to
determine the proportion of male to female eggs in a nest with higher temperatures producing
higher numbers of females (Mrosovsky 1980, Yntema and Mrosovsky 1980). This occurs over a
narrow temperature range and existing changes have already started producing majority female
nests in some regions (Mrosovsky 1980, Yntema and Mrosovsky 1980). Increased tidal
inundation and sea level rise on nesting beaches could reduce the amount of nesting habitat
available and the success rate of nests on remaining beaches (Caut et al. 2010, Reece et al. 2013,
Patino-Martinez et al. 2014, Pike et al. 2015), a pattern that has occurred at a faster rate along the
Northwest Atlantic coast than the global average (Sallenger et al. 2012). Climate change could
cause range expansion and changes in migration routes as increasing ocean temperatures shift
range-limiting isotherms north (Robinson et al.2009) and also move or restrict the availability of
suitable nesting habitat for several species (McMahon and Hays 2006, Mazaris et al. 2008, Pike
2013a, b). Despite these impacts, it is thought that leatherback and loggerhead population
management units in the Northwest Atlantic specifically will be more resilient to climatic change
than similar species in other areas (Fuentes et al. 2013). Overall, in the study area the impact of
climate change on other protected species is likely moderate negative.
8.3.3.2.3 Habitat
The impacts of climate change have already been observed in many parts of the North Atlantic.
Climate change has already influenced the distribution, density, and species richness of benthic
organisms in the North Atlantic (Birchenough et al. 2015). Ocean acidification may further lead
to population declines in structural organisms that rely on calcification (e.g. calcifying algae,
mollusks) and increases in others species (e.g. other algae) leading to changes in primary
ecosystem structures (Birchenough et al. 2015, Sunday et al. 2017). Increasing storm frequency
is also likely to change the seafloor substrate in some areas (Brierley and Kingsford 2009).
Combined, these impacts may be highly negative on Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern, particularly those that are more sensitive to changes in temperature or
physical disturbance.
8.3.3.2.4 Human Communities
Target species of several fisheries have already exhibited changes in distribution northward
(Kleisner et al. 2017), including the North American lobster (Boavida-Portugal et al. 2018, Le
Bris et al. 2018). This shift has already had an economic impact on fisheries in southern New
England (Peck and Pinnegar 2019) and is expected to reduce catch and revenues (Cheung et al.
2010, Lam et al. 2016) and put economic strain on fishing-dependent communities along the
eastern seaboard (Colburn et al. 2016). Oremus (2019) estimated that climate variability from
1996 to 2017 is responsible for a 16 percent decline in county-level fishing employment in New
England, beyond the changes in employment attributable to management or other factors.
Shellfish are particularly vulnerable to both changes in temperature and ocean acidification,
which could lead to revenue losses under future climate scenarios. Mackenzie and Tarnowski
(2018) estimated that between 1980 and 2010, landings of the four most important bivalve
321

mollusks (oysters, quahogs, soft shell clams, and bay scallops) fell by 85 percent. Warmer winter
water played a key role in the declines. For these reasons, climate change is expected to have a
highly negative impact on fisheries and fishing communities.
8.3.3.3

Noise

Anthropogenic noise is a known stressor that can impact wildlife health. This includes such
activities as vessel traffic, air traffic, construction, military exercises, seismic surveys, the use of
sonar, and other human activities. Anthropogenic noise can either be lethal or impose sublethal
stress on vertebrates, which can impact population health by reducing reproduction or increasing
susceptibility to other stressors (e.g. a compromised immune system that increases disease
susceptibility). The duration of the sound, the animal’s physical condition, the activity at time of
exposure, the context of exposure, and proximity to the source of the sound all influence impacts
(United States Department of the Navy 2018). Since it is assumed that noise has a negligible
impact on the physical environment or fish habitat, it will not be discussed here.
8.3.3.3.1 Large Whales
Anthropogenic noise can impact whales both physiologically and behaviorally. Physiologically,
noise causes a stress response in the North Atlantic right whale (Rolland et al. 2012). Over an
extended period of time, physiological stress can impact marine mammal health by altering
metabolism and energy stores (Romero and Butler 2007, Christiansen et al. 2014, Lysiak et al.
2018), decreasing immunity (Romano et al. 2004, Romero and Butler 2007), and impacting
reproduction (Tilbrook et al. 2000, Romero and Butler 2007). Whales can suffer from organ and
tissue damage, hearing loss, or related trauma. Noise can also impact behavior, including
initiation of avoidance behavior in large whales (McCauley et al. 2000), changing
communication patterns (Di Iorio and Clark 2010, Parks et al. 2011) that can reduce mating
opportunities, and interrupting feeding behavior (Blair et al. 2016, Sivle et al. 2016). Extreme
behavioral response could lead to stranding. The physiological impacts of these behavioral
changes is unclear, but could impact nutritional health and reproductive success. Small
populations with limited home ranges may be more vulnerable to the physiological impacts of
noise (Forney et al. 2017). Given this information, impacts of noise on large whales is likely to
be slight negative to moderate negative.
One noted cause for concern is the potential for Navy training activities to expose marine
mammals, notably right whales, to multiple acoustic stressors. This is especially a concern in
their calving areas in the Southeast Atlantic. To minimize the negative impacts of these stressors,
the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet is implementing the seasonal (November 15-April 15) Southeast North
Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation area, encompassing right whale migration and calving areas and
part of the species’ critical habitat in the region. Mitigation measures include reporting total
hours and counts of active sonar and in water explosives used in the area, not using sonar except
as necessary for specific training activities, not expending explosive or non-explosive
ordinances, obtaining the latest right whale data, implementing speed reductions in the case of
right whale sightings or when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility, and
minimizing north-south transits as much as possible (United States Department of the Navy
2018).
322

8.3.3.3.2 Other Protected Species
Other large marine mammals are similarly sensitive to physiological and behavioral responses to
noise as large whales. Many of the predicted impacts on large whales noted above are similar for
other large whales (outside of the Large Whale VEC). For example, noise from geological and
geophysical survey activities related to oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico was predicted to cause
as high as a 25 percent stock declines in sperm whales (Farmer et al. 2018). Though these whales
were not from the same stock that is present in the Northeast Region, the species in general may
be sensitive to particularly loud noises.
Limited evidence suggests that noise can affect sea turtles through habitat exclusion or hearing
damage (Nelms et al. 2016). Many sources of anthropogenic noise fall within the range of sea
turtle detection (50 Hz to 1100 Hz (DeRuiter and Larbi Doukara 2012, Martin et al. 2012,
Lavender et al. 2014)) and could impact their behavior or damage their hearing at close range.
Noise from prospecting or removal of oil and gas structures is thought to pose risk of injury or
behavioral modification (Viada et al. 2008, DeRuiter and Larbi Doukara 2012). It is anticipated
that other protected species also experience a slight negative to moderate negative impacts from
noise.
8.3.3.3.3 Human Communities
There is a limited amount of information that suggests noise can impact catch of some species
(Skalski et al. 1992, Engås et al. 1996). However, most crustaceans only show physiological
rather than behavioral responses to noise (Weilgart 2018), reducing the likelihood of a reduction
in catch. As such, impact of noise on fishery revenue is assumed to be negligible.
8.3.3.4

Offshore Wind Energy Projects

This section describes offshore wind development activities that NMFS is considering
reasonably foreseeable for the purpose of assessing cumulative effects in this FEIS. The impact
of offshore wind farms on the VECs includes noise (discussed in further detail in Section 9.4.2.3)
emitted during site assessment activities exploration, construction pile driving, operation, and
other effects during construction, including cable laying, dredging, and increased vessel traffic.
Offshore wind energy development is being considered in parts of the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) that overlap with resources associated with the ALWTRP, specifically in the
southern New England region. Large whales, other protected species, and potentially affected
fisheries occur in southern New England at present and are expected to remain for the near
future.
To identify the possible extent of reasonably foreseeable future offshore wind development on
the OCS, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) conducted a thorough process to
develop criteria levels. As a result of this process, BOEM has assumed that approximately 18
gigawatts (GW) of Atlantic offshore wind development is reasonably foreseeable within the 13
lease areas along the East Coast ranging from offshore of Massachusetts to Virginia (Figure 8.3).
Reasonably foreseeable development includes 17 named projects within lease areas. In addition,
BOEM has assumed future development is reasonably foreseeable to occur within lease areas
323

outside of named project boundaries. BOEM has recently begun a planning process for the Gulf
of Maine via a regional intergovernmental renewable energy task force
(https://www.boem.gov/Gulf-of-Maine). It is not clear at this time where development might
occur in the Gulf of Maine. Given the water depth in the region, floating turbines will likely be
the primary type of wind turbine foundations to be deployed in the area. Levels of assumed
future development are based on state commitments to renewable energy development, available
turbine technology, and the size of potential development areas.
Under the renewable energy regulations (30 CFR 585), the issuance of leases and subsequent
approval of wind energy development on the OCS is a staged decision making process and
occurs over several years, with each step having varying impacts to marine and/or terrestrial
resources. The process follows these general steps: lease issuance, site assessment plan approval,
and construction and operation plan review/approval including permitting with cooperating
agencies. Reasonably foreseeable activities associated with offshore wind development include
site characterization studies, site assessment activities, construction, operation/maintenance and
decommissioning of offshore wind farms, port upgrades, and construction and maintenance of
offshore export cables. These activities in total will span approximately 30-40 years (beyond the
scope of this analysis), and are expected to impact all VECs. However, impacts may be short- or
long-term in duration, direct or indirect, intermittent or persistent, and differ between phases.
The types of activities expected during each phase are described below and followed up with the
anticipated effects of these activities on the VECs. It is important to note that currently no utility
scale offshore wind energy development exists in federal waters (only a two turbine pilot project
off the coast of Virginia). Although projects exist in Europe, not all effects are transferable and
there are many uncertainties as to how human, marine, and terrestrial resources will interact or
be affected by offshore wind energy development. The wind energy areas are in a region of
continental shelf that is undergoing climate change, changes in ecological dynamics, and
fisheries stock status fluctuations. Regional scale changes may make it difficult to clearly
identify local impacts that are directly attributable to offshore wind energy development
(Petruny-Parker et al. 2015).

324

Figure 8.3: A map of the wind energy leases in the Southern New England region, namely the RI/MA Wind Energy
Area, where construction is expected to start in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Northeast Data Portal, 2021)

Site Assessment and Construction Activities: During site assessment and construction activities,
both direct and indirect impacts on all VECs may occur. Activities that will occur preconstruction include geophysical, geotechnical, habitat, and biological surveys, as well as
potential deployment of meteorological buoys or meteorological towers for data collection. It is
important to note that air guns are not anticipated to be used during offshore wind site
assessment activities. During the construction phase, activities are anticipated to include
foundation installation (which is likely to include pile driving at some projects) to support wind
turbine generators and electric service platforms, and installation of submarine cables to connect
turbines and export cables to route generated power to land-based facilities. During the site
assessment and construction periods, anticipated impacts include short-term, temporary increases
in vessel traffic; short-term temporary increases in anthropogenic noise from vessel traffic,
survey activities, and wind turbine foundation and cable installation; short-term, temporary
increased turbidity during foundation and cable installation; and short-term, temporary
displacement of other users including fisheries and non-project vessels. These are the primary
activities expected to occur during the scope of this analysis.
Operation and Maintenance Activities: During operational and maintenance activities,
anticipated activities include the use of vessels to carry out inspections and maintenance, as well
as the operation of the turbines themselves. It is important to note that currently available
325

information, though limited, indicates that the operational noise of wind turbines is not
detectable underwater at distances of more than 164 feet (50 meters) from the foundation (Miller
and Potty 2017) and is not loud enough to anticipate behavioral disturbances of large whales
(Tougaard and Henriksen 2009, Thomsen et al. 2016). Both direct and indirect impacts on all
VECs may occur, including:
• Long-term, increased presence of structures that may affect recreational and commercial
fishery operations, habitat, oceanographic and atmospheric environments, patterns of
movement, spawning and recruitment success, and prey availability for various species
• Long-term, increased electromagnetic fields due to presence of inter-array and offshore
export cables (effects depend on cable type, burial depth, and proximity to other cables)
• Long-term, increased vessel traffic
• Long-term, variable socioeconomic impacts
• Long-term, variable fishery displacement impacts, although it remains unclear how
fishing or transiting to and from fishing grounds might be affected by offshore wind
energy development
It is possible that wind farms will become operational within the timeframe of this analysis and
thus they are considered in the impacts to the VECs below.
Decommissioning Activities: During decommissioning, foundations, wind turbines generators,
and associated structures will be removed. During this period, both direct and indirect impacts on
all VECs may occur including short-term, temporary increased vessel traffic; short-term,
temporary increased anthropogenic noise from vessel traffic and wind turbine removal; shortterm, temporary increased turbidity during foundation and cable removal and short-term,
temporary fishery displacement. It is unlikely that decommissioning will occur within the
timeframe of this analysis and thus decommissioning is not considered further.
For the purposes of this analysis, the description below will focus on the potential impacts of site
assessment and construction as well as operation and maintenance of offshore wind energy
developments on the potentially affected VECs.
8.3.3.4.1 Large Whales
All four of the large whale stocks in this VEC have been found frequently in planned offshore
wind farm areas in southern New England (Stone et al. 2017). Generally, these species are most
sensitive to low frequency sounds and could respond to the range of sounds emitted during pile
driving and operation (Madsen et al. 2006, Bailey et al. 2010). Pile driving of turbine
foundations during construction would produce the most noise and poses the greatest risk to
marine mammals within close range during this period. Exposure to underwater noise can
directly affect species via behavioral modification (avoidance, startle, spawning) or injury (sound
exposure resulting in internal damage to hearing structures or internal organs) (Bailey et al.
2010; Bailey et al. 2014; Bergström et al. 2014; Ellison et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2018; Forney et
al. 2017; Madsen et al. 2006; Nowacek et al. 2007; NRC 2003; NRC 2005; Richardson et al.
1995; Romano et al. 2004; Slabbekoorn et al. 2010; Thomsen et al. 2006; Wright et al. 2007).
Indirect effects are likely to result from changes to the acoustic environment of the species,
which may affect the completion of essential life functions (e.g., migrating, breeding,

326

communicating, resting, foraging) (Forney et al. 2017; Richardson et al. 1995; Slabbekoorn et al.
2010; Thomsen et al. 2006).
One developer in the proposed region, Vineyard Wind, has worked with environmental
organizations to develop mitigation measures to avoid pile driving during times of peak right
whale presence (January 22, 2019; CLF 2019), but this does not take into account other seasons
where right whales are present at lower abundance levels and when other large whale species are
likely present (e.g. summer, Stone et al. 2017). During construction, it is also likely that vessel
traffic will increase, adding noise and additional risk of vessel strikes that could cause injury or
mortality. Changes in fishing practices or displacement of fishing vessels from traditional areas,
as well as changes in whale behavior and habitat due to the installation of wind turbines, could
increase interaction and entanglement risks as well (Methratta et al. 2020).
Operational sounds are quieter and often masked by shipping traffic unless in very close
proximity to a turbine, and may not change overall noise risk significantly in high traffic areas
(Madsen et al. 2006). Other habitat effects that are predicted to impact turbidity and potential
ecosystem structure, such as dredging, could reduce the ability of this area to serve as foraging
grounds for large whales. Wind farm development in this area is likely to have a moderate
negative impact on large whales given the most impactful stage (i.e. construction) is planned to
occur within the timeframe of this analysis (approximately 5 years), with a possible decline in
the magnitude of the impact after construction.
8.3.3.4.2 Other Protected Species
The impact of wind farm development on other protected marine mammals is expected to be
similar to the impact on other large whales. Sei whales have been known to frequent the areas in
southern New England where wind energy developments are planned (Stone et al. 2017). Species
that spend more time in deep waters, such as sperm whales, are less likely to be close to
construction or operations and therefore will likely not be significantly impacted by offshore
wind development , though there have been a few sperm whale sightings (Stone et al. 2017).
There is very little information available about the impact of wind turbine development on sea
turtles. Turtles may respond to loud noise or electromagnetic fields and can be injured or killed
through direct interaction with dredging equipment (Gill 2005, Riefolo et al. 2016). Increased
vessel traffic during construction and maintenance could increase chances of a vessel strike. The
sound or increase in turbidity could temporarily displace turtles from the area due to disturbance
to individuals or their prey items. Other habitat changes could also impact occurrence of sea
turtles in the area, but it is uncertain if that would have any substantial population-wide effects.
Overall, the effect of offshore wind energy development is likely moderate negative for other
protected species during the timeframe of this analysis with a possible decline in the magnitude
of the negative impact during the operational phase.
8.3.3.4.3 Habitat
There are several potential impacts of offshore wind farms on fish habitats, both positive and
negative. The most significant changes likely occur during construction and include removal of
or changes in the substrate on the bottom through dredging and the addition of gravel (Gill 2005,
327

Riefolo et al. 2016). Dredging is also expected to increase water turbidity. Other changes include
sedimentation and scouring, high-relief habitat formation around turbines, shading, and the
introduction of electromagnetic fields. These physical changes could impact other aspects of the
habitat, including the biodiversity and food availability in the area and could influence important
areas such as spawning and nursery habitats. (Gill 2005, Riefolo et al. 2016, Dannheim et al.
2019, Petruny-Parker et al. 2015), After construction, the turbines could add habitat diversity that
can be beneficial for sessile organisms (Gill 2005, Riefolo et al. 2016). This could include
regrowth of species that were displaced during construction or introduction of invasive species.
The addition of structures could also alter water currents and temperature, potentially changing
the microhabitats in the area. For example, noise and vibration from pile driving as well as
associated changes in ocean circulation and turbidity can affect the reproductive success of
lobsters. They can injure or kill larvae or drive female lobsters away from suitable spawning
grounds. There are also trends of female lobsters aggregating in Wind Energy Areas off of
southern New England due to warming of inshore waters. Other concerns include impacts to
migration routes due to interactions with cables (either during construction or if the cable is
improperly buried or becomes uncovered), which also carry potential electromagnetic field
exposure risks (Lipsky et al. 2016). Together, these suggest that offshore wind farms will have a
moderate negative impact on habitat and indirectly, larval, juvenile, and adult fish and
invertebrates, with a possible reduction in impact over time (i.e. after construction).
8.3.3.4.4 Human Communities
Both commercial and recreational fishing are important to the economy in the Northeast Region.
In 2016, commercial fisheries contributed $3.7 billion in value added to the economy and
supported over 260,000 jobs (Methratta et al. 2020). Over 4,300 fishing vessels were federally
permitted in the Northeast Region in 2017, landing fish in several major ports. These commercial
fleets are tied to the overall economy in the region through direct employment and income, as
well as through goods and services to maintain and operate vessels, seafood processors,
wholesale/distributors, and retailers (BOEM 2020a). Relevant to this action, more than $280,000
of lobster pot gear revenue comes from within the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area.
Recreational fishing in the region added $5.3 billion to the economy and supported more than
69,000 jobs in 2016 (Methratta et al. 2020).
It remains unclear how fishing or transiting to and from fishing grounds (whether or not those
grounds are within a wind farm) might be affected by the presence of a wind farm. While no
offshore wind developers have expressed an intent to exclude fishing vessels from wind turbine
arrays once construction is complete, it could be difficult for operators to tow bottom-tending
mobile gear or transit among the wind turbines, depending on the spacing and orientation of the
array and weather conditions 21. Radar interference and increased traffic could affect navigation
as well. If vessel operators choose to avoid fishing or transiting within wind farms, effort
displacement and additional steaming time could result in negative socioeconomic impacts to

21

The United States Coast Guard has considered transit and safety issues related to the Massachusetts and Rhode
Island lease areas in a recent port access route study, and has recommended uniform 1 mile spacing in east-west and
north-south directions between turbines to facilitate access for fishing, transit, and search and rescue operations.
Future studies in other regions could result in different spacing recommendations (UCSG 2020).

328

affected communities, including increased user conflicts, decreased catch and associated
revenue, safety concerns, and increased fuel costs.
Wind farm survey and construction activities and turbine/cable placement will substantially
affect NMFS scientific research surveys, including stock assessment surveys for fisheries and
protected species and ecological monitoring surveys. Disruption of such scientific surveys could
increase scientific uncertainty in survey results and may significantly affect NMFS’ ability to
monitor the health, status, and behavior of marine resources and protected species 22 and their
habitat use within this region. Based on existing Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s
acceptable biological catch control rule processes and risk policies (e.g., 50 CFR §§ 648.20 and
21), increased assessment uncertainty could result in lower commercial quotas and recreational
harvest limits that may reduce the likelihood of overharvesting and mitigate associated biological
impacts on fish stocks. However, this would also result in lower associated fishing revenue and
reduced recreational fishing opportunities, which could result in indirect negative impacts on
fishing communities.
Turbine structures could increase the presence of and fishing for structure-affiliated species.
Many recreational fishing trips in this region target a combination of species. For example,
recreational trips that catch black sea bass often also catch tautog, scup, summer flounder, and
Atlantic croaker (NEFSC 2017). For this reason, increased recreational fishing effort focusing on
species such as black sea bass in wind farms could also lead to increased recreational catches of
other species. This could lead to socioeconomic benefits in terms of increased for-hire fishing
revenues and angler satisfaction in certain wind development areas. There could also be social
and economic benefits in the form of jobs and investments associated with construction and
maintenance of wind farms, and replacement of some electricity generated using fossil fuels with
renewable sources (AWEA 2020). These data suggest that overall, offshore windfarms will have
a moderate negative impact on human communities.
8.3.3.5

Pollution/Water Quality

Humans have significantly increased the quantity of pollution that is introduced into the ocean.
Types of pollution entering the coastal environment from both point and non-point sources
include suspended solids, organic and non-organic debris (e.g. plastic waste), metals, synthetic
organic compounds, oil, nutrients, pathogens, and nanoparticles (i.e. microscopic forms of
compounds like metals). Some of these contaminants are very slow to degrade and accumulate in
wildlife species, particularly at high trophic levels (i.e. persistent organic pollutants). Others,
while more easily degraded or metabolized when ingested, can still be toxic to marine organisms.
Exposure to these compounds can be lethal or sub lethal, causing acute or chronic health issues
in several wildlife species. Overloading of nutrients will be discussed further in the Harmful
Algal Bloom section (Section 8.3.3.9).
The coastal waters near Boston, Massachusetts have historically been among the most
contaminated in North America, with elevated concentrations of trace metals, PCBs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons (Pearce 1990). Additional chemical and nutrient loads flow into
22

Changes in required flight altitudes due to proposed turbine height would affect aerial survey design and
protocols (BOEM 2020a).

329

Massachusetts Bay from the Merrimack River in the north, and several other large rivers from
the southern coast of Maine. Contaminant sources include sewage and industrial discharges,
combined sewer overflows, stormwater runoff, groundwater inflows, in-place sediments, seeps,
and atmospheric deposition (Massachusetts Bay Program 1991). Dominant current patterns in the
Northeast Region make it probable that industrial pollutants released into coastal waters will
affect important feeding areas off the coast of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay.
8.3.3.5.1 Large Whales
Large baleen whales are exposed to a variety of contaminants through their diet that are known
to have negative impacts on marine mammals, including persistent organic pollutants, oil,
metals, plastic debris, and nanoparticles. These compounds can disrupt hormones (Letcher et al.
2010, Schwacke et al. 2012, Bushra and Ahmad 2014), inhibit reproduction (Wells et al. 2005,
Kellar et al. 2017), increase susceptibility to disease (Ross et al. 1996, Schwacke et al. 2012,
Desforges et al. 2016), cause genotoxicity (Wang et al. 2013, Wise et al. 2014, Wise et al. 2015),
and impact nutritional health (Tabuchi et al. 2006, Schwacke et al. 2012, Avio et al. 2017). Large
whales are likely exposed to smaller quantities of contaminants than marine mammals that feed
at higher trophic levels. Some of these compounds can have an impact at low levels (Vandenberg
et al. 2012) and in tandem with other compounds (Mori et al. 2008). Contaminant levels in
Northeast Region marine mammals are high relative to other ocean regions (Aguilar et al. 2002).
North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, fin whales, and minke whales in the affected
environment are exposed to many of these compounds (Weisbrod et al. 2000, Hobbs et al. 2001,
Hobbs et al. 2003a, Hobbs et al. 2003b, Metcalfe et al. 2004, Elfes et al. 2010, Montie et al.
2010, Ryan et al. 2013), but mostly at relatively less concerning levels than toothed marine
mammals (Elfes et al. 2010). It is unknown what contaminant levels are biologically meaningful
in different marine mammal species or the effect of multiple compounds at low levels. There
may be a slightly higher risk during fasting periods where compounds are released into the
blood.
Plastic ingestion is also a concern for large whales and has been documented in fin, humpback,
and minke whales (Sadove and Morreale 1990, Williams et al. 2011, Fossi et al. 2016, Kühn and
van Franeker 2020). Baleen whales also can ingest plastic debris (Simmonds 2012, Nelms et al.
2018, Kühn and van Franeker 2020) which can lead to starvation (Jacobsen et al. 2010) and
mortality, and can potentially increase the risk of infection (Nelms et al. 2019). Ingested plastic
can also increase chemical exposure via sorption to plastic in the environment (Rochman et al.
2013). Thus, contaminant exposure likely represents a slight negative risk in these species.
8.3.3.5.2 Other Protected Species
Like the large whale species discussed above, other marine mammals and turtles can be impacted
by contaminant exposure as well. Marine mammals at higher trophic levels are more at risk than
those that feed on lower trophic level organisms. Blue whales have been observed with similar
contaminant levels as the other large whales (Gauthier et al. 1997). There is little known about
sei whales in this area but, given similar diets and distribution, it is likely that levels are similar
to other mysticetes (Borrell and Aguilar 1987). Conversely, sperm whales feed at a higher
trophic level and have relatively high contaminant loads (Aguilar 1983, Pinzone 2015). There is
concern this could impact the health of sperm whales. Large amounts of plastic debris are of
330

particular concern for sperm whales, but are also a health hazard for baleen whales for the same
reasons discussed above (Jacobsen et al. 2010, Simmonds 2012, Kühn and van Franeker 2020).
Sea turtles are also exposed to similar compounds and can be susceptible to similar health issues,
such as impaired reproduction, development, immune system, and metabolic function (Bergeron
et al. 1994, Keller et al. 2004, Guirlet et al. 2010, van de Merve et al. 2010, Camacho et al. 2013,
Andrés et al. 2016). Though sea turtles also generally feed at a low trophic level, contaminant
loads do correlate with health parameters in loggerhead (Keller et al. 2004, Keller et al. 2006)
and leatherback turtles (Andrés et al. 2016). Plastic ingestion is also prevalent in loggerheads and
leatherbacks (Sadove and Morreale 1990, Mrosovsky et al. 2009, Wilcox et al. 2016, Pham et al.
2017, Kühn and van Franeker 2020), posing a mortality and starvation risk (Mrosovsky et al.
2009, Stamper et al. 2009, Wilcox et al. 2016). When combined, past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions represent a slight negative impact to other protected species.
8.3.3.5.3 Habitat
Pollution can impact oceanic habitats and ecosystems by altering ecosystem productivity and
benthic organisms (Chang et al. 1992, Alve and Olsgard 1999, Johnston et al. 2015). Plastic
pollution is also prevalent in the region (Law et al. 2010). However, there is little evidence in the
Northeast Region that suggests pollution has or will have large impacts on habitat features
considered in this VEC, so it is assumed that the impact is slightly negative.
8.3.3.5.4 Human Communities
The economic stability of a fishery can be impacted by pollution when there is a fish mortality
event or related closure related to a spill or other exposure. Alternatively, if a large amount of the
target species were exposed to non-lethal levels of contaminants that pose a human health risk, it
could change demand for the target species. An exposure of this magnitude is likely rare in the
Northeast Region and likely negligible in the time frame of this analysis.
8.3.3.6

Oil and Gas

Currently offshore oil and gas development activities are not ongoing or anticipated within the
next five years in the Northeast Region. Few concrete proposals are likely to be implemented in
the foreseeable immediate or long-term future. NOAA had issued five individual harassment
authorizations (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act for planned seismic surveys
involving air guns on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). One applicant subsequently
withdrew their survey application pending with BOEM and returned their IHA to NOAA. The
remaining IHAs expired in November 2020, and these proposed surveys will not take place until
the applicants obtain new authorizations from NOAA, and BOEM issues their own permits for
the surveys, which are still pending. There are currently no active oil and gas leases on the
Atlantic OCS, so there are currently no drilling or production activities. There is a multistage
process under the OCS Lands Act before oil and gas leasing, development, or production can
occur on the Atlantic OCS. First, every five years BOEM must develop a National OCS Oil and
Gas Leasing Program (National Program), which sets out the proposed dates and locations of
proposed sales. No Atlantic lease sales are included in the current 2017-2022 National Program.
BOEM is in the process of developing the next five-year National Program, which is expected to
331

be completed around the time the current program ends in 2022. The next stage after the
National Program is developed is the decision on whether and under what terms to hold a
specific lease sale. Even if Atlantic lease sales are included in a future National Program, it could
be several years before a decision on whether to hold an individual lease sale, as compliance
with other laws (e.g., NEPA reviews, CZMA consistency determination, ESA consultation) will
be necessary before any sale decision. Once a sale is held and leases issued, the lessee must
obtain approval of its exploration plan and then its development and production plan (if it has
identified sufficient resources to enter into oil and gas production). After these plans are
approved, additional permit approvals are required before any individual exploration or
production well can be drilled. Given this multistage process, it would likely be several years
after inclusion in a National Program before oil and gas leasing could be expected in the
Atlantic, and even longer before exploration or production activities could occur. On September
8, 2020, the President issued a Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United
States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, which withdrew from disposition by
leasing the areas designated by BOEM as the South Atlantic Planning Area, the Straits of Florida
Planning Area, and portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico; this memorandum effectively
prevents any leasing of these areas under the OCS Lands Act through June 30, 2032. On
September 25, 2020, a similar Presidential Memorandum was issued withdrawing from
disposition by leasing the area off the coast of North Carolina. 23 Thus, for the South Atlantic and
offshore North Carolina, oil and gas leasing is not foreseeable until at least 2032.
Given the above, it is unclear at this time when or if offshore oil and gas activity will take place
in the Atlantic. Should oil and gas activity occur offshore in the Atlantic, it could impact the
marine environment in several different ways. During the exploration phase, the greatest impact
is likely sound exposure from air gun seismic survey activities. Any exploratory drilling could
add chemical contamination into the environment. During the drilling phase there could be
chemical pollution (air and water discharges through Environmental Protection Agencyregulated discharge permits) and manual disruption of physical habitat structure. During
exploration and production, there is a risk of oil and chemical spills that could increase the risk
of oil exposure in many marine organisms. Oil can persist in the marine environment after a spill
(Barron et al. 2020, Kingston 2002, McClain et al. 2019, Peterson et al. 2003, Teal et al. 1978)
and is even slower to degrade in cooler areas compared with warmer climates (Campo et al.
2013, Brakstad and Bonaunet. 2006). A very large spill could increase the risk of chronic or
acute oil exposure in some organisms (Pulster et al. 2020), but is not reasonably foreseeable in
the Atlantic given no expected current and long-term oil and gas development activities are
anticipated. Though noise and chemical pollution are broadly described in separate sections, this
section will focus specifically on the potential impact of oil- and gas-related activities on marine
environments, specifically air gun surveys and oil exposure, should any oil and gas activities take
place. If new oil and gas activity occurs in the region, seismic surveys would likely be the
primary concern within the timeframe of this analysis.
8.3.3.6.1 Large Whales
23

Both Presidential Memorandums stated the withdrawals do “not apply to leasing for environmental conservation
purposes, including the purposes of shore protection, beach nourishment and restoration, wetlands restoration, and
habitat protection.”

332

As previously mentioned, several large whale species do respond behaviorally and
physiologically to noise in the marine environment (see Section 8.3.3.3). Air guns and other
seismic activity involved in oil and gas exploration are known to be loud compared to other
sources of anthropogenic sound (e.g. pile driving, (Moore et al. 2012)) and sound travels much
longer distances underwater than in air and thus has a larger impact radius. Louder sounds are
more likely to disrupt behavior (Parks et al. 2011), such as feeding (Blair et al. 2016, Sivle et al.
2016), or could potentially cause physical damage if it occurs in very close proximity to marine
mammals. The severity of these behavioral or physiological impacts is based on the species’
hearing threshold, the overlap of this threshold with the frequencies emitted by the survey, as
well as the duration of time the surveys would operate, as these factors influence exposure rate
(Ellison et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2018; Finneran 2015; Finneran 2016; Madsen et al. 2006;
Nelms et al. 2016; Nowacek et al. 2007; Nowacek et al. 2015; NRC 2000; NRC 2003; NRC
2005; Piniak 2012; Popper et al. 2014; Richardson et al. 1995; Thomsen et al. 2006; Weilgart
2013).
The effects of oil exposure can be difficult to study in the wild because oil is metabolized rapidly
and therefore it can be a challenge to measure the level of oil exposure. However, there is plenty
of evidence showing adverse impacts to marine mammals from oil exposure, including mortality
and reproductive or immune impairment (Schwacke et al. 2012, Beyer et al. 2016, Kellar et al.
2017, Farmer et al. 2018). Less is known about larger whales specifically, but these species do
share some similarities within the well-established physiological pathway known to respond to
oil exposure and subsequent effects (Wise et al. 2014; Angell et al. 2004). There is also a
potential of vessel strikes from oil tankers. Thus, oil and gas activities are expected to have a
moderate negative impact on large whales and other protected species.
8.3.3.6.2 Other Protected Species
Both sound and oil exposure can similarly impact other protected large whale species, for the
same reasons as above, as well as sea turtles (Fraser et al. 2020). For example, after the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, sperm whale density declined (Ackleh et al.
2012) and exhibited evidence of exposure to genotoxic dispersants and metals associated with
the spill and response (Wise et al. 2014). Both oil and noise exposure from oil and gas activity
was predicted to have significant negative impacts on sperm whale population reproduction and
survival (Farmer et al. 2018). Sea turtles are also impacted by oil and sound exposure. Sea turtles
are sensitive to oil exposure during all life stages (Milton et al. 2003) through direct contact,
ingestion, or inhalation. An oil spill is far more costly for beginning life stages, which are
generally associated with Sargassum. Sublethal effects of oil on sea turtles likely includes
respiratory damage, metabolic changes, and a general decline in reproductive success (Lamont et
al. 2012, Stacy et al. 2017). Loggerheads may be particularly sensitive to exposure through diet
since they eat mollusks that can accumulate high levels of oil (Milton et al. 2003). Nesting
habitat is shifting with climate change and could be more of an issue in the future, though the
impact from any reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activities in the Atlantic to any nesting
turtles, eggs, and hatchlings would be negligible within the timeframe of this analysis.
The life stages that occur and are most likely impacted in the Northeast Region are adult and
juvenile Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. Exposure during this stage can
333

lead to death, as was observed after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico when
sea turtle strandings increased (Beyer et al. 2016) and over 600 sea turtle mortalities were
documented. Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees estimated that
between 4,900 and 7,600 large juvenile and adult sea turtles (Kemp’s ridleys, loggerheads, and
hard-shelled sea turtles not identified to species), and between 55,000 and 160,000 small juvenile
sea turtles (Kemp’s ridleys, green turtles, loggerheads, hawksbills, and hard-shelled sea turtles
not identified to species) were killed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (DWH NRDA Trustees
2016). Nearly 35,000 hatchling sea turtles (loggerheads, Kemp’s ridleys, and green turtles) were
also injured by response activities, while some were relocated to the Atlantic (DWH NRDA
Trustees 2016). Other impacts assessed include reproductive failure and adverse health effects.
Air gun activity during prospecting has been shown to impact loggerhead behavior (DeRuiter
and Larbi Doukara 2012) and could impact population health by disrupting feeding behavior and
increasing stress albeit temporarily. Thus, oil and gas activities are expected to have a moderate
negative impact on other protected species.
8.3.3.6.3 Habitat
Habitat is vulnerable to oil and gas activities largely from construction, operation, removal, and
release of pollution into the environment. Construction, operation, and removal likely contribute
to changes in the local habitat, including changes in substrate, water turbidity, impacts similar to
dredging, and other changes similar to constructing and deconstructing renewable energy
structures discussed above. However, oil and gas infrastructure functions as an artificial reef
(Montagna et al. 2002) and fish attracting device (Hinck et al. 2004). There is likely an increase
in contaminants released into the environment from accidental oil releases and other discharged
waste (e.g. (Ellis et al. 2012)). An increase in oil released into the environment through oil
platform operations or removals, through either through slow seeps or large spills, can impact
habitat structure, community composition, and the health or density of benthic organisms (Percy
1977, Suchanek 1993, Bomkamp et al. 2004, Bik et al. 2012, Baguley et al. 2015, Beyer et al.
2016). Oil and gas exploration and operations, including the risk of a major spill, would likely
have a moderate negative impact on the habitat, but not continuously and would vary per stage.
8.3.3.6.4 Human Communities
The impacts from oil and gas activities on fisheries can be both positive and negative. Firstly, the
physical presence of oil and gas infrastructure functions as an artificial reef (Montagna et al.
2002) and fish attracting device (Hinck et al. 2004). But like wind energy structures, oil and gas
infrastructures also create a fishing exclusion zone (Hall 2001, Love et al. 2006) that may reduce
fishermen’s access to traditional fishing grounds as a sole point source in a vast ocean while also
further decreasing the fishing mortality rate. Therefore, the oil and gas infrastructure will most
likely have a positive impact on fish population once it finishes construction or is
decommissioned (Macreadie et al. 2011). On the other hand, oil spill incidents could be
detrimental to both fish population and fishing activities. For example, Smith et al. (2011)
assumed a 40 percent reduction in catch in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon well
blowout, from which the loss to the fishing industry was estimated to be $4.36 billion. The
likelihood of a Deepwater Horizon-sized event is not reasonably foreseeable in the Northwest
Atlantic. Overall, the potential impacts from oil and gas to fisheries are likely to be moderate
334

negative from an oil spill, but there are slight positive implications for recreational fisheries and
general survival rates.
However, if fishery resources are affected by seismic surveys, then the fishermen targeting these
resources would be affected. However, such surveys could increase jobs, which may provide
some positive effects on human communities (BOEM 2020b). It is important to understand that
seismic surveys for mineral resources are different from surveys used to characterize submarine
geology for offshore wind installations, and thus these two types of activities are expected to
have different impacts on marine species.
8.3.3.7

Prey Availability

Marine ecosystems are dynamic environments that are constantly shifting in response to local
and global changes in climate. The North Atlantic Oscillation contributes to decadal scale regime
changes that impact primary productivity and food availability for many top predators. Though it
is natural for the North Atlantic ecosystem to experience fluctuations, climate change (as noted
in the separate discussion of climate change above) and overfishing contribute to variation in
prey species, and these events are expected to increase in number and magnitude in the future.
As the climate changes and shifts the distribution of primary prey of some species farther to the
north, nutritional stress affecting health and demographics could be more of an issue, particularly
for species with less dietary flexibility or that have to travel farther for food (e.g. longer
migration distances to optimal habitat). The seasonal movements of right whales in response to
shifts in their prey highlight the importance of identifying these resource-rich areas and
implementing measures that reduce potential anthropogenic impacts (Gavrilchuk et al. 2021).
8.3.3.7.1 Large Whales
Large whales need to consume large quantities of prey to meet their basic energy requirements
and to support population reproduction, migrations, and lactation (Klanjscek et al. 2007,
Williams et al. 2013, Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015b, Irvine et al. 2017). North Atlantic right whales
are specialists primarily relying upon dense seasonal aggregations of Calanus finmarchicus, the
dominant mesozooplankton in the North Atlantic, to meet energetic demands (van der Hoop et
al. 2019, Pershing and Stamieszkin 2020). Climate change has already shifted C. finmarchicus
abundance and phenology in the Gulf of Maine (Record et al. 2019a, Record et al. 2019b) and
model projections suggest resource limitation will likely worsen in the future (Grieve et al.
2017). As prey density and quality shift (namely, reductions in copepod size and nutritional
density, while expanding into the northern end of their range), whales need to spend more time
foraging and finding areas that have higher quality aggregations of prey. C. finmarchicus has
declined in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Scotian Shelf since 2005. Since 2015, right
whales have increased their summertime use of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with decreased
observations in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy. However, prey biomass in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence still may not be enough to support North Atlantic right whales and their reproductive
needs. The quantity and quality C. finmarchicus in the area fluctuates from year to year
(Gavrilchuk et al. 2021, Hayes et al. 2018). Periods of low C. finmarchicus abundance coincide
with periods of low right whale calving (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015a). Low prey availability also
leads to longer interval periods between births (Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018). Lactating
females, in particular, appear to be getting less energy than expected, which could contribute to
335

low reproductive output due to an energy deficit (Fortune et al. 2013). Shifts of prey species
farther north suggests longer travel between calving grounds and feeding grounds, and could
contribute further to nutritional stress. Reproductively mature females may choose to remain in
northern latitudes during the fall, winter, and spring to maximize potential feeding opportunities
and improve body condition (Gavrilchuk et al. 2021). Other large whale species, such as
humpback and minke whales, have shown greater flexibility in coping with shifting prey
availability (Gavrilchuk et al. 2014, Víkingsson et al. 2014). More flexible species may be
slightly more resilient to changes in prey than those that are zooplanktivorous specialists, such as
right whales, who likely cannot survive on the less lipid rich copepods of the North Atlantic that
are smaller in size and population than C. finmarchicus (Baumgartner et al. 2017). Overall, data
indicate a moderate negative impact on large whales.
8.3.3.7.2 Other Protected Species
Other large whales with more specialized diets, such as sei whales, are also vulnerable to
changes in prey availability (Gavrilchuk et al. 2014). Lack of proper nutrition can alter
investment in energetically costly activities, such as reproduction (Williams et al. 2013, MeyerGutbrod et al. 2015a). Sperm whales feed at a higher trophic level than many baleen whales,
maintain more consistent energy stores compared to species that undertake costly seasonal
migrations (Irvine et al. 2017), and there is evidence they are evolved to make use of lower
quality prey than other toothed whales with higher energy requirements (Spitz et al. 2012). These
last two characteristics may mean sperm whales could have some resilience to changes in prey
availability and distribution, but there is a lack of sufficient information on diet and health in
sperm whales for more accurate predictions.
Sea turtles are also vulnerable to changes in prey availability given the long distances species
travel to feed during various life stages. Resource variation can impact reproductive success of
leatherback turtles (Wallace et al. 2006). Evidence suggests that the Atlantic leatherback
population is less resource limited than the population in the Pacific (Wallace et al. 2006) and the
different foraging strategies between these populations has been linked to reproductive success
(Bailey et al. 2012). The availability of gelatinous prey is expected to increase with climaterelated ecosystem changes in parts of the North Atlantic (Attrill et al. 2007), which suggests
resource limitation may not be the most pressing issue for this population. Loggerheads are more
of a generalist species (Thomson et al. 2012) and forage in many different types of habitats. The
flexibility of a generalist diet may allow loggerheads to adjust to changes in dietary resources.
However, they are susceptible to changes in growth rate with regime shifts (Bjorndal et al. 2017),
suggesting there could be some physiological consequences to changes in primary productivity.
Prey availability will likely have a slight negative impact on other protected species.
8.3.3.8

Vessel Strikes

8.3.3.8.1 Large Whales
All of the large whales included in this VEC have been casualties of vessel strikes. Historically,
minke whales have been impacted less than larger species, followed by the humpback whale,
right whale, and fin whale (in order of increasing mortality rate between 1970 and 2009 (Van
Der Hoop et al. 2013). Right whales in particular spend a lot of time at the surface when feeding
336

or nursing, making them vulnerable to strikes (Baumgartner et al. 2017). Between 2003 and
2018, 42 percent of stranded right whales where the cause of death was determined to be a vessel
strike (Sharp et al. 2019). Not all whales die after a vessel strike, but many can experience
serious injury. At least 14 percent of humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine showed signs of one
or more strikes, and this is likely an underestimate (Hill et al. 2017). Regulations to reduce vessel
strikes were implemented in 2008 and contributed to a decline in lethal vessel strikes along the
Atlantic coast of the U.S. (Laist et al. 2014, van der Hoop et al. 2015). However, some of these
regulations are not mandatory, and simply shifts the threat of vessel strikes to other areas
(Vanderlaan and Taggart 2009) or do not account for changes in whale behavior. Fatal vessel
strikes have recently increased in occurrence as right whales shift north to locate their preferred
prey species, C. finmarchicus into areas that they did not previously frequent and where
mitigation measures were not yet in place (see Chapter 2 and (Themelis et al. 2016, Davies and
Brillant 2019, Plourde et al. 2019, Sharp et al. 2019). Vessel strikes have a high negative impact
on large whales.
8.3.3.8.2 Other Protected Species
There is limited information on vessel strikes for other large whale species that are infrequently
spotted nearshore. Vessel strikes and other incidents are less likely to be reported or discovered
when they occur very far offshore. Very little information is available on the size and range of
these populations, given the amount of time they spend far offshore and at depth. It is possible
that vessel strikes pose at least a threat to these species but it is impossible to tell to what extent
this threat would have an impact on the population. It is unlikely to match the same threat as
observed in nearshore species where vessel and whale density is higher.
Sea turtles can also be injured or killed by vessels (Denkinger et al. 2013, Barco et al. 2016,
Barrios-Garrido and Montiel-Villalobos 2016), including both loggerheads and leatherbacks
(Barco et al. 2016, Barrios-Garrido and Montiel-Villalobos 2016) and likely benefit from
regulations that reduce vessel speeds (Hazel et al. 2007, Shimada et al. 2017). Though slower
speeds do not guarantee a turtle will not get hit, it is more likely to prevent severe damage to the
injured sea turtle (Work et al. 2010). A moderate negative impact is likely for protected species.
8.3.3.9

Harmful Algal Blooms

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) impact all U.S. coastlines and have contributed to protected
species mortality, fish kills, and human health issues. There are several different species of
microalgae that can form blooms and produce toxic compounds. Different species can produce
several different classes of neurotoxins, including saxitoxins, domoic acid, brevetoxins, and
ciguatoxins. The formation of toxic blooms is linked in part to oceanographic conditions like
temperature and pH (Fu et al. 2012). Climate change is already increasing the number and
magnitude of blooms and will also likely increase toxicity of some species (Johnk et al. 2008, Fu
et al. 2012). This indicates a potential increase in risk for the VECs discussed here in the future.
However, proving toxin exposure still has some technical limitations and it is not always
possible to link exposure to cause of death.
8.3.3.9.1 Large Whales
337

Large whales are primarily exposed to the toxins from HABs via their diet (Geraci et al. 1989,
Fire et al. 2010). Larger rich copepod species like C. finmarchicus tend to accumulate higher
levels than smaller species (Turner et al. 2000, Turner et al. 2005), posing a particular threat to
right whales (Durbin et al. 2002, Leandro et al. 2010, Doucette et al. 2012). Toxins associated
with HABs have been indicated in mortalities of humpback, minke, fin, and southern right
whales (Geraci et al. 1989, Fire et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2016, Savage 2017). Humpback whales
that died in Cape Cod Bay in 1987 were exposed to a saxitoxin, a paralytic shellfish toxin, from
fish likely exposed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, suggesting whales are not only susceptible to
local blooms (Geraci et al. 1989). Right whales are exposed to both saxitoxin and domoic acid,
often concurrently but the potential interacting effects of multiple toxins is unknown (Durbin et
al. 2002, Leandro et al. 2010, Doucette et al. 2012). Other toxin classes have not been studied in
baleen whales in the North Atlantic. Sublethal concerns include reproductive impacts, maternal
transfer, respiration, and disruption of feeding behavior and nutritional health (Durbin et al.
2002, Brodie et al. 2006, Doucette et al. 2012, Fire and Dolah 2012). HABs, and their predicted
increase, will likely have a moderate negative effect on large whales.
8.3.3.9.2 Other Protected Species
Similar to the large whale species discussed above, other baleen and toothed whales are
susceptible to the negative impacts of HABs. Less is known about the level of exposure of sei
and sperm whales in the Northeast Region, but they are likely susceptible to exposure similar to
their counterparts in other ocean regions. Sei whales in the southern hemisphere experienced a
mass mortality where toxin exposure was suspected (Häussermann et al. 2017).Very little is
known about sperm whale exposure in the population off the East Coast. However, both pygmy
and dwarf sperm whales in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic have been exposed to domoic acid,
indicating pelagic, deep-diving species are likely still at risk of exposure (Fire et al. 2009).
Potential health effects are expected to be similar to those listed for large whales.
Sea turtles are also exposed to toxins from HABs and can experience negative health impacts.
Brevitoxin exposure in the Southeast is the primary documented toxin concern for loggerhead
populations from the East Coast (Jacobson et al. 2006, Walsh et al. 2010, Manire et al. 2013,
Perrault et al. 2016). Ciguatoxins, saxitoxins, and domoic acid were undetectable in loggerheads
tested off the south of Florida (Jacobson et al. 2006). Leatherbacks from the Atlantic are not
known to be exposed to domoic acid (Harris et al. 2011), but may be exposed to other toxin
classes. Additional information on neurotoxins in leatherbacks on the East Coast is limited and
more research is necessary to confirm broader exposure levels in these species. Though exposure
is primarily documented outside of the Northeast Region, it can still impact the health of the
populations present in the Northeast Region. Potential health effects of brevitoxin exposure
include immunomodulation (i.e., alteration of the immune system) (Walsh et al. 2010, Perrault et
al. 2016), reproductive impacts (Perrault et al. 2016), neurological symptoms (Manire et al.
2013), and death (Fauquier et al. 2013). Thus, HABs will have a moderate negative effect on
other protected species.
8.3.3.9.3 Habitat

338

HABs can impact fish habitat through chemical and ecological changes in the marine
environment. Toxic blooms can deplete dissolved oxygen in the water, among other chemical
changes, and suffocate fish in the immediate area (Thronson and Quigg 2008). The toxins
produced by HABs are also transferred to benthic organisms (Negri et al. 2004, Kvitek et al.
2008) and can change the abundance and diversity of species present in the area for years the
bloom dissipates (Olsgard 1993, Kröger et al. 2006). These ecological shifts in the benthic
community could indirectly impact the health of benthic habitats. Current evidence suggests that
HABs will have a moderate negative effect on the habitat.
8.3.3.9.4 Human Communities
HABs have negative economic impacts on both aquaculture and wild fisheries. Shumway (1990)
summarized the estimated economic losses of HABs on shellfish aquaculture around the world.
Each HAB caused a loss of millions of dollars. Crustaceans in the Northeast Region can also be
affected by HABs, including lobsters and crabs (Anderson et al. 1993, Anderson 1995). Finfish
activity during or after a toxic bloom could change as a result of fish kills or from fishing
restrictions when species pose a threat to human health. Between 1987 and 1992, HABs cost the
commercial fishing industry tens of millions of dollars (Anderson et al. 2000, Hoagland et al.
2002). This suggests the overall impact of HABs on human communities is moderate negative.
8.3.3.10 Canadian Serious Injury and Mortality
8.3.3.10.1

Large Whales

Large whale entanglements and vessel strikes occur in both U.S. and Canadian waters, but there
has been a notable increase in serious injuries or mortalities of right whales occurring in
Canadian waters since at least 2016, if not earlier. Since 2010, there has been a documented
change in right whales’ prey distribution that has shifted right whales into new areas where there
were previously no risk reduction measures, which contributed to an increase in documented
anthropogenic mortality in Canada (see Chapter 2 and Themelis et al. 2016, Davies and Brillant
2019, Plourde et al. 2019, Record et al. 2019, Sharp et al. 2019). It is impossible to confirm the
country of origin for each incident, but several cases had snow crab gear that was identified as
Canadian or were hit by vessels in Canadian waters. Given survey biases between species,
trends in entanglements are difficult to examine, but there is some evidence that country-specific
trends have shifted over the years, possibly in concert with regulatory and ecosystem changes
that have shifted human activities and species’ distribution (Hayes et al. 2018, Davies et al. 2019,
Record et al. 2019). Figure 8.4 shows the recent increase in new reports of right whale vessel
strikes and entanglements in Canada.

339

Figure 8.4: Serious injury and mortality cases (including those averted by disentanglement response or prorated
injuries) caused by entanglements and vessel strikes according to the country where the incident occurred or, in the
absence of that information, where the individual was first sighted.

Coast-wide, annual right whale serious injuries and mortalities caused by entanglement far
exceed the PBR level for the population (0.8 whales per year) and this remains true when
viewing entanglements or vessel strikes, individually, that were first seen in Canada or known to
be in Canadian waters. Thus, the levels of human-induced serious injury and mortality that is
occurring in each country is unsustainable. Furthermore, these are likely underestimates, given
they rely on documented cases and there are additional mortalities where cause of death was not
investigated or determined.
Entanglement in fishing gear can have substantial health and energetic costs that affect both
survival and reproduction of right whales (Robbins et al. 2015, Pettis et al. 2017, Rolland et al.
2017, van der Hoop et al. 2017, Hayes et al. 2018a, Hunt et al. 2018, Lysiak et al. 2018), which
further inhibits recovery of the species even in the absence of mortality. Similarly, not all whales
die after a vessel strike, and those that survive may also be more susceptible to reproductive or
energetic impacts. As described in Chapter 4 and in Section 8.3.3.8, serious injuries and
mortalities by vessel strike in Canada and the U.S. have also been documented in recent years.
During a period of lower calving rates and increased mortalities by vessel strike and
entanglements in Canadian waters, persistent serious injuries and mortalities of right whales
above PBR in U.S. waters is not sustainable.
Human-caused serious injury and mortality of humpback, fin, and minke whales also occurs in
Canadian waters, though the five-year rates of serious injuries and mortalities have remained
below PBR for these stocks (Hayes et al. 2019). Exposure to additional human-induced mortality
outside of U.S. waters could still impact the health of these populations and potentially the
recovery of fin whales. Historically, minke whales have been impacted by vessel strikes less than
larger species, followed by the humpback whale, right whale, and fin whale (in order of
increasing mortality rate between 1970 and 2009; Van Der Hoop et al. 2013) but have higher
340

entanglement rates than fin whales. Overall, Canadian serious injury and mortality likely have a
high negative impact on large whales. Continued bilateral discussions with Canada to identify
and resolve information gaps and to support risk reduction range-wide are necessary to reduce
mortalities and serious injuries promote recovery of right whales, and protect other Atlantic large
whales. In sum, the impact of mortality in Canadian waters is considered to be high negative.
8.3.3.10.2

Other Protected Species

Canadian mortalities and serious injuries for other large whale species can occur in Canadian
waters, but the threat likely differs between species. Three of 14 sperm whale strandings between
2008 and 2014 were documented in Canadian pelagic longline or trap/pot fisheries. Sei whales
do spend time in Canadian waters, but there have been no confirmed mortalities that occurred
within Canadian waters in recent years (Hayes et al. 2019). There was only one documented
human-caused mortality of a sei whale in Canadian fishing gear between 2000 and 2018 (NMFS
large whale data). During this time frame, eight more died of unknown causes in Canadian
waters, one where country of origin was undetermined. Thus, injury and mortality in Canadian
waters are likely, whether from entanglements, vessel strikes, or other causes. The level
sustained outside of U.S waters may or may not be a threat to these species. It is unlikely to
match the same threat observed in nearshore large whale species where whale density is higher,
particularly right whale density.
Loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles can also be injured or killed by vessels (Denkinger et al.
2013, Barco et al. 2016, Barrios-Garrido and Montiel-Villalobos 2016) and entanglements in a
variety of fishing gear, including pots, gillnets, pelagic longlines, trawls, pound nets, and scallop
dredges (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Sea turtles do not spend as much time in Canadian waters,
but when they do, it is during summer when fisheries are active. However, Canadian waters
likely do not pose the greatest threat to these species. Thus, Canadian mortality is likely a slight
negative for other protected species.

341

8.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts
The direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives were covered in Chapters 5 through 8 and are
summarized in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: The direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives on the four VECs.
Other Protected
Alternatives
Large Whales
Habitat
Species
Risk Reduction
High Negative to
Moderate Negative
Negligible to
Serious injury and
Moderate Negative Slight Negative
mortality would continue to
Injury and mortality Areas with
occur and impact ESAdue to entanglement trawls above 15
1 (No Action) listed species’ population
would continue to
traps per trawl
health. More so for right
harm ESA-listed
may have a
whales and other large
species.
short-term
whales to a lesser degree
impact.
other ESA-listed or MMPA
protected species.
Moderate Negative to
Slight Negative
Negligible to
Would reduce
Slight Negative
Slight Negative
Would reduce
entanglement risk
Trawling up to
entanglement risk for ESA- for ESA-listed
trawls above 15
2 (Preferred)
listed and MMPA protected species. However
traps per trawl
species. However risk of
risk of interactions
may have a
interactions will not be
will not be entirely
short-term
entirely eliminated.
eliminated.
impact.
Moderate Negative to
Slight Negative
Negligible to
Would reduce
Slight Negative
Slight Negative
Would reduce
Areas with
entanglement risk
3 (Nonentanglement risk for ESA- for ESA-listed
trawls above 15
listed and MMPA protected species. However
traps per trawl
preferred)
species. However risk of
may have a
risk of interactions
interactions will not be
short-term
will not be entirely
entirely eliminated.
eliminated.
impact.
Gear Marking
1 (No Action)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

2 (Preferred)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

3 (Nonpreferred)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

342

Human Communities

Slight Negative to Moderate
Positive Positive in that there
are no new impacts or costs
to harvesters and markets, but
the lack of recovery of whale
species has a slight negative
impact on public welfare
benefits due to whale
population declines.

Slight Negative Fisheries
would experience extra costs
and catch reduction in the
short term that could ease
over the long term.

Moderate Negative Costs of
gear modifications and catch
reduction would be
significant.

Slight Negative Current gear
marking costs would have a
slight economic burden on
fishermen.
Slight Negative
Gear marking requirements
would generate economic
burden to fishermen, but
could lower the future
regulatory costs.
Slight Negative to Negative
Gear marking requirements
would generate high
economic burden to
fishermen, but could lower
the future regulatory costs.

8.5 Cumulative Impacts of Alternatives
A summary of the cumulative impacts on all VECs for Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) is
summarized in Table 8.6.

343

Table 8.6: A summary of the final cumulative impacts analysis of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) on all four VECs
Alternatives
Direct and Indirect
Existing
All Management Actions and Stressors
Impacts
Conditions
Large Whales
Slight to Moderate
Negative
Moderate Negative to Slight Positive
Several protected Fisheries negatively impact large whale species,
Negative
Would reduce
species are still
though some management actions may have
entanglement risk for
listed as
mitigated the risk. Non-fishery management
ESA-listed and MMPA
endangered or
actions likely improved ocean quality and
protected species.
threatened.
reduced gear encounters, which benefitted large
However interaction risk
Habitats have
whales. Anthropogenic and natural stressors have
will not be entirely
experienced
had negative impacts on the VECs and likely will
eliminated.
degradation from
continue to do so in the future.
human activities
Other Protected
Slight Negative
Moderate Negative to Slight Positive
Would reduce
and are shifting as Fisheries negatively impact large whale species,
Species
entanglement risk for
a result of climate though some management actions may have
ESA-listed species.
change.
mitigated the risk. Non-fishery management
However risk of
Commercial
actions likely improved ocean quality and
interactions will not be
fisheries are also
reduced gear encounters, which benefitted large
entirely eliminated.
shifting as a result whales. Anthropogenic and natural stressors have
of climate change. had negative impacts on the VECs and likely will
continue to do so in the future.
Habitat
Negligible to Slight
Slight Negative to Slight Positive
Fishery management actions likely have
Negative
Areas with trawls above
negligible to slight negative impacts on habitat.
15 traps per trawl may
Non-fishery management actions likely improved
have a short-term impact
ocean quality, which benefitted habitats.
Anthropogenic and natural stressors have had
moderate negative impacts on habitats.
Human
Slight Negative –
Slight Negative to Slight Positive
Fisheries would
Overall, fisheries management positively impacts
Communities
experience extra costs and
human communities, though certain management
catch reduction in the
actions may have had a short term negative
short term.
effect. Non-fishery management actions likely
improved fisheries. Anthropogenic and natural
stressors have had negative impacts.

344

Cumulative Impacts
Slight Negative to Negligible
Continued catch and effort controls,
is likely to reduce gear encounters
through effort reductions. Additional
management actions taken under
ESA/MMPA should also help
mitigate the risk of gear interactions
Slight Negative to Negligible
Continued catch and effort controls,
is likely to reduce gear encounters
through effort reductions. Additional
management actions taken under
ESA/MMPA should also help
mitigate the risk of gear interactions
Negligible to Slight Positive
Continued management is not
expected to measurably change
habitat quality and existing
cumulative impacts.
Slight Negative to Slight Positive
Continued fishery management is
expected to positively benefit Human
Communities but conservation
measures will likely negatively
impact human communities, except
for the positive social benefits
expected from protecting whale
species.

8.6 References
Ackleh, A. S., G. E. Ioup, J. W. Ioup, B. Ma, J. J. Newcomb, N. Pal, N. A. Sidorovskaia, and C. Tiemann. 2012.
Assessing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on marine mammal population through acoustics:
endangered sperm whales. J Acoust Soc Am 131:2306-2314.
Aguilar, A. 1983. Organochlorine pollution in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, from the temperate waters of
the eastern North Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 14:349-352.
Aguilar, A., A. Borrell, and P. J. H. Reijnders. 2002. Geographical and temporal variation in levels of
organochlorine contaminants in marine mammals. Marine Environmental Research 53:425-452.
Alve, E., and F. Olsgard. 1999. Benthic foraminiferal colonization in experiments with copper-contaminated
sediments. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 29:11.
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2020. U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment.
https://supportoffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/03/AWEA_Offshore-Wind-EconomicImpactsV3.pdf. 19 pp.
Anderson, D. M. 1995. Toxic red tides and harmful algal blooms: A practical challenge in coastal oceanography.
Reviews of Geophysics 33:1189-1200.
Anderson, D. M., S. B. Galloway, and J. D. Joseph. 1993. Marine biotoxins and harmful algae: a national plan.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
Anderson, D. M., Y. Kaoru, and A. W. White. 2000. Estimated annual economic impacts from harmful algal blooms
(HABs) in the United States. Technical Report WHOI-2000-11, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, MA.
Andrés, E. D., B. Gomara, D. González-Paredes, J. Ruiz-Martin, and A. Marco. 2016. Persistent organic pollutant
levels in eggs of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) point to a decrease in hatching success.
Chemosphere 146:354-361.
Angell, C. M., J. Y. Wilson, M. J. Moore, and J. J. Stegeman. 2004. CYTOCHROME P450 1A1 EXPRESSION IN
CETACEAN INTEGUMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR DETECTING CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE
AND EFFECTS. Marine Mammal Science 20:554-566.
Atlas, R. M., R. J. B. Bartha, and Bioengineering. 1972. Degradation and mineralization of petroleum in sea water:
limitation by nitrogen and phosphorous. 14:309-318.
Attrill, M. J., J. Wright, and M. Edwards. 2007. Climate-related increases in jellyfish frequency suggest a more
gelatinous future for the North Sea. Limnology and Oceanography 52:480-485.
Avio, C. G., S. Gorbi, and F. Regoli. 2017. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: From emerging pollutants to
emerged threat. Marine Environmental Research 128:2-11.
Baguley, J., P. Montagna, C. Cooksey, J. Hyland, H. Bang, C. Morrison, A. Kamikawa, P. Bennetts, G. Saiyo, E.
Parsons, M. Herdener, and M. Ricci. 2015. Community response of deep-sea soft-sediment metazoan
meiofauna to the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill. Marine Ecology Progress Series 528:127-140.
Bailey, H., K. L Brookes, and P. M. Thompson. 2014. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms:
lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquatic Biosystems 10(8), 1-13.
Bailey, H., S. Fossette, S. J. Bograd, G. L. Shillinger, A. M. Swithenbank, J.-Y. Georges, P. Gaspar, K. H. P.
Strömberg, F. V. Paladino, J. R. Spotila, B. A. Block, and G. C. Hays. 2012. Movement Patterns for a
Critically Endangered Species, the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Linked to Foraging
Success and Population Status. PLoS One 7:e36401.
Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken, and P. M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels
during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 60:888-897.

345

Baker, A. N. 2005. Sensitivity of marine mammals found in Northland waters to aquaculture activities. Report to the
Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy. Report, Cetacean Biology Consultant, Kerikeri, New
Zealand.
Barco, S., M. Law, B. Drummond, H. Koopman, C. Trapani, S. Reinheimer, S. Rose, W. Swingle, and A. Williard.
2016. Loggerhead turtles killed by vessel and fishery interaction in Virginia, USA, are healthy prior to
death. Marine Ecology Progress Series 555:221-234.
Barrios-Garrido, H., and M. G. Montiel-Villalobos. 2016. STRANDINGS OF LEATHERBACK TURTLES
(DERMOCHELYS CORIACEA) ALONG THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN COAST OF THE GULF
OF VENEZUELA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology:9.
Barron, M. G., Vivian, D. N., Heintz, R. A., & Yim, U. H. (2020). Long-Term Ecological Impacts from Oil Spills:
Comparison of Exxon Valdez, Hebei Spirit, and Deepwater Horizon. Environmental Science & Technology
54 (11), 6456-6467 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05020
Baumgartner, M., F. Wenzel, N. Lysiak, and M. Patrician. 2017. North Atlantic right whale foraging ecology and its
role in human-caused mortality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 581:165-181.
Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, J. V. Redfern, J. Barlow, M. G. Jacox, J. J. Roberts, and D. M. Palacios. 2019.
Predicting cetacean abundance and distribution in a changing climate. Diversity and Distributions 25:626643.
Bergeron, J. M., D. Crews, and J. A. McLachlan. 1994. PCBs as environmental estrogens: turtle sex determination
as a biomarker of environmental contamination. Environmental Health Perspectives 102:780-781.
Bergström, L., L. Kautsky, T. Malm, R. Rosenberg, M. Wahlberg, N. Å. Capetillo, and D. Wilhelmsson. 2014.
Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a generalized impact assessment. Environmental
Research Letters 9(3), 1-12.
Berkenhagen, J., Döring, R., Fock, H.O., Kloppmann, M.H., Pedersen, S.A. and Schulze, T., 2010. Decision bias in
marine spatial planning of offshore wind farms: Problems of singular versus cumulative assessments of
economic impacts on fisheries. Marine policy, 34(3), pp.733-736.
Beauchamp, J., H. Bouchard, P. de Margerie, N. Otis, and J.-Y. Savaria. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the Blue
Whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic Population, in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Ottawa.
Beyer, J., H. C. Trannum, T. Bakke, P. V. Hodson, and T. K. Collier. 2016. Environmental effects of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110:28-51.
Bik, H. M., K. M. Halanych, J. Sharma, and W. K. Thomas. 2012. Dramatic shifts in benthic microbial eukaryote
communities following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLoS One 7:e38550.
Birchenough, S. N. R., H. Reiss, S. Degraer, N. Mieszkowska, Á. Borja, L. Buhl-Mortensen, U. Braeckman, J.
Craeymeersch, I. De Mesel, F. Kerckhof, I. Kröncke, S. Parra, M. Rabaut, A. Schröder, C. Van Colen, G.
Van Hoey, M. Vincx, and K. Wätjen. 2015. Climate change and marine benthos: a review of existing
research and future directions in the North Atlantic. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
6:203-223.
Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, M. Chaloupka, V. S. Saba, C. Bellini, M. A. G. Marcovaldi, A. J. B. Santos, L. F. W.
Bortolon, A. B. Meylan, P. A. Meylan, J. Gray, R. Hardy, B. Brost, M. Bresette, J. C. Gorham, S. Connett,
B. V. S. Crouchley, M. Dawson, D. Hayes, C. E. Diez, R. P. van Dam, S. Willis, M. Nava, K. M. Hart, M.
Cherkiss, A. G. Crowder, C. Pollock, Z. Hillis-Starr, F. A. Muñoz Tenería, R. Herrera-Pavón, V. LabradaMartagón, A. Lorences, A. Negrete-Philippe, M. M. Lamont, A. M. Foley, R. Bailey, R. R. Carthy, R.
Scarpino, E. McMichael, J. A. Provancha, A. Brooks, A. Jardim, M. López-Mendilaharsu, D. GonzálezParedes, A. Estrades, A. Fallabrino, G. Martínez-Souza, G. M. Vélez-Rubio, R. H. Boulon, J. A. Collazo,
R. Wershoven, V. Guzmán Hernández, T. B. Stringell, A. Sanghera, P. B. Richardson, A. C. Broderick, Q.
Phillips, M. Calosso, J. A. B. Claydon, T. L. Metz, A. L. Gordon, A. M. Landry, D. J. Shaver, J.
Blumenthal, L. Collyer, B. J. Godley, A. McGowan, M. J. Witt, C. L. Campbell, C. J. Lagueux, L. Bethel,
and L. Kenyon. 2017. Ecological regime shift drives declining growth rates of sea turtles throughout the
West Atlantic. Global Change Biology 23:4556-4568.

346

Blair, H. B., N. D. Merchant, A. S. Friedlaender, D. N. Wiley, and S. E. Parks. 2016. Evidence for ship noise
impacts on humpback whale foraging behaviour. Biol Lett 12.
Blumer, M., and J. Sass. 1972. Oil Pollution: Persistence and Degradation of Spilled Fuel Oil. Science 176:11201122.
Boavida-Portugal, J., R. Rosa, R. Calado, M. Pinto, I. Boavida-Portugal, M. B. Araújo, and F. Guilhaumon. 2018.
Climate change impacts on the distribution of coastal lobsters. Marine Biology 165:186.
Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM). 2020a. Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2021-0012. 352pp.
BOEM. 2020b. Oil and Gas Energy Fact Sheet. https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gasenergy/BOEM_FactSheet-Oil%26amp%3BGas-2-26-2020.pdf. 2 pp. Bomkamp, R. E., H. M. Page, and J.
E. Dugan. 2004. Role of food subsidies and habitat structure in influencing benthic communities of shell
mounds at sites of existing and former offshore oil platforms. Marine Biology 146:201-211.
Borrell, A., and A. Aguilar. 1987. Variations in DDE Percentage Correlated with Total D DT Burden in the Blubber
of Fin and Sei Whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:5.
Brakstad, O. G., & Bonaunet, K. (2006). Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in seawater at low temperatures
(0–5 C) and bacterial communities associated with degradation. Biodegradation, 17(1), 71-82.
Brierley, A. S., and M. J. Kingsford. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems.
Current Biology 19:R602-R614.
Brodie, E. C., F. M. D. Gulland, D. J. Greig, M. Hunter, J. Jaakola, J. S. Leger, T. A. Leighfield, and F. M. Van
Dolah. 2006. Domoic Acid Causes Reproductive Failure in California Sea Lions (Zalophus Californianus).
Marine Mammal Science 22:700-707.
Bushra, S., and M. Ahmad. 2014. IMPACT OF ORGANOCHLORINES ON ENDOCRINE SYSTEM: A REVIEW.
International Journal of Advances in Biology 1:11.
Camacho, M., O. P. Luzardo, L. D. Boada, L. F. López Jurado, M. Medina, M. Zumbado, and J. Orós. 2013.
Potential adverse health effects of persistent organic pollutants on sea turtles: Evidences from a crosssectional study on Cape Verde loggerhead sea turtles. Science of The Total Environment 458-460:283-289.
Campo, P., Venosa, A. D., & Suidan, M. T. (2013). Biodegradability of Corexit 9500 and dispersed South Louisiana
crude oil at 5 and 25 C. Environmental science & technology, 47(4), 1960-1967.
Canter, L. W. 2012. Guidance on Cumulative Effects Analysis in Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements.in N. GARFO, NOAA, editor. NOAA, Gloucester, MA.
Capper, A., L. J. Flewelling, and K. Arthur. 2013. Dietary exposure to harmful algal bloom (HAB) toxins in the
endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Florida, USA.
Harmful Algae 28:1-9.
Caut, S., E. Guirlet, and M. Girondot. 2010. Effect of tidal overwash on the embryonic development of leatherback
turtles in French Guiana. Marine Environmental Research 69:254-261.
Chang, S., F. Steimle, R. Reid, S. Fromm, V. Zdanowicz, and R. Pikanowski. 1992. Association of benthic
macrofauna with habitat types and quality in the New York Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 89:237251.
Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2010. Largescale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change: climate
change impacts on catch potential. Global Change Biology 16:24-35.
Christiansen, F., M. H. Rasmussen, and D. Lusseau. 2014. Inferring energy expenditure from respiration rates in
minke whales to measure the effects of whale watching boat interactions. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 459:96-104.

347

Clement, D. 2013. Literature review of ecological effects of aquaculture - effects on marine mammals. Ministry for
Primary Industries. CLF. 2019. Vineyard Wind – NGO Agreement.
Colburn, L. L., M. Jepson, C. Weng, T. Seara, J. Weiss, and J. A. Hare. 2016. Indicators of climate change and social
vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States.
Marine Policy 74:323-333.
Conn, P. B., and G. K. Silber. 2013. Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision‐related mortality for North
Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere 4:1-15.
D'Anna, L.M. and Murray, G.D., 2015. Perceptions of shellfish aquaculture in British Columbia and implications for
well-being in marine social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 20(1).
Dannheim, J., L. Bergström, S. N. R. Birchenough, R. Brzana, A. R. Boon, J. W. P. Coolen, J.-C. Dauvin, I. De
Mesel, J. Derweduwen, A. B. Gill, Z. L. Hutchison, A. C. Jackson, U. Janas, G. Martin, A. Raoux, J.
Reubens, L. Rostin, J. Vanaverbeke, T. A. Wilding, D. Wilhelmsson, and S. Degraer. 2019. Benthic effects
of offshore renewables: identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research. ICES Journal of
Marine Science.
Davies, K. T. A., and S. W. Brillant. 2019. Mass human-caused mortality spurs federal action to protect endangered
North Atlantic right whales in Canada. Marine Policy 104:157-162.
Denkinger, J., M. Parra, J. P. Muñoz, C. Carrasco, J. C. Murillo, E. Espinosa, F. Rubianes, and V. Koch. 2013. Are
boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean & Coastal Management 80:2935.
DeRuiter, S. L., and K. Larbi Doukara. 2012. Loggerhead turtles dive in response to airgun sound exposure.
Endangered Species Research 16:55-63.
Desforges, J.-P. W., C. Sonne, M. Levin, U. Siebert, S. De Guise, and R. Dietz. 2016. Immunotoxic effects of
environmental pollutants in marine mammals. Environment International 86:126-139.
Deutsch, C., A. Ferrel, B. Seibel, H. O. Portner, and R. B. Huey. 2015. Climate change tightens a metabolic
constraint on marine habitats. Science 348:1132-1135.
Di Iorio, L., and C. W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biology
Letters 6:51-54.
Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, J. Emmett Duffy, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M.
Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, and L. D. Talley.
2012. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 4:11-37.
Doucette, G. J., C. M. Mikulski, K. L. King, P. B. Roth, Z. Wang, L. F. Leandro, S. L. DeGrasse, K. D. White, D.
De Biase, R. M. Gillett, and R. M. Rolland. 2012. Endangered North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) experience repeated, concurrent exposure to multiple environmental neurotoxins produced by
marine algae. Environmental Research 112:67-76.
Durbin, E., G. Teegarden, R. Campbell, A. Cembella, M. F. Baumgartner, and B. R. Mate. 2002. North Atlantic
right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, exposed to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins via a zooplankton
vector, Calanus finmarchicus. Harmful Algae 1:243-251.
Elfes, C. T., G. R. VanBlaricom, D. Boyd, J. Calambokidis, P. J. Clapham, R. W. Pearce, J. Robbins, J. C. Salinas,
J. M. Straley, P. R. Wade, and M. M. Krahn. 2010. Geographic variation of persistent organic pollutant
levels in humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) feeding areas of the North Pacific and North Atlantic.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29:824-834.
Ellis, J., G. Fraser, and J. Russell. 2012. Discharged drilling waste from oil and gas platforms and its effects on
benthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 456:285-302.
Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2011. A new context-based approach to assess marine
mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology 26:21-28.

348

Ellison, W.T., B. L. Southall, A. S. Frankel, K. Vigness-Raposa, and C. W. Clark. 2018. Short Note: An Acoustic
Scene Perspective on Spatial, Temporal, and Spectral Aspects of Marine Mammal Behavioral Responses to
Noise. Aquatic Mammals 44(3), 239-243.
Engås, A., S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A. V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch
rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus).12.
Fair, P. A., and P. R. Becker. 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and
Recovery 7:335-354.
Farmer, N. A., K. Baker, D. G. Zeddies, S. L. Denes, D. P. Noren, L. P. Garrison, A. Machernis, E. M. Fougères,
and M. Zykov. 2018. Population consequences of disturbance by offshore oil and gas activity for
endangered sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Biological Conservation 227:189-204.
Fauquier, D. A., L. J. Flewelling, J. Maucher, C. A. Manire, V. Socha, M. J. Kinsel, B. A. Stacy, M. Henry, J.
Gannon, J. S. Ramsdell, and J. H. Landsberg. 2013. Brevetoxin in Blood, Biological Fluids, and Tissues Of
Sea Turtles Naturally Exposed to Karenia Brevis Blooms in Central West Florida. Journal of Zoo and
Wildlife Medicine 44:364-375.
Finneran, J. J. 2015. Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold shift studies
from 1996 to 2015. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138:1702–1726.
Finneran, J.J. 2016. Auditory Weighting Functions and TTS/PTS Exposure Functions for Marine Mammals
Exposed to Underwater Noise, Technical Report 3026, December 2016. San Diego: Systems Center Pacific
Fire, S. E., and F. M. V. Dolah. 2012. Marine Biotoxins: Emergence of Harmful Algal Blooms as Health Threats to
Marine Wildlife. Pages 374-389 in A. A. Aguire, R. S. Ostfield, and P. Daszak, editors. New Directions in
Conservation Medicine: Applied Cases in Ecological Health. Oxford Press, New York.
Fire, S. E., Z. Wang, M. Berman, G. W. Langlois, S. L. Morton, E. Sekula-Wood, and C. R. Benitez-Nelson. 2010.
Trophic Transfer of the Harmful Algal Toxin Domoic Acid as a Cause of Death in a Minke Whale
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Stranding in Southern California. Aquatic Mammals 36:342-350.
Fire, S. E., Z. Wang, T. A. Leighfield, S. L. Morton, W. E. McFee, W. A. McLellan, R. W. Litaker, P. A. Tester, A.
A. Hohn, G. Lovewell, C. Harms, D. S. Rotstein, S. G. Barco, A. Costidis, B. Sheppard, G. D. Bossart, M.
Stolen, W. N. Durden, and F. M. Van Dolah. 2009. Domoic acid exposure in pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales (Kogia spp.) from southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. waters. Harmful Algae 8:658-664.
Flemming, R., and J. D. Crawford. 2006. Habitat protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act: can it really
contribute to ecosystem health in the Northwest Atlantic? Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 12:43-89.
Forney, K., B. Southall, E. Slooten, S. Dawson, A. Read, R. Baird, and R. Brownell. 2017. Nowhere to go: noise
impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site fidelity. Endangered Species Research
32:391-413.
Fortune, S., A. Trites, C. Mayo, D. Rosen, and P. Hamilton. 2013. Energetic requirements of North Atlantic right
whales and the implications for species recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 478:253-272.
Fossi, M. C., L. Marsili, M. Baini, M. Giannetti, D. Coppola, C. Guerranti, I. Caliani, R. Minutoli, G. Lauriano, M.
G. Finoia, F. Rubegni, S. Panigada, M. Bérubé, J. Urbán Ramírez, and C. Panti. 2016. Fin whales and
microplastics: The Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez scenarios. Environmental Pollution 209:68-78.
Frasier, K. E., Solsona-Berga, A., Stokes, L., & Hildebrand, J. A. (2020). Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. In Deep Oil Spills (pp. 431-462). Springer, Cham.
Fu, F., A. Tatters, and D. Hutchins. 2012. Global change and the future of harmful algal blooms in the ocean.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 470:207-233.
Fuentes, M. M. P. B., D. A. Pike, A. Dimatteo, and B. P. Wallace. 2013. Resilience of marine turtle regional
management units to climate change. Global Change Biology 19:1399-1406.
Gallardi, D. 2014. Effects of Bivalve Aquaculture on the Environment and Their Possible Mitigation: A Review.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal 05.

349

Gauthier, J. M., C. D. Metcalfe, and R. Sears. 1997. Chlorinated organic contaminants in blubber biopsies from
northwestern Atlantic balaenopterid whales summering in the Gulf of St Lawrence. Marine Environmental
Research 44:201-223.
Gavrilchuk, K., V. Lesage, C. Ramp, R. Sears, M. Bérubé, S. Bearhop, and G. Beauplet. 2014. Trophic niche
partitioning among sympatric baleen whale species following the collapse of groundfish stocks in the
Northwest Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 497:285-301.
Gavrilchuk, K,. V. Lesage, S. Fortune, A. Trites, and S. Plourde. 2021. Foraging habitat of North Atlantic right
whales has declined in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada and may be insufficient for successful
reproduction. Endangered Species Research 44:113-136.
Geraci, J. R., D. M. Anderson, R. J. Timperi, D. J. St. Aubin, G. A. Early, J. H. Prescott, and C. A. Mayo. 1989.
Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) Fatally Poisoned by Dinoflagellate Toxin. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1895-1898.
Gill, A. B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone:
Ecology and offshore renewable energy. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:605-615.
Gill, A., S. Degraer, A. Lipsky, N. Mavraki, E. Methratta, and R. Brabant. 2020. Setting the Context for Offshore
Wind Development Effects on Fish and Fisheries. Oceanography 33(4), 118-127.Gobler, C. J., O. M.
Doherty, T. K. Hattenrath-Lehmann, A. W. Griffith, Y. Kang, and R. W. Litaker. 2017. Ocean warming since
1982 has expanded the niche of toxic algal blooms in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:4975-4980.
Grealis, E., Hynes, S., O’Donoghue, C., Vega, A., Van Osch, S. and Twomey, C., 2017. The economic impact of
aquaculture expansion: An input-output approach. Marine Policy, 81, pp.29-36.
Greene, C. H., E. E. Head, P. Smith, P. C. Reid, and A. Conversi. 2013. Remote climate forcing of decadal-scale
regime shifts in Northwest Atlantic shelf ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography 58:803-816.
Grieve, B. D., J. A. Hare, and V. S. Saba. 2017. Projecting the effects of climate change on Calanus finmarchicus
distribution within the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf. Scientific Reports 7:6264.
Guirlet, E., K. Das, J.-P. Thomé, and M. Girondot. 2010. Maternal transfer of chlorinated contaminants in the
leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting in French Guiana. Chemosphere 79:720-726.
Hall, C. M. 2001. Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean Coast. Manag. 44:601–
618.
Harris, H. S., S. R. Benson, K. V. Gilardi, R. H. Poppenga, T. M. Work, P. H. Dutton, and J. A. K. Mazet. 2011.
Comparative health assessment of western Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) foraging off
the coast of California, 2005–2007. Journa of Wildlife Diseases 47:321-337.
Häussermann, V., C. S. Gutstein, M. Beddington, D. Cassis, C. Olavarria, A. C. Dale, A. M. Valenzuela-Toro, M. J.
Perez-Alvarez, H. H. Sepúlveda, K. M. McConnell, F. E. Horwitz, and G. Försterra. 2017. Largest baleen
whale mass mortality during strong El Niño event is likely related to harmful toxic algal bloom. PeerJ
5:e3123.
Hayes, S. A., S. Gardner, L. Garrison, A. Henry, and L. Leandro. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whales – Evaluating
Their Recovery Challenges in 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-NE-247, NOAA,
DOC.
Hazel, J., I. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle
Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research 3:105-113.
Hill, A. N., C. Karniski, J. Robbins, T. Pitchford, S. Todd, and R. Asmutis-Silvia. 2017. Vessel collision injuries on
live humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae , in the southern Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science
33:558-573.
Hinck, J. E., T. M. Bartish, B. S. Blazer, N. D. Denslow, T. S. Gross, M. S. Myers, and e. al. 2004. Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and Their Effects on Fish
in the Rio Grande Basin U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia.

350

Hoagland, P., D. M. Anderson, Y. Kaoru, and A. W. White. 2002. The economic effects of harmful algal blooms in
the United States: Estimates, assessment issues, and information needs. Estuaries 25:819-837.
Hobbs, K. E., D. C. G. Muir, E. W. Born, R. Dietz, T. Haug, T. Metcalfe, C. Metcalfe, and N. Oien. 2003a. Levels
and patterns of persistent organochlorines in minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) stocks from the
North Atlantic and European Arctic. Environmental Pollution 121:239-252.
Hobbs, K. E., D. C. G. Muir, E. W. Born, R. Dietz, T. Haug, T. Metcalfe, C. Metcalfe, and N. Øien. 2003b. Levels
and patterns of persistent organochlorines in minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) stocks from the
North Atlantic and European Arctic. Environmental Pollution: 14.
Hobbs, K. E., D. C. G. Muir, and E. Mitchell. 2001. Temporal and biogeographic comparisons of PCBs and
persistent organochlorine pollutants in the blubber of ®n whales from eastern Canada in 1971±199.
Environmental Pollution:12.
Irvine, L. G., M. Thums, C. E. Hanson, C. R. McMahon, and M. A. Hindell. 2017. Quantifying the energy stores of
capital breeding humpback whales and income breeding sperm whales using historical whaling records.
Royal Society Open Science 4:160290. Ishikawa, H., M. Goto, and T. Mogoe. 2013. Stranding Record in Japan:
1901-2012 (In Japanese). Report, Shimonoseki Academy of Marine Science, Japan.
Jacobsen, J. K., L. Massey, and F. Gulland. 2010. Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales
(Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin:3.
Jacobson, E., B. Homer, B. Stacy, E. Greiner, N. Szabo, C. Chrisman, F. Origgi, S. Coberley, A. Foley, J.
Landsberg, L. Flewelling, R. Ewing, R. Moretti, S. Schaf, C. Rose, D. Mader, G. Harman, C. Manire, N.
Mettee, A. Mizisin, and G. Shelton. 2006. Neurological disease in wild loggerhead sea turtles Caretta
caretta. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 70:139-154.
Jöhnk, K. D., Huisman, J., Sharples, J., Sommeijer, B., Visser, P. M., & Stroom, J. M. 2008. Summer heatwaves
promote blooms of harmful cyanobacteria. Global Change Biology, 14 (3): 495–512.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01510.x
Johnston, E. L., M. Mayer-Pinto, and T. P. Crowe. 2015. REVIEW: Chemical contaminant effects on marine
ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:140-149.
Kellar, N., T. Speakman, C. Smith, S. Lane, B. Balmer, M. Trego, K. Catelani, M. Robbins, C. Allen, R. Wells, E.
Zolman, T. Rowles, and L. Schwacke. 2017. Low reproductive success rates of common bottlenose
dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the northern Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon disaster
(2010-2015). Endangered Species Research 33:143-158.
Keller, J. M., J. R. Kucklick, M. A. Stamper, C. A. Harms, and P. D. McClellan-Green. 2004. Associations between
Organochlorine Contaminant Concentrations and Clinical Health Parameters in Loggerhead Sea Turtles
from North Carolina, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:1074-1079.
Keller, J. M., P. D. McClellan-Green, J. R. Kucklick, D. E. Keil, and M. M. Peden-Adams. 2006. Effects of
Organochlorine Contaminants on Loggerhead Sea Turtle Immunity: Comparison of a Correlative Field
Study and In Vitro Exposure Experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:70-76.
Kemper, C. M., D. Pemberton, M. Cawthorn, S. Heinrich, J. Mann, B. Würsig, P. Shaughnessy, and R. Gales. 2003.
Aquaculture and marine mammals: co-existence or conflict? Pages 208-225 in N. Gales, M. Hindell, and R.
Kirkwood, editors. Marine mammals: fisheries, tourism, and management issues. CSIRO Publishing.
Kingston, P. F. (2002). Long-term environmental impact of oil spills. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 7(1-2),
53-61.
Klanjscek, T., R. M. Nisbet, H. Caswell, and M. G. Neubert. 2007. A model for energetics and bioaccumulation in
marine mammals with applications to the right whale. Ecological Applications 17:2233-2250.
Kleisner, K. M., M. J. Fogarty, S. McGee, J. A. Hare, S. Moret, C. T. Perretti, and V. S. Saba. 2017. Marine species
distribution shifts on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf under continued ocean warming. Progress in
Oceanography 153:24-36.

351

Kovacs, K. M., and C. Lydersen. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Seals and Whales in the North Atlantic Arctic
and Adjacent Shelf Seas. Science Progress 91:117-150.
Kröger, K., J. P. A. Gardner, A. A. Rowden, and R. G. Wear. 2006. Long-term effects of a toxic algal bloom on
subtidal soft-sediment macroinvertebrate communities in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 67:589-604.
Kühn, S., and J. A. van Franeker. 2020. Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by marine megafauna.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 151:110858.
Kvitek, R., J. Goldberg, G. Smith, G. Doucette, and M. Silver. 2008. Domoic acid contamination within eight
representative species from the benthic food web of Monterey Bay, California, USA. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 367:35-47.
Lai, W. W.-P., Y.-C. Lin, Y.-H. Wang, Y. L. Guo, and A. Y.-C. Lin. 2018. Occurrence of Emerging Contaminants
in Aquaculture Waters: Cross-Contamination between Aquaculture Systems and Surrounding Waters.
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 229:249.
Laist, D., A. Knowlton, and D. Pendleton. 2014. Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for protecting North
Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research 23:133-147.
Lam, V. W. Y., W. W. L. Cheung, G. Reygondeau, and U. R. Sumaila. 2016. Projected change in global fisheries
revenues under climate change. Scientific Reports 6:32607.
Lamb, M. Levin, J. A. Litz, W. E. McFee, N. J. Place, F. I. Townsend, R. S. Wells, and T. K. Rowles. 2012.
Anaemia, hypothyroidism and immune suppression associated with polychlorinated biphenyl exposure in
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:4857.
Lamont, M. M., R. R. Carthy, and I. Fujisaki. 2012. Declining Reproductive Parameters Highlight Conservation
Needs of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 11:190-196.
Lavender, A. L., S. M. Bartol, and I. K. Bartol. 2014. Ontogenetic investigation of underwater hearing capabilities in
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) using a dual testing approach. Journal of Experimental Biology
217:2580-2589.
Law, K. L., S. Moret-Ferguson, N. A. Maximenko, G. Proskurowski, E. E. Peacock, J. Hafner, and C. M. Reddy.
2010. Plastic Accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science 329:1185-1188.
Le Bris, A., K. E. Mills, R. A. Wahle, Y. Chen, M. A. Alexander, A. J. Allyn, J. G. Schuetz, J. D. Scott, and A. J.
Pershing. 2018. Climate vulnerability and resilience in the most valuable North American fishery.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:1831-1836.
Leandro, L. F., G. J. Teegarden, P. B. Roth, Z. Wang, and G. J. Doucette. 2010. The copepod Calanus finmarchicus:
A potential vector for trophic transfer of the marine algal biotoxin, domoic acid. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 382:88-95.
Lefebvre, K. A., S. Bargu, T. Kieckhefer, and M. W. Silver. 2002. From sanddabs to blue whales: the pervasiveness
of domoic acid. Toxicon 40:971-977.
Letcher, R. J., J. O. Bustnes, R. Dietz, B. M. Jenssen, E. H. Jørgensen, C. Sonne, J. Verreault, M. M. Vijayan, and
G. W. Gabrielsen. 2010. Exposure and effects assessment of persistent organohalogen contaminants in
arctic wildlife and fish. Science of The Total Environment 408:2995-3043.
Lindeboom, H. J., H. J. Kouwenhoven, M. J. N. Bergman, S. Bouma, S. Brasseur, R. Daan, R. C. Fijn, D. de Haan,
S. Dirksen, R. van Hal, R. Hille Ris Lambers, R. ter Hofstede, K. L. Krijgsveld, M. Leopold, and M.
Scheidat. 2011. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a
compilation. Environmental Research Letters 6:035101.
Lipsky, A., S. Moura, A. Kenney, and R. Bellevance. 2016. Addressing Interactions between Fisheries and Offshore
Wind Development: The Block Island Wind Farm.

352

Lloyd, B. 2003. Potential effects of mussel farming on New Zealand's marine mammals and seabirds : a discussion
paper. New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Love, M. S., D. M. Schroeder, W. Lenarz, A. MacCall, A. S. Bull, and L. Thorsteinson. 2006. Potential use of
offshore marine structures in rebuilding an overfished rockfish species, bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis).
Fishery Bulletin 104:383–390.
Lysiak, N. S. J., S. J. Trumble, A. R. Knowlton, and M. J. Moore. 2018. Characterizing the Duration and Severity of
Fishing Gear Entanglement on a North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Using Stable Isotopes,
Steroid and Thyroid Hormones in Baleen. Frontiers in Marine Science 5.
Mackenzie Jr, C.L. and Tarnowski, M., 2018. Large shifts in commercial landings of estuarine and bay bivalve
mollusks in northeastern United States after 1980 with assessment of causes. Mar. Fish. Rev, 80, pp.1-28.
MacLeod, C. 2009. Global climate change, range changes and potential implications for the conservation of marine
cetaceans: a review and synthesis. Endangered Species Research 7:125-136.
Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, and D. J. Booth. 2011. Rigs-to-reefs: will the deep sea benefit from artificial habitat?
. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9:455–461.
Madsen, P., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine
mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309:279295.
Manire, C. A., E. T. Anderson, L. Byrd, and D. A. Fauquier. 2013. Dehydration as an effective treatment for
brevetoxicosis in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44:447452.
Martin, K. J., S. C. Alessi, J. C. Gaspard, A. D. Tucker, G. B. Bauer, and D. A. Mann. 2012. Underwater hearing in
the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta): a comparison of behavioral and auditory evoked potential
audiograms. Journal of Experimental Biology 215:3001-3009.
Massachusetts Bay Program, M. 1991. Sources and loadings of pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays, Prepared by
Menzie-Cura and Associates, Inc., Massachusetts Bays Program Report, Boston, MA.
Mazaris, A. D., A. S. Kallimanis, S. P. Sgardelis, and J. D. Pantis. 2008. Do long-term changes in sea surface
temperature at the breeding areas affect the breeding dates and reproduction performance of Mediterranean
loggerhead turtles? Implications for climate change. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
367:219-226.
McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, J. Murdoch, and
K. McCabe. 2000. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association.203.
McClain, C. R., Nunnally, C., & Benfield, M. C. (2019). Persistent and substantial impacts of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill on deep-sea megafauna. Royal Society open science, 6(8), 191164.
McMahon, C. R., and G. C. Hays. 2006. Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications of climate change
for a critically endangered marine vertebrate. Global Change Biology 12:1330-1338.
Metcalfe, C., B. Koenig, T. Metcalfe, G. Paterson, and R. Sears. 2004. Intra- and inter-species differences in
persistent organic contaminants in the blubber of blue whales and humpback whales from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, Canada. Marine Environmental Research 57:245-260.
Methratta, E., A. Hawkins, B. Hooker, A. Lipsky, and J. Hare. 2020. Offshore Wind Development in the Northeast
US Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem: Ecological, Human, and Fishery Management Dimensions.
Oceanography 33(4), 16-27.Meyer-Gutbrod, E., C. Greene, and K. Davies. 2018. Marine Species Range
Shifts Necessitate Advanced Policy Planning: The Case of the North Atlantic Right Whale. Oceanography
31.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E., C. Greene, P. Sullivan, and A. Pershing. 2015a. Climate-associated changes in prey availability
drive reproductive dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale population. Marine Ecology Progress Series
535:243-258.

353

Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., and C. H. Greene. 2018. Uncertain recovery of the North Atlantic right whale in a changing
ocean. Global Change Biology 24:455-464.
Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L., C. H. Greene, P. J. Sullivan, and A. J. Pershing. 2015b. Climate-associated changes in prey
availability drive reproductive dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale population. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 535:243-258.
Milewski, I. Impacts of Salmon Aquaculture on the Coastal Environment: A Review. Conservation Council of New
Brunswick.
Miller, J. H., and G. R. Potty. 2017. Overview of Underwater Acoustic and Seismic Measurements of the
Construction and Operation of the Block Island Wind Farm. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
141:3993-3993.
Milton, S., P. Lutz, and G. Shigenaka. 2003. Chapter 4 Oil Toxicity and Impacts on Sea Turtles. Pages 35-47 Oil
and Sea Turtles: Biology, Planning, and Response. NOAA National Ocean Service.
Montagna, P. A., R. D. Kalke, and C. Ritter. 2002. Effect of restored freshwater inflow on macrofauna and
meiofauna in upper Rincon Bayou, Texas, U. S. A. Estuaries 25:1436–1447.
Montie, E. W., R. J. Letcher, C. M. Reddy, M. J. Moore, B. Rubinstein, and M. E. Hahn. 2010. Brominated flame
retardants and organochlorine contaminants in winter flounder, harp and hooded seals, and North Atlantic
right whales from the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:1160-1169.
Moore, S. E., R. R. Reeves, B. L. Southall, T. J. Ragen, R. S. Suydam, and C. W. Clark. 2012. A New Framework
for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals in a Rapidly Changing Arctic.
BioScience 62:289-295.
Mori, C., B. Morsey, M. Levin, T. S. Gorton, and S. De Guise. 2008. Effects of Organochlorines, Individually and in
Mixtures, on B-Cell Proliferation in Marine Mammals and Mice. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part A 71:266-275.
Mrosovsky, N. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea turtles: implications for conservation
practices. Biological Conservation 18:271-280.
Mrosovsky, N., G. D. Ryan, and M. C. James. 2009. Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 58:287-289.
National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound: Progress Since 1994.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes
Biologically Significant Effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2017. 62nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (62nd
SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17-03; 822 p. Available
from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at
http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/.
Negri, R. M., N. G. Montoya, J. I. Carreto, R. Akselman, and D. Inza. 2004. Pseudo-nitzschia australis, Mytilus
edulis, Engraulis anchoita, and Domoic Acid in the Argentine Sea.4.
Nelms, S. E., J. Barnett, A. Brownlow, N. J. Davison, R. Deaville, T. S. Galloway, P. K. Lindeque, D. Santillo, and
B. J. Godley. 2019. Microplastics in marine mammals stranded around the British coast: ubiquitous but
transitory? Scientific Reports 9:1075.
Nelms, S. E., T. S. Galloway, B. J. Godley, D. S. Jarvis, and P. K. Lindeque. 2018. Investigating microplastic
trophic transfer in marine top predators. Environmental Pollution 238:999-1007.
Nelms, S. E., W. E. D. Piniak, C. R. Weir, and B. J. Godley. 2016. Seismic surveys and marine turtles: An
underestimated global threat? Biological Conservation 193:49-65.

354

NMFS, and USFWS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle
(Caretta caretta), Second Revision., National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Northeast Data Portal, 2021. www.northeastoceandata.org. Accessed May 12, 2021.
Nowacek, D. P., L. Thorne, D. Johnston, and P. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic
noise. Mamm. Rev. 37:81–115.
Nowacek, D.P., C. W. Clark, D. Mann, P. JO. Miller, H. C. Rosenbaum, J. S. Golden, M. Jasny, J. Kraska, and B. L.
Southall. 2015. Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated and prudent planning. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 13(7), 378–386.
Olsgard, F. 1993. Do toxic algal blooms affect subtidal soft-bottom communities? :18.
Parks, S. E., M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, and P. L. Tyack. 2011. Individual right whales call louder in increased
environmental noise. Biol Lett 7:33-35.
Oremus, K.L., 2019. Climate variability reduces employment in New England fisheries. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 116(52), pp.26444-26449.
Patino-Martinez, J., A. Marco, L. Quiñones, and L. A. Hawkes. 2014. The potential future influence of sea level rise
on leatherback turtle nests. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 461:116-123.
Pearce, I. B. 1990. Contaminants in Living Resources of Stellwagen Bank - Resources at Risk. Presented at
Stellwagen Bank Conference, University of Massachusetts, Boston Campus, April 26-27, 1990.
Peck, M., and J. K. Pinnegar. 2019. Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations: North Atlantic and
Atlantic Arctic marine fisheries. Page 87 Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture.
Percy, J. A. 1977. Responses of arctic marine benthic crustaceans to sediments contaminated with crude oil.
Environmental Pollution 13:1-10.
Pershing, A., and K. Stamieszkin. 2020. The North Atlantic Ecosystem from Plankton to Whales. Annual Review of
Marine Science 12:4.1-4.21.
Perrault, J. R., K. D. Bauman, T. M. Greenan, P. C. Blum, M. S. Henry, and C. J. Walsh. 2016. Maternal transfer
and sublethal immune system effects of brevetoxin exposure in nesting loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta) from western Florida. Aquatic Toxicology 180:131-140.
Petersen, J. K., C. Saurel, P. Nielsen, and K. Timmermann. 2016. The use of shellfish for eutrophication control.
Aquaculture International 24:857-878.
Peterson, C. H., Rice, S. D., Short, J. W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J. L., Ballachey, B. E., & Irons, D. B. (2003). Longterm ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science, 302(5653), 2082-2086.
Petruny-Parker, M., A. Malek, M. Long, D. Spencer, F. Mattera, E. Hasbrouck, J. Scotti, K. Gerbino, J. Wilson.
2015. Identifying Information Needs and Approaches for Assessing Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind
Farm Development on Fisheries Resources in the Northeast Region. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM
2015-037. 79 pp.
Pham, C. K., Y. Rodríguez, A. Dauphin, R. Carriço, J. P. G. L. Frias, F. Vandeperre, V. Otero, M. R. Santos, H. R.
Martins, A. B. Bolten, and K. A. Bjorndal. 2017. Plastic ingestion in oceanic-stage loggerhead sea turtles
(Caretta caretta) off the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 121:222-229.
Pike, D. A. 2013a. Climate influences the global distribution of sea turtle nesting: Sea turtle nesting distributions.
Global Ecology and Biogeography 22:555-566.
Pike, D. A. 2013b. Forecasting range expansion into ecological traps: climate-mediated shifts in sea turtle nesting
beaches and human development. Global Change Biology 19:3082-3092.
Pike, D. A., E. A. Roznik, and I. Bell. 2015. Nest inundation from sea-level rise threatens sea turtle population
viability. Royal Society Open Science 2:150127.
Piniak, W. E. D. 2012. Acoustic Ecology of Sea Turtles: Implications for Conservation. Ph.D., Duke University.

355

Pinzone, M. 2015. POPs in free-ranging pilot whales, sperm whales and fin whales from the Mediterranean Sea_
Influence of biological and ecological factors. Environmental Research:12.
Plourde, S., C. Lehoux, C. L. Johnson, G. Perrin, and V. Lesage. 2019. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) and its food: (I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging habitats in
Canadian waters. 00:19.
Pomeroy, R., Dey, M.M. and Plesha, N., 2014. The social and economic impacts of semi-intensive aquaculture on
biodiversity. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 18(3), pp.303-324.
Popper, A., A Hawkins, R. Fay, D. Mann, S. Bartol, and T. Carlson, et al. 2014. Sound exposure guidelines for
fishes and sea turtles: a technical report prepared by ANSI-accredited standards committee S3/SC1 and
registered with ANSI. ASA S3/SC1 4.
Price, C. S., J. A. Morris, Jr., E. P. Keane, D. M. Morin, C. Vaccaro, and D. W. Bean. 2017. Protected species and
marine aquaculture interactions.
Primavera, J.H., 2006. Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management,
49(9-10), pp.531-545.
Pulster, E. L., Gracia, A., Armenteros, M., Toro-Farmer, G., Snyder, S. M., Carr, B. E., ... & Murawski, S. A.
(2020). A first comprehensive Baseline of Hydrocarbon pollution in Gulf of Mexico fishes. Scientific
reports, 10(1), 1-14.)
Record, N. R., W. M. Balch, and K. Stamieszkin. 2019a. Century-scale changes in phytoplankton phenology in the
Gulf of Maine. PeerJ 7:e6735.
Record, N. R., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z.
Feng, S. Kraus, R. Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 2019b. Rapid
Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography 32.
Reece, J., D. Passeri, L. Ehrhart, S. Hagen, A. Hays, C. Long, R. Noss, M. Bilskie, C. Sanchez, M. Schwoerer, B.
Von Holle, J. Weishampel, and S. Wolf. 2013. Sea level rise, land use, and climate change influence the
distribution of loggerhead turtle nests at the largest USA rookery (Melbourne Beach, Florida). Marine
Ecology Progress Series 493:259-274.
Richardson, W. J., CGreene Jr., C Malme, and D. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Riefolo, L., C. Lanfredi, A. Azzellino, G. R. Tomasicchio, D. A. Felice, V. Penchev, and D. Vicinanza. 2016.
Offshore Wind Turbines: An Overview of the Effects on the Marine Environment. Page 9. International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
Robinson, R. A., H. Q. P. Crick, J. A. Learmonth, I. M. D. Maclean, C. D. Thomas, F. Bairlein, M. C.
Forchhammer, C. M. Francis, J. A. Gill, B. J. Godley, J. Harwood, G. C. Hays, B. Huntley, A. M. Hutson,
G. J. Pierce, M. M. Rehfisch, D. W. Sims, B. M. Santos, T. H. Sparks, D. A. Stroud, and M. E. Visser.
2009. Travelling through a warming world: climate change and migratory species. Endangered Species
Research 7:87-99.
Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, T. Kurobe, and S. J. Teh. 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and
induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep 3:3263.
Rolland, R. M., S. E. Parks, K. E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P. J. Corkeron, D. P. Nowacek, S. K. Wasser, and S. D.
Kraus. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci 279:2363-2368.
Romano, T., M. Keogh, C. Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, and C. Schlundt. 2004. Anthropogenic sound and marine
mammal health: measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound
exposure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1124–1134.
Romero, M. L., and L. K. Butler. 2007. Endocrinology of Stress.8.
Ross, P., R. De Swart, R. Addison, H. Van Loveren, J. Vos, and A. Osterhaus. 1996. Contaminant-induced
immunotoxicity in harbour seals: Wildlife at risk? Toxicology 112:157-169.

356

Ryan, C., B. McHugh, B. Boyle, E. McGovern, M. Bérubé, P. Lopez-Suárez, C. Elfes, D. Boyd, G. Ylitalo, G. Van
Blaricom, P. Clapham, J. Robbins, P. Palsbøll, I. O’Connor, and S. Berrow. 2013. Levels of persistent
organic pollutants in eastern North Atlantic humpback whales. Endangered Species Research 22:213-223.
Saba, V. S., S. M. Griffies, W. G. Anderson, M. Winton, M. A. Alexander, T. L. Delworth, J. A. Hare, M. J.
Harrison, A. Rosati, G. A. Vecchi, and R. Zhang. 2016. Enhanced warming of the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean under climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 121:118-132.
Sadove, S. S., and S. J. Morreale. 1990. Marine mammal and sea turtle encounters with marine debris in the New
York Bight and the Northeast Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154,
NOAA, DOC.
Sallenger, A. H., K. S. Doran, and P. A. Howd. 2012. Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of
North America. Nature Climate Change 2:884-888.
Savage, K. 2017. Alaska and British Columbia large whale unusual mortality event summary report. NOAA.
Schwacke, L. H., E. S. Zolman, B. C. Balmer, S. De Guise, R. C. George, J. Hoguet, A. A. Hohn, J. R.
Kucklick, S.
Sharp, S., W. McLellan, D. Rotstein, A. Costidis, S. Barco, K. Durham, T. Pitchford, K. Jackson, P. Daoust, T.
Wimmer, E. Couture, L. Bourque, T. Frasier, B. Frasier, D. Fauquier, T. Rowles, P. Hamilton, H. Pettis,
and M. Moore. 2019. Gross and histopathologic diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena
glacialis mortalities between 2003 and 2018. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 135:1-31.
Shimada, T., C. Limpus, R. Jones, and M. Hamann. 2017. Aligning habitat use with management zoning to reduce
vessel strike of sea turtles. Ocean & Coastal Management 142:163-172.
Shumway, S.E., 1990. A review of the effects of algal blooms on shellfish and aquaculture. Journal of the world
aquaculture society, 21(2), pp.65-104.
Simenstad, C. A., and K. L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of Intertidal Aquaculture on Benthic Communities in Pacific
Northwest Estuaries: Scales of Disturbance. Estuaries 18:43.
Simmonds, M. P. 2012. Cetaceans and Marine Debris: The Great Unknown. Journal of Marine Biology 2012:1-8.
Simmonds, M. P., and V. C. Brown. 2010. Is there a conflict between cetacean conservation and marine
renewable-energy developments? Wildlife Research 37:688.
Sivle, L., P. Wensveen, P. Kvadsheim, F. Lam, F. Visser, C. Curé, C. Harris, P. Tyack, and P. Miller. 2016. Naval
sonar disrupts foraging in humpback whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 562:211-220.
Skalski, J. R., W. H. Pearson, and C. I. Malme. 1992. Effects of Sounds from a Geophysical Survey Device on
Catch-per-Unit-Effort in a Hook-and-Line Fishery for Rockfish ( Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1357-1365.
Slabbekoorn, H., N, Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, and A. Popper. 2010. A noisy spring: the
impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst). 25:419–427.
Smith, L. C., M. Smith, and P. Ashcroft. 2011. Analysis of environmental and economic damages from British
Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Albany Law Rev. 74:563–585.
Sousa, A., F. Alves, A. Dinis, J. Bentz, M. J. Cruz, and J. P. Nunes. 2019. How vulnerable are cetaceans to climate
change? Developing and testing a new index. Ecological Indicators 98:9-18.
Spitz, J., A. W. Trites, V. Becquet, A. Brind'Amour, Y. Cherel, R. Galois, and V. Ridoux. 2012. Cost of Living
Dictates what Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises Eat: The Importance of Prey Quality on Predator Foraging
Strategies. PLoS One 7:e50096.
Stacy, N., C. Field, L. Staggs, R. MacLean, B. Stacy, J. Keene, D. Cacela, C. Pelton, C. Cray, M. Kelley, S. Holmes,
and C. Innis. 2017. Clinicopathological findings in sea turtles assessed during the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill response. Endangered Species Research 33:25-37.
Stamper, M. A., C. W. Spicer, D. L. Neiffer, K. S. Mathews, and G. J. Fleming. 2009. Morbidity in a Juvenile Green
Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Due to Ocean-Borne Plastic. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 40:196198.

357

Stone, K. M., S. M. Leiter, R. D. Kenney, B. C. Wikgren, J. L. Thompson, J. K. D. Taylor, and S. D. Kraus. 2017.
Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21:527-543.
Stramma, L., E. D. Prince, S. Schmidtko, J. Luo, J. P. Hoolihan, M. Visbeck, D. W. R. Wallace, P. Brandt, and A.
Körtzinger. 2012. Expansion of oxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat for tropical pelagic
fishes. Nature Climate Change 2:33-37.
Suchanek, T. H. 1993. Oil Impacts on Marine Invertebrate Populations and Communities. American Zoologist
33:510-523.
Sunday, J. M., K. E. Fabricius, K. J. Kroeker, K. M. Anderson, N. E. Brown, J. P. Barry, S. D. Connell, S. Dupont
B. Gaylord, J. M. Hall-Spencer, T. Klinger, M. Milazzo, P. L. Munday, B. D. Russell, E. Sanford, V.
Thiyagarajan, M. L. H. Vaughan, S. Widdicombe, and C. D. G. Harley. 2017. Ocean acidification can
mediate biodiversity shifts by changing biogenic habitat. Nature Climate Change 7:81-85.
Tabuchi, M., N. Veldhoen, N. Dangerfield, S. Jeffries, C. C. Helbing, and P. S. Ross. 2006. PCB-Related Alteration
of Thyroid Hormones and Thyroid Hormone ReceptorGene Expression in Free-Ranging Harbor Seals
(Phoca vitulina). Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1024-1031.
Teal, J. M., K. Burns, and J. Farrington. 1978. Analyses of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Intertidal Sediments
Resulting from Two Spills of No. 2 Fuel Oil in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 35:510-520.
ten Brink, T.S. and Dalton, T., 2018. Perceptions of Commercial and Recreational Fishers on the Potential
Ecological Impacts of the Block Island Wind Farm (US). Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, p.439.
Themelis, D., L. Harris, and T. Hayman. 2016. Preliminary analysis of human-induced injury and mortality to
cetaceans in Atlantic Canada.
Thomsen, F., A. B. Gill, M. Kosecka, M. Andersson, M. André, S. Degraer, T. Folegot, J. Gabriel, A. Judd, T.
Neumann, A. Norro, D. Risch, P. Sigray, D. Wood, and B. Wilson. 2016. MaRVEN – Environmental Impacts
of Noise, Vibrations and Electromagnetic Emissions from Marine Renewable Energy.
Thomsen, F., K. Lüdemann, R. Kafemann, and W. Piper. 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine
mammals
and
fish,
biola,
Hamburg,
Germany
on
behalf
of
COWRIE
Ltd.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Effects_of_offshore_wind_farm_noise_on_marinemammals_and_fish-1-.pdf
Thomson, J. A., M. R. Heithaus, D. A. Burkholder, J. J. Vaudo, A. J. Wirsing, and L. M. Dill. 2012. Site specialists,
diet generalists? Isotopic variation, site fidelity, and foraging by loggerhead turtles in Shark Bay, Western
Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 453:213-226.
Thronson, A., and A. Quigg. 2008. Fifty-Five Years of Fish Kills in Coastal Texas. Estuaries and Coasts 31:802813.
Tilbrook, A. J., A. I. Turner, and I. J. Clarke. 2000. Effects of stress on reproduction in non-rodent mammals: the
role of glucocorticoids and sex differences. Reviews of Reproduction 5:9.
Tougaard, J., and O. D. Henriksen. 2009. Underwater Noise from Three Types of Offshore Wind Turbines:
Estimation of Impact Zones for Harbor Porpoises and Harbor Seals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 125:3766-3773.
Turner, J., G. Doucette, C. Powell, D. Kulis, B. Keafer, and D. Anderson. 2000. Accumulation of red tide toxins in
larger size fractions of zooplankton assemblages from Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 203:95-107.
Turner, J. T., G. J. Doucette, B. A. Keafer, and D. M. Anderson. 2005. Trophic accumulation of PSP toxins in
zooplankton during Alexandrium fundyense blooms in Casco Bay, Gulf of Maine, April–June 1998. II.
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 52:2784-2800.
United States Coast Guard (UCSG). 2020. The Areas Offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Port Access
Route Study. https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/PARS/FINAL_REPORT_PARS_May_14_2020.pdf. 199
pp.

358

United States Department of the Navy. 2018. Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic, Norfolk, VA. 1020 pp.
van de Merve, J., M. Hodge, J. Whittier, K. Ibrahim, and S. Lee. 2010. Persistent organic pollutants in the green sea
turtle Chelonia mydas: nesting population variation, maternal transfer, and effects on development. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 403:269-278.
Van Der Hoop, J. M., M. J. Moore, S. G. Barco, T. V. N. Cole, P.-Y. Daoust, A. G. Henry, D. F. McAlpine, W. A.
McLellan, T. Wimmer, and A. R. Solow. 2013. Assessment of Management to Mitigate Anthropogenic
Effects on Large Whales: Mitigation of Human-Whale Interactions. Conservation Biology 27:121-133.
van der Hoop, J. M., A. E. Nousek-McGregor, D. P. Nowacek, S. E. Parks, P. Tyack, and P. T. Madsen. 2019.
Foraging rates of ram-filtering North Atlantic right whales. Functional Ecology 33:1290-1306.
van der Hoop, J. M., A. S. M. Vanderlaan, T. V. N. Cole, A. G. Henry, L. Hall, B. Mase-Guthrie, T. Wimmer, and
M. J. Moore. 2015. Vessel Strikes to Large Whales Before and After the 2008 Ship Strike Rule: Ship Strike
Rule effectiveness. Conservation Letters 8:24-32.
Vandenberg, L. N., T. Colborn, T. B. Hayes, J. J. Heindel, D. R. Jacobs, D.-H. Lee, T. Shioda, A. M. Soto, F. S. vom
Saal, W. V. Welshons, R. T. Zoeller, and J. P. Myers. 2012. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:
Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocrine Reviews 33:378-455.
Vanderlaan, A. S. M., and C. T. Taggart. 2009. Efficacy of a Voluntary Area to Be Avoided to Reduce Risk of
Lethal Vessel Strikes to Endangered Whales. Conservation Biology 23:1467-1474.
Víkingsson, G. A., B. Þ. Elvarsson, D. Ólafsdóttir, J. Sigurjónsson, V. Chosson, and A. Galan. 2014. Recent
changes in the diet composition of common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in Icelandic
waters. A consequence of climate change? Marine Biology Research 10:138-152.
Wallace, B., S. Kilham, F. Paladino, and Spotila, Jr. 2006. Energy budget calculations indicate resource limitation in
Eastern Pacific leatherback turtles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318:263-270.
Walsh, C. J., S. R. Leggett, B. J. Carter, and C. Colle. 2010. Effects of brevetoxin exposure on the immune system
of loggerhead sea turtles. Aquatic Toxicology 97:293-303.
Wang, H., F. Wu, W. Meng, J. C. White, P. A. Holden, and B. Xing. 2013. Engineered Nanoparticles May Induce
Genotoxicity. Environmental Science & Technology 47:13212-13214.
Weilgart, L. 2018. THE IMPACT OF OCEAN NOISE POLLUTION ON FISH AND INVERTEBRATES.36.
Weisbrod, A. V., D. Shea, M. J. Moore, and J. J. Stegeman. 2000. Organochlorine exposure and
bioaccumulation in the endangered Northwest Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) population.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:654-666.
Wells, R. S., V. Tornero, A. Borrell, A. Aguilar, T. K. Rowles, H. L. Rhinehart, S. Hofmann, W. M. Jarman, A. A.
Hohn, and J. C. Sweeney. 2005. Integrating life-history and reproductive success data to examine potential
relationships with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay,
Florida. Science of The Total Environment 349:106-119.
Wilber, M. G., S. Young, and L. Wilson. 2012. Impact of Aquaculture on Commercial Fisheries: Fishermen’s Local
Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology 40:29-40.
Wilber, D.H., Carey, D.A. and Griffin, M., 2018. Flatfish habitat use near North America's first offshore wind farm.
Journal of Sea Research, 139, pp.24-32.
Wilcox, C., N. J. Mallos, G. H. Leonard, A. Rodriguez, and B. D. Hardesty. 2016. Using expert elicitation to
estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Marine Policy 65:107-114.
Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T. and Öhman, M.C., 2006. The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 63(5), pp.775-784.
Williams, R., E. Ashe, and P. D. O’Hara. 2011. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British Columbia,
Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1303-1316.

359

Williams, R., G. A. Vikingsson, A. Gislason, C. Lockyer, L. New, L. Thomas, and P. S. Hammond. 2013. Evidence
for density-dependent changes in body condition and pregnancy rate of North Atlantic fin whales over four
decades of varying environmental conditions. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70:1273-1280.
Wilson, C., A. V. Sastre, M. Hoffmeyer, V. J. Rowntree, S. E. Fire, N. H. Santinelli, S. D. Ovejero, V. D'Agostino,
C. F. Marón, G. J. Doucette, M. H. Broadwater, Z. Wang, N. Montoya, J. Seger, F. R. Adler, M. Sironi, and
M. M. Uhart. 2016. Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) calf mortality at Península Valdés,
Argentina: Are harmful algal blooms to blame? Marine Mammal Science 32:423-451.Wise, C. F., J. T. F.
Wise, S. S. Wise, W. D. Thompson, J. P. Wise, and J. P. Wise. 2014. Chemical dispersants used in the Gulf
of Mexico oil crisis are cytotoxic and genotoxic to sperm whale skin cells. Aquatic Toxicology 152:335340.
Wise Jr, J. P., Wise, J. T., Wise, C. F., Wise, S. S., Gianios Jr, C., Xie, H., ... & Wise Sr, J. P. (2014). Concentrations
of the genotoxic metals, chromium and nickel, in whales, tar balls, oil slicks, and released oil from the gulf
of Mexico in the immediate aftermath of the deepwater horizon oil crisis: is genotoxic metal exposure part
of the deepwater horizon legacy?. Environmental science & technology, 48(5), 2997-3006.
Wise, C. F., S. S. Wise, W. D. Thompson, C. Perkins, and J. P. Wise. 2015. Chromium Is Elevated in Fin Whale
(Balaenoptera physalus) Skin Tissue and Is Genotoxic to Fin Whale Skin Cells. Biological Trace Element
Research 166:108-117.
Work, P. A., A. L. Sapp, D. W. Scott, and M. G. Dodd. 2010. Influence of small vessel operation and propulsion
system on loggerhead sea turtle injuries. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 393:168- 175.
Wright, A. J., N. Soto, A. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C. Beale, and C. Clark. 2007. Do Marine mammals experience stress
related to anthropogenic noise? Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 20:274–316.
Yntema, C. L., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexual Differentiation in Hatchling Loggerheads (Caretta caretta)
Incubated at Different Controlled Temperatures. Herpetologica 36:5.
Young, O. Y. 2015. Marine animal entanglements in mussel aquaculture gear. Masters. University of Akureyri,
Akureyri, Iceland.

360

CHAPTER 9 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW & FINAL
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
9.1 Introduction
Actions taken to amend fisheries management plans or implement other regulations governing
U.S. fisheries are subject to the requirements of several federal laws and executive orders,
including conducting a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA). An RIR evaluates the costs and benefits of modifications to the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan) that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
considering. This includes the justifications for modifications, a cost benefit analysis of the
alternatives, and the potential social impacts of the proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires federal regulatory agencies to develop an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to evaluate the impact that the
regulatory alternatives would have on small entities and examine ways to minimize these
impacts. Although the RFA does not require that the alternative with the least impact on small
entities be selected, it does require that the expected impacts be adequately characterized. This
chapter includes both the RIR and FRFA of the proposed modifications to the Plan.

9.2 Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rules
The revisions to the Plan that NMFS is considering are designed to improve the effectiveness of
commercial fishing regulations implemented to conserve and protect two endangered species –
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) –
thereby fulfilling NMFS' obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The need for the proposed revisions is demonstrated by the
continuing risk of mortality and serious injury of Atlantic large whales due to entanglement in
commercial fishing gear (see Chapter 2 for a detailed analysis).
The MMPA of 1972 provides protection for species or stocks that are, or may be, in danger of
extinction or depletion as a result of human activity. The MMPA states that measures should be
taken immediately to replenish the population of any marine mammal species or stock that has
diminished below its optimum sustainable level. With respect to any stock or species, the
“optimum sustainable population” is the number of animals that will result in the maximum
productivity of the stock or species, taking into account the carrying capacity of the habitat and
the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.
Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the conservation and
management of pinnipeds (other than walruses) and cetaceans (including whales). The Secretary
of Commerce has delegated MMPA authority to NMFS.
In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, establishing new provisions to govern the incidental
taking of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations. These new provisions include the
preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction
361

and development and implementation of take reduction plans for stocks that are reduced or
remaining below their optimum sustainable population due to commercial fisheries interactions.
Take reduction plans are required for all "strategic stocks." Under the MMPA, a "strategic stock"
is a stock: (1) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the Potential
Biological Removal (PBR) level; (2) that is declining and is likely to be listed under the ESA in
the foreseeable future; or (3) that is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA
or as a depleted species under the MMPA. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to
reduce the mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks being taken during U.S. commercial
fishing operations to below PBR levels within six months of its implementation. The long-term
goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the incidental
mortality and serious injury of strategic marine mammals taken in the course of commercial
fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate,
taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and
existing state or regional fishery management plans.
Right and fin whales are listed as endangered species under the ESA and are considered strategic
stocks under the MMPA. Pursuant to its obligations under the MMPA, NMFS in 1996
established the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (Team), an advisory group
empaneled to develop recommendations for reducing the incidental take of large whales in
commercial fisheries along the Atlantic coast. The Team includes representatives of the fishing
industry, state and federal resource management agencies, the scientific community, and
conservation organizations. The purpose of the Team is to provide guidance to NMFS in
developing and amending the Plan to meet the goals of the MMPA with respect to Atlantic large
whales.
In addition to the MMPA, the ESA provides a legal foundation for measures to protect right and
fin whales. The ESA provides for the conservation of species that are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range in addition to the conservation of the
ecosystems on which these species depend. North Atlantic right whales and fin whales stocks in
the Northeast Region are federally listed as endangered and are therefore subject to protection
under the ESA.
Section 7 of the ESA directs all federal agencies to use their existing authorities to conserve
threatened and endangered species and to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed
species or adversely modify the critical habitat of those species. When a proposed federal action
may affect an ESA-listed marine species, Section 7 directs that the "Action agency" consult with
the Secretary of Commerce; this is referred to as a Section 7 consultation.
Many of the trap/pot and gillnet fisheries regulated under the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan are also regulated under federal authorizations and rulemaking that undergoes
review under the ESA Section 7 requirements. If it is determined through the Section 7 process
that a federally permitted fishery (or fisheries) is likely to adversely affect listed species and/or
critical habitat, then a formal consultation is initiated to determine whether the proposed action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify

362

critical habitat. Formal consultation concludes with the issuance of a NOAA Fisheries Biological
Opinion (Opinion).
To assess impacts on large whale and sea turtle species protected under the ESA, NMFS has
prepared Biological Opinions for the continued authorization of federal fisheries under federal
regulations for the deep-sea red crab and lobster fishery, amongst others as well as consultations
on rulemakings to modify the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Section 7
consultations were first initiated for each of these fisheries either at the time the FMP was
developed or, in the case of lobster, when a significant amendment (Amendment 5) to the
Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for American Lobster (Lobster FMP) was under
consideration. Formal consultation was first initiated for lobster on March 23, 1994. Subsequent
ESA Section 7 consultations on those fisheries incorporated ALWTRP measures as a Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardy to right whales. NMFS reinitiated consultation
on June 22, 2000 for the lobster fishery following new whale entanglements resulting in serious
injuries to right whales, new information indicating a declining status for right whales, and
revisions to the Plan.
The Biological Opinions from the 2000 Section 7 consultations, finalized June 14, 2001, found
that NMFS' authorization of these federal fisheries, as modified by the Plan requirements in
effect at that time, was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western North Atlantic
right whale. The Biological Opinions identified a set of RPAs designed to avoid the likelihood of
jeopardy to right whales. These measures included:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Seasonal Area Management (SAM);
Dynamic Area Management (DAM);
An expansion of gillnet gear modification requirements and restrictions to Mid-Atlantic
waters and modification of fishing practices in Southeastern waters;
Continued gear research and modifications; and
Additional measures that implement and monitor the effectiveness of the RPAs.
These measures were intended, in combination, to reduce the risk of serious injury or
mortality of large whales from entanglements in commercial fishing gear, and to minimize
adverse impacts if entanglements occur.

Following implementation of the measures described above, entanglements leading to serious
injury or death of protected whales, including the right whale, continued to occur. Accordingly,
NMFS reinitiated consultation on the continued authorization of a number of fisheries and began
to develop modifications to the Plan. At its 2003 meeting, the Team agreed to manage
entanglement risks by focusing first on reducing the risk associated with groundlines, then
reducing the risk associated with buoy lines. In October 2007, NMFS issued a final rule that
replaced the SAM and DAM programs with broad-based gear modification requirements,
including the use of sinking groundline; expanded weak link requirements; additional gear
marking requirements; changes in boundaries; seasonal restrictions for gear modifications;
expanded exempted areas; and changes in regulatory language for the purposes of clarification
and consistency (72 FR 57104, October 5, 2007). The broad-based sinking groundline
requirement became fully effective on April 5, 2009. This final rule also incorporated an
amendment to the ALWTRP (72 FR 34632, June 25, 2007) that implemented, with revisions,
363

previous ALWTRP regulations by expanding the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to include
waters within 35 nm (64.82 km) of the South Carolina coast, dividing the Southeast U.S.
Restricted Area into Southeast U.S. Restricted Areas North and South, and modified regulations
pertaining to gillnetting within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area.
Following implementation of these measures, NMFS and the Team turned their collective focus
to buoy line risk reduction. At the 2009 ALWTRT meeting, the Team agreed on a schedule to
develop a management approach to reduce the risk of mortality and serious injury due to buoy
lines. As a result of this schedule, NMFS committed to publishing a final rule to address buoy
line entanglement by 2014. NMFS also reinitiated consultation on continued authorization of
FMPs for a number of trap/pot fisheries (American lobster, scup, and Northern black sea bass).
These consultations concluded in October 2010. After identifying the steps being taken by
NMFS to develop, analyze and implement a buoy line reduction rule, the agency concluded new
consultation and issued the resulting Biological Opinions in 2013 (scup and black sea bass) and
2014 (Lobster), that concluded that continued operation of the fisheries noted above would be
likely to adversely affect, but not jeopardize, the continued existence of right, humpback, and fin
whales. The Opinion on the lobster fishery concluded that the continued operation of the
American lobster fishery may adversely affect, but would not jeopardize the continued existence
of, right whales, fin whales, and sei whales; or loggerhead (northwest Atlantic distinct population
segment) and leatherback sea turtles. The Opinion also concluded that the continued operation of
the American lobster fishery would not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat
for right whales or loggerhead sea turtles. An incidental take statement for loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles was issued along with the Opinion exempting a level of annual take for
the Lobster FMP. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and accompanying Terms and Conditions to
minimize the impacts of incidental take were also provided in the ITS.
The confirmation that the right whale population had been in decline since 2010 (Pace et al.
2017) and the mortality of 17 right whales in 2017, including many whales showing signs of
shipstrike and entanglement, caused NMFS to declare an Unusual Mortality Event, which
continues through 2021. Although most of the mortalities occurred in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
three mortalities first seen in U.S. waters exhibited signs of entanglement. As a result of evidence
of a declining population exacerbated by 2017’s high mortalities, in 2018, NMFS reconvened the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to further reduce the risk of large whale
entanglement in buoy lines. As discussed in Section 2.1.3, over 95 percent of buoy lines fished
along the U.S. East Coast in waters not exempt from Plan requirements are fished by the lobster
trap/pot fishery, 93 percent within the Northeast Management Area. For this reason NMFS
focused the scope of the proposed Plan Modifications on developing recommendations for the
Northeast lobster and crab trap/pot fisheries. In addition to reconvening the ALWTRT because
new information about the right whale population is different from that considered and analyzed
in Section 7 Biological Opinions, per an October 17, 2017, ESA 7(a)(2)/7(d) memo issued by
NMFS, consultation has been reinitiated on the federal permitted Atlantic deep sea red crab and
American lobster fisheries as well as other fisheries that use fixed gillnet and trap/pot gear. In
January and February of 2018, four environmental organizations filed two lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of the ESA and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, and the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single case. On April 9,
2020, the Court ruled against NMFS on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment,
364

finding that the 2014 Biological Opinion on the lobster fishery was legally deficient. On August
19, 2020, the Court issued an order on remedy that vacated the 2014 Biological Opinion, but
stayed the vacatur until May 31, 2021, by which date NMFS anticipated issuing a new final
Biological Opinion concluding the consultation that was initiated in 2017 for the federal
American lobster fishery and other federal fisheries.
Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion (Opinion) on May 27, 2021, that considered the
effects of the NMFS’ authorization of ten fishery management plans (FMP), NMFS’ North
Atlantic Right Whale Conservation Framework, and the New England Fishery Management
Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, on ESA-listed species and designated
critical habitat. The ten FMPs considered in the Opinion include the: (1) American lobster; (2)
Atlantic bluefish; (3) Atlantic deep-sea red crab; (4) mackerel/squid/butterfish; (5) monkfish; (6)
Northeast multispecies; (7) Northeast skate complex; (8) spiny dogfish; (9) summer
flounder/scup/black sea bass; and (10) Jonah crab FMPs. The American lobster and Jonah crab
FMPs are permitted and operated through implementing regulations compatible with the
interstate fishery management plans (ISFMP) issued under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACA), the other eight FMPs are issued under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
The 2021 Opinion determined that the proposed action may adversely affect, but is not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of North Atlantic right, fin, sei, or sperm whales; the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (DPS) of loggerhead, leatherback,
Kemp’s ridley, or North Atlantic DPS of green sea turtles; any of the five DPSs of Atlantic
sturgeon; Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic salmon; or giant manta rays. The Opinion also concluded
that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for North
Atlantic right whales, the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, U.S. DPS of
smalltooth sawfish, Johnson’s seagrass, or elkhorn and staghorn corals. An Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) was issued in the Opinion. The ITS includes reasonable and prudent measures
and their implementing terms and conditions, which NMFS determined are necessary or
appropriate to minimize impacts of the incidental take in the fisheries assessed in this Opinion.
In addition to consulting on the fishery management plans that authorize the fisheries managed
under the ALWTRP, consultation on the Plan was reinitiated on May 3, 2021. The consultation
considered the potential impacts of measures in the proposed rule and analyzed in the DEIS on
ESA-listed species. As detailed in Chapter 5, the preferred alternative in the FEIS achieves more
risk reduction than the proposed rule. Consultation on the ALWTRP and proposed amendment
concluded on May 25, 2021, finding that the Plan operates as a mechanism to reduce fisheries
related impacts on Atlantic large whales. It does not authorize any fishery. The effects of federal
fisheries regulated under the Plan are fully considered under section 7 consultations conducted
for the fishery management plans as described above, and incidental take attributed to federal
fisheries is authorized under those consultations. Based on all of the above information, the gear
regulations implemented by the Plan for U.S. fixed gear fisheries will have wholly beneficial
effects to ESA-listed species or their critical habitat. As a result, it was determined that the Plan
is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NMFS
jurisdiction.
365

9.3 Problem Addressed by Plan
Right and fin whales are listed as endangered species under the ESA, and are thus considered
strategic stocks under the MMPA. Until recently, humpback whales were also listed as
endangered. While no longer a strategic stock, they are caught in Category I and II fisheries and
considered in the Plan. The measures that the ALWTRP requires focus on the conservation of
these species, and also benefit minke whales. The current status of these species is summarized
below:
•

Right Whale: The western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is one of the
rarest of all large cetaceans and among the most endangered species in the world. The
most recent population model estimates a population size of 368 in 2019 (Pace 2021).
Pettis et al. (2021) gives an estimate of 356 as of 2020 removing known mortalities since
the latest population estimate used in the report (366). Since 2019 there have been 10
additional documented serious injuries and mortalities. NMFS believes that the stock is
well below the optimum sustainable population, especially given apparent declines in the
population; as such, the stock's PBR level has been set to 0.8 (Pace et al. 2017, Hayes et
al. 2020, Pettis et al. 2021, Pace 2021).

•

Humpback Whale: As noted above, the North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) is no longer listed as an endangered species under the ESA but is still
protected under the MMPA. For the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales, the best
population size is 1,396 and the minimum population size is 1,380 at the end of 2017, and
has established a PBR level of 22 whales per year (Hayes et al. 2020).

•

Fin Whale: NMFS has designated one population of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
as endangered for U.S. waters of the North Atlantic, although researchers debate the
possibility of several distinct subpopulations. NMFS estimates a best population size of
7,418 at the end of 2017, a minimum population size of 6,029, and PBR of 12 (Hayes et
al. 2020)

•

Minke Whale: As previously noted, the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) is not
listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The best estimate of the population of
Canadian east coast minke whales is 24,202 at the end of 2017, with a minimum
population estimate of 18,902 and PBR of 189 (Hayes et al. 2020).

Atlantic large whales are at risk of becoming entangled in fishing gear because the whales feed,
travel, and breed in many of the same ocean areas utilized for commercial fishing. Fishermen
typically leave fishing gear such as gillnets and traps/pots in the water for a discrete period, after
which time the nets/traps/pots are hauled and their catch retrieved. While the gear is in the water,
whales may become entangled in the lines and nets that comprise trap/pot and gillnet fishing
gear. The effects of entanglement can range from no permanent injury to death.
A scarification analysis conducted by the New England Aquarium (Knowlton et al. 2012) found
that juvenile right whales are entangled with greater frequency than adults. Juvenile animals may
366

not have sufficient strength to break free from entangling lines, which can lead to serious injury
and infection resulting from the animal "growing into" the lines.

Figure 9.1: Entanglements that resulted in serious injury or mortality, according to the country of origin or country
where the incident was first sighted. Incidents with prorated injuries and where serious injury was averted by
disentanglement response are included as serious injuries and mortalities. The red line represents the current
potential biological removal for the stock (PBR for minke whales is 189 and not pictured due to scale).

A study of right whale and humpback whale entanglements (Johnson et al. 2005) found that in
cases where the point of gear attachment was known, right whale entanglements frequently (77.4
percent; 24 of 31 entanglement events) involved the mouth, which may indicate that many
entanglements occur while whales are feeding. The study also found that humpback whales are
more commonly reported with entanglements in the tail region (53 percent; 16 of 30
entanglement events), in cases where the point of attachment was known. The number of
entanglements for which gear type can be identified is too small to detect any trends in the type
of gear involved in lethal entanglements. Trap/pot and gillnet gear, however, seem to be the most
common, as in 89 percent of the cases the gear was identified as or consistent with trap/pot or
gillnet gear (Johnson et al. 2005). The study confirmed that buoy lines and floating groundlines
posed risks for large whales but concluded that any type and part of fixed gear is capable of
entangling a whale and several body parts of the whale can be involved.
Figure 9.1 summarizes all known serious injury and mortalities due to entanglement of right,
humpback, fin, and minke whales from 2010 through 2019, the most recent year that data is
available for all species. Humpback whales account for the greatest number of serious injury and
mortalities from entanglements (135), followed by minke whales (104), right whales (61), and
fin whales (17).

9.4 Affected Fisheries
As required by the MMPA, NMFS maintains a List of Fisheries that places each commercial
fishery into one of three categories. Fisheries are categorized according to the level of mortality
and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to that fishery. The categorization
of a fishery in the List of Fisheries determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to
367

certain provisions of the MMPA such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan
requirements. Individuals fishing in Category I or II fisheries must comply with requirements of
any applicable take reduction plan.
Category I fisheries are associated with frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals. These fisheries have a serious injury/mortality rate of 50 percent or more of a stock's
potential biological removal rate. Category II fisheries are associated with occasional incidental
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, and have a serious injury/mortality rate of more
than 1 percent but less than 50 percent of a stock's PBR. Category III fisheries rarely cause
serious injury or mortality to marine mammals. Category III fisheries have a serious
injury/mortality rate of 1 percent or less of a stock's PBR (NOAA 2002).
The List of Fisheries indicates which fisheries NMFS may regulate under the Plan. Specific
fisheries were initially identified for inclusion under the Plan based on documented whale
interactions. In 1996, NMFS announced its intention to regulate the Gulf of Maine, U.S. MidAtlantic lobster trap/pot fishery, U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, New England
multispecies sink-gillnet fishery, and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery (61 FR
40819-40821).
This list has evolved since 1996, reflecting both changes in nomenclature and modification of the
Plan to address additional fisheries. As previously mentioned, NMFS is focusing scope of the
proposed Plan modifications to the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries
given these represent the vast majority of buoy lines in the region where entanglements are
currently of most concern.
The fisheries regulated under the Plan that will be included in this rulemaking and that are
therefore considered in this analysis include northeast American lobster trap/pot fishery and the
Jonah crab trap/pot fishery. Only measures that will be implemented through federal Plan
amendment rulemaking are analyzed; Lobster management and state regulations are not
included.

9.5 Regulatory Alternatives
NMFS has identified three regulatory alternatives for consideration. The first of these
(Alternative 1) is the No Action Alternative, which would make no changes to the Plan. Table
9.1 provides an overview and comparison of the two action alternatives. These alternatives
propose modifications to the Plan that include some combination of the following:
•

Gear Modifications – Both of the action alternatives include area-specific minimum
trawl lengths for lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast Region. The
minimum trawl length specified varies by alternative (see below). Additional provisions
set a maximum number of buoy lines allowed to be set at any one time by the trap/pot
fishery.

•

Seasonal Buoy Line Closures – Both of the action alternatives would prohibit Plan
lobster trap/pot vessels from fishing in designated areas during designated periods (see
368

below).
•

Weak Line – Both of the action alternatives convert a portion of line to “weak rope”,
whether by using full weak line or weak inserts into the line at a particular distance from
the top.

•

Gear Marking – Each of the action alternatives includes revised gear marking
requirements for lobster trap/pot vessels subject to the Plan. All lobster trap/pot vessels in
the Northeast Region will be required to have state specific markings on their buoy line.
The proposed gear marking scheme expands the use of three 12-inch marks per buoy line
in currently exempt waters of New Hampshire and Maine. It further requires an
additional 3-foot mark representing the state of origin near the buoy and an additional
color representative of all northeast trap/pot fisheries. Alternative 3 would further require
the addition of identification tape woven through the core of the line.

As noted, some of the alternatives under consideration would introduce the seasonal closure of
designated areas to lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot buoy lines. Table 9.2 summarizes the basic
parameters of each closure, while Figures 9.2 and 9.3 presents a series of maps illustrating the
location of the areas in which fishing would be restricted. The objective of these provisions is to
reduce the concentration of fishing gear when whales are likely to congregate in the areas
designated for a restricted area, thus reducing the risk of entanglement. Chapter 3 provides
additional detail on the rationale for each restricted area.

369

Table 9.1: A summary of the regulatory elements of the risk reduction alternatives analyzed in the FEIS, arranging the requirements by lobster management area
and geographic region (where appropriate). The dark gray highlighted text represents regulations that will be implemented by a state or through ongoing or
upcoming fishery management practices. OC = Outer Cape
Component

Restricted
Areas

Area

All existing and new
closures become closed to
buoy lines

LMA 1 Restricted Area,
Offshore ME LMA 1/3
border, zones C/D/E
South Island Restricted
Area
Massachusetts Restricted
Area

Line
Reduction

Buoy Line

Massachusetts Restricted
Area North
Georges Basin Restricted
Area
ME exemption line – 3 nm
(5.6 km), Zones A, B, F, G
ME exempt area – 3 nm
(5.6 km), Zones C, D, E
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zone A West**
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zone B
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 6 nm*,
Zones C, D, E, F, G
ME 3 (5.6 km) – 12 nm
(22.2 km), Zone A East**
ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),
Zone A West**
ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),

Alternative 2
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
exemption from fishery management regulations
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of
the bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.

Alternative 3
Allow trap/pot fishing without buoy lines. Will require
exemption from fishery management regulations
requiring buoys and other devices to mark the ends of the
bottom fishing gear. Exemption authorizations will
include conditions to protect right whales such as area
restrictions, vessel speed, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. All restricted areas listed here would
require an exemption. Federal waters in the Outer Cape
LMA would remain closed to all lobster fishing
consistent with the ASMFC lobster FMP.

Oct – Jan

Oct – Feb

Feb – April: Area from Non-preferred A in DEIS.

Feb – May: L-shaped area closed to buoy lines.

Credit for Feb-Apr, state water in MRA have a soft
opening until May 15th, until no more than three whales
remain as confirmed by surveys
Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH
border

Federal extensions of restricted area throughout MRA
and LMA 1/OC state waters unless surveys confirm that
right whales have left the area.
Feb-Apr: Expand MRA north in MA state waters to NH
border

-

Closed to buoy lines May through August.

3 traps/trawl

-

Status quo (2 traps/trawl)

-

8 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 4 traps/trawl per one
buoy line

Line allocations capped at 50 percent of average monthly
lines in federal waters

5 traps/trawl per one buoy line
10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
15 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 8 traps/trawl per
one buoy line
10 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 5 traps/trawl per

370

Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above

Component
Reduction
Continued

Other Line
Reduction
Buoy Weak
Link
Weak Line

Area
Zone B, D, E, F

Alternative 2
one buoy line (status quo in D, E, & F)

ME 6* – 12 nm (22.2 km),
Zone C, G
MA LMA 1, 6* – 12 nm
(22.2 km)
LMA 1 & OC 3 – 12 nm
(5.6 – 22.2 km)
LMA 1 over 12 nm (22.2
km)
LMA 3, north of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, south of 50
fathom line on the south
end of Georges Bank
LMA 3, Georges Basin
Restricted Area
LMA 2
LMA 3

20 traps/trawl per two buoy lines or 10 traps/trawl per
one buoy line

Same as above

15 traps/trawl

Same as above

15 traps/trawl

Same as above

25 traps/trawl

Same as above

Year-round: 45 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

May - August: 45 trap trawls; Year-round increase of
maximum trawl length from 1.5 nm (2.78 km) to 1.75nm
(3.24 km)

Year-round: 35 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)

Same as above

Northeast Region
ME Exempt State Waters
ME exemption line – 3 nm
(5.6 km)
MA State Waters
NH State Waters
RI State Waters
ME Zone A West**, B, C,
D, E; federal waters 3 – 12
nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
ME Zone A East**, F, and
G; federal waters 3 – 12
nm (5.6 – 22.2 km)
MA and NH LMA 1 , OC;
federal waters 3 – 12 nm
(5.6 – 22.2 km)
LMA 1 & OC over 12 nm

Year-round: 50 traps/trawl, increase maximum trawl
length from 1.5 nm (2.78km) to 1.75 nm (3.24 km)
Existing 18% reduction in the number of buoy lines
Existing and anticipated 12% reduction in buoy lines
For all buoy lines incorporating weak line or weak
insertions, remove weak link requirement at surface
system
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line
1 weak insertion 50% down the line
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) in top 75% of line or
full weak line

Alternative 3

Same as above
Retain current weak link/line requirement at surface
system but allow it to be at base of surface system or, as
currently required, at buoy
Full weak rope in the top 75% of both buoy lines
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above

2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Same as above

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

2 weak insertions, at 25% and 50% down line

Same as above

1 weak insertion 33% down the line

Same as above

371

Component

Area
(22.2 km)
LMA 2

Alternative 2
Weak inserts every 60 ft (18.3 m) or full weak line in
top 75% of line

Alternative 3
Same as above

May - August: one weak line to 75% and 20% on other
end. Sep – Apr: two weak “toppers” down to 20%
*Note that the 6 nautical mile line refers to an approximation, described in 50 CFR 229.32 (a)(2)(ii) and a similar approximation of the 50 fathom lines would be
included in the final rule implementing the Preferred Alternative at 50 CFR 229.32 (a)(2)(iv).
**Maine Zone A East is the portion of Zone A that is east of 67°18.00' W and Maine Zone A is west of this longitude.
LMA 3

One buoy line weak year round to 75%

372

Table 9.2: The length and size of the proposed restricted areas included in both alternatives.
Restricted Area
Offshore Maine
Cape Cod Bay
Outer Cape State Waters
Large South Island Restricted Area
Massachusetts Restricted Area North
Offshore Maine
Georges Basin Core Area
Massachusetts Restricted Area
L-shaped South Island Restricted Area

Alternative

Time Period

2
2
2
2
2&3
3
3
3
3

October - January
May, until only 3 whales remain
May, until only 3 whales remain
February - April
Feb – Apr, soft opening into May
October - February
May - August
May, possible early open
February - May

Size
(Square Miles)
967
644
260
5,468
497
967
557
3,069
3,506

Figure 9.2: The lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot buoy line restricted areas proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred)
shaded in light gray. LMAs are delineated by the grey lines. The new South Island Restricted Area is proposed as
closed to trap/pot buoy lines from February through April and the LMA 1 Restricted area is proposed from October
through January. An expansion of the MRA into Massachusetts state waters to the New Hampshire border and
extended in state waters in LMA 1 and the Outer Cape through at least May 15th, with a potential opening if whales
are no longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal restricted areas that would become areas
with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of the Outer Cape LMA.

373

Figure 9.3: The restricted area options proposed in Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) shaded in light gray. The Lshaped South Island Restricted Area from February through April. The LMA 1 Restricted Area is proposed from
October through February. The Georges Basin Restricted Area is proposed from May through August. An expansion
of the MRA into Massachusetts state waters to the New Hampshire border and extended through at least May 15th,
with a potential opening if whales are no longer present, is also included. In dark gray are existing seasonal
restricted areas that would become areas with restrictions to fishing with buoy lines, with the exception of the Outer
Cape LMA.

9.6 Regulatory Impact Review
Baseline for Comparison
The baseline for the economic analysis is the Alternative 1, which requires no action, and the
baseline year is 2017.

Time Horizon
The rule is expected to be published in Oct 2021, and last for six years based on the average time
for a round of rulemaking in the past. Therefore, the stream of costs and benefits would start in
year 2021, and end in year 2026.

Benefit-Cost Framework
374

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is the preferred method for analyzing the consequences of a
regulatory action such as modifying the requirements of the ALWTRP. BCA is a wellestablished procedure for assessing the "best" course or scale of action, where "best" is that
course which maximizes net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs). Because BCA assesses the
value of an activity in net benefit terms, it requires that a single metric, most commonly dollars,
be used to gauge both benefits and costs. The data and economic models necessary to estimate
costs may be difficult or costly to gather and develop, and a comprehensive analysis of the costs
associated with a regulatory action is not always feasible. Nonetheless, the principle is
straightforward, and it is generally possible in practice to develop a monetary estimate of at least
some portion of regulatory costs. This is the case for costs stemming from changes to the
ALWTRP, which would impose additional restrictions on commercial fishing operations.
Assessing the benefits of changes to the ALWTRP in a BCA framework is also straightforward
in principle but much more difficult in practice. To the extent that new regulations would reduce
the risk that whales will suffer serious injury or mortality as a result of entanglement in
commercial fishing gear, they would produce real benefits. Ideally, these benefits would be
measured first by a biological metric, and then by a dollar metric. A biological metric could take
the form of the percentage of risk reduction, the associated expected decrease in extinction risk,
increase in the annual growth of the population, or similar measures. A BCA would then value
these quantified biological benefits in terms of willingness-to-pay, the standard economic
measure of economic value recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB
2003). This would produce a dollar estimate of the benefits of the change in regulations, which
could then be compared directly to the costs. In the case of the ALWTRP, however, the data
required to complete such an analysis are not available. Estimation of the economic benefits
attributable to each of the regulatory alternatives that NMFS is considering would require a more
detailed understanding of the biological impacts of each measure than current models can
provide. It also would require more extensive research than economists have conducted to date
on the relationship between conservation and restoration of these species and associated
economic values.
In the absence of the information required to conduct a full BCA, the discussion that follows
presents qualitative information on the benefits that may stem from improved protection of
endangered whales, coupled with a quantitative indicator of the potential impact of each
alternative. It then presents estimates of the costs attributable to each alternative. As discussed
later in this chapter, the analysis uses this information to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the
regulatory alternatives under consideration. Because the alternatives vary with respect to the
benefits they would achieve, it is not possible to identify a superior option based on costeffectiveness alone. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness figures provide a useful means of
comparing the relative impacts of the regulatory provisions that each alternative incorporates.

Economic Analysis of Alternatives
9.6.4.1

Benefits of Large Whale Protection

Since the suspension of commercial whaling in the United States, there has been no conventional
market for the consumptive use of products derived from whales. While it is difficult to establish
375

the full value of reducing risks to large whales, whale protection and associated increases in
whale populations can be described in terms of two types of benefits: (1) non- consumptive use
benefits; and (2) non-use benefits.
9.6.4.1.1 Non-Consumptive Use Benefits
A variety of recreational activities involve the non-consumptive use of natural resources, either
in a market or non-market context. The opportunity to enjoy one such activity, whale watching,
has fostered the development of the commercial whale watching industry. Although current data
on the industry are lacking, a study by Hoyt (2000) suggests that roughly half of all commercial
whale watching worldwide occurs in the U.S., and that much of this activity is centered in New
England. As shown in Table 9.3, the Hoyt study identified 36 whale watching businesses in New
England, with most operating multiple vessels. Hoyt estimated that over one million individuals
each year take whale watching tours in the region, generating over $30 million in annual revenue
for the industry. Because these figures only apply to permitted and registered operations, the full
scale and economic impact of whale watching activity is likely to be greater.
Another study by Cisneros-Montemayor et al. (2010) suggests that global whale watching
industry would generate over $2.5 billion (2009) in yearly revenue and about 19,000 jobs around
the world. The U.S. and Canadian whale watching industry could create 3,657 jobs yearly from
six marine mammal species within their Exclusive Economic Zones.
Ralph et. al.(2019) from International Monetary Fund point out whales have a multiplier effect of
increasing phytoplankton production wherever they go, and these microscopic creatures not only
contribute at least 50 percent of all oxygen to our atmosphere, they do so by capturing about 37
billion metric tons of CO2, an estimated 40 percent of all CO2 produced. Therefore, enhancing
protection of whales from human-made dangers would deliver multiple benefits to the human
beings as well as the planet. Their conservative estimates put the value of the average great
whale, based on its various activities, at more than $2 million, and easily over $1 trillion for the
current stock of great whales.
Table 9.3: New England whale watching industry
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
TOTAL

Source: Hoyt 2000

Number of
Operations

Number of
Vessels

Annual Ridership

Annual Revenue
(millions $)

14
4
17
1
36

18-24
6-10
30-35
1
55-70

137,500
80,000
1,000,000
12,500
1,230,000

$4.4
$1.9
$24.0
$0.3
$30.6

A special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (O’Connor et al. 2009) pointed
out that whale watchers in the New England area decreased by 3 percent per year from 1998 to
2008 (Table 9.4). This negative annual growth rate was very likely in relation to poor numbers of
whale sightings. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan
376

quotes various reports suggesting a decline of one of the main food sources for fin and humpback
whales was causing the decline in whale sightings. Several studies have linked whale sightings to
concentrations of a small, semi‐pelagic fish called sand lance (NOAA 2008). Although the
number of whale watch operators and passengers decreased from 1998 to 2008, average
passenger fees increased from $25 to $38 resulting in an increase of 14 percent in direct sales to
whale watch operators and an increase of 17 percent in sales in the economy.
Table 9.4: Change in the number of whale watchers and expenditures (Gross Sales) from 1998 to
2008 in New England
Year

Number of Whale
Watchers

Number of
Operators

Direct
Expenditure

Indirect
Expenditure

Total
Expenditure

1998

1,240,000

36

$30,600,000

$76,650,000

$107,250,000

2008

910,071

31

$35,000,000

$91,000,000

$126,000,000

It is not feasible at present to estimate the impact of potential modifications to the Plan on the
values in the whale watching market. Estimation of these impacts would require the ability to
forecast the impact of various management measures on the population of whales, coupled with a
far more detailed understanding of the relationship between an increase in this population and
demand for viewing opportunities. Given the level of activity in the industry, however, it is
reasonable to assume that the benefits associated with additional opportunities to see,
photograph, and otherwise experience whales in their natural environment could be substantial.
9.6.4.1.2 Non-Use Benefits
The protection and restoration of populations of endangered whales may also generate non-use
benefits. Economic research has demonstrated that society places economic value on (relatively)
unique environmental assets, whether or not those assets are ever directly exploited. For
example, society places real (and potentially measurable) economic value on simply knowing
that large whale populations are flourishing in their natural environment (often referred to as
“existence value”) and will be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. Using survey
research methods, economists have developed several studies of non-use values associated with
protection of whales or other marine mammals. Table 9.5 summarizes these studies. In each,
researchers surveyed individuals on their willingness to pay (WTP) for programs that would
maintain or increase marine mammal populations. The most recent of the studies (Wallmo and
Lew 2012) employed a stated preference method to estimate the value of recovering or downlisting eight ESA-listed marine species, including the right whale. Through a survey of 8,476
households, the authors estimated an average WTP (per household per year, for a 10-year period)
of $71.62 for full recovery of the species and $38.79 for recovery sufficient to down-list the
species from “endangered” to “threatened.” While the other studies noted do not focus
specifically on the North Atlantic populations of right, humpback, fin, or minke whales, they do
demonstrate that individuals derive significant economic value from the protection of marine
mammals.
9.6.4.2

Costs of Large Whale Protection

377

9.6.4.2.1 Cost Savings on Disentanglement Effort
In addition to federal and state protective measures, disentanglement efforts have been
extensively applied to large whale conservation after sightings of entangled whales. Despite lifethreatening risks for disentangling team members, it is also extremely time consuming and costly
to conduct consistent monitoring and disentanglement. According to the Center of Coastal
Studies based in Provincetown, Massachusetts, the largest disentanglement team in the
Northeast, the annual cost for the team is about $400,000. There are about ten similar teams
including both federal, state, and local organizations within the Atlantic Large Whale
Disentanglement Network in the United States, and more efforts from the Canadian counterparts.
Fewer encountering of whales and the fishing gear could potentially save these high costs.
Table 9.5: Studies of non-use value associated with marine mammals
Author
Title

Findings

Lew (2015)

Willingness to Pay for Threatened and
Endangered Marine Species: A Review of the
Literature and rospects for Policy Use

Wallmo and
Lew (2012)

Public Willingness to Pay for Recovering and
Downlisting Threatened and Endangered
Marine Species

Giraud et al.
(2002)

Economic Benefit of the Protection of the
Steller Sea Lion

Loomis and
Larson (1994)

Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray
Whale Populations: ResultsFrom a Contingent
Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households

Samples and
Hoyller (1990)

Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources in
the Presence of Substitutes and Complements

Samples et al.
(1986)

Information Disclosure and Endangered
Species Valuation

Per-household mean WTP annually over 10
years for increase in right whale populations
estimated to be $71.62 (for recovery) and
$38.79 (for down-listing to threatened status)
(2010 dollars).
Estimated WTP for an expanded Steller sea
lion protection program. The average WTP
for the entire nation amounted to roughly $61
per person.
Mean WTP of U.S. households for an increase
in gray whale populations estimated to be
$16.18 for a 50-percent increase and $18.14
for a 100 percent increase.
Respondents’ average WTP (lump sum
payment) to protect humpback whales in
Hawaii ranged from $125 to $142 (1986
dollars).
Estimated individual WTP for protection of
humpback whales of $39.62 per year.

Day (1985),
cited in
Rumage (1990)

The Economic Value of Whalewatching at
Stellwagen Bank. The Resources and Uses of
Stellwagen Bank

Non-use value of the presence of whales in
the Massachusetts Bays system estimated to
be $24 million.

Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit
Valuations in a Multi-Species Ecosystem

Per-household WTP for Gray and Blue
Whales, Bottlenose Dolphins, California Sea
Otters, and Northern Elephant Seals estimated
to be $23.95, $17.73, $20.75, and $18.29 per
year, respectively (1984 dollars).

Hageman
(1985)

Comprehensive literature review on the
methods and case studies on WTP for
threatened and endangered marine species.

9.6.4.2.2 Relative Ranking of Alternatives
As noted above, it is not feasible at present to estimate the economic benefits attributable to each
of the regulatory alternatives that NMFS is considering. It is possible, however, to develop a
relative ranking of the alternatives with respect to potential benefits, based on the estimated
378

impact of each alternative on the potential for whales to become entangled in commercial fishing
gear.
The biological impacts analysis presented in Chapter 5 relies primarily on NMFS’ Vertical Line
Model to examine how the regulatory alternatives might reduce the possibility of interactions
between whales and fishing gear. As discussed in that chapter, the model integrates information
on fishing activity, gear configurations, and whale sightings to provide indicators of the potential
for entanglements to occur at various locations and at different points in time. The fundamental
measure of entanglement potential is co-occurrence. The co-occurrence value estimated in the
model is an index figure, integrated across the spatial grid, indicating the degree to which whales
and the buoy line employed by the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries
coincide in the waters subject to the ALWTRP. Biological impacts are characterized with respect
to the percentage reduction in the overall co-occurrence indicator each alternative would achieve.
Table 9.6 summarizes the estimated change in co-occurrence under each action alternative
relative to the no action alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative 2 (Preferred), which includes
trawl length requirements, weak rope or weak inserts, and restricted areas, is estimated to yield a
reduction in co-occurrence of approximately 65 percent (54 percent without the MRA credit).
Alternative 3 proposes a 50-percent line cap reduction in federal waters, seasonal trawl length
requirements, more extensive weak rope, and restricted areas, yielding a 60 percent reduction in
co-occurrence. Though Alternative 3 reaches a high reduction score, the compliance costs of
large restricted areas and line reduction measures are higher compared to Alternative 2.
Table 9.6: Annual Change in Co-Occurrence between right whales and buoy lines in the Northeast
Region
Percent Reduction
in Co-Occurrence

Alternative
Alternative 1 (No Action)

0

Alternative 2 (with MRA credit)

65

Alternative 2 (without MRA credit)

54

Alternative 3

60

The costs attributable to the introduction of new regulations on the fisheries subject to the Plan
would be borne primarily by commercial fishermen, particularly those in the lobster fishery. This
fishery includes thousands of licensed participants, none of whom account for a substantial share
of the market. As a result, those in the harvest sector lack the ability to raise prices to cover any
increase in their operating costs; the price they receive for their landed catch is dictated by
market conditions, which can vary considerably from season to season. Thus, the costs of
complying with new regulatory requirements are likely to be reflected in changes in fishing
behavior or reductions in fishing effort.
The economic impact analysis developed for this document provides detailed estimates of the
compliance costs associated with potential changes to the ALWTRP. The analysis estimates
compliance costs for model vessels and extrapolates from these findings to estimate the overall
379

cost to the commercial fishing industry of complying with the regulatory changes under
consideration. The analysis measures the cost of complying with new requirements relative to the
status quo − i.e., a baseline scenario that assumes no change in existing Plan requirements. Thus,
all estimates of compliance costs are incremental to those already incurred in complying with the
ALWTRP. All costs are presented on an annualized basis and reported in 2020 dollars where
annualized costs reflect initial and replacement costs over time. The calculation of annualized
costs is based on a discount rate of 7 percent, consistent with current OMB guidelines. We also
use a discount rate of 3 percent to test the sensitivity of the analysis. The timeline for the
rulemaking is assumed to be six years, which has been the interval between Plan modifications.
The discussion that follows summarizes the estimated cost of complying with each of the
regulatory alternatives that NMFS is considering. Additional detail on the methods and results of
the economic impact analysis can be found in Chapter 6.
9.6.4.2.3 Compliance Cost Estimation Methods
As discussed above, Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 propose modifications to the ALWTRP that
include some combination of trawling requirements, weak rope, the seasonal restricted areas, and
gear marking requirements. The methods employed to estimate the costs attributable to these
requirements are described below.
9.6.4.2.3.1 Trawling Requirements
A major component of Alternative 2 is a minimum trawl length requirement – i.e., prohibiting
trawls of less than a specified number of traps or pots – for lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot
fisheries in the Northeast Region. The exact nature of this requirement varies by alternative and
location. The costs that fishermen are likely to incur in complying with such requirements are
primarily composed of gear conversion costs and landed catch impacts.
Vessels fishing fewer traps/trawl configurations (e.g., singles, doubles) would need to
reconfigure their gear to comply with trawling requirements. These changes may require
expenditures on new equipment as well as investments of fishermen’s time. Analysis of the
economic impact of the trawling requirements entails comparing the baseline configuration of
gear assigned to model vessels in NMFS’ Vertical Line Model with the minimum trawl length
that would be required under each regulatory alternative. The analysis identifies instances in
which the reconfiguration of gear would be required, estimates the material and labor necessary
to bring all gear into compliance, and calculates the resulting cost. Equipment costs are a
function of the quantity of gear to be converted and the unit cost of the materials needed to
satisfy the trawling requirement. Labor costs are a function of the time required to implement a
specific modification, the quantity of gear to be converted, and the implicit labor rate. All costs
are calculated on an incremental basis, taking into account any savings in material or labor costs
that might result from efforts to comply with new ALWTRP regulations.
In addition to the direct cost of gear conversion, catch rates (in these analyses referring to the
catch brought back to port and sold, also known as landed catch or landings) may decline for
vessels that are required to convert from shorter sets to longer trawls, reducing the revenues of
affected operations. To estimate impacts in the lower bound, the analysis assumes that vessels
380

implementing a major increase in trawl length (an increase of a factor of three or more in the
number of traps in each set) would experience a 5-percent reduction in their annual catch. In the
upper bound, the analysis assumes that these vessels would experience a 10 percent reduction in
catch. Vessels with an increase of less than three traps per trawl would experience a 0-5 percent
catch reduction for lower and upper bound estimates. The resulting impact on each vessel’s
annual revenues is based on prevailing ex-vessel prices for lobster.
9.6.4.2.3.2 Weak Rope Requirements
All vessels in federally regulated Northeast waters are required to comply with weak rope
requirements. Some state waters have their own regulations and some mirror the federal
regulation. To comply with the new weak rope requirement, vessels in different areas need to
add one or more weak insertions into their buoy lines, or replace their entire line with weak line
if they are stronger than 1,700 lb (771 kg) strength.
Alternative 2 requires areas except for LMA 3 to insert weak points into the original ropes to
make them weak. LMA 3 gears are required to have 75 percent of one buoy line to be fully
engineered weak rope. In Alternative 3, all areas but LMA 3 are required to have both buoy lines
to be 75 percent weak, and LMA 3 to have one buoy line 75 percent weak during May to August
and the other buoy line 20 percent weak year round.
The cost of weak rope consists of material and labor cost. The South Shore sleeve is the most
widely available weak insert available for purchase. The sleeve costs $2 a piece and five minutes
to install. The labor rate is the same as calculated in trawling requirements. Fully engineered
weak rope is not available in the market right now, but a price quote from a gear manufacturer
was used for this analysis.
9.6.4.2.3.3 Seasonal Buoy Line Closure Requirements
The analysis of the costs associated with the seasonal restricted areas begins by using the
Vertical Line Model to estimate the number and type of vessels ordinarily active in each area
during the proposed restricted area period. Depending on the location of the restricted area,
fishermen could react in two ways: they may relocate their traps outside the restricted area if they
have an available permit and their vessels allow them to do so; or they may remove buoy lines
from the area by either fishing ropelessly or suspending fishing if their permit or vessel
characteristics would not allow them to move to an alternative location to set their gear. For
relocated vessels, we calculate the change in travel related costs, which could be an extra fuel
cost or some savings on fuel cost, depending on feasible relocation areas. We also assume a 5-10
percent catch reduction because fishermen have to move out from their preferred fishing
grounds. This takes into account possible saturation effects associated with setting gear in areas
they do not normally fish and/or areas that are already being fished by other vessels. To evaluate
removal of buoy lines, we calculated the cost of suspending fishing including both forgone
fishing revenue and saved operating costs. The cost of ropeless fishing, which could provide
access to buoy line closure areas, was not estimated. The technology as currently available costs
a minimum of $5,000 per buoy line. Fishing fixed gear without buoy lines would require
exemptions under other fishery management regulations. Unless purchase of ropeless gear is
subsidized and until surface system requirements are modified to allow fishing without an
381

exempted fishing permit, ropeless fishing is likely to occur on a very low scale by fishermen
interested in improving the technology under commercial fishing conditions.
9.6.4.2.3.4 Gear Marking Requirements
The proposed action would implement additional gear marking requirements compared to no
action. Under Alternative 2 (Preferred), NMFS would mirror the Maine state regulations for all
non-exempted waters, and would implement analogous marking for the other New England
states. In state waters, the gear marking requirement would include one state-specific 3-foot
(91cm) colored mark within 2 fathoms (3.7 m) of the buoy and at least two additional 1-foot (30
cm) marks in the top and bottom half of the gear. In federal waters, in addition to the top 3-foot
(91 cm) mark, an additional green 1-foot (30 cm) mark would be required in the top 2 fathoms
(3.7 m) of line, and at least three 1-foot (30 cm) marks would be required in the top, middle, and
bottom of the buoy line below the surface system. Within 6 inches of each 1-foot state-colored
mark, another 1-foot green mark would also be required to distinguish lines in federal waters
from state waters. This Alternative would continue to allow multiple methods for marking line
below the surface system (paint, tape, rope twine inserts, etc), with highly visible paint required
for the 3-foot mark in the surface system. Under Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) the 3-foot (91 cm)
state-specific color would be marked on the buoy line within two fathoms (3.7 m) of the buoy, as
in the Preferred, but the entire line would also have to be replaced with a line woven with
identification tape with the home state and fishery (for example Maine, lobster/crab trap/pot)
repeated in writing along the length of the buoy line.
ID tape ropes are not available at this time. Suppliers that have produced it in small batches
could not provide an estimate of the price range. On a conservative basis, here we assume that
cost of ID tape rope will be twice as much as conventional rope, which costs $0.11 per foot for
3/8-inch (0.95 cm) diameter rope and $0.26 per foot for 3/4-inch (1.9 cm) diameter rope. Table
6.20 describes the gear marking cost for Alternative 2 and 3.
9.6.4.2.4 Compliance Costs
As noted in Chapter 6, the economic analysis is designed to measure regulatory compliance costs
on an incremental basis i.e., to measure the change in costs associated with a change in
regulatory requirements. If no change in regulatory requirements is imposed as would be the case
under Alternative 1 the economic burden attributable to the ALWTRP would be unaffected.
Thus, Alternative 1 would impose no additional costs on the regulated community.
The present value and annualized value of cost changes in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are
presented in Table 9.7. In general, the largest cost changes originate from the assumed catch
impacts associated with the gear configuration change. If using 7 percent discount rate, in
Alternative 2, trawling up measures were estimated to cost between $2.5 million and $8.3
million per year. Under Alternative 3, a 50-percent buoy line reduction would cost $5.5 million
to $14.4 million per year.
Weak rope requirements cost $0.5 million per year in Alternative 2, but cost around $2.2 million
per year in Alternative 3 because fully engineered weak ropes are required for most buoy lines.
Alternative 2 gear marking measures would cost $5.8 million to $7.8 million per year, while ID
382

taped rope required in Alternative 3 cost $18.2 million per year. The compliance costs of the
Alternative 2 restricted areas range from $1.6 million to $2.5 million. Restricted areas in
Alternative 3 cost $3.7 million to $5.1 million per year for fishermen due to the large coverage
and extended time period.
The total annualized cost of all proposed measures for Alternative 2 including gear marking,
weak rope, restricted area, and gear conversion costs range from $10.5 million to $19.1 million,
much lower than the Alternative 3, which range from $29.6 million to $40 million.
9.6.4.2.4.1 Transfers
There are no benefits or costs transferred to other fisheries as a result of this rule.
9.6.4.2.4.2 Uncertainties
A few assumption are made for this analysis. The first one is the effective time for the new rules
would be six years. This assumption could affect the distribution of compliance costs as well as
total value and annualized value.
Another key assumption is the catch reduction caused by trawl length. We assume the catch
reduction impact is likely to decrease in magnitude after six years. Although no available data
have shown a definitive relationship between trawl length and catch rate, an analysis by NEFSC
lobster stock assessment group suggests that gear configuration change may lead to change in
fishing effectiveness and efforts and then cause landing reduction. However, this is a dynamic
process: landings drop in the first year that effort reductions are implemented, and then increase
after a few years when fishermen adapt to the new regulations, reaching baseline landings
between five and seven years after implementation and exceeding baseline catch in subsequent
years.
VTR data have been used extensively in the calculation of catch per trap and trip percentage
during the closed period. We are aware of that VTR are self-reported data and the catch and
location data are limited in accuracy and variation for some vessels. However, the geographic
information and gear configuration data could not be found in any other data sources consistently
for trap and pot fisheries. In addition, the data quality has been largely improved in recent years
due to the use of new technology like electronic reporting. Therefore, we decided to use the
recent years’ data after carefully reviewing and the removal of outliers. (See Appendix 6.2 for
documentation)
It is also important to note that the analysis of the revenue losses associated with suspending
fishing assumes that fishermen lose all the catch they would ordinarily harvest during the
restricted period. The loss in landings may actually be less, depending on lobster movements and
behavior. Specifically, some of the lobsters not caught during the restricted area may simply be
harvested once the closed area is reopened (i.e., catch rates may be higher than normal following
the restricted area). To the extent that this occurs, the analysis may overstate the economic losses
associated with suspending fishing.

383

As previously noted, the inability to quantify and value the benefits of potential changes to the
ALWTRP prohibits the use of BCA to identify the regulatory alternative that would provide the
greatest net benefit. Instead, Table 9.7 summarizes the estimated cost of complying with each
regulatory alternative, coupled with the estimated impact of each alternative on the Vertical Line
Model’s co-occurrence indicator.
9.6.4.2.4.3 Results
As taken from the Executive Order, the purpose of Executive Order 12866 is to enhance
planning and coordination with respect to new and existing regulations. This E.O. requires the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review regulatory programs that are considered to
be “significant.” E.O. 12866 requires a review of proposed regulations to determine whether or
not the expected effects would be significant, where a significant action is any regulatory action
that may:
• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, priorities of the
President, of the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, include the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits
shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be
usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify,
but nevertheless essential to consider.
As described in this section, from an economic perspective, the proposed action does not have an
effect on the economy of $100 million, however it does adversely affect fishermen and fishing
businesses, and their ports and can be considered to raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of MMPA mandates. As such, the Proposed Action is considered significant as defined by EO
12866 and has undergone OMB review. NMFS has considered the cost information presented
above and believes that Alternative 2 (Preferred) offers the best option for achieving compliance
with MMPA and ESA requirements. In addition, Alternative 2 (Preferred) provides most of the
benefits that would be achieved under more stringent alternatives, sacrificing only the relatively
costly additional reduction in co-occurrence that would be achieved by extending the South
Island Restricted Area into May. Based on these considerations, NMFS has identified Alternative
2 (Preferred) as its proposed approach to achieving the goals of the ALWTRP.

384

Table 9.7: Summary of Annualized Value and Present Value of Compliance Costs by Alternatives (2020 U.S. dollars, in millions)
Gear
Marking
Lower

Gear
Marking
Upper

Weak
Rope

Trawling
up Lower

Trawling
up Upper

Restricte
d Area
Lower

Restricte
d Area
Upper

Line Cap
Lower

Line Cap
Upper

Total
Lower

Total
Upper

27.8

37.1

2.2

12.1

39.8

7.8

12.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

91.1

3%

5.1

6.8

0.4

2.2

7.3

1.4

2.2

0.0

0.0

9.2

16.8

Alt 2 AV
Alt 3
Total
Alt 3 AV

7%

5.8

7.8

0.5

2.5

8.3

1.6

2.5

0.0

0.0

10.5

19.1

86.8

0.0

10.6

3.1

7.4

17.8

24.5

23.0

61.3

141.3

190.5

3%

16.0

0.0

2.0

0.6

1.4

3.3

4.5

4.2

11.3

26.1

35.2

Alt 3 AV

7%

18.2

0.0

2.2

0.6

1.5

3.7

5.1

4.8

12.9

29.6

40.0

Discount
Rate
Alt 2
Total
Alt 2 AV

Notes:
1. Total values are in 2020 dollars, representing net present value of year 1 to year 6, in 2020 dollars.
3. AV represents annualized value of the net present value. It is an equalized yearly cost during the 6-year time period with 3% and 7% discount rate.

385

9.7 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to reduce the impacts of burdensome
regulations and recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. To achieve this goal, the RFA
requires federal agencies to describe and analyze the effects of proposed regulations, and
possible alternatives, on small entities. Ultimately, the goal of the RFA analysis is to understand
to what extent the action induces significant economic impacts on small entities. To this end, this
document contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared under §604 of the
RFA, which includes an assessment of the effects that the proposed action and other alternatives
are expected to have on small entities.

Basis For and Purpose of the Rule
9.7.1.1

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule

Requirements of the Action, including an estimate of the classes of small entities, will be subject
to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the required reporting and
record keeping requirements.
This Final Rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), specifically the marking of fishing gear.
This rule changes the existing requirements for the collection of information 0648-0364 by
modifying gear marking for all buoy lines with the exemption of those fishing in Maine
exempted waters in the Northeast Region Trap/Pot Management Area. As described in this
preamble, mark colors will be changed for vessels identifying principal ports from Maine
through Rhode Island to state-specific marks. Under the new marking scheme, a large 3-foot (91
cm) mark would be required within the top 2 fathoms (3.7 m) of the buoy in state and federal
waters. Within state waters, at least two additional 12-inch (30.5 cm) marks would be required in
the top and bottom of the main buoy line. In federal waters, at least three 12-inch (30.5 cm)
marks would be required at the top, middle, and bottom of the main buoy line. In federal waters,
an additional 12-inch (30.5 cm) green mark is required within 6 inches (15.3 cm) of each state
specific mark (at least four in total, including the large mark in the surface system and at least
three marks in the main buoy line). Each color mark must be permanently affixed on or along the
line, and each color mark must be clearly visible when the gear is hauled or removed from the
water. Paint and tape will be required for the surface system marks, and the commonly used
colored ties and twine can be used within the main buoy lines. The changes from current gear
marking include: The state color, the addition of a surface system mark, one less mark required
in the main buoy line in state waters, and four additional marks required to distinguish federal
waters. While Maine fishermen in non-exempt state waters have already marked their gear under
Maine regulations, we include the costs of that effort in our calculation in response to comments
that noted that the Maine regulations were implemented in anticipation of this rule. Additionally,
we had previously assumed that about 20 percent of the gear marks were reapplied each year, but
new information suggests they are applied annually. Using these assumptions, the public
reporting burden for the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab gear marking requirements are
estimated to affect 3,970 vessels that need to remark an average of 389 marks each year. Each
386

mark takes approximately 6.7 to 8.6 minutes to apply, depending on the size of the mark and
method used. Applying the annual hourly wage rate for fishermen of $26.5 results in a total
estimated annual wage burden cost of $4.5 to 5.9 million dollars. Approximately 3,086 of the
total entities, as described in Section 9.7.3, are considered small entities that would be impacted
during this rulemaking. This Final Rule includes conservation equivalencies that aim to
minimize the impact of the measures on small entities.
We invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing
information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and
recommendations for this information collection should be submitted at the following website
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the
search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 06480364.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
9.7.1.2

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rule

No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules have been identified.

Changes from Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
9.7.2.1

Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the IRFA and
Summary of the assessment of the agency of such issue

The Final Rule analyzed within this FRFA benefitted from substantial input from the public.
NMFS’ scoping and public outreach efforts are fully described in Section 1.5 of the FEIS
prepared for this rulemaking. In addition to NMFS’ efforts, gear configuration changes within
the rule are largely informed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources and Massachusetts
Department of Marine Fisheries proposals, as well as the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. These states also conducted substantial outreach with fishermen
through local management councils and fishery associations.
After publication of the proposed rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we received
over 1,100 unique submissions and many submissions generated by non-governmental
organization campaigns including some submissions with multiple signatures representing over
200,000 people. Many commenters including general public, fishermen, fishing industry
representatives and state and federal regulators and legislators expressed concern that this rule
would cause them extreme economic hardship, with some stating that this rule would put them
out of business. Many commenters expressed concerns about the effects of this rule on the
economic health of their communities, the supply chain, and on the state of Maine. Some of
these commenters suggested that subsidies to fishermen should be provided to assist fishermen
387

impacted by this rulemaking. Appendix 1.1 of the FEIS lists these comments under Section 2
Economics and all received comments are represented in Appendix 3 of the FEIS.
Given the vast amount of industry input into the development of weak insertions, which would
not require fishermen to replace buoy lines, and trawling up measures, many gear modifications
implemented in the Final Rule were to control costs. However, the economic analysis in Chapter
6 indicates the cost of this rulemaking is up to $19.2 million for the first year, which is 3 percent
of the landings value of the lobster fishery in 2019.
NOAA reprogrammed some funds to support fishermen in complying with gear modification
changes, but at this time funds have not been appropriated by Congress or further reprogrammed
to reimburse fishermen. In December 2019, $1.6 million in federal funds were reprogrammed
from National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service Procurement, Acquisition
and Construction funds to support recovery actions for the right whale in the lobster/Jonah crab
fishery. The funds were made available to fishermen through our partnership with the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The funds were obligated to the
Commission to collaborate with Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to
assist the lobster/Jonah crab fishery in adapting to and comply with the measures in this Final
Rule and help to defray costs to support affected fishermen broadly.
9.7.2.2

Changes Made in the Rrule as a Result of Comments

Major changes in the proposed rule include conservation equivalencies in Maine LMA 1 waters,
LMA 2 waters and LMA 3 waters to mitigate the potential economic costs caused by the
regulation.
Where risk reduction benefits were sufficient, conservation equivalencies requested through
public comments on the DEIS and proposed rule to mitigate operational and safety concerts were
accepted and are included in this final rule. These include conservation equivalencies in Maine
LMA 1 waters, LMA 2 and LMA 3. To enable the Maine LMA 1 conservation equivalencies,
this rule also modifies regulations implementing the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act at 50 CFR 697.21(b)2), increasing the maximum number of traps on a trawl
with a single buoy lines from three to ten in some Maine Zones. This would allow vessel
operators to trawl up to a 20-trap trawl or to use two ten trap trawls with one buoy line.
Additional changes made to accommodate conservation equivalency measures offered by the
Maine Department of Marine Resources and supported by commenters from the Maine fishing
industry, including modifications to the number of traps on a trawl or the number of weak
insertions based on Maine fishery zones and distance from shore out to 12 nm (22.2 km). This
rule also implements conservation equivalency recommendations submitted by Rhode Island and
supported by Rhode Island fishermen, modifying the LMA 2 measures with more expansive
weak insert requirements throughout the LMA rather than trawling up requirements that
challenged the capacity of some Rhode Island vessels. Additionally, this rule implements some
of the conservation equivalency recommendations submitted by the Atlantic Offshore
Lobstermen’s Association as public comments on the DEIS and Proposed Rule for LMA 3. F
This rule implements three management areas in LMA 3 with three different trawling up
requirements, requiring more traps/trawl in the Georges Basin area where there is more risk to
right whales. This increase in number of traps per trawl off of Georges Basin was offset by a
388

lower number of traps required with in the Northeast Regions south of the 50 fathom depth
contour on the south end of Georges Bank.
All these conservation equivalencies were created with input from fishermen from these areas,
informed by their knowledge of measures that would best fit their economic, operational or
safety needs. For LMA 2 vessels, the weak rope alternative implemented has less impact on
catch and landings and therefore could have a lower economic impact compared to the LMA 2
measures analyzed in the IRFA..
This rule also modifies existing seasonal restricted areas that were closed to lobster and Jonah
crab trap/pot fishing to allow ropeless fishing with exempted fishing permits (EFP). Under a
revised restricted area definition, trap/pot fishermen could fish with trap/pot gear using
“ropeless” methods, although an EFP would be required to exempt fishermen from surface
marking requirements under other laws. Since 2018, NOAA has invested a substantial amount of
funding in the industry's development of ropeless gear, in specific geographic areas and in
general. We anticipate that these efforts to facilitate and support the industry's development of
ropeless gear would continue, pending appropriations, and would be essential to defray costs for
early adopters.

Summary of the Action
Table 9.1 lists the details of the Final Rule applied to lobster and Jonah crab fisheries in the
Northeast Region. The Final Rule would increase the number of traps per trawl based on area
fished and miles fished from shore in the Northeast Region. Trawling up regulations in all
coastal regions would be managed based on distance from shore, primarily outside of exempt or
state waters. In the Final Rule, existing restricted areas would be modified to be closed to fishing
with persistent buoy lines. Massachusetts Restricted Area would be expanded into Massachusetts
state waters north to the New Hampshire border from February through April in both state
regulations and the Final Rule. Additionally, all state waters within the Massachusetts Restricted
Area would be closed by Massachusetts until May 15th unless surveys demonstrate that whales
have left the area. Two new seasonal restricted areas would be created that would allow fishing
without the use of persistent buoy lines: one in LMA 1 from October through January and one
south of Cape Cod from February through April. Fishing without the use of persistent buoy lines
would be allowed during these seasons, outside of Cape Cod Bay and the Outer Cape Cod
Lobster Management area. Measures also include conversion of a vertical buoy line to weak
rope, or insertions in buoy lines of weaker rope or other weak inserts, with a maximum breaking
strength of 1,700 lb (771.1 kg). The Final Rule also includes more robust gear marking
requirements that differentiate buoy lines by state, includes unique marks for federal waters, and
expands into areas previously exempt from gear marking.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which the
Rule Applies
The RFA requires agencies to assure that decision makers consider disproportionate and/or
significant adverse economic impacts of their proposed regulations on small entities. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis determines whether the proposed action would have a
389

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This section provides an
assessment and discussion of the potential economic impacts of the proposed action, as required
of the RFA.
Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines affiliation as: Affiliation may arise among two or
more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially
identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with
common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other
relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)).
These principles of affiliation allow for consideration of shared interest that does not necessarily
require common ownership. However, data are not available to ascertain non-ownership interest
so we use an affiliated 24 vessel database created by the Social Sciences Branch (SSB) of NEFSC.
There are three major components of this dataset: vessel affiliation information, landing values
by species, and vessel permits. All federal permitted vessels in the Northeast Region from 2017
to 2019 are included in this dataset. Vessels are affiliated into entities according to common
owners. The entity definition used by the SSB uses only unique combinations of owners.
The total number of directly regulated entities is based on permits held. Since this proposed
regulation applies only to the pot/trap lobster businesses 25 in LMA 1, LMA 2, LMA 3, and OCC,
only entities that possess one or more of these permits are evaluated. Then for each affiliation,
the revenues from all member vessels of the entity are summed into affiliation revenue in each
year. On December 29, 2015, the NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the
commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only. The $11
million standard became effective on July 1, 2016. Thus, the RFA defines a small business in the
lobster fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11
million annually. Based on this size standard, the three-year average (2017-2019) affiliation
revenue is greater than $11 million, the fishing business is considered a large entity, otherwise it
is a small entity. Then we determine the number of impacted entities by examining the landing
values of lobster. If one or more members of the affiliation landed lobster in 2019, this business
will be considered an impacted entity in our analysis.
Regulated entities in this rulemaking include both entities with federal lobster permits and
lobster vessels that only fish in state managed waters except for the exempted areas in Maine.
Using vessel data from Vertical Line Model developed by the Industrial Economics (see
Appendix 5.1 of FEIS for documentation), we identify 1,913 vessels that fished only in state
waters outside Maine exempted areas. Due to the lack of owner and landing information of these
vessels, we could not provide detailed analysis but have to assume all to be small entities. Using
federal permit data, there are 1,547 distinct entities identified as directly regulated entities in this
action, those that held lobster permits in LMA 1, 2, 3, or OCC, or some combination. So all
together, 3,460 entities are regulated under this action. Table 9.8 displays the details of regulated
entities holding federal permits. Of all 1,547 entities, only two of them are large. Within the
24

We use terms affiliation, fishing business and entity interchangeably in this section.
During the time period of our analysis (2017-2019), no specific permit needed for Jonah crab fishery. Beginning
on December 12, 2019, only vessels that have a federal American lobster trap or non-trap permit may retain Jonah
crabs.
25

390

1,545 small entities, 262 had no earned revenue from fishing activity even though they had a
lobster permit. Because they had no revenue, they would be considered small by default. Among
the 1,283 small entities with fishing revenue, 110 entities had no lobster landings. Therefore,
3,086 small entities would be considered as impacted small entities during this rulemaking. The
average gross annual revenue for small entities with lobster landings was $287,000 in 2019, and
91.5 percent of that is from lobsters. For small entities without lobster landings, their annual
gross revenue was $135,000. The average revenue for all small entities was about $252,000. The
revenue of large entities are not reported here for data confidentiality reasons.
Table 9.8: The number of regulated entities with federal permitted vessels and their lobster
landing value percentage of annual gross revenue in 2019 (in 2020 U.S. $)
Average
Average
Large
Lob%
Small
Lob%
Revenue
Revenue
Entity
Large
Entity
Small
Large
Small
Fishing with Lobster Landing
83.9%
91.5%
2
N/A
1,173
$287,000
Fishing Without Lobster Landing
0
0
N/A
110
0
$135,000
No revenue
Total Entities

0

0

N/A

262

0

0

Total
Entitie
s
1,175
110
262

2
N/A
1,545
$252,000
1,547
Notes: 1. The determination of large or small entity is based on three-year average affiliation revenue from 2017 to
2019. Lobster landing percentage is calculated using only 2019 data.
2. Gross annual average revenue for large entities are not reported here due to confidentiality concern
Source: Social Science Branch vessel affiliation data, 2017-2019

Description and Estimate of Economic Impacts on Small Entities
To calculate the average profitability of small entities and large entities, we need to deduct the
operational costs and fixed costs from the annual gross revenue for each vessel (2017-2019), and
then sum the profits of all vessels in each entity. A vessel by vessel evaluation is not feasible for
this analysis, therefore we adopt the results from a lobster fleet profitability study based on cost
survey data collected by SSB for fishing years 2010, 2011, and 2015 (Zou, Thunberg and Ardini,
2021). The profit was calculated by vessel size class, so we assign the profits to the affiliated
vessel data by matching vessel length. Vessels less than 35 feet (10.7 meters) normally have a
net profit of $38,446 26, vessels between 35 and 45 (10.7 and 13.7 meters) feet have a net profit 27
of $47,404; large vessels between 45 and 55 feet (13.7 and 16.8 meters) have an average profit of
73,063; and vessels above 55 feet (16.8 meters) have a profit of $34,463. The average profit for
small entities is about $53,000, compared to their mean total revenue of $287,000, a profitability
of 18%. Due the small number of large entities, profit and revenue for these entities cannot be
reported for confidentiality concerns. This also means that the economic impacts on large entities
would not be reportable and for this reason the analysis herein is focuses only on economic
impacts of the Final Rule on small entities
Measures implemented in the Final Rule are intended to reduce the probability of mortality and
serious injury of large whales include weak ropes or weak insertions, minimum trawl length
26

All values are in 2020 US dollars.
We use net profit here instead of economic profit. Economic profit takes the opportunity cost of labor and capital
away from the net profit, and end up with negative values for most vessels.

27

391

requirements, and seasonal restricted areas. Changes to gear marking requirements are also
proposed to increase the chance of threat identification. These measures generate a series of
compliance cost for small entities. Additional impacts on profits are estimated due to reduced
revenue caused by catch reduction. In this section, we first identify the gear configuration change
compliance costs year by year. Then we list the potential lost revenue from catch reduction and
fuel cost changes, and finally we estimate the total profitability change for affected small entities.
Using the economic analysis methods identified above, Table 3 displays the gear configuration
change compliance costs for all affected entities from Year 1 to Year 6. Year 0 is the status quo,
so the compliance cost is zero, and we do not include it in the table. Weak rope only generates
costs in Year 1. Trawling up would have cost savings of $3.6 million on surface systems, also
only in Year 1. It will be shown as a negative number in Table 3. Results indicate that fishermen
would have to pay $3.3 to $4.8 million in the first year to comply with the gear configuration
change in the Final Rule, and $4.6 to $6.2 million per year in the subsequent 5 years. In total 6
years, the gear compliance costs could be between $26.5 and $35.7 million. Table 4 shows the
potential lost revenue from catch reduction and fuel consumption change caused by trawling up
and restricted area measures. The total 6-year costs would be from $23.5 to $55.4 million. In
total, the Final Rule would cost small entities about $50 to $91.1 million in 6 years (Table 5). If
applied to roughly 3,086 affected small entities, the first year costs would range between $3,200
and $6,200 per vessel, but would be lower in Years 2-6. The Year 1 costs would result in an
estimated reduction in profit for small entities ranging from 6 percent to 12 percent.
Table 9.9. Yearly compliance costs from gear configuration change (in 2020 U.S. $, millions)
Gear
Gear
Weak
Trawling
Total
Total
Marking Marking
Rope
up
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Year 1
4.6
6.2
2.2
-3.6
3.3
4.8
Year 2
4.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
Year 3
4.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
Year 4
4.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
Year 5
4.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
Year 6
4.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
Total
27.8
37.1
2.2
-3.6
26.5
35.7
Note: 1. The lower and upper bound for gear marking costs is due to different assumptions for marking methods in
federal waters. The lower bound assumes that fishermen use duct tapes and conduct marking at shore, while the
upper bound assumes that fishermen use twines at sea during transiting, which requires higher material costs and
more time.
2. Negative number for trawling up means there is a cost saving from this measure.
Table 9.10. Yearly costs from catch reduction and fuel consumption changes (in 2020 U.S. $,
millions)
Trawling Trawling Restricted Restricted
Total
Total
up
up
Area
Area
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Year 1
5.2
12.4
1.3
2.0
6.5
14.4
Year 2
4.2
11.2
1.3
2.0
5.5
13.2
Year 3
3.1
8.7
1.3
2.0
4.5
10.7
Year 4
2.1
6.2
1.3
2.0
3.4
8.2

392

Trawling Trawling Restricted Restricted
Total
Total
up
up
Area
Area
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Year 5
1.0
3.7
1.3
2.0
2.4
5.7
Year 6
0.0
1.2
1.3
2.0
1.3
3.2
Total
15.7
43.4
7.8
12.0
23.5
55.4
Note: 1. The lower and upper bound costs for trawling up come from an assumption that vessels adding less than
three traps would have a 0 to 5 percent catch reduction, and vessels adding three or more traps would have a 5 to 10
percent catch reduction.
2. The lower and upper bound costs for restricted areas come from an assumption that relocating vessels would have
a 5 to 10 percent catch reduction.
Table 9.11: Yearly total cost and profitability change (In 2020 U.S. $, millions)
Total
Total
Profitability
Profitability
Costs
Costs
Change
Change
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Year 1
9.8
19.2
6%
12%
Year 2
10.1
19.3
7%
13%
Year 3
9.1
16.9
6%
11%
Year 4
8.0
14.4
5%
9%
Year 5
7.0
11.9
5%
8%
Year 6
5.9
9.4
4%
6%
Total
50.0
91.1

Uncertainties in the economic analysis
Regulated entities in this rulemaking include both entities with federal lobster permits and
lobster vessels that only fish in state managed waters except for the exempted areas in Maine.
Using vessel data from Vertical Line Model, we identify an additional 1,913 vessels that fished
only in state waters outside Maine exempted areas. Due to the lack of owner and landing
information of these vessels, we could not provide detailed analysis but have to assume all to be
small entities.
For purpose of analysis the duration of the Final Rule was assumed to be six years based on the
average time between ALWTRP rules in the past. With an anticipated implementation starting in
2021 the expected costs to regulated small entities would accrue through 2026. If the Final Rule
remains unchanged the annual costs similar to that estimated for year 6 would be expected to
continue.
Some caveats in economic analysis include:
1. In the analysis of gear conversion costs, there are a few assumptions: (1) the specific baseline
configurations and gear elements used in each fishing area; (2) the cost and useful life of
various gear elements; (3) the amount of labor needed to convert short sets to longer trawls;
and (4) the implicit value of fishermen’s time. There are uncertainties associated with each of
these assumptions, but the overall direction of any potential bias in the resulting estimates of
gear conversion costs is unclear.
393

2. For the catch impact of restricted areas, VTR data have been used extensively in the
calculation of catch per trap and trip percentage during the restricted period. We are aware
that VTR are self-reported data and the catch and location data are limited in accuracy and
variation for some vessels. However, the geographic information and gear configuration data
could not be found in any other data sources consistently for trap and pot fisheries. In
addition, the data quality has been largely improved in recent years due to the use of new
technology like electronic reporting. Therefore, we decided to use the recent years’ data after
carefully reviewing and the removal of outliers.
3. In the analysis of the revenue losses associated with suspending fishing, we assume that
fishermen lose all the catch they would ordinarily harvest during the restricted period. The
loss in landings may actually be less, depending on lobster movements and behavior.
Specifically, some of the lobsters not caught during the closure may simply be harvested
once the closed area is reopened (i.e., catch rates may be higher than normal following the
restricted area). To the extent that this occurs, the analysis may overstate the economic losses
associated with suspending fishing.

9.8 References
Chami, R., Cosimano, T., Fullenkamp, C., & Oztosun, S. (2019) Nature's solution to climate
change. Finance and Development Magazine. 34– 38.
Giraud, Kelly, Branka Turkin, John Loomis, and Joseph Cooper, Economic Benefit of the
Protection Program for the Steller Sea Lion, Marine Policy 26(6):452-458, 2002.
Hageman, R., Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuations in a Multi-Species
Ecosystem, Administrative Report LJ-85-22, Southwest Fisheries Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, CA, 1985.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2019. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NE-258, NEFSC, NMFS, NOAA, DOC, Woods Hole, MA.
Hayes, S. A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2020. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2019. Page 479. Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Henry, A. G., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, and T. V. Cole. 2020. Serious Injury
and Mortality Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United
States East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2013-2017. Page 59. Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Hoyt, E., Whale Watching 2000: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures, and Expanding
Socioeconomic Benefits : a Special Report from the International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Internation Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA, 2000.
Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005.
Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal
Science 21:635-645.
394

Knowlton, A., P. Hamilton, M. Marx, H. Pettis, and S. Kraus. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic
right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 466:293-302.
Lew DK,2015, Willingness to pay for threatened and endangered marine species: a review of the
literature and prospects for policy use. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:96. doi:
10.3389/fmars.2015.00096
Loomis, J. and D. Larson, "Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray Whale Populations:
Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households," Marine
Resource Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 275-286, 1994.
NMFS 2014. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation
of Management Measures for the American Lobster Fishery.
NOAA , 2008. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan / Draft
Environmental Assessment, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD
O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., & Knowles, T., 2009, Whale Watching Worldwide:
tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report from
the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth MA, USA, prepared by
Economists at Large. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003.Circular A-4 of
Executive Order12866. 68 FR 58366.
Pace, R. M., 3rd, P. J. Corkeron, and S. D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-recapture estimates
reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and
Evolution 7:8730-8741.
Pace, RM. 2021. Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model:
improvements for hypothesis testing. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE 269.
Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M. III, Hamilton, P.K. 2021. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020
Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium.
Rumage, W.T., 1990. The economic value of whale watching at Stellwagen Bank, in The
Resources and Uses of Stellwagen Bank. Part II, Proceedings of the Stellwagen Bank
Conference, April 26-27, 1990, University of Massachusetts at Boston.
Samples, K. C., and Hollyer, J. R., 1990. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the
presence of substitutes and complements, Economic Valuation of Natural
Resources.Issues, Theory, and Applications, Chapter 11, eds R. Johnson and G. Johnson
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 177–192.
Samples, Karl C., John A. Dixon, and Marcia M. Gowen, 1986. Information Disclosure and
Endangered Species Valuation, Land Economics, 62:3:306-312.
Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. K. 2012. Public values for recovering and downlisting threatened and
endangered marine species. Conserv. Biol. 26, 830–839. doi: 10.1111/j.15231739.2012.01899.x
Zou C, Thunberg E, Ardini G. 2021. Economic profile for American lobster (Homarus
Americanus) fleets in the Northeastern United States. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish
Sci Cent Ref Doc. 21-03; 24 p.

395

CHAPTER 10 APPLICABLE LAWS
10.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Including Essential Fish Habitat
The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act require the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide
recommendations to federal and state agencies for conserving and enhancing EFH if a
determination is made that an action may adversely impact EFH. NMFS policy regarding the
preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents recommends
incorporating EFH assessments into environmental impact statements; therefore, this Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will also serve as an EFH assessment.
Pursuant to these requirements, Chapter 3 of this document provides a description of the
alternatives considered for amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP
or Plan). Chapter 4 provides a description of the affected environment, including the
identification of areas designated as EFH (section 4.2.1), Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(section 4.2.2), and an analysis of the impacts of fishing gear on that environment (section 4.2.4).
Chapter 5 evaluates the impacts on EFH of the current action and other alternatives. An EFH
consultation concluded on May 26, 2021 concluded that adverse impacts to EFH have been
minimized to the extent practicable and no further EFH Conservation recommendations pursuant
to 50 CFR §600.925(a) were provided.

10.2 National Environmental Policy Act
The analysis in this document was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of the
NEPA. All established procedures to ensure that federal agency decision makers take
environmental factors into account, including the use of a public process, were followed (Table
10.1 Summary of Scoping Comments). This EIS is being prepared using the 1978 Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations. NEPA reviews initiated prior to the effective
date of the 2020 CEQ regulations may be conducted using the 1978 version of the regulations.
The effective date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14, 2020. This review
began on August 2, 2019 (Notice of Intent published on this date) and the agency has decided to
proceed under the 1978 regulations. This FEIS contains all the components required by NEPA,
CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-6A, including a brief discussion of the
purpose and need for the proposal (Chapter 2), the alternatives considered (Chapter 3), the
environmental impacts of the current action and the alternatives (Chapter 5), a list of document
preparers and contributors (Chapter 12), and other relevant information.
NEPA provides a mechanism for identifying and evaluating the full spectrum of environmental
issues associated with federal actions, and for considering a reasonable range of alternatives to
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. The CEQ has issued regulations specifying
the requirements for NEPA documents (40 CFR 1500 – 1508) and NOAA’s policy and
procedures for NEPA are found in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A. All of those
396

requirements are addressed in this document, as referenced below. The required elements of an
Environmental Impact Statement Assessment (EIS) are specified in 40 CFR 1502.10. They are
included in this document as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

A Cover Sheet
An Executive Summary
A table of contents
The purpose and need for this action - Section 2.2
The alternatives that were considered – Chapter 3
Affected environment – Chapter 4
Environmental consequences, including cumulative effects – Chapters 5 through 8
A list of preparers - Chapter 11
A Glossary
Appendices (if any)

Public Scoping
We announced our intent to prepare an EIS for this action on August 2, 2019 (84 FR 37822) and
held eight public meetings as well as requesting written public comments on management
options to reduce the risk of large whale entanglements in trap pot fisheries. During the public
scoping process, which ended September 16, 2019, NMFS requested suggestions and
information from the public on the range of issues that should be addressed and alternatives that
should be considered in this document. Over 89, 200 comments were received. Comments
included oral comments received during scoping meetings attended by over 800 people. Posted
letters were received from each New England state’s fishery management organization, from the
Marine Mammal Commission, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Maine
Congressional delegation, and a Maine State representative. Four fishing industry representatives
sent comments by mail or email, and over 50 unique letters from fishermen providing details
about their fishing practices were received by postal mail as well as 125 form letters. By email,
we received over 120 unique comments, including 30 emails from fishermen or fishing families.
Eleven representatives from environmental organizations sent letters and emails, and over 89,000
emails associated with 12 non-governmental organizations’ campaigns were received. A
summary of the written and oral comments received during the public scoping process
identifying where those comments are addressed in this FEIS can be found in Appendix 1.1 and
Volume 3.

Areas of Controversy
Litigation related to this action is ongoing, and the action has received close attention from the
Maine Congressional Delegation as well as members of the fishing industry and conservation
organizations, demonstrating that it is highly controversial. Known and anticipated areas of
controversy are discussed in detail in Section 1.5 of this FEIS, but primary issues include the
following:
●

Ongoing litigation is largely related to non-governmental organizations’ and whale
conservationists’ concerns that rapid changes to current fishing practices are needed to
397

●

●

●

●

●

●

address impacts to right whales in U.S. fisheries and reverse the decline of the
population.
The alternatives considered in this FEIS are consistent with, but not identical to, the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team recommendations to NMFS in April 2019
(see Table 3.1). Additionally, as described in Section 3.1.1, while measures proposed by
New England states provided the basis for the alternatives analyzed, not all measures
proposed by the states are included in the Preferred Alternative. Particularly, a seasonal
buoy line closure area 30 miles offshore of Maine was not proposed by Maine or the
Take Reduction Team.
Northeast U.S. trap/pot fishermen are frustrated that after two decades of modifying their
fishing practices, the North Atlantic right whale population is declining. Fishermen are
concerned that some of the major causes of decline, such as climate change and mortality
in Canada, are not being sufficiently addressed and that as a result the burden of reversing
the population decline is being disproportionately placed on the Northeast U.S. lobster
and crab fisheries.
The fishing industry and some states have criticized the assessment of the amount of risk
reduction (60 to 80 percent) that NMFS indicated needed to be achieved in U.S. trap pot
fisheries. As discussed in Chapter 3, it is difficult to identify the initial location of fishing
gear that causes serious injury and mortalities to right whales because in most cases no
gear is retrieved or if retrieved the gear cannot be identified to a fishery or location. U.S.
fishermen disagree with the apportionment of mortality and serious injury assigned to
them, and lobster fishermen disagree with the apportionment attributed toward trap/pot or
lobster buoy line.
Stakeholders and commenters criticized the Decision Support Tool (DST) created to help
the Team compare risk reduction measures. A recent peer review of the DST
recommended a number of improvements but also determined it was a useful tool for
assisting the Team in making risk reduction decisions.
There is continued frustration expressed by fishermen regarding gaps in information
about right whale distribution and habitat use, which influences risk reduction targets as
well as DST and co-occurrence model evaluation of risk reduction alternatives towards
achieving targets. Research needs include amplification of distribution surveys across the
range, right whale tagging, and research to support predictions of future shifts in food
availability and distribution.
Similar data concerns were expressed by Team members during meetings regarding gaps
in lobster and Jonah crab fishery data. Increased vessel trip reporting and vessel monitoring
are needed to inform the DST and co-occurrence models to evaluate the fishery and the
risk reduction measures.

Chapter 2 discusses evidence that mortalities and serious injuries of right whales in U.S. fisheries
continues to occur at rates above the potential biological removal level established in the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Modifications to the Plan are necessary at this time. Chapter 3
describes how, considering the best available information, risk reduction measures in
Alternatives 2 and 3 were developed to reduce the risk of mortality and serious injuries in the
lobster and crab fisheries toward achieving PBR.

398

Document Distribution
This document is available on the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office ALWTRP
web page. Announcements of document availability will be made in the Federal Register and to
the interested parties’ mailing list. Copies were distributed to:
U.S. EPA, Region 1
1 Congress St., 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02203-0001
District Commander
First U.S. Coast Guard District
408 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210-2209
U.S. EPA, Region 2
290 Broadway,
25th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Director, Office of Marine Conservation
Department of State
2201 "C" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
U.S. EPA, Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Executive Director
Marine Mammal Commission
4340 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
U.S. EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of Interior
Main Interior Building (MS 2462)
1849 "C" Street, NW
Washington, DC 2052

399

Opportunity for Public Comment
The current Amendment to the Plan was developed between 2019 and 2021. Several
opportunities for public input were provided during this time. Public scoping took place in
August of 2019. A 60-day public comment period began for the Proposed Rule on December 31,
2020, and ended on March 1, 2021 (85 FR 86878, December 31, 2020). In January 2021, we
held four public information sessions and in February 2021, we held four public hearings, all
virtual due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Although the purpose of the January meetings
was to provide information and answer questions, we accepted oral comments on the proposed
rule and the Draft EIS at all eight meetings. A summary of the written and oral comments
received during the public scoping and public comment period can be found in Appendix 1.1 and
Volume 3. The public meetings held are as follows:
Public Scoping
1. Thursday, August 8, 2019—Narragansett, RI, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. URI Graduate School of
Oceanography, Corless Auditorium, 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882
2. Monday, August 12, 2019—Machias, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. University of Maine at
Machias, Performing Arts Center, 116 O’Brien Avenue, Machias, ME 04654
3. Tuesday, August 13, 2019—Ellsworth, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Ellsworth High School
Performing Arts Center, 24 Lejok Street, Ellsworth, ME 04605
4. Wednesday, August 14, 2019—Waldoboro, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Medomak Valley High
School, 320 Manktown Road, Waldoboro, Maine 04572
5. Thursday, August 15, 2019—Portland, ME, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. South Portland High School,
637 Highland Ave., South Portland ME, 04106
6. Monday, August 19, 2019—Portsmouth, NH, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Urban Forestry Center, 45
Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, NH 03801
7. Tuesday, August 20, 2019—Gloucester, MA, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. NMFS Greater Atlantic
Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
8. Wednesday, August 21, 2019—Bourne, MA, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Upper Cape Cod Regional
Technical School, 220 Sandwich Rd., Bourne, MA 02352
DEIS and Proposed Rule Information Sessions
1. Rhode Island, Southern Massachusetts and Lobster Management Area (LMA) 3,
Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
2. Massachusetts (Outer Cape and LMA 1) and New Hampshire (LMA 1), Wednesday,
January 13, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
3. Southern Maine, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
4. Northern Maine, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
DEIS and Proposed Rule Public Hearings
1. Rhode Island, Southern Massachusetts and LMA 3, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 6:308:30 pm
2. Massachusetts (Outer Cape and LMA1) and New Hampshire (LMA 1), Wednesday,
February 17, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
3. Southern Maine, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm
400

4. Northern Maine, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 6:30-8:30 pm

10.3 Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies conducting,
authorizing, or funding activities that may affect threatened or endangered species to ensure that
those impacts do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat determined to be critical. Many of the trap/pot
regulated under the Plan are also managed under federal fishery management plans (FMPs) that
undergo review under the ESA Section 7 requirements. If it is determined through the section 7
process that a fishery (or fisheries) is likely to adversely affect listed species and/or critical
habitat, then a formal consultation is initiated to determine whether the current action is likely to
jeopardized the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Formal consultation concludes with the issuance of a NMFS Biological Opinion
(Opinion). The most recent relevant Opinion on fisheries regulated under the ALWTRP include:
•

February 6, 2002: ESA Section 7 Consultation on Implementation of the Deep-Sea Red
Crab, Chaceon quinquedens, FMP. NMFS most recently considered the effects of
activities occurring under the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP on ESA-listed marine
mammals and sea turtles during a formal Section 7 consultation completed on February 6,
2002. An Opinion resulting from this consultation concluded that the continued operation
of the red crab fishery as authorized under the Red Crab FMP may adversely affect, but
would not jeopardize, the continued existence of North Atlantic right whales, fin whales,
sei whales, and sperm whales; and loggerhead 28 and leatherback sea turtles. That Opinion
also concluded that the continued operation of the red crab fishery would not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales. An
Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for sea turtles was issued along with the Opinion
exempting a level of annual take. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and accompanying
Terms and Conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take were also provided in
the ITS. The preferred alternative does impact the red crab fishery, which will be
considered in 2021 along with other trap/pot fisheries.

•

December 16, 2013: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued
Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish,
Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish,
and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries (Batched Opinion). The Opinion
concluded that the continued operation of the seven FMPs may adversely affect, but
would not jeopardize, the continued existence of North Atlantic right whales, fin and sei
whales; loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment (NWA
DPS)), leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles; the five listed DPSs of Atlantic
sturgeon; or the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon. The Opinion also concluded that

28

At the time of the 2002 red crab Opinion, loggerhead sea turtles were listed globally, not by distinct population
segments (DPSs). On September 22, 2011 (76 FR 58868), nine DPSs were designated, replacing the global listing of
loggerhead sea turtles; loggerhead sea turtles in the Greater Atlantic Region are listed as the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS. NMFS issued a memo on November 15, 2011, concluding that designation of the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS of loggerhead sea turtle did not trigger reinitiation of the 2002 red crab Opinion.

401

the continued operation of the seven FMPs would not destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat for right whales or Atlantic salmon. An ITS for listed sea
turtles, the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, and the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon
was issued along with the Opinion exempting a level of annual take for the seven FMPs.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures and accompanying Terms and Conditions to minimize
the impacts of incidental take were also provided in the ITS. The preferred alternative
does not impact the Batched Opinion fisheries, which will be considered in 2021 along
with other trap/pot fisheries.
•

July 31, 2014: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued
Implementation of Management Measures for the American Lobster Fishery (“2014
Biological Opinion”). The 2014 Biological Opinion concluded that the continued
operation of the American lobster fishery may adversely affect, but is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of North Atlantic right whales, fin whales, and sei
whales; or loggerhead (NWA DPS) and leatherback sea turtles. The 2014 Biological
Opinion also concluded that the continued operation of the American lobster fishery is
not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for North Atlantic
right whales or the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles. An ITS for the NWA DPS
loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles was issued along with the Opinion exempting a
level of annual take for the lobster FMP. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and
accompanying Terms and Conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take were
also provided in the ITS. On April 9, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia found that the 2014 Biological Opinion was legally deficient. On August 19,
2020, the Court issued a remedy order vacating the 2014 Biological Opinion, but staying
that vacatur until May 31, 2021, by which date NMFS anticipates issuing a new final
Biological Opinion for the federal American lobster fishery and other federal fisheries.

•

On October 17, 2017, an ESA 7(a)(2)/7(d) memo issued by NMFS stated a consultation
has been reinitiated on the federal permitted Atlantic deep sea red crab and American
lobster fisheries as well as other fisheries that use fixed gillnet and trap/pot gear. In
January and February of 2018, four environmental organizations filed two lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of the ESA and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
case. On April 9, 2020, the Court ruled against NMFS on the parties' cross motions for
summary judgment, finding that the 2014 Biological Opinion on the lobster fishery was
legally deficient. On August 19, 2020, the Court issued an order on remedy that vacated
the 2014 Biological Opinion, but stayed the vacatur until May 31, 2021, by which date
NMFS anticipated issuing a new final Biological Opinion concluding the consultation
that was initiated in 2017 for the federal American lobster fishery and other federal
fisheries.
Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NOAA’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion (Opinion) on May 27, 2021, that
considered the effects of the NMFS’ authorization of ten fishery management plans
(FMP), NMFS’ North Atlantic Right Whale Conservation Framework, and the New
402

England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2,
on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. The ten FMPs considered in the
Opinion include the: (1) American lobster; (2) Atlantic bluefish; (3) Atlantic deep-sea
red crab; (4) mackerel/squid/butterfish; (5) monkfish; (6) Northeast multispecies; (7)
Northeast skate complex; (8) spiny dogfish; (9) summer flounder/scup/black sea bass;
and (10) Jonah crab FMPs. The American lobster and Jonah crab FMPs are permitted and
operated through implementing regulations compatible with the interstate fishery
management plans (ISFMP) issued under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act (ACA), the other eight FMPs are issued under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
The 2021 Opinion determined that the actions under those management plans may
adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of North
Atlantic right, fin, sei, or sperm whales; the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population
segment (DPS) of loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, or North Atlantic DPS of
green sea turtles; any of the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon; Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic
salmon; or giant manta rays. The Opinion also concluded that the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales, the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, U.S. DPS of smalltooth
sawfish, Johnson’s seagrass, or elkhorn and staghorn corals. An Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) was issued in the Opinion. The ITS includes reasonable and prudent
measures and their implementing terms and conditions, which NMFS determined are
necessary or appropriate to minimize impacts of the incidental take in the fisheries
assessed in this Opinion.
•

A formal consultation was conducted on the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
in 1997. Six subsequent informal consultations were completed in 2004, 2008, 2014, and
2015 associated with modifications to the Plan. Consultation on the Plan was reinitiated
on May 3, 2021 including the potential impacts of the alternatives in the DEIS and
proposed rule on ESA-listed species. As detailed in Chapter 5, the preferred alternative
analysed in the FEIS that would be implemented by the final rule achieves at least as
much risk reduction to right whales and other listed species as estimated in the DEIS.
Consultation concluded on May 25, 2021, finding that the Plan operates as a mechanism
to reduce fisheries related impacts on Atlantic large whales. It does not authorize any
fishery. The effects of federal fisheries regulated under the Plan are fully considered
under section 7 consultations conducted for the fishery management plans and incidental
take attributed to federal fisheries is authorized under those consultations. Based on all of
the above information, the gear regulations implemented by the Plan for U.S. fixed gear
fisheries will have wholly beneficial effects to ESA-listed species or their critical habitat.
As a result, it was determined that the Plan is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
species or designated critical habitat under NMFS jurisdiction and no further
consultation is necessary.

403

10.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), federal responsibility for protecting and
conserving marine mammals is vested with the Departments of Commerce (NMFS) and Interior
(U.S. FWS) and the MMPA is the authority under which much of the current rulemaking is being
undertaken. The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions, in
waters under U.S. jurisdiction and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The MMPA requires
consultation within NMFS if impacts on marine mammals are unavoidable. The primary
management objective of the MMPA is to maintain the health and stability of the marine
ecosystem, with a goal of obtaining an optimum sustainable population of marine mammals
within the carrying capacity of the habitat. The MMPA is intended to work in cooperation with
the applicable provisions of the ESA. The ESA-listed species of marine mammal that occur in
the Plan management areas are discussed in section 4.1 of the FEIS. The species of marine
mammals not listed under the ESA that occur in the Plan management areas are discussed in
section 4.1.2 except minke whales and North Atlantic humpback whales, which are discussed in
section 4.1.1. NMFS has reviewed the impacts of this action on marine mammals and concluded
that the management actions proposed are consistent with the provisions of the MMPA. The
potential impact of the alternatives considered on marine mammals is provided in Chapter 5.

10.5 Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is designed to encourage and assist states in
developing coastal management programs, to coordinate state activities, and to safeguard
regional and national interests in the coastal zone. Section 307 of the CZMA requires that any
federal activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state’s coastal zone be
consistent with the state’s approved coastal management program, to the maximum extent
practicable. NMFS has determined that the implementation of the Preferred Alternative would be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs
of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. In 2020, NMFS
provided a copy of the draft environmental assessment and a consistency determination to the
state coastal management agency in every state with a federally-approved coastal management
program whose coastal uses or resources are affected by these Jonah crab management measures.
Each state has 60 days in which to agree or disagree with the determination regarding
consistency with that state’s approved coastal management program. If a state fails to respond
within 60 days, the state’s agreement will be presumed. NMFS has determined that this action is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs
of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states affected by the action. On January 18, 2021, this determination
was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the CZMA. New
Hampshire and Rhode Island agreed with NMFS’ determination. Maine and Massachusetts did
not respond; therefore, consistency is inferred.

10.6 Administrative Procedure Act
This action was developed in compliance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA), and these requirements will continue to be followed when the final regulation is
published. Section 553 of the APA establishes procedural requirements applicable to informal
404

rulemaking by federal agencies. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure public access to
the federal rulemaking process, and to give the public adequate notice and opportunity for
comment. NMFS is not requesting any abridgement of the rulemaking process for this action.

10.7 Information Quality Act (Section 515)
The Information Quality Act directed the Office of Management and Budget to issue government
wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring
and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical
information) disseminated by federal agencies.” Under the NOAA guidelines, the Plan is
considered a Natural Resource Plan. It is a composite of several types of information, including
scientific, management, and stakeholder input, from a variety of sources. Compliance of this
document with NOAA guidelines is evaluated below.
● Utility: The information disseminated is intended to describe the current management
actions and the impacts of those actions. The information is intended to be useful to: 1)
fishermen and other fishing industry participants, conservation groups, and other
interested parties so they can provide informed comments on the alternatives considered;
and 2) managers and policy makers so they can choose an alternative for implementation.
● Integrity: Information and data, including statistics that may be considered as
confidential, were used in the analysis of impacts associated with this document. This
information was necessary to assess the biological, social, and economic impacts of the
alternatives considered as required under NEPA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) for the preparation of a final environmental impact statement/regulatory impact
review. NMFS complied with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements as well
as NMFS policy regarding confidentiality of data. For example, confidential data were
only accessible to authorized federal employees and contractors for the performance of
legally required analyses. In addition, confidential data are safeguarded to prevent
improper disclosure or unauthorized use. Finally, the information to be made available to
the public was done so in aggregate, summary, or other such form that does not disclose
the identity or business of any person.
● Objectivity: The NOAA Information Quality Guidelines for Natural Resource Plans
state that plans must be presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.
Because take reduction plans and their implementing regulations affect such a wide range
of interests, NMFS strives to draft and present new management measures in a clear and
easily understandable manner with detailed descriptions that explain the decision making
process and the implications of management measures on marine resources and the
public. Although the alternatives considered in this document rely upon scientific
information, analyses, and conclusions, clear distinctions would be drawn between policy
choices and the supporting science. In addition, the scientific information relied upon in
the development, drafting, and publication of this FEIS was properly cited and a list of
references was provided. Finally, this document was reviewed by a variety of biologists,
policy analysts, economists, and attorneys from the Greater Atlantic Region and the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center as well as the Headquarters office in Silver Spring,
MD. In general, this team of reviewers has extensive experience with the policies and
programs established for the protection of marine mammals, and specifically with the
405

development and implementation of the Plan. Therefore, this Natural Resource Plan was
reviewed by technically qualified individuals to ensure that the document was complete,
unbiased, objective, and relevant. This review was conducted at a level commensurate
with the importance of the interpreted product and the constraints imposed by legallyenforceable deadlines.

10.8 Paperwork Reduction Act
The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to control and, to the extent possible, minimize
the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, nonprofit institutions, and other persons
resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government. The authority to
manage information and recordkeeping requirements is vested with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. This authority encompasses establishment of guidelines and policies,
approval of information collection requests, and reduction of paperwork burdens and
duplications. The gear marking requirements in this action constitute a collection-of-information
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments on the burden estimates in the
proposed rule and modifications to the collection requirements resulted in a modified burden
estimate that has been provided to OMB. The general public and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on proposed and continuing information collections to help us assess the
impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting
burden. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be
submitted at the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection
or the OMB Control Number 0648-0364.

10.9 Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
Executive Order (EO) 13132, otherwise known as the Federalism EO, was signed by President
Clinton on August 4, 1999, and published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1999 (64 FR
43255). This EO is intended to guide federal agencies in the formulation and implementation of
“policies that have federal implications.” Such policies are regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EO 13132
requires federal agencies to have a process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. A
federal summary impact statement is also required for rules that have federalism implications.
EO 13132 establishes fundamental federalism principles based on the U.S. Constitution, and
specifies both federalism policy-making criteria and special requirements for the preemption of
state law. For example, a federal action that limits the policy making discretion of a state is to be
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and it is appropriate
in light of the presence of a problem of national significance. In addition, where a federal statute
does not have expressed provisions for preemption of state law, such a preemption by federal
rule-making may be done only when the exercise of state authority directly conflicts with the
exercise of federal authority. To preclude conflict between state and federal law on take
406

reduction plans, the Marine Mammal Protection Act explicitly establishes conditions for federal
preemption of state regulations. Furthermore, close state-federal consultation on fishery
management measures implemented under the Plan is provided by the take reduction team
process. The implementation of any of the alternatives considered could contain policies with
federalism implications sufficient to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment under
EO 13132. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will
provide notice of the action to the appropriate official(s) of affected state, local and/or tribal
governments.

10.10

Executive Order 12866

The requirements for all regulatory actions specified in EO 12866 are summarized in the
following statement from the order:
The purpose of Executive Order 12866 is to enhance planning and coordination with respect to
new and existing regulations. This E.O. requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to review regulatory programs that are considered to be “significant.” E.O. 12866 requires a
review of proposed regulations to determine whether or not the expected effects would be
significant, where a significant action is any regulatory action that may:
• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, priorities of the
President, of the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, include the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits
shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be
usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify,
but nevertheless essential to consider.
The analysis meeting the above described requirements of the EO are found in the section
entitled Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), which is included within this Draft EIS in Chapter 9.
Because this rule has an adverse economic effect on a substantial number of fishermen and may
raise novel legal or policy issues arising from the legal mandates of the MMPA, it is considered
significant under EO 12866 and has undergone OMB review.

10.11

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) was enacted in 1980 to place the burden on the federal
government to review all regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes,
they do not unduly inhibit the ability of small entities to compete. The RFA emphasizes
predicting significant adverse impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and
407

on the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the
stated objective of the action. When an agency publishes a final rule, unless it can provide a
factual basis upon which to certify that no such adverse effects will accrue, it must prepare and
make available for public review a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that describes
the impact of the rule on small entities. The FRFA for this action is provided in Chapter 9.

10.12

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as, “the fair
treatment for all people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EO 12898 was implemented in response to the
growing need to address the impacts of environmental pollution on particular segments of our
society. This order requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice by addressing
“disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations.” In furtherance of this objective, the EPA developed an Environmental
Justice Strategy that focuses the agency’s efforts in addressing these concerns. For example, to
determine whether environmental justice concerns exist, the demographics of the affected area
should be examined to ascertain whether minority populations and low-income populations are
present, and, if so, a determination must be made as to whether implementation of the
alternatives may cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on these populations. Environmental justice concerns typically embody pollution and
other environmental health issues, but the EPA has stated that addressing environmental justice
concerns is consistent with NEPA; therefore, all federal agencies are required to identify and
address these issues.
Many of the participants in the fisheries regulated under the Plan in the Northeast U.S. may come
from lower income and/or ethnic minority populations. These populations may be more
vulnerable to the management measures considered in this document. However, demographic
data on participants in the lobster and crab fisheries affected by measures analyzed in this FEIS
do not allow identification of those who live below the poverty level or are racial or ethnic
minorities. Table 10.1 describes poverty and minority rate data at the state and county levels for
the primary port communities relevant to this action. In terms of poverty, Washington County is
the only county that is more than 1 percent higher than its state average (Maine). Washington
and Cumberland Counties are the only counties with a minority rate more than 1 percent higher
than their state average (Maine). Fewer minorities live in the one coastal county in New
Hampshire relative to the rest of the state. In Massachusetts, only Suffolk County, which
includes the city of Boston, has poverty rates more than one percent higher than the poverty rate
for the state as a whole. Suffolk and Norfolk Counties in Massachusetts both are also home to
minorities at a rate more than one percent higher than the comparable rate for the state as a
whole. Washington County in Rhode Island is less diverse and wealthier than the state as a
whole. These data do not demonstrate that lower income or minority populations will be
disproportionately impacted by the alternatives analyzed within this FEIS.
With respect to subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, federal agencies are required to
collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who
408

principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence. While NMFS tracks these issues, there are
no federally recognized tribal agreements for subsistence fishing in New England federal waters.
Table 10.1: Demographic data for Northeast Lobster and Jonah Crab Trap/Pot Fishing Communities (Counties)
State
County
Key Ports
Median
Persons below
Minority
Household
Poverty Level
Population (did
Income (2014(2014not report as
2018)
2018)
white alone) 29
ME
Washington
Beals Island/Jonesport,
41,384
18.30%
8.80%
Cutler, Eastport, Lubec
ME

Hancock

Stonington/Deer Isle,
Bucksport

53,068

11.60%

4.10%

ME

Waldo

51,564

13.70%

3.50%

ME

Knox

Belfast, Searsport,
Northport
Rockland, Vinalhaven,
Port Clyde

55,402

11.00%

3.60%

ME

Lincoln

55,180

11.10%

3%

ME

Sagadahoc

South Bristol, Boothbay
Harbor
Georgetown, Phippsburg

62,131

8.70%

4.40%

ME

Cumberland

Portland, Harpswell

69,708

8.20%

8.10%

ME

York

Kennebunkport, Cape
Porpoise, York

65,538

9.00%

4.30%

NH

Rockingham

90,429

5.30%

5.20%

MA

Essex

Hampton/Seabrook,Ports
mouth,
Isle of Shoals
Gloucester, Rockport,
Marblehead

75,878

10.70%

19.9

MA

Suffolk

Boston Harbor

64,582

17.50%

44.80%

MA

Norfolk

Cohasset

99,511

6.50%

21.60%

MA

Plymouth

Plymouth, Scituate,
Hingham

85,654

6.20%

14.7

MA

Barnstable

70,621

8.00%

8.10%

MA

Bristol

Sandwich, Hyannis,
Chatham, Provincetown,
Woods Hole
New Bedford, Fairhaven,
Westport

66,157

10.80%

15.40%

RI

Newport

Jamestown, Newport,
Tiverton, Sakonnet Point

77,237

8.10%

10.40%

RI

Washington

Point Judith/Galilee

81,301

8.00%

7%

29

From United States Census Data, 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, retrieved May 11, 2020.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

409

10.13

Executive Order 13158 - Marine Protected Areas

EO 13158 requires each federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that
are protected by a Marine Protected Area (MPA) to identify such actions, and, to the extent
permitted by law and to the extent practicable, avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources
that are protected by an MPA. EO 13158 promotes the development of MPAs by enhancing or
expanding the protection of existing MPAs and establishing or recommending new MPAs. The
EO defines an MPA as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal,
State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of
the natural and cultural resources therein.”
Pursuant to this order, the Departments of Commerce and the Interior developed a list of MPAs
that meet the definition. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary was classified as a
MPA. In addition, four Tilefish Gear Restricted Areas in the Mid-Atlantic have been added to
the National System of Marine Protected Areas: Lydonia Canyon, Norfolk Canyon,
Oceanographer Canyon, and Veatch Canyon. These are the first federal fishery management
areas to become part of the national MPA system. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
and Oceanographer and Veatch Canyons within the Tilefish Gear Restricted Areas are the MPAs
that overlap the footprint of the current action.
This action is not expected to more than minimally affect the biological/habitat resources of
MPAs, which was comprehensively analyzed in the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (NEFMC
2016b). Lobster and crab trap/pot fishing gears regulated under this action are unlikely to
damage shipwrecks and other cultural artifacts, because fishing vessel operators avoid contact
with cultural resources on the seafloor to minimize costly gear losses and interruptions to fishing.

410

CHAPTER 11 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Preparers
Michael J. Asaro
Economist
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), Social
Sciences Branch
Peter Burns
Fishery Policy Analyst
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), Sustainable Fisheries Division
Tim Cardiasmenos
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator
NMFS, GARFO
Robert Black
Industrial Economics, Inc.
Diane Borggaard
Right Whale Recovery Coordinator
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Daniel Caless
Statistician
NMFS, GARFO, Analysis and Program Support Division
Colleen Coogan
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Branch Chief
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Neal Etre
Principal
Industrial Economics, Inc.
Marianne Ferguson
NEPA Policy Analyst
NMFS, GARFO
Jennifer Goebel
NMFS, GARFO
Sean Hayes
Chief, Protected Species Branch
NMFS, NEFSC
411

Allison Henry
Research Fishery Biologist
NMFS, NEFSC, Research Evaluation and Assessment Branch
Alessandra Huamani
Quantitative Modeler
Integrated Statistics, Inc.
Jerome Hermsen
Statistician Biologist
NMFS, GARFO, Analysis and Program Support Division
Ellen Keane
Bycatch Reduction and Outreach Biologist
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Alicia Miller
Quantitative Modeler
Ocean Associates
Meredith Moise
Environmental Specialist
Integrated Statistics, Inc.
David Morin
Large Whale Disentanglement Coordinator
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Brian Morrison
Principal
Industrial Economics, Inc.
Allison Murphy
Fishery Policy Analyst
NMFS, GARFO, Sustainable Fisheries Division
Danielle Palmer
Protected Resources Liaison
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Jessica Powell
Marine Mammal Fishery Interactions Biologist
NMFS, Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Protected Resources Division
André Price
Quantitative Modeler
Integrated Statistics, Inc.
412

Burton Shank
Research Fishery Biologist
NMFS, NEFSC, Research Evaluation and Assessment Branch
Kara Shervanick
Marine Mammal Biologist
Earth Resources Technology, Inc.
Alicia Schuler
Marine Resources Management Specialist
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Ainsley Smith
Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Coordinator
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Kate Swails
Communications and Internal Affairs
NMFS, GARFO
Jaclyn Taylor
Biologist
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources
Marisa Trego
Policy Analyst, Northeast Marine Mammal TRT Coordinator
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Carrie Upite
Fishery Biologist
NFMS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Chao Zou
Economist
Integrated Statistics, Inc.
Barb Zoodsma
Right Whale Conservation Coordinator
NMFS, SERO, Protected Resources Division
Contributors
John Almeida
Attorney Advisor
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of General Counsel,
Northeast Section
413

Tim Cole
Research Fishery Biologist
NMFS, NEFSC, Research Evaluation and Assessment Branch
Danielle Cholewiak
Research Ecologist
NMFS, NEFSC, Research Evaluation and Assessment Branch
John Higgins
Fishing Industry Liaison
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Kristy Long
Fishery Biologist
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources
Daniel Marrone
Fishery Biologist
NMFS, GARFO, Protected Resources Division
Eric Matzen
NMFS, NEFSC, Protected Species Branch
Henry Milliken
Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist
NMFS, NEFSC, Research Evaluation and Assessment Branch
David Stevenson, Ph.D.
Marine Habitat Resource Specialist
NMFS, GARFO, Habitat Conservation Division
Staff members of NMFS GARFO and NEFSC were also consulted in preparing this Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Neal Etre, Brian Morrison, and Bob Black of IEc Inc.
conducted co-occurrence analyses for the DEIS and were consulted on line model and model
vessel considerations for this FEIS. No other persons or agencies were consulted.

414

CHAPTER 12 DISTRIBUTION LIST
As part of the review process under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), information for
accessing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was distributed to the following
persons or agencies:
Terry Alexander, ALWTRT
Thomas Nies, Executive Director;
John Quinn, Chairman
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street, Mill 2
Newburyport, MA 01950
67 Grover Lane Harpswell, ME 04079

Alex Costidis, ALWTRT
Susan Barco, Alternate
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science
Center
717 General Booth Boulevard
Virginia Beach, VA, 23451
Kiley Dancy, ALWTRT
Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mike Luisi, Chair
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901

Regina Asmutis Silva, ALWTRT
Colleen Weiler, Alternate
Whale and Dolphin Conservation USA
7 Nelson St
Plymouth, MA 02360

Jane Davenport, ALWTRT
Defenders of Wildlife
1130 17th Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20036

David Borden, ALWTRT
Grant Moore, Alternate
Heidi Heininger
American Offshore Lobstermen’s
Association
23 Nelson St.
Dover, NH 03820

DHS/USCG/Seventh District (ole)
909 SE 1st Ave.
Miami, FL 33131-3050

Dwight Carver ALWTRT
Ben Martens, Alternate
PO Box 131
Beals, ME 04611

Greg DiDomenico, ALWTRT
Warren Appel, Alternate
Garden State Seafood Asso.
Kevin Wark, Alternate
13103 Misty Glen Lane
Fairfax, VA 22033

Beth Casoni ALWTRT
Mike Lane, Alternate
MA Lobstermen's Association
8 Otis Place
Scituate, MA 02066-1323

Cindy Driscoll, ALWTRT
Amanda Weschler, Alternate
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, MD 21654

Edward Chiofolo, ALWTRT
16 Blair Lane
Brookhaven, NY 11719

Clay George, ALWTRT
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
1 Conservation Way
Brunswick, GA 31523
415

Raymond King, ALWTRT
1444 Ferris St.
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233

Colleen Giannini ALWTRT
CT Department of Environmental Protection
PO Box 719, 333 Ferry Rd.
Old Lyme, CT 06371

Amy Knowlton, ALWTRT
Heather Pettis, Alternate
Kraus Marine Mammal Conservation
Program
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium
Central Wharf
Boston, MA 02110

Robert Glenn ALWTRT
MA Division of Marine Fisheries
1213 Purchase St
New Bedford, MA 02740
Michael Greco ALWTRT
DE Division of Fish & Wildlife
P.O. Box 330
Little Creek, DE 19961

Scott Landry, ALWTRT
Jooke Robbins, Alternate
David Mattila, Temporary Alternate
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies
5 Holway Avenue
Provincetown, MA 02657

Sonny Gwin, ALWTRT
10448 Azalea Rd
Berlin, MD 21811
John Haviland, ALWTRT
Lori Caron, Alternate
South Shore Lobstermen's Association
PO Box 543
Green Harbor, MA 02041

Charlie Locke, ALWTRT
P.O. Box 761 Wanchese, NC 27981
Rick Marks, ALWTRT
2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1010
Arlington, VA, 22201

Dennis Heinemann, ALWTRT
Dee Allen, Alternate
Marine Mammal Commission
4340 East-West Highway, Room 700
Bethesda, MD 20814

Robert Martore, ALWTRT
South Carolina. Dept. of Natural Resources
217 Ft. Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412

Robert Kenney, ALWTRT
Tim Werner, Alternate
NARWC, and URI, Graduate School of
Oceanography
Box 41, Bay Campus South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882

Greg Mataronas, ALWTRT
Peter Brodeur, Alternate
Rhode Island Lobstermen's Association
265 Long Highway
Little Compton, RI, 02837
Charles "Stormy" Mayo, ALWTRT
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies
5 Holway Avenue
Provincetown, MA 02657

Toni Kerns, ALWTRT; Rep Robert Beal,
Executive Director; Patrick Keliher, Chair
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission
1050 N. Highland St. Suite
200 A-N Arlington, VA 22201
416

Patrice McCarron, ALWTRT
Maine Lobstermen’s Association
PO Box 215
Kennebunk, ME 04043

Scott Olszewski, ALWTRT
RI Div of Fish & Wildlife
3 Fort Wetherhill Rd.
Jamestown, RI 02835

Bill McLellan, ALWTRT
University of North Carolina - Wilmington
601 South College Road
Wilmington, NC 28403

Cheri Patterson, ALWTRT
Renee Zobel, Alternate
NH Fish and Game Dept.
225 Main St.
Durham, NH 03824

Richard Merrick, ALWTRT
134 King St.
Falmouth, MA 02540

Charlie Phillips, ALWTRT
John Carmichael, Executive Director
Jessica McCawley, Chair
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
PO Box 12753
Charleston, SC 29422

Kristen Monsell, ALWTRT
Sarah Uhlemann, Alternate
Center for Biological Diversity
1212 Broadway, Ste. 800
Oakland, CA 94612

Tom Pitchford, ALWTRT
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission,
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
370 Zoo Parkway
Jacksonville, FL 32218

Attn: Katie Moore, LCDR
Kathryn Cyr,LTJG
Michael Thompson
DHS/USCG/Fifth District (Aole)
431 Crawford St.
Portsmouth, VA 23704

Kristan Porter, ALWTRT
ME Lobstermen's Association Director
PO Box 233
Cutler, ME 04626

Fentress "Red" Munden, ALWTRT
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
PO BOX 1165
Morehead City, NC 28557

Chad Power, ALWTRT
NJ Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife
Bureau of Marine Fisheries
PO Box 418
Port Republic, NJ 08241

Nick Muto, ALWTRT
270 Jonathan’s Way
Brewster, MA 02631
Steve Nippert, ALWTRT
38 Witham St.
Gloucester, MA 01930

Nicholas Record, ALWTRT
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
60 Bigelow Dr.
East Boothbay, ME 04544

Bob Nudd Jr., ALWTRT
NH Lobstermen's Association
531 Exeter Road
Hampton, NH 03842

Billy Reid, ALWTRT
4950 Cypress Point Circle, Apt. 203
Virginia Beach, VA 23455

417

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Federal Activities; EIS
Filing Section
Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby),
Room 7220
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004

Meghan Rickard, ALWTRT
Kim McKown, Alternate
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
205 N. Belle Mead Rd., Suite 1
East Setauket, NY 11733
Michael Sargent, ALWTRT
Brian Pearce, Alternate
55 Bay View Dr
Steuben, ME 04680

U.S. EPA, New England Headquarters
5 Post Office Square - Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912

Arthur “Sooky” Sawyer, ALWTRT
368 Concord St
Gloucester, MA 01930

U.S. EPA Region 2
Main Regional Office
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866

Brian Sharp, ALWTRT
C.T. Harry, Alternate
International Fund for Animal Welfare
290 Summer St
Yarmouthport, MA 02675

U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
U.S. EPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Somers Smott, ALWTRT
Patrick Geer, Alternate
VA Marine Resources Commission
Building 96, 380 Fenwick Road
Ft. Monroe, VA 23651

Mason Weinrich, ALWTRT
Gloucester, MA 01930

Erin Summers, ALWTRT
Megan Ware, Alternate
Maine Dept of Marine Resources
21 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

David Wiley, ALWTRT
Stellwagen Bank NMS
175 Edward Foster Road
Scituate, MA 02066

Todd Sutton, ALWTRT
38 Fenner Ave
Newport, RI 02840

John Williams, ALWTRT
PO Box 392
Stonington, ME 04681

Wes Townsend, ALWTRT
30343 Vines Creek RD
Dagsboro, DE 19939

Sharon Young, ALWTRT
Erica Fuller (CLF), Alternate
The Humane Society of the U.S
3 Lucia Lane
Sagamore Beach, MA 02562

Stephen Train
ASMFC Lobster Board Chair
33 Vernon Rd.
Long Island, ME 04050

418

CHAPTER 13 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND INDEX
13.1 Glossary
Action agency: The Federal agency charged with permitting, conducting, or funding the
proposed activity serving as the basis for a consultation under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Algae: Single-celled or simple multi-cellular photosynthetic organisms.
ALWTRP gear: Gear that is currently or potentially subject to the requirements of the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan).
Anchored gillnet: Any gillnet gear, including a sink gillnet or stab net, that is set anywhere in
the water column and which is anchored, secured or weighted to the bottom of the sea. Also
called a set gillnet.
Annualize: Convert the summation of multi-year discounted value into equalized yearly value
for a certain period of time using determined interest rate.
Anthropogenic: Human made.
Baleen whales: Baleen whales (also known as Mysticeti, or mustached whales) are filter feeders
that have baleen, a sieve-like device used for filter feeding krill, copepods, plankton, and small
fish. They are the largest whales and have two blowholes. Baleen whales include blue, fin, gray,
humpback, minke, bowhead, and right whales.
Benthic: The bottom habitat of any aquatic environment.
Berried: Carrying eggs.
Bioaccumulation: The ability of organisms to retain and concentrate substances from their
environment. The gradual build-up of substances in living tissue; usually used in referring to
toxic substances; may result from direct absorption from the environment or through the foodchain.
Biological opinion: Under the provisions of the ESA, an opinion prepared by the Action agency
as to whether or not a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species, or adversely modify critical habitat.
Biomagnification: Increasing concentration of a substance in successive trophic levels of a food
chain.
Biotoxins: Highly toxic compounds produced by harmful algal blooms (HABs).
Breaking strength: The highest tensile force that an object can withstand before breaking.
Buoy line: A line connecting fishing gear in the water to a buoy at the surface of the water.
Bycatch: Fish that are harvested in a fishery but are not sold or kept for personal use, including
economic discards and regulatory discards, but not fish released alive under a recreational catch
and release fishery management program.
Carapace: The shield-like exoskeleton plate that covers at least part of the anterior dorsal
surface of many arthropods.
Cetaceans: Aquatic mammals, including whales.
Climate change: The term “climate change” is sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic
inconsistency, but because the Earth’s climate is never static, the term is more properly used to
419

imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, “climate
change” has been used synonymously with the term, “global warming;” scientists, however, tend
to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate.
Compliance costs: All costs associated with adapting vessel operations to meet regulatory
requirements.
Copepods: Microscopic crustaceans that are important members of the zooplankton.
Critical habitat: The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a threatened or
endangered species, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
Crustacean: Invertebrates characterized by a hard outer shell and jointed appendages and
bodies. Higher forms of this class include lobsters, shrimp and crawfish; lower forms include
barnacles.
Days at sea (DAS) allocation: The total days, including steaming time that a boat is permitted to
spend at sea fishing.
DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane): An organochlorine insecticide no longer registered
for use in the United States.
Depleted: Under the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), any species or
population stock below its optimum sustainable population as determined by the Secretary of
Commerce after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and the Committee
of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals.
Discount rate: An interest rate used in calculating the discounted cash flow value.
Driftnet: A gillnet that is unattached to the ocean bottom and not anchored, secured or weighted
to the bottom, regardless of whether attached to a vessel.
Endangered: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Endocrine system: The endocrine system refers to all of the body's hormone-secreting glands.
This system works in conjunction with the nervous system to control the production of hormones
and their release into the circulatory system.
Entanglement: An event in the wild in which a living or dead marine mammal has gear, rope,
line, net, or other material wrapped around or attached to it and is:
a. on a beach or shore of the United States; or
b. in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters).
Epifauna: Animals and plants that live on the surface of the seafloor, attached to rocks or
moving over the bottom.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The EFH designation for most managed species is
based on a legal text definition and geographical area that are described in the Habitat Omnibus
Amendment (1998).
Eutrophication: A set of physical, chemical, and biological changes brought about when
excessive nutrients are released into the water.

420

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A zone in which the inner boundary is a line coterminous
with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States and the outer boundary is a line 200
miles away and parallel to the inner boundary
Fathom: A measure of length, containing six feet; the space to which a man can extend his arms;
used chiefly in measuring cables, cordage, and the depth of navigable water by soundings.
Fecundity: Fertility or ability to reproduce.
Finfish: Bony fishes such as bass, trout, salmon, goldfish, carp, etc; does not include sharks or
rays.
Fishery: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) defines
fishery as "one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation
and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical,
recreational, and economic characteristics; and... any fishing for such stocks."
Fishery Management Plan (FMP): A plan developed by a Regional Fishery Management
Council, or the Secretary of Commerce under certain circumstances, to manage a fishery
resource in the U.S. EEZ pursuant to the MSA.
Fishing effort: the amount of time and fishing power used to harvest fish. Fishing power is a
function of gear size, boat size and horsepower.
Fishing mortality (F): A measurement of the rate of removal of fish from a population caused
by fishing. This is usually expressed as an instantaneous rate (F) and is the rate at which fish are
harvested at any given point in a year. Instantaneous fishing mortality rates can be either fully
recruited or biomass weighted. Fishing mortality can also be expressed as an exploitation rate or,
less commonly, as a conditional rate of fishing mortality m, the fraction of fish removed during
the year if no other competing sources of mortality occurred. (Lower case m should not be
confused with upper case M, the instantaneous rate of natural mortality.)
Float line: The rope at the top of a gillnet from which the mesh portion of the net is hung.
Food web: The complete set of food links between species in an ecosystem.
Fork length: Length of a fish measured from the tip of the snout to the posterior end of the
middle caudal rays. This measurement is used instead of standard length for fishes on which it is
difficult to ascertain the end of the vertebral column, and instead of total length in fish with a
stiff, forked tail, e.g., tuna. Mostly used in fishery biology and not in systematics.
Gear conflict: Interactions between the gear employed by commercial fishing vessels, such as
the severing of a buoy line by a dragger.
Gillnet: Fishing gear consisting of a wall of webbing (meshes) or nets, designed or configured so
that the webbing (meshes) or nets are placed in the water column, usually approximately
vertically. Gillnets are designed to capture fish by entanglement, gilling, or wedging. The term
"gillnet" includes gillnets of all types, including but not limited to sink gillnets, other anchored
gillnets (e.g., stab and set nets), and drift gillnets. Gillnets may or may not be attached to a
vessel. The term is intended to include gillnets with or without tiedowns. Haul/beach seines have
bunt/capture bags and wings, and are therefore not considered gillnets for the purposes of the
ALWTRP. North Carolina beach-anchored gillnets, which are fished from shore and report their
landings as part of the haul/beach seine fishery, are also not considered gillnets for the purposes
of the ALWTRP. Nearshore gillnets, which are set from small vessels just off the beach, but are
not attached to the beach, are considered gillnets and are regulated under the ALWTRP.
421

Greenhouse gas: Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases
include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Ground line/groundline: With reference to trap/pot gear, a line connecting traps in a trap trawl;
with reference to gillnet gear, a line connecting a gillnet or gillnet bridle to an anchor.
Harmful algal blooms (HABs): The proliferation of toxic nuisance algae that cause a negative
impact to natural resources or humans. The neurotoxins that are emitted, such as saxitoxins,
ciguatoxins, domoic acid, and brevitoxins, can be transferred through tropic levels and have a
variety of negative health impacts.
Heavy metal: A generic term for a range of metals with a moderate to high atomic weight (e.g.,
cadmium, mercury, lead). Although many are essential for life in trace quantities, in elevated
concentrations most are toxic and bioaccumulate.
Holding power: The force an anchor can withstand before being dragged along or from the
bottom.
Hydrocarbons: Organic compounds containing mainly hydrogen and carbon; the basic
constituents of fossil fuels.
Injury: A wound or other physical harm. In whales, signs of injury include, but are not limited
to, visible blood flow, loss of or damage to an appendage or jaw, inability to use one or more
appendages, asymmetry in the shape of the body or body position, noticeable swelling or
hemorrhage, laceration, puncture, or rupture of eyeball, listless appearance or inability to defend
itself, inability to swim or dive upon release from fishing gear, or signs of equilibrium
imbalance. Any animal that ingests fishing gear, or any animal that is released with fishing gear
entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured regardless of the
absence of any wound or other evidence of an injury.
Isobath: Line connecting points of equal water depth on a chart; a seabed contour.
Labor cost: the implicit value of time that fishermen could have earned if invested in other
jobs/industries.
Landings: The portion of the catch that is harvested for personal use or sold.
Limited access: Describes a fishery or permit for which a vessel must meet certain criteria by a
specified "control date" to participate.
List of fisheries (LOF): A list maintained by NMFS that places each commercial fishery into
one of three categories. Fisheries are categorized according to the level of mortality and serious
injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to that fishery.
Marine Mammal Commission (MMC): A scientific advisory board comprised of experts that
oversees the administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): An Act passed by the United States Congress in
1972 that prohibits the hunting, killing, harassing, or injuring of marine mammals by any person
under U.S. jurisdiction; limited exceptions apply.
Model vessel: Representative of a group of vessels that share similar operating characteristics
and would face similar requirements under a given regulatory alternative.
Molting: The regular shedding of an outer body covering such as fur, skin, feathers, or, in the
case of crustaceans, a shell.
422

Monofilament: A twine composed of a single yarn.
Multispecies: The group of species managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan. This group includes whiting, red hake and ocean pout plus the regulated
species (cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American
plaice, windowpane flounder, white hake and redfish).
Natural mortality: A measurement of the rate of death from all causes other than fishing, such
as predation, disease, starvation, and pollution.
Neonate: A newborn baby in the first few months of life.
Net panel: Sheet of netting often comprising two or more sections joined together.
Night: Any time between one-half hour before sunset and one-half hour after sunrise.
No Action Alternative: The status quo, i.e., the baseline set of ALWTRP requirements currently
in place.
Nonpoint source: A pollution source that cannot be defined as originating from discrete points
such as pipe discharge. Areas of fertilizer and pesticide applications, atmospheric deposition,
manure, and natural inputs from plants and trees are types of nonpoint source pollution.
Notice of intent: A statement published by NMFS alerting the public to a forthcoming action.
Observer: any person required or authorized to be carried on a vessel for conservation and
management purposes by regulations or permits under the MSA.
Odontocetes: The sub-order of whales that includes toothed-whales.
Open access: Describes a fishery or permit for which there are no qualification criteria to
participate.
Optimum sustainable population (OSP): The number of animals which will result in the
maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of
the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.
Overfished: A conditioned defined when stock biomass is below minimum biomass threshold
and the probability of successful spawning production is low.
Overfishing: A level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the long-term capacity of a
stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
Ovigerous: Lobsters that are carrying eggs; egg-bearing lobsters.
Pelagic: A term to describe fish that spend most of their life swimming in the open sea with little
contact with or dependency on the ocean bottom.
Phase-in costs: The incremental gear conversion costs that fishermen would incur between
promulgation of a final rule and full implementation of the rule's provisions several years later.
Phytoplankton: Microscopic marine plants or algae, which are responsible for most of the
photosynthetic activity in the oceans.
Pinnipeds: A suborder of carnivorous marine mammals that includes the seals, walruses, and
similar animals using finlike flippers for propulsion.
Planktivorous: Feeding on planktonic organisms.
Poaching: The illegal hunting or taking of wildlife out of its natural habitat.
Point source: A single identifiable source that discharges pollutants into the environment.
Examples are smokestack, sewer, ditch, or pipe.
423

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A group of industrial chemicals (of the chlorinated
hydrocarbon class) that are commonly used and have become serious and widespread pollutants.
They are extremely resistant to breakdown and have contaminated most of the earth's food
chains, resulting in biomagnification at higher trophic levels. Known to cause cancer.
Potential biological removal (PBR): Maximum number of animals, not including mortalities
that can be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach its OSP.
Present value: In economics and finance, present value, also known as present discounted value,
is the value of an expected stream determined as of the date of valuation.
Prey availability: The availability or accessibility of prey (food) to a predator. Important for
growth and survival.
Profile: The outline of fishing line in the water column, i.e., the amount of line that lies in the
water column.
Protected Species: As used in this document, protected species refers to any species protected
by either the ESA or the MMPA, and which is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. This includes all
threatened, endangered, and candidate species, as well as all cetaceans and pinnipeds excluding
walruses.
Quota: A pre-determined total catch of a particular species allowed to be harvested in a season.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives: Alternative actions identified during a formal ESA
consultation that (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Action agency's legal authority
and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technically feasible; and (4) avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Recovery factor: A factor used in calculating PBR. It accounts for endangered, depleted, or
threatened stocks or stocks of unknown status relative to OSP.
Recruitment: The amount of fish added to the fishery each year due to growth and/or migration
into the fishing area. For example, the number of fish that grow to become vulnerable to fishing
gear in one year would be the recruitment to the fishery. “Recruitment” also refers to new year
classes entering the population (prior to recruiting to the fishery).
Ropeless fishing: Ropeless fishing refers to fixed gear fishing without the use of persistent buoy
lines to mark and retrieve gear. Often includes the use of timed or remotely controlled
technology to retrieve floating devices and buoy lines in fixed gear fisheries.
Scarification analysis: An analysis to determine the cause or potential causes for scars found on
a whale's body.
Section 7 consultation: The consultation with the Secretary of Commerce that occurs when a
proposed Federal action may affect an ESA-listed marine species.
Serious injury: Any injury that is likely to result in mortality.
Ship strike: A collision between a ship and a whale.
Sink gillnet or stab net: Any gillnet, anchored or otherwise, that is designed to be, or is fished
on or near the bottom in the lower third of the water column.
Sinking line: rope that sinks and does not float at any point in the water column. Polypropylene
rope is not sinking unless it contains a lead core.
424

Spawning stock biomass (SSB): The total weight of fish in a stock that are old enough to
reproduce.
Species: As defined in the ESA, a species, a subspecies, or, for vertebrates only, a distinct
population.
Splice: A joint made by interweaving strands of line together.
Stock: A grouping of fish usually based on genetic relationship, geographic distribution and
movement patterns. A region may have more than one stock of a species (for example, Gulf of
Maine cod and Georges Bank cod). A species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other
category of fish capable of management as a unit.
Stock assessment: Study to determine the number (abundance/biomass) and status (life-history
characteristics, including age distribution, natural mortality rate, age at maturity, fecundity as a
function of age) of individuals in a stock.
Stranding: An event in which a marine mammal is dead on a beach, shore, or waters under U.S.
jurisdiction; or alive on a beach or shore and unable to return to the water or in need of medical
attention, or in waters under U.S. jurisdiction and unable to return to its natural habitat without
assistance.
Strategic stock: Under the provisions of the MMPA, a marine mammal stock for which the level
of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR. Stock which, based on the best available
scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the
ESA of 1973 in the foreseeable future; or which is listed as a threatened species or endangered
species under the ESA of 1973; or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.
Substrate: Ocean floor.
Take: As defined in the MMPA, to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Threatened: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Toggle: A small buoy used to keep a net or line upright in the water column.
Total length: A fish’s greatest length, as measured from the most anterior point of the body to
the most posterior point, in a straight line, not over the curve of the body.
Trawl: A series of three or more pots linked together by lines, surface lines, and buoys being
placed at intervals, or at the first and last pot.
Trawling up: Increase the minimum number of traps per set of gear (trawl).
Trophic level: The position of a species in a food chain, indicating its level of energy transfer in
the ecosystem.
Turbidity: A measurement of the extent to which light passing through water is reduced due to
suspended materials; relative water clarity.
Up and down lines: The line that connects the floatline and leadline at the end of each net panel.
Useful life: Under typical circumstances, the length of time a piece of gear can be used before
replacement is necessary.
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS): Wireless information system that automatically reports
fishing vessel position and activity to NMFS.
Water column: The open ocean environment that lies between the surface and the sea floor.
425

Weak insert (or weak insertion): A modification or addition to line to allow it to part when
subject to a tension load greater than 1700 pounds (e.g. a sleeve or knot).
Weak link: A breakable component of gear that will part when subject to a certain tension load.
Weak line or rope: Rope that will part when subject to a tension load greater than 1700 pounds.
Wet storage: Leaving gear in the water for extended periods of time. ALWTRP regulations
prohibit wet storage (i.e., require that lobster traps and anchored gillnet gear must be hauled out
of the water at least once every 30 days).
Zero mortality rate goal: The requirement for commercial fisheries to reduce incidental
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero
mortality and serious injury rate, as identified in the MMPA. An insignificance threshold has
been established as 10 percent of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) of a stock of marine
mammals (See 69 FR 43338 for further details).
Zooplankton: See Phytoplankton. Small, often microscopic animals that drift in currents. They
feed on detritus, phytoplankton, and other zooplankton. They are preyed upon by fish, shellfish,
whales, and other zooplankton.

13.2 Acronyms
ACFCMA Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
ALWTRP Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
ALWTRT Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CEA Cumulative Effects Analysis
CETAP Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COLREGS Demarcation Line for the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972
DAM Dynamic Area Management
DDT Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DMR (Maine) Department of Marine Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIA Energy Information Administration
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FMP Fishery Management Plan
FR Federal Register
FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data
FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
426

FY Fishing Year
GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
GMRI Gulf of Maine Research Institute
GOM Gulf of Maine
HAB Harmful Algal Blooms
HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IUCN International World Conservation Union
IWC International Whaling Commission
LCMA Lobster Conservation Management Area
LCMT Lobster Conservation Management Teams
LMA Lobster Management Area
LOF List of Fisheries
MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976
NAO NOAA Administrative Order
NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council
NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OTP Other Trap/Pot
PBR Potential Biological Removal
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PPRFFAs Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFAA Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
RIR Regulatory Impact Review
SAM Seasonal Area Management
SAR Stock Assessment Report
SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee
SSB Social Science Branch
STSSN Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network
TEWG Turtle Expert Working Group
TRP Take Reduction Plan
USCG United States Coast Guard
VEC Valued Ecosystem Component
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
VTR Vessel Trip Report
WTP willingness to pay

427